Saying Goodbye to Christopher Hitchens: Unity in the Midst of Grief

Last Thursday night the non-believing world let out a collective groan. It was the news everyone knew was coming but no one wanted to hear. Christopher Hitchens was dead. Immediately, the tributes started to flow in from every corner of the 'atheosphere'  and indeed from many in the religious world who stood on the opposite side, but could appreciate a champion when they saw one.

It was a strange feeling for me during that night. I  experienced at that moment something I had never felt before in the three years that I have identified myself as an atheist. I suddenly realised that I was part of something truly global and it felt great to be part of it even as we all grieved. It has so often been said that bringing atheists together is like 'herding cats' but that night and the days following, every one in the herd was raising a toast to the fallen 'horseman' popularly known as Hitch. It didn't seem to matter what side of the secular spectrum you fell on. Those who favoured more measured methods of promoting secularism through humanism or explicitly working with the churches, seemed as touched as those that modelled themselves on the more hostile approach of Hitch himself. Many atheist bloggers and you tubers that are usually  not short of an opinion, seemed genuinely too shocked to talk or make a key stroke on their computers.Thursday was a night when you saw en masse the humanity of atheism and the grieving from the heart of a community that is often accused of not having one. Yet, it was so different from the kind of tributes I had experienced in religious life, it was huge but it was not worship. Even in  grief, atheists were  talking about things they thought Hitch was flat out wrong about, like his support of the Iraq war. I was told growing up that one should never speak ill of the dead. That didn't seem to be the modus operandi applied Thursday night,  yet the support for the man and what he represented was overwhelming. I think that says a lot for the value of the secular over the sacred.

It is common when a prominent person in any field dies to say, " There will never be another X." It is almost a cliche. Well, it seems on this occasion it may not be an exaggeration. The way Hitch delivered  his points during a debate, showed absolute brilliance. He could easily have made it as a stand up comic, his timing and turns of phrase so impeccable. It was an honour to join with members of the secular community here in Calgary and give a toast to 'the Hitch' on Saturday. None of us there had ever met him, yet he had clearly touched all our lives. It was years since I had got together with other people to sip wine for someone none of us had ever met in person. In the days of old in Barbados it was a weekly gathering to pay homage to a Jew that  lived 2000 years ago. Somehow the Christopher I was thinking about on Saturday meant so much more than the Christ offer I used to make in those bygone days.

I have been paying my own tribute to Hitch by listening to some of his famous debates. Some classic moments like these:

On the Catholic church: " They seem to have altered the popular ' no child left behind' to ' no child's behind left.' "

After a less than complimentary introduction of him from an MC at a debate: " Thanks for that introduction, which of all the introductions I have had in my life, is certainly the most.................(pause for dramatic effect) recent."

There was just nothing you could do with Hitch, not a moment that he ever appeared the slightest bit fazed in a debate.Yet, he could evoke an enormous degree of passion at any moment. Who could ever forget his many references to heaven as a 'Celestial North Korea'? There is a tinge of irony that Kim Jong Il, a man referenced so often by Hitch, died so soon after him. It would certainly have made for an interesting discussion between those two in the line up going to the 'Pearly Gates.'

Aside from all Hitch's brilliance though, I think it is something much more that is causing people to respond to him so emphatically after his death. It is the way he played out the last year of his life, the way he looked death in the face squarely and dealt with it. People of faith tend to face the threat of death by immediately seeking to get around it. They are like the student that begs the professor to grant an extension once he realises the assignment deadline is a tight one. Maybe, there are times such pleas are heard and leniency is granted but often valuable time is lost while going through the process of the appeal. Also, quite often even after the extra time, not much more work is produced. Scholars like Hitchens, don't spend time debating and  negotiating with the time the professor has set, they just put their heads down and get going, using the deadline as a spur to get the brain in gear and motor down the track. By the time others get their extension granted, Hitch has already finished two or three assignments. That's just his way and I think that's the way we all should roll.

Indeed, the way Hitch finished his life reminds me a lot of the way that we were told to finish races on the track at school. We were always told to run through the tape, make that lunge to the line with the torso, regardless of the effort we had expended before. It was not something that came automatically, it was tempting to cruise through the finish after a gruelling run, especially if you  thought you were well ahead or were on your way to capturing some kind of medal. Well, Hitch may have been a winner but he ran through the tape and threw everything he had as the finish line got closer. From the time he heard the bell he was off and away. The race is over for him now and he has plenty of time to rest. Sadly, he can't hear the applause now ringing for him around the stadium. At least we in the crowd can take heart, knowing that if we all take his example and run with it, reason will win out one day.

Interview with Hitchens: The questions give you all the answers

It was a sad sight to see Christopher Hitchens a shadow of his former self on CNN a few nights ago. Yet, it was an inspiration to see a man leaning on reason rather than prayer to get him through his cancer. Ironically he seemed to be dealing with the issue of his mortality and possible death in the near future with indeed much grace and perhaps more peace than many who claim to be convinced that a world of eternal bliss lies before them. Maybe this is the advantage of living a life in reality, you can spend your life preparing for the moment that you will be no more. When your moment comes you have played the scenario in your mind many times and is not a time to paralyse you with fear. There is no feeling of, "Why me?" or "How does this fit into God's plan?" There is no deity to be angry at or disappointed in. You come to the conclusion that I am a part of nature and things in nature die, simple. I always find interviews like the one on AC 360 as fascinating for the questions asked as by the answers given. Many of the questions posed by Anderson Cooper spoke volumes. One or two really resonated with me.

"So you don't pray at all?" Anderson asked. I thought this was a truly remarkable question to ask a man that had dedicated his entire life to fiercely promoting reason and the elimination of the supernatural ideas. The author of " God is not Great." Did Cooper think that this was all a facade? It was as if he thought this was his great moment of investigative journalism. He could get Christopher to admit something at his darkest hour. Maybe an " Ok, ok you got me I do say an itsy bitsy prayer but only once or twice a month." I have played this question over and over in my head and the only conclusion I can come to is that Cooper thinks that Hitchens might be a closet theist. Well, if Hitchens is a theist, who among us can be atheist? There is of course the cliche that there are no atheists in foxholes. But Cooper's question suggests that he thinks there are no atheists. No atheists full-stop.

Yes, it must mean that he thinks everybody deep down knows there is a God there, it's just an attempt to deny. The books, the speeches, the debates, the blogs, all a cover, an atheist's attempt to convince himself by repetition. If you say "God is not Great" enough times maybe you'll start to believe it. This is all in spite of the fact that not only Hitchens, but several writers, bloggers and speakers are at pains in everything they say or publish to show step by step how they have reached their position by a rigorous process of logic. They don't just say we used reason and that's it. They always show the process, sometimes making it painstakingly simple. Even after that , the theist is inevitably invited to criticise the logic and point out any flaws that might have been overlooked. Invariably no logical objections are forthcoming. Yet, the theist continues to ask questions which clearly show that they don't think that the conclusion that the atheist says he came to is what his conclusion really was. But why would you go through the hard logic and reasoning process and then toss out the conclusion you come to? Unless of course, you really weren't interested in logic in the first place. That is the key, many persons of faith don't believe in using logic to reach such conclusions. They reason that if they don't atheists don't either. They think that atheists are just using logic to appear to bolster their preconceived beliefs, so they never bother to explore the atheists' arguments seriously. Talk about the man in the mirror.

This idea of emotional appeal came up also in the interview opening, when Cooper said. " Many are wondering if Hitchens' diagnosis would have changed his belief in God." Again a curious question, at least from an atheist's perspective. Why would an ailment that you are suffering from affect things you have discovered in the world through  reasoning ? It would be like someone asking you what was 2+2 when you were robust and healthy and getting the answer '4'. Then as you are on your death bed the same person comes up to you taunting you by saying , " So do you still think 2+2 = 4 now?"
Many theists really don't get the fact that for an atheist, you arrive at the conclusion 'there is no God' by the same process that you arrive at the conclusion that 2+2 =4. Emotion in no way factors into the decision. The only way you can expect illness to effect a person's belief in god is if you considered that emotion does or should play a part in making a judgement on reality. More and more the questions show that the general theist perspective is that questions about the reality of the universe cannot be studied without regard to emotional implications. That's the only conclusion I can come to. Of course in most debates believers never state that their beliefs are based on emotion even if they admit faith makes them happy. They always start out with the assertion that the belief is real. The other benefits come later and are a consequence of having faith, not the cause. When you analyse the questions Christian's ask and how they phrase them it's clear that they believe the opposite. I am now learning that the answers or the truth of what people think is really contained in the questions they ask. If you assess them you can really learn everything about what they think. You never actually need to ask them any questions. You just need to listen to how they question you.

Oh yes, believers, as amazing as it may seem atheists actually do sincerely believe what they profess. When I think about it that's a strange concept to grasp in a world where what you think and what you say rarely seem to coincide. One last comment on the interview.  The idea was presented  that surely at a time like this Hitch should be hedging his bet on whether there is a God or not. Yes, as much as I have heard all the many objections by atheists, Pascal's Wager does remain the apologetic of choice for many Christians. It is a weird thing that so many Christians say they would rather believe in a God and be wrong than not believe and be wrong. Surely that statement suggests they have some doubts. Are they saying they really don't KNOW that they redeemer liveth? Why would you have to bet on a horse that everybody already knows won the race? They really put themselves in Catch 22 situation with this type of reasoning or should I say Hitch 22.