Here’s a fun bit by Daniel Peterson on Hitchens:

http://maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/publications/review/?vol=19&num=2&id=653

Every time I have seen Hitchens mention Mormonism, it is always as the most derisive trump card. As in, you may think the Presbyterians are harmless, but it’s a slippery slope to those crazy Mormons with their angels, plates, and glowing stones.

Atheism can have him.

Interesting debate–thanks for the link.

Christopher Hitchens is one of my favorites. His understanding of Mormonism is facile. He is a bull in the china shop on religion. It’s too bad he hasn’t been able to take a more subtle view on it, because he is far from altogether wrong. I don’t think it’s that tough to argue that religion has done more historical harm than good, but he feels a need to argue on the far side of his position. It’s sort of philosophizing with a hammer.

Hitchens is actually great on the Gulag. I think his political instincts have become fairly acute. His conversion from Trotskyist to neo-conservative is fascinating. Really, the whole bit on Hitchens’ and communism is deeply unfair … read almost anything he has written on the subject over the last ten years, and more. He is a personal friend, and has been deeply influenced by Robert Conquest, who is the seminal anti-Soviet historian. There certainly is plenty bad to say about the history of communism, and Hitchens’ would be on your side in saying them.

Ha!

Hitchens doesn’t impress me.

Hitchen’s point was in a context that religion perpetuates all the time, and that is this; “Although there are many negative things in regards to our religion, the good we do justifies the bad”. He makes the point that mormons will say “look at our missionaries” as to say “look to our good”, to justify the more negative aspects of the church, including the entire story of Joseph Smith and the golden plates. It is entirely possible that mormons have some redeeming qualities, however “I’d rather have no mormons, no missionaries honestly, no Joseph Smith”.
Hithchens in my opinion is entirely eloquent in his presentation of what’s wrong with religion throughout the world. He articulates with extreme precision and intellect points of rationalism and materialism/naturalism, and gives convincing voice to many as to why this view of the cosmos is far superior than any that can come from the questionable origination and translation of ancient texts purporting to be the infallible word of God.
Hitch himself would bristle at being called a left wing. This socialist insists the liberal left is far too compromised. He is not a crackpot, but well respected. You may not agree with his attack on religion, but he is accurate on his facts, and witheringly so as he dispatches cardinal after pastor after rabbi after imam. To call him neo-conservative is also way missing the point. He may be a bit hawkish on the Iraq question, and even on the abortion issue I find his opinion a little curious, but all in all, Hitch is old school socialist, naturalist, Darwinist. He’s a credit to humanity and will be sorely missed when he passes. You may not agree with how he says it, but present it’s counter-argument, if you can. Oh, and bonus points if you can be half as eloquent.

First off, skill in speaking or debate does not affect the truth of any matter. It only gets you points for “winning” a particular conversation.

That Christopher is an atheist is the first point against him. This is because a proper scientist goes agnostic if you can’t prove the existence or non-existence of a fact, or as in this case, God. As I understand it, he is hard line atheist and not an agnostic leaning that way.

I find the comments of those who rail against religion as being harmful rather silly when compared against the background of what the atheists as communists/socialists have done to humanity during the twentieth century. Between Stalin’s Russia, China or that little piker Hitler, you’re looking at

40-80 million for Mao
20-30 million for Stalin
6 mill for Hitler

I can’t recall any specific religion or aggregation of religions responsible for that kind of horror.

On the other hand, I also don’t recall any atheist organizations responsible for much charitable assistance for disasters of various types, nor any hospitals founded by prominent atheists, whereas you will find many founded by various religious organizations.

This is not to minimize the nasty things various religious organizations did when they had monopoly control over their various populations prior to the 20th century. I also don’t think it is wise to use the missionaries as a demonstration of the good of Mormonism. They are out there trying to gain converts, not do service, although many of them do some. With competition of ideas, at least Christian religions have become pretty mellow, and pretty good advocates for the original teachings of Jesus.

I still like Christopher though, and hope he gets to a better understanding of life and where value and happiness actually come from. I think he really believes what he preaches, but it does him no favors that he belittles others for their beliefs. He gets to shortly find out what really lies beyond death, and what will be, will most certainly be. If he finds a life after death, I’m pretty certain he’ll revise his assumptions and make the appropriate adjustments.

One other thing that made me like him even more was that when he was diagnosed with cancer, he was asked about all the prayers of people praying for him. He thought it was a waste of time, but he really appreciated their thoughts and love in spite of their fundamental disagreements about religion.

I will miss him because in spite of his antipathy to religion, he offers good value in a number of other areas in which his talents benefit us. May he go in peace.