Nary a week goes by without Peterson dancing on the grave of Christopher Hitchens

[Doctor CamNC4Me]

DCP,

I bring this to your attention:

Why Did God Create Atheists?

There is a famous story told in Chassidic literature that addresses this very question. The Master teaches the student that God created everything in the world to be appreciated, since everything is here to teach us a lesson.

One clever student asks “What lesson can we learn from atheists? Why did God create them?”

The Master responds “God created atheists to teach us the most important lesson of them all — the lesson of true compassion. You see, when an atheist performs an act of charity, visits someone who is sick, helps someone in need, and cares for the world, he is not doing so because of some religious teaching. He does not believe that God commanded him to perform this act. In fact, he does not believe in God at all, so his acts are based on an inner sense of morality. And look at the kindness he can bestow upon others simply because he feels it to be right.”

"This means," the Master continued "that when someone reaches out to you for help, you should never say ‘I pray that God will help you.’ Instead for the moment, you should become an atheist, imagine that there is no God who can help, and say ‘I will help you.’"

Source: Tales of the Hasidim, Vol. 2: The Later Masters

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tales_of_the_Hasidim

- Doc

[Philo Sofee]

DCP,

I bring this to your attention:

Why Did God Create Atheists?

There is a famous story told in Chassidic literature that addresses this very question. The Master teaches the student that God created everything in the world to be appreciated, since everything is here to teach us a lesson.

One clever student asks “What lesson can we learn from atheists? Why did God create them?”

The Master responds “God created atheists to teach us the most important lesson of them all — the lesson of true compassion. You see, when an atheist performs an act of charity, visits someone who is sick, helps someone in need, and cares for the world, he is not doing so because of some religious teaching. He does not believe that God commanded him to perform this act. In fact, he does not believe in God at all, so his acts are based on an inner sense of morality. And look at the kindness he can bestow upon others simply because he feels it to be right.”

"This means," the Master continued "that when someone reaches out to you for help, you should never say ‘I pray that God will help you.’ Instead for the moment, you should become an atheist, imagine that there is no God who can help, and say ‘I will help you.’"

Source: Tales of the Hasidim, Vol. 2: The Later Masters

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tales_of_the_Hasidim

- Doc

Very insightful! Thanks Doc, and to think, this Wisdom from a Jewish member of Israel like Dan imagines he belongs to as well. Perhaps Mormons aren't the only ones with prophets and receiving revelation...

[Alphus and Omegus]

Physics guy, I think you have made a good observation about this subject despite it lying in an unpromising arena.

I mean, what do you expect anyone to say? Hitchens was a polemicist. He had an unusually gifted knack for barfly parlance with regard to heady topics, which made him incredibly popular with midwits and drunk politicos. If Dan “there isn’t a wikipedia page I can’t plagiarize” Peterson wants to sully Hitchens’ name to a few Mormon cultists and their antagonists who is anyone to tell him otherwise?

- Doc

That's exactly correct. Peterson has such a small familiarity with atheist thought that he incorrectly thinks that Hitchens is presently regarded as some sort of paragon of atheist philosophy. The truth, however, is that Hitchens was never seen in that way. He was regarded as a skilled debater and someone who turn a phrase. He was a popularizer of other people's ideas, not an originator. Nor did he ever present himself as such.

Hitchens was a writer of introductions more than of books. His phrase "religion poisons everything" was nothing more than an attempt to enrage fundamentalists, a gag which apparently is still succeeding more than a decade after his demise.

There's nothing wrong with criticizing Hitchens, but Peterson's method is of the very lowest possible utility and quality since it quite literally is arguing against a punchline written 15 years ago by a man long since deceased.

That Peterson usually accompanies each desperate attempt at trolling a dead man with an incorrect substitution of a copyright symbol (©) in the place of ™ or ® is a perfect synecdoche of his arguments' perspicacity.

[Philo Sofee]

Well, and then too, Dawkins and Harris is is still alive, so best to be safe and thrash the dead guy. It's really impressive to Peterson that he wins so often now against an atheist! He sure didn't with Shermer, so keep mums about him as well. If Peterson outlives Dawkins and Harris, we can be sure he will add them to his list of not only dead atheists to be baptized for the dead, but he will include diatribes against their ineffectiveness. Hitch is entire fair game (in Peterson's weird thinking) because there is no sass, no need to research a rebuttal, nor worry about being shown up! Dawkins had better not die, or Peterson is going to win some more!

[Atlanticmike]

Well, and then too, Dawkins and Harris is is still alive, so best to be safe and thrash the dead guy. It's really impressive to Peterson that he wins so often now against an atheist! He sure didn't with Shermer, so keep mums about him as well. If Peterson outlives Dawkins and Harris, we can be sure he will add them to his list of not only dead atheists to be baptized for the dead, but he will include diatribes against their ineffectiveness. Hitch is entire fair game (in Peterson's weird thinking) because there is no sass, no need to research a rebuttal, nor worry about being shown up! Dawkins had better not die, or Peterson is going to win some more!

Holy crap this is funny. You're accusing Peterson of thrashing a dead guy while at the same time you, Bill Reel and your Prophet RFM are begging for our money so you guys can "thrash" dead guys like Joseph Smith, Brigham Young and so on!! In the words of Joe Biden!! COME ON MAN!!!!!

[Philo Sofee]

Well, and then too, Dawkins and Harris is is still alive, so best to be safe and thrash the dead guy. It's really impressive to Peterson that he wins so often now against an atheist! He sure didn't with Shermer, so keep mums about him as well. If Peterson outlives Dawkins and Harris, we can be sure he will add them to his list of not only dead atheists to be baptized for the dead, but he will include diatribes against their ineffectiveness. Hitch is entire fair game (in Peterson's weird thinking) because there is no sass, no need to research a rebuttal, nor worry about being shown up! Dawkins had better not die, or Peterson is going to win some more!

Holy crap this is funny. You're accusing Peterson of thrashing a dead guy while at the same time you, Bill Reel and your Prophet RFM are begging for our money so you guys can "thrash" dead guys like Joseph Smith, Brigham Young and so on!! In the words of Joe Biden!! COME ON MAN!!!!!

Ain't it great?!

[DrStakhanovite]

That's exactly correct. Peterson has such a small familiarity with atheist thought that he incorrectly thinks that Hitchens is presently regarded as some sort of paragon of atheist philosophy.

You give him too much credit:

I must, however, quibble with his advice to “Take on the heavyweights” — at least, to the extent that he means by that advice that (as he actually says) apologists should ignore intellectually unserious challenges like the notorious “CES Letter” and the bestselling “New Atheists.”

I readily grant that “New Atheists” like Richard Dawkins and the late Christopher Hitchens — to say nothing of the unfortunate “CES Letter” — aren’t exactly “heavyweights” of the kind that Brother LaCour commends to our attention. Their facts are often cherry-picked, when not altogether fictional, their interpretations are all too often caricatures, their logic is slipshod, and so on and so forth. I absolutely agree.

But it’s the “New Atheists” and the “CES Letter” — and other people and arguments on a similar low level — that are damaging testimonies and destroying faith among (especially) young Latter-day Saints, and rendering many people outside the Church inaccessible to our missionary efforts. It’s not the works of J. L. Mackie, Paul Draper, Alex Rosenberg, or David Hume.

So, yes, it would be more gratifying always to work on a sophisticated level, and, yes, the arguments of sophisticated atheistic thinkers absolutely merit serious attention and faithful response. I believe that academically-equipped Latter-day Saint apologists should be doing just that. Indeed, I wish that more Latter-day Saints with the appropriate academic training and the necessary capability, from many fields, would give at least some attention to apologetics in all fields, not only in philosophy. And, yes, this comes at a cost. More than once, I myself have lamented the time and energy that I’ve felt that I had to allocate to analyzing the works of such relatively dim bulbs as Ed Decker, John Ankerberg, and John Weldon (as here and here), and the effusions of the balmy loon Loftes Tryk, when I ought rather to be engaging Plato, Plotinus, Proclus, al-Farabi, al-Kirmani, Ibn Sina (Avicenna), al-Ghazali, Ibn Rushd (Averroës), and St. Thomas Aquinas, as I was trained to do, as I want to do, and as I set out on my career to do.

SAUCE

[Res Ipsa]

That's exactly correct. Peterson has such a small familiarity with atheist thought that he incorrectly thinks that Hitchens is presently regarded as some sort of paragon of atheist philosophy.

You give him too much credit:

I must, however, quibble with his advice to “Take on the heavyweights” — at least, to the extent that he means by that advice that (as he actually says) apologists should ignore intellectually unserious challenges like the notorious “CES Letter” and the bestselling “New Atheists.”

I readily grant that “New Atheists” like Richard Dawkins and the late Christopher Hitchens — to say nothing of the unfortunate “CES Letter” — aren’t exactly “heavyweights” of the kind that Brother LaCour commends to our attention. Their facts are often cherry-picked, when not altogether fictional, their interpretations are all too often caricatures, their logic is slipshod, and so on and so forth. I absolutely agree.

But it’s the “New Atheists” and the “CES Letter” — and other people and arguments on a similar low level — that are damaging testimonies and destroying faith among (especially) young Latter-day Saints, and rendering many people outside the Church inaccessible to our missionary efforts. It’s not the works of J. L. Mackie, Paul Draper, Alex Rosenberg, or David Hume.

So, yes, it would be more gratifying always to work on a sophisticated level, and, yes, the arguments of sophisticated atheistic thinkers absolutely merit serious attention and faithful response. I believe that academically-equipped Latter-day Saint apologists should be doing just that. Indeed, I wish that more Latter-day Saints with the appropriate academic training and the necessary capability, from many fields, would give at least some attention to apologetics in all fields, not only in philosophy. And, yes, this comes at a cost. More than once, I myself have lamented the time and energy that I’ve felt that I had to allocate to analyzing the works of such relatively dim bulbs as Ed Decker, John Ankerberg, and John Weldon (as here and here), and the effusions of the balmy loon Loftes Tryk, when I ought rather to be engaging Plato, Plotinus, Proclus, al-Farabi, al-Kirmani, Ibn Sina (Avicenna), al-Ghazali, Ibn Rushd (Averroës), and St. Thomas Aquinas, as I was trained to do, as I want to do, and as I set out on my career to do.

SAUCE

Peterson's links to LaCour are broken.

[Atlanticmike]

Holy crap this is funny. You're accusing Peterson of thrashing a dead guy while at the same time you, Bill Reel and your Prophet RFM are begging for our money so you guys can "thrash" dead guys like Joseph Smith, Brigham Young and so on!! In the words of Joe Biden!! COME ON MAN!!!!!

Ain't it great?!

Yeah! Actually it is! I hope I'm alive when Prophet RFM becomes so famous he starts "marrying" multiple women. John Dehlin is going to be so jealous.

[Doctor CamNC4Me]

… as I was trained to do, as I want to do, and as I set out on my career to do.

-_-

ibn Peterson al Provo-ite’s CV would tell a story of a man who love three things in this world more than Dr. Pepper, Crown Burger, and taking hot [language deleted -- RI] all over the Internet.

1) Traveling on someone else’s dime under the guise of academia.

2) Writing trash-tier books about topics he could cobble together from the Internet his manuscripts.

3) Being a fairly well remunerated pugnacious asshole in defense of a billion dollar conglomerate posing as a religion. Until he was fired that is. Now he just does it for free.

- Doc