It's been said that Christopher Hitchens did not suffer fools, so I doubt he and I would have got along all that well, but I admired him anyway. I came to learn about him late in his life as one of the modern champions of atheism. He was, of course, more than that. Mainly, and by his own description, he was a contrarion. State an opinion on virtually any issue however major or minor, and not only had you better be able to justify it, but if he disagreed, you had better really be able to justify it. Odds are it wouldn't help you as he could typically argue his point of view better than most.
Which is why I liked him.
He challenged lazy thinking and most of us, let's be honest now, are lazy thinkers. We humans feel more than we think, and while there's nothing wrong with feeling, it alone is a proven poor way to govern our selves and our society. I never read his athiest manifesto, God is Not Great, but plan to. At one time I feared it, thinking it might challenge my already less than stalwart faith, but reading Richard Dawkins' entry into the fray eliminated that fear entirely.
Like Dawkins, Hitchens latter career saw him delivering some well-deserved shots at religion. I think that's important. Most believers have never really had to articulate their faith and supporting rationale. They are raised in their faith, attend services with the like-hearted, and never venture forth into the larger conversation of why we're here. Having never undertaken a personal quest for the truth, they rarely give credit to the role their upbringing played in what faith they do possess and can't understand why anyone would question the existence of God or His authorship of a collection of documents, thousands of years old, and originally set down in languages that scholars, even now, do not fully comprehend. Yet Christianity, if it contains the truth, ought to be able to stand on its own. Hitchens was among the best at forcing such debate, and I believe he did a great service in that regard.
I was saddened to learn about his cancer, a particularly aggressive one, when it was revealed in 2010 and often googled after news on the progress of his treatment. But he was active in writing and speaking until the end, and though updated images of him showed a progressively weaker presence, there is nothing unusual about that in battling cancer. So I had hopes the he would recover and was shocked to learn of his death this week.
In contemplating his end, many believers hoped Hitchens would make a death bed conversion to faith; he heartened his atheist adherents by refuting such a possibility. Such an act would be cowardice in the minds of many of them, no doubt. And, no doubt, the rumor mill will soon begin asserting that he did. I wouldn't blame him - all talk and intellectual firepower aside death is a frightening prospect. For my own part, I'm glad we don't know - his death would otherwise become a public playground fight, robbed of any dignity and any conversion, tarnished.
Hitchens' life was not error-free (no one gets one of those), but it was fully lived, his intellect generally used to try to improve the human condition, and in my opinion, worth while. He will be missed.
"Never say you know the last words about any human heart!" - Henry James
John, nice blog. Found you over at Betsy's. I like what you said regarding the lack of believers' intelligent articulation of their beliefs. However, I feel that Hitchens pretty much had an easy job of it when he dealt with most defenders of faith. I don't know if he ever tangled with any Jesuits, but I would have liked to have seen it.
I'm a Hare Krishna convert, and in our tradition, even children are (or used to be) trained to refute basic atheistic propositions. I wish some of our smarter people could have had a chance to duke it out with the Hitch.
The problem is, he was extremely articulate and intelligent in a way that few people are. Unfortunately, that can give the impression that what he was saying was true simply by virtue of it sounding more intelligent. But truth is not the slave of intelligence, and there's more than one way to know the truth. An unlettered peasant would know Hitchens was talking nonsense, even if he couldn't eloquently say why.
I'm also sorry he's gone, because I think he could have had a change of heart if a he had come across a good argument in favor of theism. From my vantage point, he will get another chance to find out, hopefully before too long.
Posted by: Tulasi-Priya | December 21, 2011 at 07:28 PM
Oh, and I'd like to request that you get a "subscribe by email" plug-in for your blog. A lot of people don't bother with readers; I'm one of them. It's much more convenient to read the posts as they come in with the other email. Please consider it. Thanks!
Posted by: Tulasi-Priya | December 21, 2011 at 07:33 PM
Hi Tulasi-Priya, thanks for stopping by the blog.
Wow, what a thoughtful comment!
Re Hitch had an easy job: I agree. I think many of the debates side-step the core discussion of the possibility of a creator and go right to the old testament God. Because most people - especially fundamentalists (and me too, really) - have little knowledge of the Bible or how it was formed, their position is highly untenable. This article by fundamentalist escapee Bart Erhman makes the point well: http://thehumanist.org/november-december-2011/biblical-scholarship-and-the-right-to-know/
Re Hitch the brain: "truth is not the slave of intelligence" That's great! Seriously! Is that one yours? But you know, truth can be the victim of ignorance. I sometimes vacillate on how much bible some folks really ought to be reading - thinking they should just stick with the basics: Mark 12:30-31 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Mark+12%3A30-31&version=NIV)
Re Hitch and a change of heart: You might be right. I'm a glass half empty guy by nature and I don't think he would have come around. Public figures who espouse strong, polarized views build careers based on holding those views. It's difficult for them to change - especially politicians. But Hitchens was more courageous than most in shifting gears and he most certainly had the intellect to stand by it. Would have been interesting to see him square off against Dawkins or Daniel Dennett. He would have done well.
Re subscribe by email: Let me have a look at that. I'm a reader guy myself - the less in my inbox the happier I am, but I'll see what I can do!
Posted by: Tom | December 22, 2011 at 10:10 AM
John, thanks for the links. I've subscribed to you in my Google Reader. I may just have to break down and start using it. My inbox could certainly use some de-cluttering. As far as the "truth is not the slave" quote, I googled it and I'm the only one who comes close to having said that. However, my thoughts have been greatly influence by others who might not show up in Google. Yes, ignorance is certainly the enemy of truth, but simplicity of heart is not.
Posted by: Tulasi-Priya | December 23, 2011 at 10:26 PM