メリディアン
日本語
書物(Books, etc.)
Brother Daniel Peterson, noted apologist, and professor of Arabic
Studies at BYU wrote that he is tired of the same old anti-Mormon arguments
which haven't changed much for many years. Instead, he said he worries that in
the future, the greatest opposition to the Church will come atheistic secular
humanists who though they disdain religion have formed one of their own. One of these about whom he spoke at length at the
FAIR conference in
August of this year is Christopher Hitchins whose recent book, god is not
Great was also the target of Brother Peterson's speech.. I wrote a review of this book and posted it on Amazon.com. Here it is. I
welcome comments or suggestions for improvement.
On the back cover of the flyleaf of the book, god is not Great, the London Observer is quoted as calling the author, Mr. Christopher Hitchins, “brilliant.” It seems to me fair to ask why Mr. Hitchins’ opinion about things is any more reliable than that of the high school valedictorian from the North Summit High School in Coalville, Utah who is also considered “brilliant” by some.
Friedrich Hayek states in his book, The Constitution of Liberty, a wonderful self-evident truth which explains why we cannot trust someone just because he or she may be labeled, “brilliant.”
The more men know, the smaller the share of all that knowledge becomes that any one mind can absorb. The more civilized we become, the more relatively ignorant must each individual be of the facts on which the working of his civilization depends. The very division of knowledge increases the necessary ignorance of the individual of most of this knowledge. (Friedrich Hayek, The Constitution of Liberty, page 26.)
All political theories assume, of course, that most individuals are very ignorant. Those who plead for liberty differ from the rest in that they include among the ignorant themselves as well as the wisest. Compared with the totality of knowledge which is continually utilized in the evolution of a dynamic civilization, the difference between the knowledge that the wisest and that which the most ignorant individual can deliberately employ is comparatively insignificant.( Ibid page 28.)
It does not appear to me that Mr. Hichtens includes himself “among the ignorant.” No doubt he knows much more about some things than I do. I also believe I know much more about some things than he does. For example, for a foreigner, I am quite skilled in the Japanese language. And as a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, I have read widely for a long time. If Mr. Hitchens statements about the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (Mormons) on pages 161 to 168 in his book are a sample of the degree of his understanding about the other things which he writes, in my opinion, the book is not worth reading.
Since all of us know but little, how can we discern who is worth listening to? I think one way to tell is to ask ourselves a few questions:
1. “Does this person love the truth and admit his own relative ignorance?”
2. “In writing or speaking, does this person distinguish between what is opinion and what he or she knows to be fact?”
3. “What is the motive of the person seeking an audience?”
4. “Does the person care about all of the people in the world?”
Due to our lack of knowledge, all of us earthlings harbor ideas, assumptions, and notions that are false. But those who love the truth and who want to be useful to their fellow beings upon this earth, are never satisfied with what they currently know. Their love of the truth and desire to do good leads them forward seeking to know the truth of the past so it can be used to help all who inhabit this earth. Based on his book, god is not Great, it seems clear to me that Mr. Hitchens cannot accurately count himself among them.
Wade W. Fillmore
November 1, 2006