I'm rather ashamed to admit that I just recently discovered Christopher Hitchens. And, while I normally add my own thoughts and commentary to videos when I post them here, in nearly every Hitchens video that I've encountered, I have not a single word to add. He is so articulate and does such a good job of presenting his case that I couldn't possibly add anything to it.
I would definitely be interested if any of my readers have any comments to make in regards to what Hitches says in this video. Enjoy.
I would definitely be interested if any of my readers have any comments to make in regards to what Hitches says in this video. Enjoy.
I like arguments like these better than the seemingly more common evidence based arguments against god. Of course, the argument for evidence is important - when the basis of your belief is centered on the thousands of years old ancient writings of a primitive tribal society and a "burning bosom" feeling, I would say that belief is pretty shaky compared to a belief based in, say, modern physics and chemistry. Ultimately while there is not much evidence to support the idea of god there is also little conclusive evidence to prove absolutely that such a being does not somehow exist.
ReplyDeleteHitchens' arguments get more to the core of my problem with a belief in god by analyzing the logical consequences that would come into play if god WAS real. In his first example he eloquently points out that if there WAS an all-knowing, all-seeing entity that must judge your eternal worth, that such a being must by its very nature be constantly invading your privacy. It might seem nice at first to have a nice bearded old man watching you and ready to swoop in and save you from all of the many scary things in this world, but when you realize that he is watching you ALL THE TIME and cataloging everything you have ever done or even so much as thought, it gets a little creepy.
I suppose I am still in the process of really thinking it out, but it seems to me like if a god similar to the god in Jewish/Christian/Islam/Mormon tradition really existed that it would be pretty depressing. Basically you would have no choice but to do what it said in order to avoid eternal damnation. Since it would be an omnipotent and omniscient being there would be no hope for you to challenge it or its judgements in any way. You would just have to hope that its actions favored you.
PS. I really am saying this in the most loving way possible. *I promise* I am.
ReplyDeleteI think my biggest problem problem I have with Hitchens is he exaggerates so much that he is being completely disingenuous and *even worse* people who know better say "[he] does such a good job of presenting his case that I couldn't possibly add anything to it."
Keith, can you tell me with a straight face, having been raised in the church and seeing the happiness it brought your family, Karen and even yourself (at least in times past) that you would be better of living in North Korea (as long as the LDS church is false) then living in a world where something like the LDS church is true? (He said such such a reality would be *worse* then living in North Korea since at least there you can die.)
Could you actually look someone in the face who *actually* lives in North Korea... *actually* has been starved by their country to near death... *actually* has been tortured and beaten and has had who knows what done to their family... who *actually* has no rights whatsoever... and *actually live every waking day in near Holocaust conditions* and say to them: you know, you are better off living in the situation you are then living in a world where the LDS church is true!!!
To support Hitchins is to support a man who speaks to people sitting in comfortable chairs, drinking refreshing drinks, getting emails on their expansive iPhones, and will go home to their loving spouses, children and yes loving bishops and stake presidents who support liberties in the US constitution as being divinely inspiresed *who at the very worst* will remove your name from a church record, ***AT THE VERY WORST***, is incredible!!! (As opposed to *real* North Koreans who will throw you in a tortuous prison and do who knows what to your family in the meantime.)
If a cult following isn't a group of people who can have for decades have known better... known what it is like to be a part of a church for years who has brought their family, friends, spouses and even themselves at one point endless happiness, supporting the liberties of the US constitution as being divinely inspired and then at the claims of one man decide it is better to live in North Korea then in a world where something like the LDS church is true then I don't know what is!
That being said I am not trying to be mean. Just confused how the Keith I remember, who used to have nothing but the most positive and happy stories about the church and everyone one he met, who with Karen always seemed brimming with love and happiness, could now back the claims of a man who says we would be better off to be in North Korea! (Then to live in a world where the LDS church is true.)
True the Church is against gay marriage but worse the North Korea! Seriously! You have no problem with this comparison? Nothing to add to such claims?
Or am I wrong? Is Hitchen's, who apparently can put things together so well nothing could be added, right? Would you feel you would have been better off being born in North Korea and possibly be subject to near Holocaust conditions then to live in a world where possibly the LDS church is true? If so... Hitchen's is even more dangerous then I thought.
So that is my problem with him. I am pretty sure when you were with Karen at BYU you guys felt the church was and always will be the most Zion like society on earth. And now... now you agree with a man who comperes this same church to being worse then living in near-Holocost conditions North Korea!
I just don't know what else to say... I guess I am just speechless...
That being said I love you Keith. You are a great guy, probably the smartest person I have ever known. But to side with Hitchens... Wow!
But I can only speak for myself:
ReplyDeleteI live in a world where every day I am my family have more then enough to eat.
I live in a world where neither me nor anyone in my family is in the remotest danger of being tortured or disappearing in the night to some heartless government.
I live in a world where I am everyone in my family can get as much education as they want and being just about anything they want to be when they grow up.
I live in a world where the liberties put forth in the US Constitution are thought to be divinely inspired liberties... Such liberties that will always bring myself and my family freedom.
I live in a world that, though imperfect, is about as Zion-like anyone in the history of the world has ever experienced!
*** And yet... I live in a world where the LDS Church is true. ***
And I could not *ever* imagine I would be better off living in North Korea. Nor could I *ever* imagine supporting a man that made such a suggestion.
Last thing and I will stop: I am sorry Keith if I am out of line.
ReplyDeleteOkay, one last last thing: I just watched your "How I apostatized" video and that is partially the Keith I remember. (Same Keith minus testimony... but I can live with that.) You were overwhelming nice, (as I remember) careful, positive and yet frank about the reality of the church. We can bicker over some details but largely you were being what I feel is fair and honest. (Though I still believe the church to be true)
ReplyDeleteSo my advice is to lose Hitchens and anyone else who would compare our church being true to worse then North Korea. These people are nuts and you *really* don't want to go off such a looney deep end.
Not saying you have to embrace the Church. But please, like you do in your Youtube video, though you don't have to believe in the church at least be honest and fair that at least some of what you experienced as a member was good. It's not like you were living in the most torturous and oppressive conditions on earth.
For example: I don't believe in Judaism but I can at the same time admit almost all Jews I know are good people and much of what they believe *I feel* is still to at least some degree good and praiseworthy. (Even if I don't believe it fully) *I would *never* compare life where Judaism where true to being worse the North Korea*!
And if *anyone* suggested otherwise about Judaism I would label them as a outrageous looney freaks, *not* as someone who puts "realty so elegantly there's nothing more to say". I would run and hide from such psychos, not embrace their message and post their Youtube videos.
I must admit, Joe, that I was entirely surprised to see someone as intelligent as yourself so wildly misinterpret what Hitchens actually said in this video. I understand that you have emotional attachment to your church, and I thoroughly understand why you do. But, I think in this case you've let those emotions get the best of you and completely obliterate your reason. I'm also surprised that you've stooped to the level of personal attack. Is the best argument you can come up with to call Hitchens a "psycho, outrageous looney freak"? That's certainly not the Joe I know.
ReplyDeleteYou say that you live in a world where the LDS church is true, but I contend that point. I assert the fact that the LDS church is indeed not true, and I believe that I can make such assertion because I have evidence to support my claim. I cannot disprove the existence of god, since by definition he is supernatural and therefore nothing in the natural world can either prove or disprove such a claim, but it is entirely possible to disprove the LDS church, since it makes such ridiculous claims about actual fact that can be proven to be wrong (Book of Abraham, anyone?). But that is not my point, so I won't try to prove it here. As you are likely aware, I have a separate blog dedicated to that.
Now, concerning what Hitchens actually said, and not the rather radical and ridiculous way you're interpreting it, yes I do believe that the world would be a rather dismal place indeed if the LDS church were true. Read the Old Testmanet, Joseph. I would every day fear for my life if the Old Testament deity were real. I would be afraid of being struck dead if I ever masturbated. I would be afraid to ever look over my shoulder, in the event that I might be turned to salt if I did so. I would be afraid that god would want to wipe out all life on the earth with a great flood, save only a few members of each species. A god who orders genocide and slavery hardly seems like a god I want being real. And I very much resent the fact that I was circumcised. I definitely don't want to inflict that on anyone else, nor do I want to worship a god who compels it among his followers.
To be honest, I would rather live in North Korea than suffer through all of the horrible things that would happen in this world if the god described in the Old Testament were a real being and reigned over this Earth. I would be worried that all of my possessions, my friends, and my family would be taken from me simply because god wanted to prove a point to the devil. There would be no peace on the Earth, there would be no real happiness. There would only be fear--utter and complete. A god who strikes dead anyone whom he pleases is not one that can claim to be a god of love.
I don't believe what you say about the church making people good. All of the Mormons that I know that I believe are good people, I feel are good because that's their personality. Mormonism doesn't make them good. I think people are good in spite of religion, not because of it. Karen would have been just as pleasant, compassionate, and hard-working if she had been raised in an atheist family as she was being raised Mormon. As a humanist, I believe that people are inherently good. I do not believe that they need a totalitarian omniscient being watching over them, granting rewards and exacting punishment on them in order to behave properly. In fact, all of the good and wonderful things that the secular community does is proof of that very claim.
And I believe that the LDS church has done great harm. Not nearly as great as the god of the Old Testament, but definitely great harm. It caused hundreds to suffer and die crossing the great plains. Some of my own ancestors are among these numbers. It has not only allowed, but encouraged racism. And now, it does the same thing with homophobia. It preaches homophobia, but worse than that, it preaches that being homophobic toward gay relatives is actually the best way of showing love to them. You're right in that this one thing is certainly nowhere on the level of North Korea or any other fascist government. But it is evil. The church claims to be pro-family, and yet it continually breaks families apart because of its anti-gay policy.
ReplyDeleteYou're going to have to do much better if you want to refute what Hitchens is saying here. For starters, you should actually address what he really said, rather than using the straw man argument that you've used. Personally, I would suggest waiting a while, taking a step back, and allowing your emotions to cool. I won't say you have no right to be upset when your religion is being attacked. But, I do suggest that if you want to have a rational conversation about it, you recognize when those emotions are so strong and try to avoid talking during that time, or at least channel the emotional energy you have into a rational discussion rather than merely an emotional outburst.
I love you, Joe. You're a good friend. And you're a good person. I have honestly not been offended by anything you've said here, and I hope that you aren't by what I've said just now.
Keith, you are a good friend and I am not offended. I hold no animosity to you or anything you have said.
ReplyDeleteI realize some people will, despite growing up in the church and for decades seeing that is does have much good fruit blessing the lives of their friends family and spouse (even if they can't remember), think that comparing a world where something like the LDS church is true most inhumane nation on earth is a good comparison. :)
There are also people who believe George Bush brought down the world trade center to start a war with Saddam but what can you do? (When you argue with them they just claim everything you say is a strawman and "come back when you are thinking logically" too. Nothing new here.)
There is no excuse. Comparing a world where the LDS faith is true to living in absolutely inhumane North Korea is crazy. And no matter how you spin this, no matter how many times you use the word "strawman" and "come back when you cool off" or any other cool sounding word from your local debating textbook, it's a disingenuous and insane comparison.
But alas it is fruitless. Some people will always find a way to compare the current sitting President to Hitler whenever they think it makes a good punchline, and accuse you of setting up strawmaen or needing to cool off when you point out how silly such a comparison is, and others who grew up in a posh lifestyle full of love, happiness and freedom encouraged by the direct doctrines of a Church with being comparable to the most inhumane country on earth: North Korea. What can you do?
Anyways, I will let you go. I won't argue with you any further as I have made my point.
ReplyDeleteI don't care how you spin what Hitchens "actually" said or meant... At the end of the day he was comparing religion being true to being worse then living in North Korea. But I know you know this particular Church is nothing comparable to the inhumanity perpetrated by North Korea. Maybe you won't let yourself admit that but it is true. It is an awful comparison and very disingenuous and I will leave it at that.
You now know what where I stand. I'm not saying you have to be LDS or believe in the church, but I do think I know enough to know such comparisons are crazy. Again, I don't believe in Judaism but you will never catch me supporting someone who likens Judaism to North Korea in any way. There is no comparison.
But I have said what I needed to say and will let you go down any road you want and will not think any less of you for it. Just like I don't think less of the BYU professor who believed planes didn't bring down the world trade center or a certain person in my extended family who will remain nameless believes Barack Obama is forming a shadow government secretly designed to take down the US.
Smart people believe all kinds of crazy things even when years of life experiences should have taught them what they are saying is crazy,, but that doesn't mean I think less of them.
What Hitches said is that if the god of the Pentateuch existed, then life would be more miserable for the entire world than for those currently living in North Korea. What you're trying to say that he said was that if current LDS doctrine were adopted worldwide then the world would be worse than North Korea. That is a straw man argument. That is not what he said, and you're trying to make it sound like it was what he said.
ReplyDeleteYou accuse HItchens of exaggerating, and yet you are the one guilty of exaggerating what he has said. Nowhere in this video did he say that the LDS church or any specific church is a regime more fearsome than that in North Korea. Nowhere did he say that the LDS church spreading its teachings is worse than fascism. What he did say was that if the god described by these monotheistic religions were real, then reality would be more fearsome than North Korea. The fact that you are constantly watched over, having your privacy invaded and your every action and thought closely monitored and punished would be much more tyrannical than any totalitarian regime ever in the history of the world.
ReplyDeleteAnd I would hope that you would have more honor than to run away from an argument. Of course, I would also hope that you would be better than to so grossly misrepresent what other people say as well.
I think the logic holds:
ReplyDeleteIf the LDS church is true (A) *this implies* "the god of the Pentateuch existed" (B) since it is a core doctrine of the LDS church *which then by Hitchen's implies* (C) "life would be more miserable for the entire world than for those currently living in North Korea." (A => B and B => C then A => C) Therefore, by Hitchen's Logic: "If the LDS church is true" => "life would be more miserable for the entire world than for those currently living in North Korea."
Ha!
This silliness you are willing to defend at all costs is similar to another friend I had comparing George Bush to Hitler. First, I am *no* fan of George Bush. And he (Bush) did something that was similar to something Hitler did and my friend told me "and thus George Bush is just like Hitler". And though I am not a fan of George Bush I called him out on this comparison and he immediately said "Actually, if you were listening to what I actually said... blah blah blah... you would see I am right". But that was just garbage and he knew better. His intent through the comparison was deliberately to try to invoke the idea that George Bush is on a similar footing as Hitler.
And that is the same thing going on here. Hitchen's hopes to invoke images of horrendous North Korea when discussing religion. The comparison is bad, and no amount of "Actually, if you were listening to what Hitchens actually said... blah blah blah... you would see he is right" is going to change that.
You do know better, just like my friend who wanted to compare George Bush to Hitler off of some trivial technicality knew better. There is no weaseling around this. I know you know too much about the good the church has done to you, your friends and family and spouse to ever think a comparison with North Korea is adequate.
I disagree. I think that what he says about god being the ultimate tyrannical leader is absolutely true. And it follows directly from the definition of god, by any OT-based religion. He literally wants to control every bit of your life by observing everything you do and rewarding you according to every single one of your actions. How is that silliness?
ReplyDeleteAll of your arguments have been fallacious. First, you start off with straw man and ad hominem, and now you're using false analogy.
ReplyDelete1. Straw man: You say that what Hitchens is saying is equivalent to "If all people were like the LDS, then the world would be worse than North Korea."
2. Ad hominem: Hitchens is an "outrageous looney freak" and a "psycho".
3. False analogy: "Saying that god is a totalitarian dictator is like saying that George Bush is Hitler."
I think the main problem with your thinking, Joe, is that you're assuming that the LDS church is currently true in the world that we live in. In that mindset, god would be a loving enough god to at least let most of the human race experience conditions that are favorable to what North Korea is experiencing. In fact, a significant portion of the human race are experiencing very good, happy, and free lives. Therefore, in your mind, Hitchens suggesting that god's existence would make the world so horribly miserable is ridiculous because you feel that god does currently exist and therefore obviously his existence would not make the world such a terrible place.
ReplyDeleteHowever, I maintain (as does Hitchens) that there is no god. If there were a god that was as kind as the god who would allow so many to live in freedom as now do, then Hitchens would be wrong. However, that god would not be the one described by Mormonism (or any other Christian or Muslim faith). The god of Mormonism very clearly exacts punishment of every evil act ever committed. No deed contrary to his will is forgiven without proper repentance. And even with repentance, the price is still paid by Christ. And, if you're honest with yourself, you'll have to admit that a god who can punish one man for the sins of all other men is by no means just nor good. Indeed, Christ becomes a veritable whipping boy for all those who call on his name. This is sadism. The god of Mormonism has no mercy because every single act of sin must be paid for--either by the person committing the sin or by the Christ. There is also no justice, because the god of Mormonism is whimsical. Sometimes he strikes people dead when they spill their semen on the ground and sometimes he lets people masturbate their whole lives without killing them. He lets people in Africa starve to death and yet he cares enough about a Christian to stop and help them find their lost car keys. This is not a god that I want to have ruling the universe, and I am very glad that there is no such being ruling the universe.
Well again Keith I wish you happiness. The great thing is we live in a real world where crackpot philosophizing falls flat if it false. I see this in science every day. Crackpot theories come and reality crushes them taking no prisoners.
ReplyDeleteSo we will see in the coming years if those who hold fast to the Church become more like the descriptions of a Zion-like people or of that of a North Korean dictatorship. We know which of the two Hitchen's likes to compare to and you are free to be a loyal supporter of Hitchens no matter how crazy he gets. But Hitchens has to now face reality as does every other philosopher with bewilderingly wacky claims.
"All of your arguments have been fallacious."
ReplyDeleteOf course they are Keith. Of course. :) (I'm told the same thing by people who maintain George Bush brought down the world trade center. Should I believe them?)
You've got it completely backward, Joe. The only reason that religion becomes more refined is that society becomes more refined. With each generation, people are more civilized than before. Whereas racism was a nationwide reality 100 years ago, now it is extremely rare. Look at all of the churches. They were racist until the end of the civil rights movement, and now they have followed society in accepting the fact that all races are equal.
ReplyDeleteIf Mormons do become more loving, which I am sure they will, it is because society will (as a whole) become more enlightened, not because Mormons hold on to their traditions. To the contrary, it will be because Mormons let go of their traditions. They've let go of their tradition of racism. They've let go of the traditions of genocide and slavery encouraged in the Old Testament. The whole point is that if religion were to hold on to its traditional values, as it is wont to do, then it will not progress. But, fortunately, in the mainstream religions, you see them one by one let go of their false traditions. We just saw the Catholic church finally drop its ban on condom use. We're currently seeing more and more religions accept gay people. This is because of the goodness of the members of these religions, not because of the goodness of the religions themselves, and not because of the goodness of an imaginary god.
If it were as you say--that Mormonism is leading the way in morality and zionism, then it would follow that Mormons would pave the way in every civil progression. But they haven't. They've been at the tail end of everything. They were at the tail end of the civil rights movement, fighting it all along the way until well after the movement was over when they finally relented and allowed blacks to have the priesthood. And now, as the gay rights movement is underway, the church is not fighting for the rights of gay people, it is fighting against them, just as it did with interracial marriage. If it were paving the way for morality, then they would be the ones pushing for gay marriage. They would be the activists. They would want equal treatment for all people, not to hang on to sexist and heterosexist traditions, as they do.
ReplyDeleteIf the Mormon church were so charitable, they would actually contribute their money to humanitarian causes. Google spends more on charity than the LDS church does (as actual numbers and as a percentage of their revenue), and they're a for-profit venture. The church prefers to spend its money on shopping malls and housing complexes in Utah. If the church itself were so zion-like, then why are they spending so much money on for-profit business, such as the City Creek Shopping Center? No, Joe. I think you've got it completely backward. It is the members of the LDS church, not the church itself, that are good. They are charitable. They give their tithing and offerings to the church freely, believing that this money will be used for a good cause. They are kind to their friends and neighbors, as you and your dear wife have always been kind to me and mine. The people in the church are good, but the church itself is rotten. It does not promote goodness, nor is it the source of goodness. It is deceptive and dishonest. It is selfish and manipulative. I will not let you get away with the ridiculous claim that the church is the reason that LDS people are good.
I've honestly (and, rather sadly) lost all hope that you will believe me when I say what I'm going to say, Joe, but I say it anyway in the hopes that perhaps some reader who reads this far down the commentary will believe it.
ReplyDeleteI never said that the LDS church was itself as bad (or worse) than North Korea. I never said that it teaches its members to be as evil as dictators. I don't believe any of that, and I don't believe that's what Hitchens is saying in this video. As you say, I have witnessed the members of the church trying to be kind and caring, trying to perfect themselves and make a zion-like community. I have never said anything to the contrary, and anything that I might have said at any point that could be construed as such, I hereby retract universally.
I have said and I will continue to say that people are inherently good. This goes for Mormons as well as those of other faiths and those with no faith. I have always said that the Mormons I know are among the nicest people that I know. This much I have never contradicted.
I honestly suggest that you watch the video again. In it, Hitchens never mentions any specific religion, nor does he mention any religion at all. He certainly never claims that any religion is in itself worse than North Korea (nor that religion in general is). And if you don't want to watch the video again and see for yourself, then just know that I personally feel that the argument should be meant only to apply to the concept of an omniscient, omnipresent god who has strict rules for what is acceptable and what is not. I do not believe that it applies to religious people or particular religions. I do not believe it is Hitchens' speech that is radical, but rather the interpretation of it that you have posited. But, even if you refuse to agree that my interpretation of the video is correct, at least know that it is what I personally believe and (as far as I'm concerned) that's all that really matters.
"I never said that the LDS church was itself as bad (or worse) than North Korea... I don't believe any of that."
ReplyDeleteGood. That is all I am after because *many* of Hitchen's loyal supporters do feel this way. I know you claim to be focused on a rigorous treatment of what Hitchens "actually said" and meant which is fine. But you *also* admitted you are new to Hitchens.
I am not. I have read his books and listened to him for years *and know for a fact* something in what he says or does convinces people that churches like the LDS Church and/or the Catholic church, etc... are as evil as North Korea.
And I am serious. As you study Hitchens go to some online forums where his loyal followers discuss him and ask: "How many of you feel Mormons are as evil as North Korea" and you will instantly get many supporters of that statement.
I think you are naive to think that just because someone invokes comparisons with "Hitler" or "North Korea" somewhere in a discussion of religion in a way you technically agree with, that they were not doing so with the intent hoping you put religion and North Korea's evilness on equal footing.
You want me to argue what you think he literally meant, but I am wise enough to know, regardless what he "technically" means, his most ardent followers him him trow around comparisons to North Korea in religious discussions and start thinking religions are as evil as North Korea.
*** This is how the real world works. People don't listen to Hitchen's and draw little truth tables and ask what conclusions they can rigorously draw from his comments. They here references to North Korea in a talk on religion and over time they start believing modern religions are as bad as North Korea. This is how the real world is and Hitchen's knows it and is willing to feed off of it.
So my analogy with President Bush is not a false analogy. People who try to compare Bush to Hitler on some technically true sense are hoping people he this and put Hitler and Bush on similar footings. *That is how the real world works* and yet Buch is not on the same footing as Hitler.
Hence I don't appreciate comparisons of Bush to Hitler *in any way* as they are invoked with the purpose of people equating Bush with Hitler and so similarly I don't appreciate people invoking North Korea when discussing religion.
You know and admitted the LDS Church is not as bad as North Korea. That is good. Now please don't become like many Hitchen's followers who fall for his comparison trap which leads them to start viewing religions as if they are worse then North Korea.
Or let me put it another way: If President Monson, in a discussion about homosexuals, found a clever way to make a comparison with the evilness of North Korea I would admit he crossed the line. No matter *how he worded* things, in a discussion of homosexuals there is *no place* anywhere for comparisons with the evils of North Korea to be made.
ReplyDeleteAnd you for some reason are willing to defend Hitchen's for doing this in a talk about religion. It comes across as if you have a more religious zeal to exalt Hitchens at all costs then people like I do for the President of the Church!
Joe, again, all this is is logical fallacy. You're saying that because I post a video of something Hitchens says that I'm agreeing with everything he ever talks about. I've seen where he says that the main source of hatred in the world is religion. I do believe that he has good evidence to back up that claim, but I didn't post it here and I don't really want to bring that topic up (at least not at the moment).
ReplyDeleteThe things you're saying about him are things that he's either said in other places or just a prejudice against him, not at all what he's saying in this particular video. You say "that's how the real world is", and I don't dispute with you the fact that many people are illogical and jump to conclusions. However, I expect someone such as yourself to remain logical and to take things for what they really are, not for what a less-educated person might conclude, adding in their own personal prejudice.
You have equated me with other followers of Hitchens simply because I have posted a video about him and voiced my agreement with the video. This is a hasty generalization. It is guilt by association. It is unfair and it is fallacious. I would expect better of you.
And, I submit to you that the church often does equate homosexuality with child molestation, rape, murder, and many other horrific acts. So, you must admit that your own church leaders "crossed the line", as you word it. It is not fair to homosexuals, and yet the church has done it for decades. Kimball and Packer have repeatedly called gays "perverts" and many other horrible names. This is exactly what you are accusing Hitchens of in this video, and it is rather hypocritical of you to attack Hitchens so critically and turn right round and defend your own church leaders when they are guilty of it, by pretending that it never happens.
"repeatedly called gays "perverts""
ReplyDeleteI agree. And you will find I *never have and never will* post any comment or video to the web using words like "perverts" or "like unto rape" in a discussion about Homosexuals. There no place or justification for this. I am not that kind of person.
I have no sacred cows where I am willing to defend their misbehavior all hours of the night. I will never support/justify bad behavior in this way despite how well the critics are able to argue. No argument is needed. Bad behavior has no justification.
"the main source of hatred in the world is religion"
I am going to be interested in the reputable peer reviewed journal articles that you will be quoting from that conclude this. :) My experience is people who attack religion in this way never use quotes and conclusions that have been vetted by reputable professionals.
Instead, they find a punchline by Hitches, whom all legitimate "I can actually get articles published in reputable journals" experts in the religion disagree with, and defend it all hours of the night as if he is a sacred cow.
This is the same tactic people do who attack mainstream science. They never can quote from reputable journals in context so they have to resort to the latest shock phrase that is unjustified by mainstream scientists. So I am interested in the mainstream journals who conclude "the main source of hatred in the world is religion" that you will quote from.
That is the other hallmark of a crackpot. Crackpots make bumper-sticker punchlines with pseudo-rational arguments that *only* make sense to their base-supporters that are popular on Youtube which the mainstream professionals writing journal articles on the subject disagree with.
So again I may you a promise: You will never see me post any comment by any person who uses comparisons with pure evilness like North Korea subtly invoked to slim homosexuals or any other group. I am not that kind of person. I never have and never will.
I will will never have a sacred cow I will defend their bad behavior all hours of the night.
I won't give you any cross-references defending that statement about religion causing hatred. I have no sources to offer, and I refuse to search for any. As I said in my previous comment, I have no wish to defend the claim. It seems that you missed entirely my purpose in quoting it. You have heretofore accused me of universally supporting Hitchens and everything that he ever said, including all of the conclusions that his followers have ever drawn from the same. I gave one example of a statement from Hitchens that I didn't support so as to prove to you that this is not true. I'll assume that this was not intentional on your part, and that it arose from a miscommunication. But, please do not persist in casting me in a dye with those who believe everything they ever hear.
ReplyDeleteI know you don't believe everything you hear. You are a great man and have always been someone I have looked up to. You have always been a good friend and I am happy to read and watch everything you post as I know you are a very honest and frank source of information.
ReplyDeleteWe are just quibbling about Hitchen's decision to invoke images of North Korea in a discussion on religion. If I posted a video discussing homosexuality invoking comparisons with North Korea I fully expect you are justified in jumping all over that *no matter how those comparisons are phrased*. I know such comparisons are made to invoke images of the boogie man when thinking about homosexuals and so if I *ever* post a discussion about homosexuality using comparisons to North Korea I hope you *also* jump all over that.
And when you do I will not think less of you for it. I'd deserve it.
Again I love you Keith. I hope you know that. Attacking Hitchens for crossing the line does not mean I think less of you. You and Keren were probably our favorite couple at BYU, and nothing has ever changed that.
If you did post something of a similar nature concerning homosexuality, I have little doubt that I would become emotional about it. However, I also have a ray of hope that I would take the time to settle my emotions before talking to you about it, since I would want to reason with you logically. Hence the reason that I suggested the same to you in my first reply (which, at the time you immediately refuted, insisting that you were not being emotional and yet now you seem to be claiming the opposite).
ReplyDeleteAt any rate, I still assert that the imagery in this case is accurate. I acknowledge that it is inflammatory, but I still think it's justified. I believe it's entirely reasonable to point out that the notion of a god who will watch your every move and record your every thought, keep a tally, and demand payment be made for every wrong ever done (especially when the list of do's and don'ts keeps changing over the years) is that of a totalitarian leader, and that causing people to live in such fear as those in the Old Testament undoubtedly did--a state of fear that would not even end with death--is indeed worse than any atrocity ever committed by mankind. I can respect that you disagree with me on that, and I would certainly understand if that idea offended any believer. But, I still believe it to be true and from what I have learned in my life, truth is not always convenient. I don't by any means have a need to crusade for truth everywhere I go--in people's homes and in my classroom and other inappropriate places--but here on my own blog and on my own terms, I will make no hesitation when it comes to proclaiming what I believe to be true. (And I certainly hope that everyone else would feel equally welcome to do so in their own spaces as well.)
"I have little doubt that I would become emotional about it."
ReplyDeleteHave you been reading your own blog posts. :)
"if that idea offended any believer."
Actually, making comparisons to Hitler and North Korea are also met with contempt by many non-believers. There are entire sections in debating books underscoring why these tactics are juvenile and absurd. is You don't have to be a supporter of George Bush to know comparing him to Hitler is uncalled for.
"truth is not always convenient."
I think the only thing that is inconvenient is that fact that making slanderous claims about groups of people that cannot be supported by the mainstream peer reviewed literature is that this is nearly the definition of crack-pottery!!!
This is no different then me making slanderous claims about homosexuals, that fly in the face of peer review studies, and then saying: "Hey, the truth isn't always convenient."
Anyone can do that Keith. Watch:
Claim: Homosexuals are the the root of everything wrong with the USA or the main source of hate in the world.
Rebuttal: Can you so some peer review evidence for such slanderous claims? Is there any objective and vetted evidence for such bogus accusations?
Back to claimer: I never said I was going to use peer review evidence to back my claims. (In fact I won't even try) Sometimes the truth about homosexuals is inconvenient and I guess sometimes this is offensive to homosexuals who can't get past their emotions... so what can you do?
Anyways, I would label the above gy a crackpot. And you don't have to be a homosexual to see why this guy is crazy. Full of slanderous claims inciting "hey the truth is inconvenient" and yet not a peer review article or objective conclusion vetted by experts in sight!!!
So sure, play the "slanderous truth is hard and I offer no legitimate evidence that established professionals could ever stand by" game. But don't be surprised when people find this hilarious!
I'm not interested in your rather bizarre examples, so I'll avoid addressing them intentionally. And, to be quite honest, I grow very weary of you repeatedly misinterpreting what I say. I believe that I have been articulate. I apologize if I have not been.
ReplyDeleteAs I share the things that I believe to be true, I distinguish between fact and opinion. Anything that is opinion I preface with the verb "believe" or "think". That which I deem as fact I simply declare as such. If I declare something as opinion, it needs no evidence since it is opinion. (The same holds for anyone's religious beliefs, which is why I consider it silly when they try so hard to prove that their beliefs agree with science or that they're logical.) That which I declare as fact, I mean to support with any evidence I have available. Therefore, when I say that I share truth regardless of whether it is convenient, that is precisely what I mean. I don't need my personal opinions to be supported by peer reviews, and the things that I assert as fact I will provide reviews, studies, and any other supporting evidence that is to be found.
I shall not allow logical fallacy, such as that you proposed in your last comment. I do not tolerate logical fallacy. As often as I find it in my own reasoning, or have it pointed out in my own reasoning, I make an effort to remove it, and I will do the same with fallacy made by anyone else.
I will give you some advice: If you want to start slandering religion and don't have a peer reviewed leg to stand on for your claims... then you are a crackpot, no better then those who slander homosexuals using claims that could never be supported by mainstream peer reviewed literature. You will have joined such people who put unfounded beliefs about groups they hate without a shred of objective evidence that has been vetted by professionals.
ReplyDeleteAnd don't be surprised when both believers and non-believers find that someone *in academics* can make slanderous claims about groups of people without a peer reviewed leg to stand on outrageous.
But you will be able to take comfort by factions of non-acedemic people who hang out on the internet clinging to Hitchens. They will love your non-peer reviewed attacks on religion! That's the kind of people they are. (And they are no better then people who jump at the chance to demign homosexuals on unfounded claims that fly in the face of peer reviewed literature.)
"Anything that is opinion I preface with the verb "believe" or "think"."
ReplyDeleteOkay, so I guess you wouldn't think it wrong for people to say: "I think homosexuality is the main source of hate in the world"?
By saying "I think" slanderous accusations are now okay?
Don't come here and call me names, Joe. That is not appropriate, nor is it very becoming of someone who calls himself "friend'. I do not appreciate it, and I'll ask you not to do it again.
ReplyDeleteAnd to answer your question, if it is truly a question and not merely an attempt to make me look foolish, I am entirely unthreatened by someone saying "I think homosexuality is the main source of hate in the world." I am entirely unthreatened by the church saying that homosexuality brings about the destruction of families--even though they assert it as eternal truth, as absolute fact, and not just as opinion. I am entirely unthreatened by people believing in god.
ReplyDeleteEveryone is entitled to believe anything they like, and they're entitled to voice those opinions. The only problem is when they try to force their beliefs onto other people. When the church says "no gays can get married because we think that it's immoral", then I have a problem with that. That goes beyond belief onto action, and action against me--action that infringes upon my rights and my personal life. That is unacceptable. But, I really wouldn't mind if the entire world proclaimed "I think that being gay is bad." I would remain confident in knowing by my own conscience that what I believe and what I do is right, and I would be okay with it.
Also, for being a man of faith, you place an abnormally strong emphasis on peer review. Who peer reviewed the Bible? The Book of Mormon? The Doctrine and Covenants? The Book of Abraham and the Book of Moses? And yet, you cite all of those works as if they were absolute truth. Where is your precious need for peer review now?
ReplyDeleteNot everything that's ever asserted as true needs to be peer-reviewed, Joe.
Keith, I don't mean to make you look foolish. I want you to come across as being someone of impeccable character and integrity. Therefore:
ReplyDelete1. I want to to realize there are reasons why debating books have entire sections talking about how comparisons to Hitler or North Korea are inappropriate and Juvenile. (In any context). These comments are designed to invoke images of the boogyman and are inappropriate.
2. Also, as a friend I am trying to prevent you from walking down the road of crack-pottery. A road where claims can be expressed, as long as they are started as opinion, that fly in the face of the peer review literature. Anti-science people do this all the time and I hope to prevent you from walking down that road yourself.
3. "Not everything that's ever asserted as true needs to be peer-reviewed" When it comes to making slanderous claims... yes they do. Saying you believe lepricans exist doesn't necessarily hurt anyone in of itself. But history has shown when you make slanderous claims about groups of people, they get hurt. *so you had better have some legitimate backing well vetted backing.*
4. Despite my "opinions" on homosexuality which I won't get into, *you will never* see me make any slanderous claims *especially* ones that cannot be supported by peer-reviewed literature. If you are going to attack a group of people, you better darn well have an air-tight completely vetted case.
So, you perceive me as attacking. Fine, and I am sorry for that. (I am not the best writer and make many mistakes) But my intent is to preserve your integrity and what has always been impeccable character. As a friend I do what to preserve that.
"And yet, you cite all of those works as if they were absolute truth"
ReplyDeleteCan't point to a single place I cited those works in any comment I have made... nor held that they were absolute truth.
Don't accuse me of misrepresenting your words and then pull this.
Do you mean to say that you don't believe the standard works to be the word of god? You don't believe that they're eternal truth? Do you not use them in church? Do you not read from them daily and quote them as though they were true? Was the assertion false? If so, I not only apologize for making the assertion, but I also applaud you for holding an opinion that differs from that of your religion.
ReplyDeleteWhom have I slandered? When have I, at any time during this conversation, said anything negative about any group of people? I assert that I have not. I haven't said anything slanderous against any group of people. Is there anything I have said that you have interpreted as slander? If so, I apologize for being less than perfectly clear and I will gladly retract any such statement.
ReplyDelete"I also applaud you for holding an opinion that differs from that of your religion."
ReplyDeleteOh brother Keith. You know our position on scripture is "as far as translated correctly" and many LDS people take this to mean not only are there possible errors in translation but also interpretation.
We do exactly what I am asking you to do: We create organizations like FARMS and church history departments to study our doctrines and history in an ever getting better peer-reviewed sense. I agree these organizations aren't perfect but they are getting better.
My point is: you know better then to accuse an LDS person as thinking as scriptures are so absolute that they should not be held up to scrutiny. We have a long history from Talmage, to B. H.Roberts to scholars today who are both great LDS people and are more and more trying to but both our understanding of scripture and history in a more solid peer review vetting.
So yes, an LDS person can take a very "truth must hold up to peer reviewed scrutiny" approach and still be a good member. We as a church are doing this very thing.
For example, I have a new copy of the Joseph Smith papers which is an attempt to understand what Joseph Smith actually said and in what context on a professional level. This effort is officially supported by the Church has received the highest academic certifications in the land.
*And we are a church meeting and supporting these high academic standards so don't try to accuse us of holding views of our church that are so absolute they are beyond professional scrutiny.*
And yes, I am proud to be a part of an organization that supports and funds such high level scrutiny attaining the highest academic accolades of the land.
Sorry, Joe, but the "as far as it is translated correctly" part only applies to the Bible. LDS doctrine maintains that the Book of Mormon and the other latter-day scripture is infallible and completely the word of god. I mean, if you don't personally believe that, that's fine with me, but your doctrine teaches it.
ReplyDelete" I want to to realize there are reasons why debating books have entire sections talking about how comparisons to Hitler or North Korea are inappropriate and Juvenile. (In any context). These comments are designed to invoke images of the boogyman and are inappropriate."
Weren't you earlier mocking me for having learned how to argue from a textbook? You're not being very consistent.
Anyways, now I really will let you go. I am sorry it got personal at times. I realize you have a hard time believing this, but if someone came up to me right now who may favorite five people of all time were you would easiely make the list.
ReplyDeleteI have had many pointed arguments with several people. That doesn't mean I don't love them. For example, I argued with my father over something over Christmas that got so intense everyone left the room. Does he love me? Absolutely? Do I love him? You betcha and I continue to email and call him regularly.
I'm not saying this makes anything I have said or done right, but You would be wrong to think I didn't love and care about you. I am one of your biggest fans. Whenever someone brings up the LDS Church and homosexuality I always use you as an example of where this issue tears me up so badly inside. I do care about you. I do want you to have the best success and happiness in life.
I am sorry I argued very pointedly and at times crossed the line. It wasn't my intent. Sometimes I am just impetus. I hope you can forgive that.
I know you are a very loving and caring person toward the church despite leaving it. You last video was evidence. I loved the video and you were frank and honest but fair and positive at times as well. This was one of the best videos I have ever seen on the subject. Perhaps the very best.
So Hitchens scares me as much as people who compare George Bush to Hitler scare me. So what? Does that mean I care for you less? No.
So have a good day. despite what was said, and I want the whole world to know this: you are one of the best people I have ever known. And I know you will always stay that way.