• Welcome! The TrekBBS is the number one place to chat about Star Trek with like-minded fans.
    If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Goodbye Christopher Hitchens

siskokid888

Fleet Captain
Fleet Captain
Warrior for rationality, unbelievably intelligent and erudite, massive wit and talent. A way with words that will be compared to the best ever. I vehemently disagreed with his stance on Bush and the Iraq war, but he was so good he could make it sound almost reasonable. We are much poorer today as a species with his passing.

And he could drink like hell!

As someone else eloquently stated:

"Goodbye, you magnificent bastard"

:weep:
 
May the Lord have mercy on his soul.

If there is a god, may The Hitch have mercy on IT. :p

I read Hitchens while I was leaving religion, He seemed a bit too angry most of the time, but I admired him for having himself waterboarded after he'd said it wasn't torture -- and later admitting that if waterboarding isn't torture, nothing is. He also stood up to death rather admirably, I thought.
 
I will miss him.

+1

Remarkably intelligent, who delighted in channeling that to make elegantly sweeping statements backed up with a certain ferocity that had to be respected. Whether on the left as in his earlier work or on the right as in recent years, he's always supported his positions with 100% conviction (it's just the positions that changed!).

That unwavering conviction was always his greatest weakness (he'd say, strength), but my goodness, it was entertaining to see him using any and all arguments to support them. :D

His brother Peter writes for The Telegraph and is a competent columnist, but Christopher had flair. As if to underline the point I was making about conviction, Peter wrote today:

Christopher describes how at the age of nine he concluded that his teacher’s claim that the world must be designed was wrong. "I simply knew, almost as if I had privileged access to a higher authority, that my teacher had managed to get everything wrong."

At the time of this revelation, he knew nothing of the vast, unending argument between those who maintain that the shape of the world is evidence of design, and those who say the same world is evidence of random, undirected natural selection. It’s my view that he still doesn’t know all that much about this interesting dispute. Yet at the age of nine, he "simply knew" who had won one of the oldest debates in the history of mankind.
 
His brother Peter writes for The Telegraph and is a competent columnist, but Christopher had flair. As if to underline the point I was making about conviction, Peter wrote today:

Christopher describes how at the age of nine he concluded that his teacher’s claim that the world must be designed was wrong. "I simply knew, almost as if I had privileged access to a higher authority, that my teacher had managed to get everything wrong."

At the time of this revelation, he knew nothing of the vast, unending argument between those who maintain that the shape of the world is evidence of design, and those who say the same world is evidence of random, undirected natural selection. It’s my view that he still doesn’t know all that much about this interesting dispute. Yet at the age of nine, he "simply knew" who had won one of the oldest debates in the history of mankind.

A wry remembrance from Peter (though that edifying little anecdote does, of course, come straight from his brother's opening chapter of "God Is Not Great") -- and laced with more than a hint of moral indignation, no doubt -- that expresses some measure of envy and admiration for the tenacity that always accompanied Christopher Hitchens and his steely-sharp intellect. Unfortunately, that slightly haughty tone that Peter invariably uses (to say nothing -- pro or con -- about any of his beliefs), inevitably reveals, to me, he will always be "beta" to Christopher's "alpha". I also take umbrage with Peter's phrasing. "Natural selection" is neither random nor undirected. Blind, perhaps, but guided by the laws of physics all the same. Saying or implying otherwise is the raw material for a classic strawman religiously-inculcated people always (over-obligingly) supply when the "debate" about evolution (reality) versus mysticism (fantasy) comes up. Just doing my bit. Anyway, I already miss Hitch greatly. He's one of my heroes and I always hoped to meet him one day. But I'll always have his books and videos; and so will everyone else. A stupendously fine man, much too soon departed. RIP, Hitch.
 
To employ the notion that any process in nature is "guided" in any way is simply to misconstrue the linguistic idiosyncrasy that results in our using the term "law" with reference to both human creations and scientific observation. Nothing in nature is "guided" by anything any more than it is "created" by anything.
 
To employ the notion that any process in nature is "guided" in any way is simply to misconstrue the linguistic idiosyncrasy that results in our using the term "law" with reference to both human creations and scientific observation. Nothing in nature is "guided" by anything any more than it is "created" by anything.

Fair point. And not. I did say "guided by the laws of physics". In other words, I qualified what I said. Laws themselves don't guide, do they? There is an obvious limitation in linguistics that you don't need to point out when it has been implicitly accounted for (to the best of one's ability, at least) by a given interlocutor. Nevertheless, to ease your pedantry, I will concede that "shaped" is probably a better word. That said, words are imprecise by, er, nature, and it is hard to avoid anthropomorphizing nature, at times. I know he does it to communicate across big divides in understanding and to sell books, but Richard Dawkins has spoken about evolutionary processes and outcomes under books headed, amongst others, "The Selfish Gene" and "The Blind Watchmaker". Maybe that's a bit of a special plead on my part, but what I was saying, or attempting to say, before, is that anyone who characterizes the rational model of the world as describing, containing or owing to "random, undirected national selection" is in error, and almost certainly has an agenda, to boot. Granted, that is not quite what Peter Hitchens said, but near enough.

Indeed, what he actually said was, and is, rife with contradiction:

At the time of this revelation, he knew nothing of the vast, unending argument between those who maintain that the shape of the world is evidence of design, and those who say the same world is evidence of random, undirected natural selection.
For one, he describes two separate things: arguing for a creationist account, he uses the term, "the shape of the world"; arguing against evolution, he introduces a second term, "the same world". Which is it, then, that he is ultimately stating to be the domain of reality which either creationism or evolution circumscribe? The shape of the world? Or the world? "Random, undirected natural selection" is also, in fact, a contradiction in terms. If something is "natural" and if "selection" is occurring, it can't also be "random" or "undirected". Does not compute.

Lastly, there's this:

It’s my view that he still doesn’t know all that much about this interesting dispute. Yet at the age of nine, he "simply knew" who had won one of the oldest debates in the history of mankind.
I'm not sure, at this late hour in the history of civilization and onward voyage of science and empiricism, if the dispute remains an "interesting" one. If the dispute hasn't yet become politicized, obstructive, dangerous and pathetic, then it's certainly already tedious, banal, sad and idiotic. There are interesting disputes to be had where our knowledge and understanding is fuzzy and weak, but this topic isn't one of them. I am not sure it makes for "one of the oldest debates in the history of mankind", either. I suppose, on some levels, it is, but I think a lot of old debates assumed God, or a god or gods, existed, and pivoted around notions of sexuality and civic duty. When this debate became heightened in the last century, it had already been settled. Shame that a lot of people can't or won't get the memo.

* * *

And to swing this back round to Christopher Hitchens -- and not his preening, butthurt brother -- I end with this:

Burning bush vs. the Hubble Space Telescope (specifically: Ultra-Deep Field imagery)

I know which one is more stirring and so did Christopher. Apparently, Peter is Bronze Age, while his brother happened to keep his wits about him and remember which era he was living in. This is the real battle we're facing -- the one Christopher so brilliantly wrote and spoke about; and effectively dedicated his life to.
 
Last edited:
Who?

And no, I'm not gonna google him

Then this should help:

Wiki said:
Christopher Eric Hitchens (13 April 1949 – 15 December 2011) was an English[7] author and journalist[8] whose books, essays, and journalistic career spanned more than four decades.



He was a columnist and literary critic at The Atlantic, Vanity Fair, Slate, World Affairs, The Nation, Free Inquiry, and became a media fellow at the Hoover Institution in September 2008.[9] He was a staple of talk shows and lecture circuits and in 2005 was voted the world's fifth top public intellectual in a Prospect/Foreign Policy poll.[10][11]
Hitchens was known for his admiration of George Orwell, Thomas Paine, and Thomas Jefferson and for his excoriating critiques of, among others, Mother Teresa,[12] Bill and Hillary Clinton, and Henry Kissinger. His confrontational style of debate made him both a lauded and controversial figure.



As a political observer, polemicist and self-defined radical, he rose to prominence as a fixture of the left-wing publications in his native Britain and in the United States. His departure from the established political left began in 1989 after what he called the "tepid reaction" of the Western left following Ayatollah Khomeini's issue of a fatwā calling for the murder of Salman Rushdie. The September 11 attacks strengthened his internationalist embrace of an interventionist foreign policy, and his vociferous criticism of what he called "fascism with an Islamic face." His numerous editorials in support of the Iraq War caused some to label him a neoconservative, although Hitchens insisted he was not "a conservative of any kind."[13]


Identified as a champion of the "New Atheism" movement, Hitchens described himself as an antitheist and a believer in the philosophical values of the Enlightenment. Hitchens said that a person "could be an atheist and wish that belief in god were correct," but that "an antitheist, a term I'm trying to get into circulation, is someone who is relieved that there's no evidence for such an assertion."[14] He argued that the concept of god or a supreme being is a totalitarian belief that destroys individual freedom, and that free expression and scientific discovery should replace religion as a means of teaching ethics and defining human civilization. He wrote at length on atheism and the nature of religion in his 2007 book God Is Not Great.


Though Hitchens retained his British citizenship, he became a United States citizen on the steps of the Jefferson Memorial on 13 April 2007, his 58th birthday.[15] Asteroid 57901 is named after him.[16] His memoir, Hitch-22, was published in June 2010.[17] Touring for the book was cut short later the same month so that he could begin treatment for newly diagnosed esophageal cancer.[18] On 15 December 2011, Christopher Hitchens died from pneumonia, a complication of his cancer, in the MD Anderson Cancer Center in Houston, Texas.[19]



He was an amazing man, a brilliant writer, a master of confrontation, a gentleman, a provocateur, and a person of great wit and wisdom. He will be missed.
 
He was an amazing man, a brilliant writer, a master of confrontation, a gentleman, a provocateur, and a person of great wit and wisdom. He will be missed.

Y'know, there's not really any given set of words that can rightly sum up an individual or their true worth, but I doubt a finer set of words could be summoned or more finely arranged than you have just done so in tribute to this wonderful human being. They are a true comfort. Thank you, "Santa" -- you've earned your festive moniker with that post, as far as I'm concerned! :)
 
I'm sure Peter's going to be upset about this. :(

This, for the record, is Peter's rather beautiful, and I guess you would call it, eulogy:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/a...moriam-courageous-sibling-Peter-Hitchens.html

(NOTE: I do recommend clicking the link and reading it at the source. There are some well-chosen pictures poignantly interwoven with the text.).

In Memoriam, my courageous brother Christopher, 1949-2011

By Peter Hitchens

Last updated at 7:40 PM on 16th December 2011

How odd it is to hear of your own brother’s death on an early morning radio bulletin. How odd it is for a private loss to be a public event.

I wouldn’t normally dream of writing about such a thing here, and I doubt if many people would expect me to. It is made even odder by the fact that I am a minor celebrity myself. And that the, ah, complex relationship between me and my brother has been public property.

I have this morning turned down three invitations to talk on the radio about my brother. I had a powerful feeling that it would be wrong to do so, not immediately explicable but strong enough to persuade me to say a polite ‘no thank you’.

And I have spent most of the day so far responding, with regrettable brevity, to the many kind and thoughtful expressions of sympathy that I have received, some from complete strangers.

Many more such messages are arriving as comments here. My thanks for all of them. They are much appreciated not only by me but by my brother’s family.

Much of civilisation rests on the proper response to death, simple unalloyed kindness, the desire to show sympathy for irrecoverable loss, the understanding that a unique and irreplaceable something has been lost to us. If we ceased to care, we wouldn’t be properly human.

So, odd as it would be if this were a wholly private matter, I think it would be strange if I did not post something here, partly to thank the many who have sent their kind wishes and expressed their sympathy, and partly to provide my first raw attempt at a eulogy for my closest living relative, someone who in many ways I have known better – and certainly longer - than anyone else alive.

It is certainly raw. Last week I saw my brother for the last time in a fairly grim hospital room in Houston, Texas. He was in great pain, and suffering in several other ways I will not describe. But he was wholly conscious and in command of his wits, and able to speak clearly.

We both knew it was the last time we would see each other, though being Englishmen of a certain generation, neither of us would have dreamed of actually saying so. We parted on good terms, though our conversation had been (as had our e-mail correspondence for some months) cautious and confined to subjects that would not easily lead to conflict. In this I think we were a little like chess-players, working out many possible moves in advance, neither of us wanting any more quarrels of any kind.

At one stage – and I am so sad this never happened – he wrote to me saying he hoped for a ‘soft landing’ (code, I think for abandoning any further attempts to combat his disease) and to go home to his beautiful apartment in Washington DC.

There, he suggested, we could go through his bookshelves, as there were some books and other possessions he wanted me to have. I couldn’t have cared less about these things, but I had greatly hoped to have that conversation, which would have been a particularly good way of saying farewell.

But alas, it never happened. He never went home and now never will. Never, there it is, that inflexible word that trails close behind that other non-negotiable syllable, death. Even so, we did what we could in Houston, as the doctors, the nurses, the cleaners, and who knows who else, bustled in and out.

I forgot, till I left, that I was wearing a ludicrous surgical mask and gown, and surgical gloves (I am still not sure whose benefit this was for, but it was obligatory) all the time I was sitting there, and – this is extraordinary – time seemed to me to pass incredibly swiftly in that room. I was shocked when the moment came to leave for the airport, that it had come so soon.

Here’s a thing I will say now without hesitation, unqualified and important. The one word that comes to mind when I think of my brother is ‘courage’. By this I don’t mean the lack of fear which some people have, which enables them to do very dangerous or frightening things because they have no idea what it is to be afraid. I mean a courage which overcomes real fear, while actually experiencing it.

I don’t have much of this myself, so I recognise it (and envy it) in others. I have a memory which I cannot place precisely in time, of the two of us scrambling on a high rooftop, the sort of crazy escapade that boys of our generation still went on, where we should not have been.

A moment came when, unable to climb back over the steep slates, the only way down was to jump over a high gap on to a narrow ledge. I couldn’t do it. He used his own courage (the real thing can always communicate itself to others) to show me, and persuade me, that I could.

I’d add here that he was for a while an enthusiastic rock climber, something I could never do, and something which people who have come to know him recently would not be likely to guess.

He would always rather fight than give way, not for its own sake but because it came naturally to him. Like me, he was small for his age during his entire childhood and I have another memory of him, white-faced, slight and thin as we all were in those more austere times, furious, standing up to some bully or other in the playground of a school we attended at the same time.

This explains plenty. I offer it because the word ‘courage’ is often misused today. People sometimes tell me that I have been ‘courageous’ to say something moderately controversial in a public place. Not a bit of it. This is not courage. Courage is deliberately taking a known risk, sometimes physical, sometimes to your livelihood, because you think it is too important not to.

My brother possessed this virtue to the very end, and if I often disagreed with the purposes for which he used it, I never doubted the quality or ceased to admire it. I’ve mentioned here before C.S.Lewis’s statement that courage is the supreme virtue, making all the others possible. It should be praised and celebrated, and is the thing I‘d most wish to remember.

We got on surprisingly well in the past few months, better than for about 50 years as it happens. At such times one tends to remember childhood more clearly than at others, though I have always had a remarkably clear memory of much of mine. I am still baffled by how far we both came, in our different ways, from the small, quiet, shabby world of chilly, sombre rented houses and austere boarding schools, of battered and declining naval seaports, not specially cultured, not book-lined or literary or showy but plain, dutiful and unassuming, we took the courses we did.

Two pieces of verse come to mind, one from Hilaire Belloc’s ’Dedicatory Ode’

‘From quiet homes and first beginnings, out to the undiscovered ends, there’s nothing worth the wear of winning but laughter and the love of friends’

I have always found this passage unexpectedly moving because of something that lies beneath the words, good and largely true though they are. When I hear it, I see in my mind’s eye a narrow, half-lit entrance hall with a slowly-ticking clock in it, and a half-open door beyond which somebody is waiting for news of a child who long ago left home.

And T.S.Eliot’s ‘Little Gidding’ (one of the Four Quartets)

‘We shall not cease from exploration
And the end of all our exploring
Will be to arrive where we started
And know the place for the first time’

These words I love because I have found them to be increasingly and powerfully true. In my beginning, as Eliot wrote elsewhere in the Quartets, is my end. Alpha et Omega.
 
Hitchens has been an eloquent writer but I never cared much for his polemic attacks. Lot of style, little substance.
Furthermore I neither care for communists or neo-conservatives. We had a guy over here who also changed from the radical left to the radical right. First he was a left-wing terrorist, then he was a nazi.

Being a hardcore materialist myself I can recommend Hedges' "I Don't Believe in Atheists" to anybody who admires Hitchens' crude form of atheism.
People who read religion too literally end up as fundamentalists or Hitchens/Dawkins style atheists. The "dinosaurs in the Garden of Eden" folks are the mirror of the "God does not exist" crowd, both ignore the actual content of faith.
We would be much poorer as a species if we had not made the jump from paganism to monotheism a few thousand years ago. To ridicule monotheism or to dogmatize it into some kind of pseudo-science totally misses its point.
 
Hitchens has been an eloquent writer but I never cared much for his polemic attacks. Lot of style, little substance.
Furthermore I neither care for communists or neo-conservatives. We had a guy over here who also changed from the radical left to the radical right. First he was a left-wing terrorist, then he was a nazi.

Being a hardcore materialist myself I can recommend Hedges' "I Don't Believe in Atheists" to anybody who admires Hitchens' crude form of atheism.
People who read religion too literally end up as fundamentalists or Hitchens/Dawkins style atheists. The "dinosaurs in the Garden of Eden" folks are the mirror of the "God does not exist" crowd, both ignore the actual content of faith.
We would be much poorer as a species if we had not made the jump from paganism to monotheism a few thousand years ago. To ridicule monotheism or to dogmatize it into some kind of pseudo-science totally misses its point.

Not necessarily. Firstly, Hitchens was style AND substance. His arguments were usually well formed and in depth, though he certainly made missteps in his life, but that's just being human. Religion is a double edged sword. It can be used to unite people under a banner of social order, but it can also shear away fundamental human principles when confronted with different ideas. I believe religion requires too high a price for what it gives in return, and has, throughout history, caused as many problems as it has purported to solve.
 
His attacks on Mother Theresa and Clinton were juvenile, writing about Kissinger's war crimes while supporting the Iraq war is utterly inconsistent and he provided no actual insights into religion.
In other words, a fine and eloquent (an Oxford education has to be good for something) polemicist but certainly not an intellectual.
 
If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Sign up / Register


Back
Top