In writing this piece, I’m reminded of a little exchange between the late William F. Buckley and friend and fellow National Review writer Florence King. Buckley had just penned some less-than-flattering words about a recently deceased person of prominence whose name escapes me, and King chided him, saying something to the effect that he had broken ground in journalism: the “attack-obit.” Buckley’s response was, “Wait till you see the obituary I have planned for you!”

And in writing this critical article about bon vivant Christopher Hitchens in the wake of his death this past Thursday, I expect some ridicule as well. Yet I don’t think Hitchens would demand to be spared the acidic ink he used to eviscerate others — or that he would have any credibility doing so. Remember that this was the man who, before the gentle Jerry Falwell’s body was even cold, said things such as “If he [Falwell] had been given an enema, he could have been buried in a matchbox” and “I wish there was a Hell for Falwell.”

For my part, I wouldn’t wish eternal damnation on Hitchens; I truly hope he rests in peace. But I can’t say the same for his legacy. And when I see the obligatory exaltation of his life’s work — with secular icons, the deader they get, the better they were — I think that legacy needs a little damnation.

If we listen to one of Hitchens’ eulogizers, Jamie Weinstein, we should believe that “Hitchens taught us how to live, and how to die.” But other than teaching us how to live recklessly and die prematurely, is this really true? With a life defined by self-medication through heavy drinking and smoking, and contempt for those he deemed intellectually inferior, this polemicist hardly showed us how to live. In making his death about an ego-driven battle to the bitter end with people of faith, he hardly taught us how to die. In fact, in seeking to incite instead of sharing insight, in railing instead of relating, in substituting sarcasm for scholarship, he didn’t even teach us how to reason.

Yet the most shocking thing — to his faithless flock, anyway — I have to say about Hitchens is that, whatever he was, he was no intellectual. This isn’t to say he didn’t have an excellent mind. He did. It isn’t to say he wasn’t learned. He was. Hitchens was one of the foremost essayists of our time, a wordsmith extraordinaire, a keen wit, and a clever debater. But while this is all well and good, it does not a true intellectual make.

The first great indictment of Hitchens’ intellectualism is the evidence that he was wholly capable of the quality. He could be eminently reasoned when he was right, such as when he brilliantly dissected demagogue Michael Moore in his essay “Unfairenheit 9/11.” Yet when the subject was his bete´ noire´, religion, he became downright demagogic himself. Oh, don’t think I accuse him of intentional deceit; if he had been so Machiavellian, he could at least have laid claim to an evil intellectualism. No, leading with his heart rather than head on religion, he led himself astray along with everyone else.

The fact is that while Hitchens considered religion (Christianity in particular) his mortal enemy, he made no serious attempt to understand faith and the faithful. It’s not just that he called Mother Teresa a “fraud” and wrote, “[Mother Teresa] was not a friend of the poor. She was a friend of poverty. She said that suffering was a gift from God.” If he at all had tried to understand the context of Teresa’s comment, it might have brought to mind C.S. Lewis’s statement, “Pain is the megaphone God uses to get through to deaf ears” or the Khalil Gibran quotation, “Your pain is the breaking of the shell that encloses your understanding.” It’s not just that he condemned the Catholic Church for alleged complicity with the Nazis. If he would have done his research, he would have discovered that Rabbi David Dalin, Ph.D. credits WWII-era pontiff Pope Pius XII with saving 800,000 Jews from extermination. He would have learned that prominent Jewish contemporaries of Pius — Golda Meir; Albert Einstein; Chief Rabbi Alexander Safran of Bucharest, Rumania; Israeli Prime Minister Moshe Sharett; and Jewish historian Pinchas Lapide, just to name a handful — roundly praised Pius and the church for its anti-Nazi, humanitarian efforts. It’s not just that his 2009 book god is not Great is merely, as an intellectual secular friend of mine put it, “a rant.” It’s that while Hitchens was skilled at making audiences confuse well-turned quips with the last word, he was wholly incurious about “First Things.”

In the aforementioned book Hitchens wrote, “Religion is poison because it asks us to give up our most precious faculty, which is that of reason, and to believe things without evidence. It then asks us to respect this, which it calls faith.” Yet, like virtually all atheists — save the self-aware theoretical sociopaths among them — he never applied reason well enough to recognize his own faith.

That is to say, Hitchens claimed that religion was the cause of all sorts of bad things, such as “sexism,” murder, and oppression. Yet can you scientifically prove that anything is bad? If there is no God, it follows that what we label “morality” is just an invention of man. But then what is it but consensus opinion, but perspective? Sure, we may take it as axiomatic that murder is wrong, but an axiom is a self-evident truth that requires no evidence. And what was Hitchens’ famous saying?

“That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence.”  

Infamous serial killer Jeffrey Dahmer recognized this as a teen, as he asked his parents rhetorically, “If there’s no God, why can’t I just make up my own rules?” The fact is that just as we wouldn’t consider vanilla ice cream “wrong” or “evil” simply because we learned that 90 percent of the world didn’t like it, it makes no sense to thus label murder if the only reason we do so is that most of us prefer that people not kill others in a way we fancy is unjust. If there is no God, “morality” is just values and values are just taste. And when Hitchens axiomatically accepted his morality as something more, it implied God’s existence. Only, while Dahmer figured this out, Hitchens never did.

And did Hitchens also take as axiomatic the wickedness of religion itself? He must have.

Because I never heard him mount an intellectual argument against it.

Instead, religion was the one topic that clearly made the writer seethe with emotion. Unlike my father, an atheist who upon considering my movement toward faith would wistfully say, “I wish it were true; I just can’t see it,” Hitchens billed himself as an “anti-theist” and didn’t want God to be real. But why this hostility — some would say fear — of the divine? 

Well, a long time ago I discovered something about people hostile toward Christianity. Sure, the more cerebral among them may offer philosophical justifications for their opposition, but at the end of the day their antagonism finds its origin in the emotional realm. To be precise, they hate Christianity not so much because they think it’s wrong. They hate it because it tells them they’re wrong: It condemns their sins as sins.

Scratch the surface of these Christophobes and you find that, almost invariably, their anti-Christian worldview is driven by a desire to justify behaviors they’re attached to and will not relinquish or for which they, in the grip of pride, simply will not repent (it can be hard to admit you’re wrong). And since Christianity condemns these behaviors, they condemn it.

And while I could, of course, never read Hitchens’ mind and heart, he fit this profile. In his 2010 memoir, Hitch-22, the writer admits that he had some homosexual affairs while in school. It was also clear that he was a very prideful man, someone who was so busy looking down on others that he was unlikely to look up and see something far superior.

Yet giving his memoirs a title that is a play on Catch-22 was more fitting than Hitchens ever could have imagined. For his whole world view was a Catch-22: He so desperately wanted to convince the world that a belief in God has led to many bad things, but without a belief in God, it’s impossible to credibly say that things can be “bad.”

This isn’t to say that Hitchens was dishonest with us. On the contrary, in moving Right after 9/11 and defending the Iraq War, he seemed honest. In undergoing waterboarding and then reporting that he believed it was, in fact, torture, he seemed honest. In expressing some pro-life views he seemed honest. In sharing some of his most embarrassing sins, he seemed honest. It was this honesty that, as much as anything else, won him admirers. And it’s entirely possible that he was honest with everyone — everyone except the one person with whom it would have been most important. Himself.

TrackBack URI for this entry

Comments (10)

Subscribe to this comment's feed

dee said:

Eh.. While Hitchens probably wouldn't have cared what you wrote about him - it doesn't mean the rest of us can't laugh at you for not having the guts to do it while he was alive. He didn't resonate with all atheists, but he was an awesome debator and his wit was always entertaining...unlike this article. Backhanded compliments to support personal goals are just sort of lame.

December 19, 2011

RedPillPlease said:

Immoral Fools Both Psalm 14:1 and Psalm 53:1 read, “The fool says in his heart, ‘There is no God.’” Some take these verses to indicate that atheists are stupid, i.e., lacking intelligence. However, that is not the meaning of the Hebrew word translated “fool.” In this text, the Hebrew word is nabal which refers more to a “moral fool,” e.g., someone without morals. The meaning of the text is not “unintelligent people do not believe in God.” Rather, the meaning of the text is “immoral people do not believe in God,” which fits the life of Hitchens perfectly.

December 19, 2011

Doug said:

Reductio ad Absurdum in a yellow rag he was no intellectual

December 19, 2011

Saint Thomas said:

Objectum enim intellectus est simplicius et magis absolutum quam objectum voluntatis I am guessing, though I'd be curious to hear your reply, that you consider yourself an "intellectual", correct? That is, it takes one to spot a posing one? I wonder how you would even define this label or what you would take as evidence of intellectualism? You seem to attach it to some notion of applying reasoning, right? I am particularly disturbed by your own intellectually dishonest application of this logic as critique of Hitch. For example, in the following, where you do not quote Hitchens as saying murder is axiomatically wrong (I doubt seriously he would apply that philosophical rendering of it though he certain has and would say it is wrong), but then go on, using the definition of that work specifically, to imply a fault in his reason. He never utters the philosophical statement that attribute to him. Par example, "Sure, we may take it as axiomatic that murder is wrong, but an axiom is a self-evident truth that requires no evidence. And what was Hitchens’ famous saying? “That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence."" This is just the most glaring evidence, perhaps ironically, that you are a shabby thinker more interested in talking about stupidity such as repentance for homosexual acts that consider any of his actual arguments against religion. Here is what your own view boils down to: "Scratch the surface of these Christophobes and you find that, almost invariably, their anti-Christian worldview is driven by a desire to justify behaviors they’re attached to and will not relinquish or for which they, in the grip of pride, simply will not repent..." Almost invariably? Indeed, sir. You don't seem to be able to conceive of the fact that some people like myself do not believe in this absurd myth of human sacrifice and the comedy of heaven and hell because they are irrational beliefs (faith by definition) and not any more defensible as such than, say, Islam or Hinduism. If you take your strange beliefs as a matter of faith, well, just admit that and be done with it. Do not assume that the motivation to reject that faith is merely some idle wish to fornicate or covet things. I could use the same 'logic' against you, whom I presume would reject the tenements of Islam (just guessing), and say that you simply want to justify your immoral wishes to let your girlfriend keep her head uncovered, or what have you. Yes, your rejection invariably MUST be motivated by your sinfulness against the Prophet. Please spare us your paltry logic. You sir, have shown zero evidence of respectable intellect in this article, and this is just your ideological take on a guy who attacked your belief system. Fine.

December 19, 2011

Saint Thomas said:

Interesting And this article coming from someone who seems to claim to be literate. From your website sir, in a weird and now cliched attempt to claim a communism for Obama (Gee, it is so odd you would write such a biased article contra Hitchens): "But just to provide some background, I pointed out how Obama claimed in Osawatomie that our relatively free market system not only “doesn’t work,” “it has never worked.” Apparently you cannot read for context or any measure of subtlety. Do intellectuals have the ability to read well? When he says, "it doesn't work", he is clearly talking about the idea that the market ipso facto will "take care of everything." It clearly didn't take care of airport security which is no longer privatized by companies hiring cheap lazy jerk offs. In any case, what is dishonest about your general approach to thinking is your either purposeful exclusion of context or your, I suppose, intellectual inability to parse anything. In the same 'Communist' speech, Obama says, of Teddy Roosevelt, "He believed then what we know is true today, that the free market is the greatest force for economic progress in human history. It's led to a prosperity and a standard of living unmatched by the rest of the world." How is this possibly ambiguous? And how, sir, if you call yourself honest, could you possibly mischaracterize this speech, unless, and I assume this now, that you are a tiresome and predictable, Glenn Beck-model, ideologue. Your opinions and your reading ability should be questioned by any reasonable person. At least be honest, for Christ's sake.

December 19, 2011

Martini and song said:

The "hitch" was unhitched from reality Hitchens wasted his bright mind on petty attacks on God and religion in general. It does not matter if one's mind is the sharpest mind ever to show up in the book publishing world if it is wasted by drinking the sour wine of jealousy and vindictiveness. A moral person possessing half this man's intellect is 100 times more farsighted than a Christopher Hitchens, because morality, as the poet said, sees further than intellect. One can intellectually love one's neighbor because one's heart is not rooted in intellect but in the pain of God's suffering. Mother Teresa joined God in His suffering by embracing the cross. The cross represents pure love. No pain no cross and no cross no pure love. Jesus endured mankind's hate and rejection. Being nailed to a cross is not an intellectual aspiration of the mind but generated by a motive to love without expecting love in return. Love may seem irrational but it is the perfect way for the mind to express itself. God went to the extreme of His capacity to show us the way of love: He was born into poverty and spent his young years in obscurity and in obedience to his earthly parents. The intellect may block love while the heart is inexhastable in its capacity to show love; it stirs the heart that inspires a Mother Teresa to accept the pain because only love will ease pain. Without pain we have no way to measure love. Pain passes and dies but love transcends time and space and it is indeed smart to think that love conquers all the hurt that man has to endure in this world to someday truly know what God's love is. We don't know what that love will be like. The mind can only imagine what the heart allows him to imagine what that love will be like. Fill the heart with love and one can get a dosage; the tinest idea why we are here on this earth. To love unconditionally as God loves us is the height of intellect. Intellect of and by itself makes no sense if it is devoid of a purpose. God provides us with a purpose or a reason for our existence. Without love or denying God's purpose for us produces a world filled with hate, disappointment and insanity shown by such madness as war, pointless lust without the love and sacrifice one needs to show a mate one's own children. Therefore true intellect is pure love; the love God invited us to possess.

December 19, 2011

Chrysothemis said:

One of the best so far Good job - it didn't even start to get smarmy, condescending and simply Bible-thumpingly boring until about halfway through.

December 20, 2011

Ken said:

http://www.LaserGuidedLoogie.com Hitchens was strident and angry. As a pretty laid back a theist myself, I really don't get that attitude toward religion. In the unlikely event that you can convince people away from their imaginary friend, they don't take up reason. Rather, they just invent a different fantasy. Liberalism, for example, has become the secular religion of a whole swath of Americana that sees itself as "enlightened," because it has rejected religion or at least minimized it to the point of insignificance. Also, I would like to add my suspicion to Mr. Duke's about those who obsessively hate religion, especially Christianity. I have known people like Mr. Hitchens. Sputtering and full of rage, they fulminate endlessly about the faults of Christianity. Invariably, they find my mild mannered atheism to be as offensive as Christianity itself. What I have discovered in most of those cases is that they are suffering from a big fat case of Homo Disorder. This occurs especially if they are in the closet or if they have parents who are very religious. They feel rejected and lash out at the perceived cause of their pain. At least that's my suspicion. -Ken http://www.LaserGuidedLoogie.com

December 20, 2011

unknown said:

... You have written possibly the most stupid sentence I have read in all of 2011... "He so desperately wanted to convince the world that a belief in God has led to many bad things, but without a belief in God, it’s impossible to credibly say that things can be “bad.” Shame on you

December 21, 2011

Phil77 said:

... First of all, I find it wonderfully convenient that you judge Hitchens to be honest when it comes to issues that confirm your right wing conservative values however he is dishonest on subjects that are contradictory to them. Do you feel that perhaps this represents a bias? Probably not. Secondly, I agree with this guy ... "You have written possibly the most stupid sentence I have read in all of 2011... "He so desperately wanted to convince the world that a belief in God has led to many bad things, but without a belief in God, it’s impossible to credibly say that things can be bad." Thirdly. I think youre a bit of an idiot and would rather listen to monkey howl at the moon than your narrow minded dribble Thats all.

December 24, 2011