Christopher Hitchens was one of
the "four horsemen" of New Atheism, along with Richard Dawkins, Sam
Harris and Daniel Dennett. He died in 2011 at the age of sixty-two after a
battle with cancer and during his terminal eighteen months he remained as steadfast to his conviction as
ever, that there is no God and he had no afterlife to look forward to, at least
publicly, see:
http://hpanwo-voice.blogspot.co.uk/2011/12/christopher-hitchens-dies.html.
He is mourned by millions of admirers around the world. Fellow atheists like
the comedian Stephen Fry and author Richard Dawkins delivered moving tributes
to their late colleague and friend; Dawkins said:
"He was one of the greatest orators of all time. He was a
polymath, a wit, immensely knowledgeable and a valiant fighter against all
tyrants including imaginary supernatural ones." However a new obituary
has just emerged that is as affectionate as all the others, however it portrays
the departed in a very different light and it has aroused enormous controversy
and resentment from Hitchens' other fans.
The
Faith of Christopher Hitchens- the Restless Soul of the World’s Most Notorious
Atheist was published in February 2016 and it is written by Larry Alex Taunton,
a famous Christian journalist and broadcaster from Alabama USA. As somebody who
was always enthralled by Hitchens, I was intrigued by this superficially
preposterous title. I knew I had to read that book to find out. The author
details his first meeting with Hitchens as a flashback from his funeral. He was
expecting a fire-breathing "atheist jihadist" who would brawl with
him in the hotel lobby, but instead came across a witty, funny and genial
character whom he immediately warmed to. The two of them got to know each other
when they were on stage as opponents during one of Hitchens' textbook public
debates. They got on well and ended up spending a lot of time together, at one
point driving on several day-long trip through the beautiful
Yellowstone
national park. As they drove they discussed the Gospel according to
St John. The book begins with the author making similar
observations of Hitchens' personality that many others have, indicating that
the two men did know each other and were close, contradicting what many others
have claimed. Indeed, some of the people invited to Hitchens' funeral were not
people who liked him. Larry Taunton also had a low opinion of some of the
mourners. Lawrence Krauss, whom he was appearing on the same TV programme with
in 2016, see below, he describes as a "smarmy little physicist". The
funeral was
"a celebration of
misanthropy and excesses of every kind!" the author laments. His
summary of Christopher Hitchens' life is very different from Hitchens' own; he
regards his friend as "self-obsessed" and "always his own
favourite". Hitchens hated authority generally, a theme that recurs in the
book. For Hitchens' traditional English public school education, this authority
was essentially embodied in the church. He was seduced by Marxism, like many educated
youths, and describes the intoxicating feeling it gave him, of being in the
driving seat of history. He truly believed that he had the power to change the
world. He did not believe in God or Heaven so he would create Heaven here on
Earth. However he kept "two sets of books" indicating that he did
have divisions within himself, a public persona and a private self; the latter
he kept carefully concealed. The suicide of his mother drove him even more against
religion. She took her own life in a suicide pact with the leader of a cult she
had joined. He loved her and had been very close to her, but was at the same
time angry with her for keeping the secret that she, and therefore her
children, were Jewish. Interestingly, Christopher's brother Peter was
completely different; he initially joined Christopher in Marxist activism and
atheism, but then became a Christian. Today Peter Hitchens is a top palaeoconservative
Christian journalist.
Taunton's book has a whole chapter on the relationship between the
Hitchens brothers. When 9/11 happened it changed Christopher Hitchens' life
forever. His worldview was shaken from top to bottom; not least because of what
he saw as the weak and distorted reaction by his comrades on the political left.
This is well-documented by Hitchens himself, however
Taunton believes that he began to question his antitheism as well,
at least when it comes to Christianity. Perhaps this was because of the
perceived threat of Islam. This is an extraordinary claim that makes no initial
sense; because it was
after 9/11 that
Hitchens became best known as an atheo-skeptic polemicist against Christianity
as much as Islam. It gave him a sense of patriotism similar to that of his
father, a Royal Navy World War II veteran. It gave his life a mission. He
became a fellow traveller in the ascendant neoconservative moment. He also
wrote his most famous atheist book
God is
Not Great. If he really was "keeping two books", in the second
one did he really have doubts about God's absence? Was his debate tour with
evangelicals a form of projection? When he said "I'll debate you believers
any time any place any where!" was this a manifestation of a conflict
within his own heart? In fact a
New York critic called Hitchens' book "the angriest of all the
New Atheist bestsellers." but who was Christopher Hitchens really angry
at? Being an ardent anti-religious disputant also allowed him covering fire
when it came to his atheist friends whom he wanted to keep his new feelings
secret from. According to
Taunton, Hitchens had no problem with genuine Christian believers.
His real antipathy was for individuals and institutions who privately reject
what they profess while dispassionately continue to take money from their
flock; for example Al Sharpton, the Roman Catholic Church, and the Greek and
Russian orthodox churches. He had a similar attitude to his political
opponents. Hitchens' morality was very intuitively sourced, such as the chapter
in his book about pigs and his dislike of abortion. This is far more like a
spiritual person than an atheist. Despite the protestations of the humanist
movement, see:
http://hpanwo-tv.blogspot.co.uk/2016/05/andrew-copson-at-greenwich-sitp.html,
atheist morality is deeply pragmatic, cold and synthetic. A good example is
when an expectant mother wrote to Richard Dawkins and told him she was
expecting a baby with Down's syndrome and asked his advice, Dawkins simply
replied: "Terminate it and try again." Hitchens interestingly
revealed to
Taunton privately that he had never even read
The God Delusion. One of the most moving scenes in the book is
where Hitchens has a conversation with
Taunton's adopted daughter. A ten year old orphan from
Ukraine called Sacha. Both her parents have died, she has brain
damage, is HIV positive and has lost most of her teeth. Hitchens once said that
it was human suffering that convinced him that God could not possibly exist;
his friend Stephen Fry said the same. Sacha was a girl who had suffered in the single
the short decade of her life more than most people do in their
three score years and ten. She lost her mother, father and health, yet
she smiled as she greeted her adopted father's friend. She told him "God
is there, and He hears us." For the first time ever, the great orator and
contrarian was totally speechless. Christopher Hitchens' favourite song is
Higher Love by Steve Winwood, it was
played at his funeral; but never before had he realized that such a love
existed. There were many more bonding events between the two men. At one point
Hitchens was with some atheist friends in a pub when
Taunton walked in and one of the atheists almost snarled
"There's a Christian standing behind you!" Hitchens responded by
saying to them: "Mr Taunton is my friend!" and walked out. When
Hitchens was diagnosed with oesophageal cancer
Taunton was one of the first people he called. He was devastated
and terrified; he begged his friend not to tell his family yet. They went on
their long road trips and had the long private discussions I mentioned; also
they did a live debate, see:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=obycPvu5fro.
At the end of the event
Taunton was disappointed with the audience. The supporters on both
sides didn't really understand the nature of the debate. They just
congratulated their hero on how well he had "beat the enemy!" When
they say a warm farewell they both have a feeling that they'll never meet
again. Larry Taunton was informed by text message that Christopher Hitchens was
dead. This message included a request to do an interview about it on Sky TV.
Taunton reported that Christopher Hitchens was not an atheist extremist
towards the end. Despite the harsh epithets the atheo-skeptics have leveled at
Taunton, the author does not claim that Hitchens became a born
again Christian. He calls Hitchens a "searcher", and of all his eulogies
at his funeral, only Ian McEwan's understood that. When a man is faced with his
own mortality, it does change the way we think. What Hitchens says to
Taunton, according to the book, does not sound like the ravings of
somebody in the delirium of dying. The book ends with Larry Taunton's
speculation about his late friend's real feelings when it came to the eternal
and infinite.
Taunton compares this to the famous deathbed conversation between
David Hume and James Boswell, see background links below. What would have
happened if Christopher Hitchens had lived?
Taunton also chastises the rest of the atheist community,
especially Richard Dawkins, for what he sees as an appropriation of Hitchens
final public appearance. They selfishly forced him into being a martyr to their
cause. This thorny issue is written about professionally and rationally. See:
https://www.amazon.com/Faith-Christopher-Hitchens-Restless-Notorious/dp/0718022173.
The reaction to the book from the
atheo-skeptic community has been outrage. They have given
The Faith of Christopher Hitchens some of the worst book reviews I
have ever read. Nick Cohen calls the author
"A particular species of creep... a true fanatic who has
never learned when to seize a golden opportunity to hold his tongue.", see:
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/jun/04/deathbed-conversion-christopher-hitchens-defiant-to-last.
Matthew D'Ancona is slightly more reasonable and says:
"There is so much wrong with this book that one hardly knows where
to start...", see:
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/may/29/christopher-hitchens-christian-conversion-book.
BBC's
Newsnight programme interviewed
Larry Taunton in May 2016. After
Taunton's interview Lawrence Krauss appears; he's another atheist
and close friend of Hitchens. Krauss refused to speak to
Taunton on the air and only agreed to participate if he and
Taunton were broadcast separately. Both Krauss and the interviewer
suggest that
Taunton is lying just to get rich by flogging a few books. Richard
Dawkins says similar things about Alister McGrath and his other detractors.
It's interesting that atheo-skeptics make these assumptions so glibly and
thoughtlessly. When Dawkins wrote
The God
Delusion everybody declares that he "wanted to educate the world!".
So, anybody who writes a book supporting atheo-skepticism apparently has
equally noble motives. If you write a book
disagreeing
with atheo-skepticism then you're just an insincere literary grave-robber
trying to make yourself a few quid. This preconception is invariable and never scrutinized.
Dawkins has said about McGrath:
"Alister
McGrath has now published two books with my name in the title... a professor of
theology is building a career riding on my back? It is tempting to quote Yeats:
'Was there ever dog that praised his fleas?'." This is a
narrow-minded, cynical and intellectually dishonest. Prof. McGrath has written
some books
disagreeing with Dawkins,
books which even when all put together have sold far less than
The God Delusion. Does Dawkins think
there's a law against that? What does Prof. Dawkins consider a legitimate
medium of criticism of his works, may I ask? Krauss begins with this same rhetoric. He also
pointed out how disgusted Hitchens' widow Carol Blue was about the book. As I
explain in the background links below, people are continuously using rhetoric
in a debate and substituting it for a logical argument without even
understanding the difference. Dawkins and Krauss are as ignorant as all the
others regarding that. Krauss also denies that
Taunton and Hitchens were even friends. According to him, Hitchens
only ever saw
Taunton on paid assignments and that he last saw Hitchens over a
year before he died. This doesn't accord with the tone of the dialogue in the
book, nor with all the recorded facts. Christopher Hitchens was famous for
being very polite and friendly with people in a personal setting, even after
he'd just eviscerated them on stage in front of the TV cameras. He was also
very academically curious about religion. He loved robust conversation and had
many close friends who had different views to himself. Did
Taunton mistake his civility and curiosity for a conversion? See:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SQDXcobRbnU.
Another YouTuber also indulges himself at the start of his "point-by-point
breakdown" of an interview with Larry Taunton on a Christian radio show
saying:
"There's something almost
physically sickening about the idea of a religious opportunist publishing a
book... Listen to these hyenas laughing it up!" He does make a crucial
point though; Hitchens himself warned people in advance that if rumours came
out after his death about a religious conversion at the last minute then they
should not believe it. These were either lies or that his brain had become
addled by his death throes, see:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q4cPe_YS8i8.
Taunton scolded him for that afterwards; and, as I said above, his
discourse with
Taunton sounds perfectly
compos
mentis to me. However, why didn't Hitchens reveal his emergent religious
beliefs to his wife? (There are a lot of MBA statements in this video too):
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yFsfZqhkV3A.
I doubt whether Lawrence Krauss or "TheWeekInDoubt" have read
The Faith of Christopher Hitchens. They
have probably just read a synopsis and invented without knowing what the rest
of it says. Nobody is immune to emotional revulsion when faced with their iconoclasts.
Hitchens was regarded as a hero for atheists all over the world, especially in
the
USA where public atheism can still relegate you to a social
underclass. The notion that their mentor was not as ideologically pure as they
always believed could be so unpalatable as to cause instinctive distaste. The
fact that Hitchens has passed on makes the perceived slander even worse,
speaking ill of the dead. However
Taunton's book treats the subject respectfully and kindly. There's
no doubt the author loved Hitchens and wants to portray him approvingly. The
scene in which the two of them take a long drive and have a deep theological
discussion also sounds very authentic with a genuine rapport. The sad and
obvious fact is that
Taunton's assessment of Christopher Hitchens' beliefs is unfalsifiable.
Only one man can confirm or deny whether the book is true or false, and he is
no longer with us. This does not justify the atheo-skeptics' dismissal of it,
nor their personal public derision of Larry Taunton, as I explain above. They
are lashing out at somebody because he's saying something they don't like.
Based on Hitchens' words alone, I would never have considered him a candidate
for being born again... but I didn't know him personally. When it comes to the
opposing worlds of atheism and religious belief, both sides recruit converts
from the other. Derren Brown, Julia Sweeney and Matt Dillahunty are all former
Christian believers who became prominent atheists. They are lavished with
praise by the Dawkinsian clique. Yet they pass plenty of people on the road
driving the opposite way, for whom there is considerably less approval. The
aforementioned Alister McGrath for example. The best known of these ex-atheists
is CS Lewis. As a young man, Lewis once wrote:
"The general impression is that other religions are a mere farrago
of nonsense, but our own is true. My impression is that all religion is utterly
false... The day I dropped my faith was a day of greatest relief." He
also talks of his prayers in the trenches where he fought in the Great War and
how he felt stupid, like he was talking to nobody. Yet in 1929 he began attending
the services at his
Oxford college chapel and his writings leave no doubt he was
undergoing a very profound spiritual awakening. He went on to be the world's
foremost Christian apologist. If CS Lewis can change his mind about God,
anybody can. Why shouldn't Christopher
Hitchens? It's a shame we will never know, not only if Larry Taunton was right
about Hitchens, but what Hitchens would have said and done next if he had lived. One
thing is for sure, and
Taunton makes this point in the book, the atheo-skeptic community
would not have taken kindly to such a high-profile defection. Christopher
Hitchens would have found yet another group of people from which to be
denounced as a pariah... But has that ever stopped him before?
