Hitchens - Spokesman For Atheism?

[LifeOnaPlate]

What is Hitchens' evidence that there is no certainty?

[Bill Hamblin]

The irony is--and I use that term advisedly--that Hitchens claims this same certainty based on his own (rather limited) understanding of religion.

â??I now know enough about all religions to know that I would always be an infidel at all times and in all placesâ? (p. 11).

This is a rather astonishing claim. Few mere mortals, even those with full-time jobs as professors allowing them to spend their entire lives studying religion, would make such a claim.

[jwhitlock]

If you claim to know X because God told you so as a personal revelation, that only carries meaning to other people who share your beliefs about God, who are followers of your same religion.

Wrong. Neither I nor LDS doctrine imply that. My certainty from God only carries weight with me.

My only purpose in telling others about what I have received is to encourage them to try to obtain that certainty for themselves. It carries no weight, otherwise.

It carries no weight to people who have a different belief or who don't believe in God at all. In a secular setting where people of different beliefs must interact socially (like a court of law, or the practice of medicine), there is no place to assert "God told me so" as a basis for some decision you would like other people to accept. To even try to do that makes one look childish or crazy.

My certainty is not supposed to carry any weight anywhere else. People can either choose to accept what I believe or not; it makes no real difference otherwise in the court of popular opinion. Characterizing my certainty from God as something I would try to hold up in a court of law, or that has weight of authority in someone else's life misses the point of what such certainty is all about, as a PERSONAL witness.

So to support your claim that "God told me so" does work in all these settings I'm talking about, you assert that LDS doctrine just says so. "God told me so" works because "God told me so". Now that's rich!

The whole point of my comment was that God does and can work in all other settings if people so desire him to do so. But it is their own personal witness and agency that has priority in those situations, not mine. Again, I have never indicated that "God told me so" in my life has any weight in someone elses. It is, indeed, rich that you characterize it so, but it's not what I said.

On the other hand, atheists in general hold to a double standard in their own argument about such certainty from God. An atheist would claim that I cannot have such a personal witness in my own life. The rationale appears to be, "since I don't have such certainty in my life, you cannot possibly have it in yours." (Feel free, by the way, to correct me if I have been as far off the mark in characterizing this as you were.) I find it hypcritical to condemn us by claiming we give our spiritual experiences authoritative weight in the lives of others, while atheists project their own lack of experience as authoritative in telling me what I cannot have experienced.

I know that not all Mormons on this board think like you, JW.

Pithy, as usual. I am, of course, more stupid than others, as has been made clear.

[Monte Jefferson]

Wrong.

LDS doctrine indicates that certainty from God, in truths applicable to individual situations, does work across religion. It also works in secular settings, even though it may not be acknowledged as such.

You should already have known that from posting on this board.

Mr. Whitlock,

LDS doctrine may very well indicate such a thing, I would be surprised if it didn't. I believe what "The Dude" said was that LDS doctrine doesn't work across other religions. The mystical yammering from top of the Mosques, likewise, fall on deaf ears in Salt Lake City.

Mr. Hamblin,

I have a question. I've read that copies of god is not Great have been flipping off the press like hotcakes out of the pan early in the morning at a protostant Bible convention in order to satisfy the anguished hunger of the flock to be shocked. I don't believe the Mormon religion, along with other newer sects, finds a particularily good standing within the evangelical communities. Is it your hope that your upcoming book will bridge some of your differences with them? Will the Pentacostals bond with their Mormon brothers against the common enemy?

[jwhitlock]

LDS doctrine may very well indicate such a thing, I would be surprised if it didn't. I believe what "The Dude" said was that LDS doctrine doesn't work across other religions. The mystical yammering from top of the Mosques, likewise, fall on deaf ears in Salt Lake City.

We were talking about LDS doctrine concerning certainty from God as a personal witness, and how that certainty (not doctrine) can be applied to certain truths (not doctrine) across other religions.

We were not talking (at least I wasn't) about LDS doctrine itself being applicable across all religions as authoritative. That, of course, would be ridiculous.

I find it curious that you misunderstood that.

[Doctor Steuss]

[...] the common enemy?

Satan?

[Bill Hamblin]

Mr. Hamblin,

I have a question. I've read that copies of god is not Great have been flipping off the press like hotcakes out of the pan early in the morning at a protostant Bible convention in order to satisfy the anguished hunger of the flock to be shocked. I don't believe the Mormon religion, along with other newer sects, finds a particularily good standing within the evangelical communities. Is it your hope that your upcoming book will bridge some of your differences with them? Will the Pentacostals bond with their Mormon brothers against the common enemy?

No. Such a thought never crossed my mind. Dan and I are simply engaging in a scholarly response to Htichens's claims.

[Pahoran]

I thought the quote was pertinent to Ruski Canuk's thread about spiritual arrogance. I happen to agree with it:

Do you have anything to say about the idea expresed in this pithy quote? Or are you just so wrapped up in the cult of dys-personality re: Hitchens? Or is it me that you're so angry towards?

The person who is certain, but without even any claim of divine warrant for his certainty, has yet to reach the infancy of our species.

Regards,

Pahoran

[The Dude]

The irony is--and I use that term advisedly--that Hitchens claims this same certainty based on his own (rather limited) understanding of religion.

â??I now know enough about all religions to know that I would always be an infidel at all times and in all placesâ? (p. 11).

This is a rather astonishing claim.

Yes, that was an astonishingly arrogant thing for Hitchens to say. He's not my favorite infidel, and I won't defend much of what he says, which is altogether too negative for my taste. Nevertheless, I am reading it so that I can actually discuss the book, which is a rather different approach in comparison to the gang of anti-Hitchens cheerleaders who've got your back.

[LifeOnaPlate]

Yes, that was an astonishingly arrogant thing for Hitchens to say. He's not my favorite infidel, and I won't defend much of what he says, which is altogether too negative for my taste. Nevertheless, I am reading it so that I can actually discuss the book, which is a rather different approach in comparison to the gang of anti-Hitchens cheerleaders who've got your back.

I have criticized a specific quote you used. You have yet to answer my criticism of said quote; yet I am a cheerleader who hates Hitchens solely based on the comments of Bill and Daniel.

Okee Dokee.

[jwhitlock]

Nevertheless, I am reading it so that I can actually discuss the book, which is a rather different approach in comparison to the gang of anti-Hitchens cheerleaders who've got your back.

Are you insinuating that those of us who have:

1: read parts of the book

2: found that DCP's assertion about those parts is valid and accurate

3: accept the fact that DCP has read the book. At least twice, in fact.

4: choose to accept DCP's critique that the rest of the book is more of the same, and

5: don't really have the stomach to wade through more of Hitchens' rant.

are still not really qualified to comment on the book - even when additional quotes from the rest of book continue to confirm DCP's assertions?

Or is it really that our gag reflexes kick in sooner than yours?

[The Dude]

JW-

You are always going be second tier if you have not yourself read the book.

Consider a Book of Mormon critic who hasn't read the Book of Mormon: well he read some parts, and he read what the Tanners said about those parts, and he accepts that the rest of the book is much the same, so there's really no need to wade through the entirety of Joseph Smith's fraud.... Does this rationalization make you gag?

LOP-

You said I lost credibility because I quoted Hitchens. Now you want to discuss the quote, but only after you shift the burden so it looks like the quote claims something that it does not. It would be fruitless to argue on those terms: I thought you knew that.

[Pahoran]

JW-

You are always going be second tier if you have not yourself read the book.

Consider a Book of Mormon critic who hasn't read the Book of Mormon: well he read some parts, and he read what the Tanners said about those parts, and he accepts that the rest of the book is much the same, so there's really no need to wade through the entirety of Joseph Smith's fraud.... Does this rationalization make you gag?

Yes.

But then, Hitchens' post is certainly no Book of Mormon.

LOP-

You said I lost credibility because I quoted Hitchens. Now you want to discuss the quote, but only after you shift the burden so it looks like the quote claims something that it does not. It would be fruitless to argue on those terms: I thought you knew that.

Run and hide thee, Nag. The quote claims that those who believe in divinely revealed truth are in some kind of "infancy." This is, of course, a relative term; "infancy" compared to what? Why, the "brights," of course.

And you quoted this arrogant, self-bignoting bit of fluff with enthusiastic approval. Of course you don't want to argue it in terms of what it actually means.

Regards,

Pahoran

[LifeOnaPlate]

LOP-

You said I lost credibility because I quoted Hitchens. Now you want to discuss the quote, but only after you shift the burden so it looks like the quote claims something that it does not. It would be fruitless to argue on those terms: I thought you knew that.

I guess I spoke to soon by assuming you had credibility to begin with.

Seriously, though, keep avoiding my point.

[The Dude]

The quote claims that those who believe in divinely revealed truth are in some kind of "infancy."

...

And you quoted this arrogant, self-bignoting bit of fluff with enthusiastic approval. Of course you don't want to argue it in terms of what it actually means.

I already explained what I think it means (see my posts on page 9 of this thread). Yep, it's different from your reading.

Run and hide thee, Nag.

Asked and answered.

[The Dude]

Seriously, though, keep avoiding my point.

You mean the one that misreads the quote as a claim that there is no certainty?

[jwhitlock]

You are always going be second tier if you have not yourself read the book.

Consider a Book of Mormon critic who hasn't read the Book of Mormon: well he read some parts, and he read what the Tanners said about those parts, and he accepts that the rest of the book is much the same, so there's really no need to wade through the entirety of Joseph Smith's fraud.... Does this rationalization make you gag?

Nope. Hitchens' book becomes tedious. I do have better things to do once I have caught the flavor of it.

You didn't really respond to my post; I indicated that what I thought of the excerpts I read (including their inaccuracy) corresponded to what DCP said about them. That's different than reading the BofM and taking Tanner's ideas as the conclusion without thinking about it.

I certainly feel qualified to comment on the parts that I did read. And DCP's research, along with random quotes from the rest of Hitchens' book bear out the conclusions that I've come to.

You seem to think that every book has to be read fully through in order for one to be qualified to comment on it. Some books, frankly, aren't worth the time. Remember, the general premise of this thread is that Hitchens is blatantly inaccurate in his research and assertions in the book. That has proven to be true in what I have taken the time to read. Are you or anyone else asserting that the tone or accuracy of the rest of the book is different than what was excerpted in Slate? I believe it is a waste of time to read the rest of the book, when I trust DCP's conclusions on it.

Or do you believe otherwise?

[The Dude]

Or do you believe otherwise?

I think this thread you started and the fervor of your postings undercuts your suggestion that it would be a waste of your time, or that you have better things to do. But oh well, you are an adult, free to manage your time as you see fit. You take some shortcuts, just like everybody else.

[Pahoran]

I already explained what I think it means (see my posts on page 9 of this thread). Yep, it's different from your reading.

Do you refer to this embarrassing outburst?

So when Hitchens wrote: "The person who is certain, and who claims divine warrant for his certainty...", you insert yourself as the person and take offence that he calls you conservative to the point of primitive. ("Infancy" he said)

Well, Hitchens lives in a global world and you do not, LOP.

What does that mean, exactly? Why is LOAP's world any less "global" than the one inhabited by your hero, the cheap and ignorant demagogue? Is it perhaps flatter, or something?

The argument that "God gives me certainty" doesn't work anywhere except in your religion. It abosulutely doesn't work across religions, and that's an obvious flaw with the claim. It doesn't work in government or any secular setting.

Why does it need to? Why would you even want it to?

It's really quite limited and frankly primitive. I agree with Hitchens as I understand him, and that's why I quoted him.

Exactly.

You agree that it's somehow better to assume that one has certainty without God than with him.

Why, I cannot tell.

But then again, I suppose I shouldn't expect to; I clearly don't have a superior enough intellect to be a "bright."

In any case, you are entitled to the certainty of your opinion.

Asked and answered.

Did you recognise the reference, or is your world not quite "global" enough for that?

Regards,

Pahoran

[The Dude]

What does that mean, exactly? Why is LOAP's world any less "global" than the one inhabited by your hero, the cheap and ignorant demagogue? Is it perhaps flatter, or something?

Yes, a plate would be flatter than a globe, but that's not what I meant.

By global I meant the whole of humanity taken into consideration. More particularly, to understand where Hitchens is coming from (in the quote we are discussing) you have to step out of your Mormon shoes and look at it from everybody else's perspective. I said this in response to jwhitlock:

If you claim to know X because God told you so as a personal revelation, that only carries meaning to other people who share your beliefs about God, who are followers of your same religion. It carries no weight to people who have a different belief or who don't believe in God at all. In a secular setting where people of different beliefs must interact socially (like a court of law, or the practice of medicine), there is no place to assert "God told me so" as a basis for some decision you would like other people to accept. To even try to do that makes one look childish or crazy.

Now you ask "Why does it need to? Why would you even want it to?"

Good questions, Pahoran. For some people it does need to; they want it to because they are spiritually arrogant fundamentalists. If the shoe doesn't fit you (or jwhitlock, or LOP) then please don't feel obligated to wear it. I haven't come picking a fight but here you three are, bristling because I dared to quote Christopher Hitchens. Bwaaah ha ha ha!

You agree that it's somehow better to assume that one has certainty without God than with him.

No, actually I don't. As I said to Hamblin, I think Hitchens' certainty that he would always be an infidel, at all times and places, is over-the-top arrogance.

But now you are turning the quote around just like LOP. It isn't about having (or not having) certainty without God -- the quote is about the impotence of thrusting your God-given certainty on others.

In any case, you are entitled to the certainty of your opinion.

Just what do you think that is?

[LifeOnaPlate]

It isn't about having (or not having) certainty without God -- the quote is about the impotence of thrusting your God-given certainty on others.

Care to explain how your original quote expressed its intended message? I can't get my Mormon shoe off long enough to consider it. That, or you just moved the goal posts.

[The Dude]

Care to explain how your original quote expressed its intended message? I can't get my Mormon shoe off long enough to consider it. That, or you just moved the goal posts.

The original quote was made in a completely different thread, and would have stayed there if you'd have left things alone. I quoted Hitchens in response to Ruski's OP in the "spiritual arrogance" thread. You turned around and said to me:

Whoa, whoa, you're seriously quoting Hitchens?

<snip irrelevant accusation>

Bye bye, credibility.

Goal posts were never set up. All along I have been telling you why I quoted him and what interpretation I will defend -- see my last post to Pahoran where I repeated this all over again. That you have been trying to "win" with a different interpretation, one that I never subscribed to in the first place, is completely your problem.

[LifeOnaPlate]

The original quote was made in a completely different thread, and would have stayed there if you'd have left things alone. I quoted Hitchens in response to Ruski's OP in the "spiritual arrogance" thread. You turned around and said to me:

Goal posts were never set up. All along I have been telling you why I quoted him and what interpretation I will defend -- see my last post to Pahoran where I repeated this all over again. That you have been trying to "win" with a different interpretation, one that I never subscribed to in the first place, is completely your problem.

Right, any discussion after that must be irrelevant. Mostly because it displays the ignorance of the initial quote. Well played.

[Bach]

I'm a little bewildered as to why you're pressing this issue, LifeOnAPlate. The case you've presented against The Dude is quite weak.

[LifeOnaPlate]

I'm a little bewildered as to why you're pressing this issue, LifeOnAPlate. The case you've presented against The Dude is quite weak.

Care to explain why, Bach?

Or maybe The Dude could. If it is so weak, why hasn't he refuted my "case"