Hitchens Dying Days Reading G. K. Chesterton

[djeter]

http://payingattentiontothesky.files.wordpress.com/2013/01/chestertonandhitch.jpg?w=450

The enfant terrible of the New Atheism, Christopher Hitchens, spent his dying days in a Houston hospital reading G. K. Chesterton — not only the 750 pages of Ian Ker’s massive recent biography, but also an equivalent amount of GKC’s own poetry and prose. The novelist Ian McEwan, who was at Hitchens’ bedside before his death in December 2011, reports that they spoke of various writers: Theodore Dreiser, Robert Browning, Thomas Mann, George Orwell, Philip Larkin.

McEwan also reports that Hitchens died nobly and without complaint at age 62, though ravaged by esophageal cancer that deprived him of his most important gift: the spoken word. Yet there was no last-minute conversion. On the contrary, Hitchins seems never to have felt the sting of Dante Gabriel Rossetti’s aphorism that Chesterton often cited: “The worst moment for the atheist is when he is really thankful and has nobody to thank.” Gratitude to his wife and many friends seem to have sufficed for Hitchens.

He did, however launch a polemic against Chesterton that Ralph C. Wood takes up the gauntlet to answer. A series of four posts that refute Hitchens point by point. Great reading, hope you enjoy it

dj

 

[cornbread_r2]

Too bad a healthy Hitch isn’t around for a rebuttal.

 

[Della]

Hitchens’ attempts to disarm Chesterton’s genius and the truth he wrote puts me in mind of those who read the Church Fathers or the Bible merely to find fault with Catholic theology. Their bias blinds them to what is there and makes them see what isn’t there.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

Cornbread
**
Too bad a healthy Hitch isn’t around for a rebuttal. **

Hitchens had a penchant for unfairly attacking dead Christians like Chesterton and Mother Teresa. His published remarks about the latter show him to have been a deeply hateful person. Fortunately, nothing he said could have influenced the Nobel committee, who knew better. Whether he repented being an atheist on his deathbed is anybody’s guess. He would almost certainly have been too proud to admit that he did, and perhaps even unable to convey such an admission given his condition at the end.

 

[cornbread_r2]

Cornbread
**
Too bad a healthy Hitch isn’t around for a rebuttal. **

Hitchens had a penchant for unfairly attacking dead Christians like Chesterton and Mother Teresa. His published remarks about the latter show him to have been a deeply hateful person. Fortunately, nothing he said could have influenced the Nobel committee, who knew better. Whether he repented being an atheist on his deathbed is anybody’s guess. He would almost certainly have been too proud to admit that he did, and perhaps even unable to convey such an admission given his condition at the end.

Hitchens’s public criticism of Mother Teresa began with his 1994 television documentary Hell’s Angel which was broadcast three years before her death.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

cornbread
**
Hitchens’s public criticism of Mother Teresa began with his 1994 television documentary Hell’s Angel which was broadcast three years before her death. **

And he never stopped bad-mouthing her long after her death.

See his 2007 book, “god is not Great: How Religion Spoils Everything”

 

[Sair]

cornbread
**
Hitchens’s public criticism of Mother Teresa began with his 1994 television documentary Hell’s Angel which was broadcast three years before her death. **

And he never stopped bad-mouthing her long after her death.

See his 2007 book, “god is not Great: How Religion Spoils Everything”

‘Poisons’ everything, even.

And his criticism of Mother Theresa in that book was merely a summary of his previous criticisms, and an incorporation of them into his overall argument - he wasn’t adding any new charges for her to defend had she been able and inclined. And after all, if you genuinely believe a person acted reprehensibly during his/her life, there’s no reason, really, to avoid pointing this out just because the person is dead - just as there are plenty of people who continue to revile Hitchens (probably also with nothing new).

 

[Ion]

How can you disrespect Mother Teresa?
She was called by hindu godess of mercy.
I feel pity for this guy. Always trying to say something that would put him in the light of the reflectors. He did have clever arguments, but those are not going to nelp him now
“i’m a clever guy…use me somehow” Sorry men, you must be humble for this kind of help

 

[Charlemagne_II]

Sair

**And his criticism of Mother Theresa in that book was merely a summary of his previous criticisms, and an incorporation of them into his overall argument - he wasn’t adding any new charges for her to defend had she been able and inclined. And after all, if you genuinely believe a person acted reprehensibly during his/her life, there’s no reason, really, to avoid pointing this out just because the person is dead - just as there are plenty of people who continue to revile Hitchens (probably also with nothing new). **

This is true, the difference being that Mother Teresa did not deserve to be reviled, whereas the hateful Hitchens should indeed be taken to task, whether living or dead.

 

[Della]

It seems to me that the fruit of anyone’s life ought to be how we judge their efforts while on this earth. Hitchens, if he truly wanted to rid us of superstitions, probably meant well in that regard. The problem was he couldn’t distinquish between religion and superstition, and therein lay his great failure.

 

[Darryl1958]

In the wake of 9/11 and resurgence of political theology on the world scene, for Hitchens the greatest grievance he held against religion was the abuse of authority and the exploitation of fear that allows religious authorities to keep the believers under their control.

Few if any of the theists that debated him disagreed with him on those points. But of course for most of us theists, the abuses of theological dogma and ecclessiastical authority are an anathema to our morality and our faith too.

Hitchens remained singular in his insistence that power and abuse defined religion, and as such his arguments never really touched the reasons and nuances of religious belief in the modern world anyway.

He was one of the few people from the secular left that remained clear-headed in his thinking of religious abuses, and never allowed political correctness to through him off his game and start pandering to the myth of certain victimized religions. Ironically, his greatest platform was given to him via the religious right, who appreciated that someone existed among the secularists who at least partially broke free from the group think, the moral equivalency arguments, and the political correctness that have done so much to obscure the sources of evil in the world today.

 

[GKC]

It seems to me that the fruit of anyone’s life ought to be how we judge their efforts while on this earth. Hitchens, if he truly wanted to rid us of superstitions, probably meant well in that regard. The problem was he couldn’t distinquish between religion and superstition, and therein lay his great failure.

And there were certainly worst things he might have been reading, at the last, whatever the reason. As Lewis observed of the impact of reading folk like Chesterton, himself.

GKC

 

[tomarin]

Hitch was terribly over-rated, in my opinion.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

Darryl

Few if any of the theists that debated him disagreed with him on those points. But of course for most of us theists, the abuses of theological dogma and ecclessiastical authority are an anathema to our morality and our faith too.

That all comes with the territory. As Jesus prophesied, the wolves would get in among the sheep. But that says nothing against the true shepherds.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

Tomarin
**
Hitch was terribly over-rated, in my opinion. **

Indeed he was. He wrote a little book about Thomas Jefferson and forget to mention that Jefferson had strongly repudiated atheism in a letter to John Adams. How convenient!

 

[Della]

And there were certainly worst things he might have been reading, at the last, whatever the reason. As Lewis observed of the impact of reading folk like Chesterton, himself.

GKC

Certainly we cannot know what internal impact reading GKC had on him. I hope and pray it was one that disturbed his hatred against religion. When he actually faced Christ as he passed into the next life, we can hope he finally recognized his errors of thinking/believing and let go of whatever grudge he may have had against God. Perhaps he misunderstood obedience and authority and that was the center of his difficulty? Only God can know Mr. Hitchens’ fate, but we can most certainly pray for his eternal repose in happiness.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

Only God knows the state of mind Hitchens was in when he crossed over. We have no evidence that he repented. What we do know is the state of mind any normal person would be in … hoping for eternal life and thoroughly sorry for sins committed against God and others. Anyone who is not in that state of mind is really taking his chances. Was Hitchens such a fool?

 

[AugustSon]

I am NOT looking for debate, but I did want to comment on something here.

I read `god is not GREAT’… twice.

My impression is that though he did not disprove god, he did (in MY opinion) point out how religion CAN poison things. He had some valid points. From my reading, it was clear he was an… how does one say… angry person in the way he attacked god. I think his main error was equating religion with god. God is not a religion, and I think Hitch missed that point.

On a personal note, his book got me watching his debates, where I was able to come across Kreeft and Lennox; both of whom were persuasive to me, opening the way for my return to the catholic faith.

I pray for Hitch, on hope alone, that he had some merit to gain purgatory in God’s eyes. As are we all, he was created in the image of God, and we cannot know what was in his heart and mind.

 

[djeter]

I am NOT looking for debate, but I did want to comment on something here.

I read `god is not GREAT’… twice.

My impression is that though he did not disprove god, he did (in MY opinion) point out how religion CAN poison things. He had some valid points. From my reading, it was clear he was an… how does one say… angry person in the way he attacked god. I think his main error was equating religion with god. God is not a religion, and I think Hitch missed that point.

On a personal note, his book got me watching his debates, where I was able to come across Kreeft and Lennox; both of whom were persuasive to me, opening the way for my return to the catholic faith.

I pray for Hitch, on hope alone, that he had some merit to gain purgatory in God’s eyes. As are we all, he was created in the image of God, and we cannot know what was in his heart and mind.

Michael Novak wrote a great deal on Hitchens in his seminal work, No One Sees God. Reading selections featuring Hitchens are here. Atheist seek God as much as the rest of us and sometimes they can bring us closer to Him than they ever had the chance. I enjoyed your comment, AugustSon.

dj

 

[John_Savage]

I read it and thought it was awful. I can go into specifics, but it was inaccurate and sloppy.

I am NOT looking for debate, but I did want to comment on something here.

I read `god is not GREAT’… twice.

My impression is that though he did not disprove god, he did (in MY opinion) point out how religion CAN poison things. He had some valid points. From my reading, it was clear he was an… how does one say… angry person in the way he attacked god. I think his main error was equating religion with god. God is not a religion, and I think Hitch missed that point.

On a personal note, his book got me watching his debates, where I was able to come across Kreeft and Lennox; both of whom were persuasive to me, opening the way for my return to the catholic faith.

I pray for Hitch, on hope alone, that he had some merit to gain purgatory in God’s eyes. As are we all, he was created in the image of God, and we cannot know what was in his heart and mind.