The late Christopher Hitchens wanted to be remembered for the excellence of his intellect. No doubt, that hope will be met. As probably the best contemporary practitioner of the extended essay, he and the views he so pungently expressed will impact our societal discourse for many years to come.
After his terminal diagnosis became public, Hitchens wrote, in a characteristic turn of phrase, that he was “living dyingly.” His last book—aptly titled Mortality—has just been published about that experience. I haven’t read it yet, but a review by Katie Roiphe in Slate brought up a point I think well worth pondering:
What is powerful about this book is that Hitchens is doing a close reading of death; he is examining its language, critiquing its clichés. One of the ones he takes on most bitingly and effectively is the idea that “whatever doesn’t kill me makes me stronger.” He elaborately describes his disillusion with the axiom, usually attributed to Nietzsche, with relish: “In the brute physical world, and the one encompassed by medicine, there are all too many things that could kill you, don’t kill you, and then leave you considerably weaker.”
But Nietzsche was referring to strength of character, not physical vitality. Indeed, watching Hitchens from afar as he valiantly defied his illness—writing and lecturing as he went along—it seemed to me that he personally demonstrated the verity of Nietzsche’s maxim, to the point that he seemed to grow larger than his own impending death.
I have seen up close and personal how the process of dying can paradoxically strengthen and improve us. My father died of colon cancer in 1984. The disease hollowed him out physically, reducing him to a husk. But he grew—oh, how he grew—and died a far stronger, wiser, and better man than he had been before falling ill.
Prior to wrestling with cancer, Dad suffered from an inferiority complex that probably came from being beaten by my grandfather as a child and never graduating high school. This led to an embarrassing (for me, especially as a teenager) braggadocio that amounted to self-apology. You could always count on Dad to go a step too far seeking the approval of others.
But when he became very sick, things changed. As Dad contemplated leaving this life, he spent hours sitting in his backyard overlooking his beloved cactus garden. He discarded the need to call attention to himself and grew very quiet. He found a fortitude that I think was more profound than even his valor during World War II, for which he had been awarded a Silver Star and two Bronze Stars. And he began to see life from the perspective of others, never his strong suit previously.
I recall one event near the end that I think epitomizes the change. He was in a veteran’s hospital in Los Angeles, and befriended an African-American woman who was very ill with sickle cell anemia. One day, while I was visiting, she came into his room and told my father that the one thing she regretted in dying was never being able to afford the cost of recording a song she had composed. Dad asked how much: It would be $375, a hefty hunk of change in those days. He wrote her a check on the spot, as I silently lamented what I thought was a con.
Two weeks later, she came into his room with a cassette player. She set it down and pressed “play.” Her song filled the room. It was a good tune. And my dad, by then very weak, got out of bed and danced! So much for my cynicism.
Such stories are not extraordinary. The question is: Ultimately, do they matter?
Different faiths, non-faiths, and philosophies offer varying answers. But I don’t want to engage in eschatological disputes, so let’s focus instead on the here and now.
I strongly believe that how we die matters corporately. Dad, like Hitchens, inspired others by the way he lived dyingly. No surprise there: Aren’t we all bucked up when we see or hear of others facing death with mettle and pluck? Think Ulysses S. Grant, writing his memoir while dying in great pain from tongue cancer. Some will remember the great admiration America felt when actor Michael Landon—with frankness rarely seen in those days—went on Johnny Carson’s show to discuss his terminal pancreatic cancer. Then there was Ronald Reagan, announcing his own Alzheimer’s disease, turning his face steadfastly toward “the journey that will lead me to the sunset of my life,” and patriotically expressing the belief that “for America, there will always be a bright dawn ahead.”
This is one reason I find the assisted suicide movement so subversive. It rejects the ideal that those who go toe-to-toe against terminal disease uplift the human experience. It seeks to alter our cultural expectations from “Do not go gentle into that good night . . . rage, rage against the dying of the light,” to “Do yourself, your family, and society a favor by getting it over with.”
Wesley J. Smith is a senior fellow at the Discovery Institute’s Center on Human Exceptionalism, and consults for the Patients Rights Council and the Center for Bioethics and Culture.
RESOURCES
Katie Roiphe, “Death Explained”
Letter of Ronald Reagan to the American People Announcing His Diagnosis of Alzheimer’s Disease
Dylan Thomas, Do Not Go Gentle Into That Good Night
Become a fan of First Things on Facebook, subscribe to First Things via RSS, and follow First Things on Twitter.
Comments:
http://www.lifenews.com/2011/12/19/christopher-hitchens-abortion-survivor-post-abortive-father/
I wouldn't be terribly surprised, in fact, if he jumped into the Arms of The living God at the end, regardless of how he said he wouldn't.
"I wouldn't be terribly surprised, in fact, if he jumped into the Arms of The living God at the end, regardless of how he said he wouldn't."
With a comment such as this I have to ask what would surprise you! I am unaware of any evidence that the man equivocated. To the contrary, he anticipated claims and speculations exactly like yours and prepared clear explanations for them.
Your implied disregard for Christopher Hitchens' open and consistent statements about not only the complete rejection of supernaturalism but also the rejection of a "celestial North Korea" even if it did exist is most despairing to me.
This is pseudo-skepticism: an application of doubt to support a preconceived world view. I will say no more.
For that we can glorify not CH, but YHWH. God makes even the wrath of man to praise him; read the whole Psalm at http://esv.scripturetext.com/psalms/76.htm.
There's a missing article in your comment - matters *to whom*? The best essay I've seen which explains the problem is here: http://badidea.wordpress.com/2007/09/27/the-meaning-of-meaning-why-theism-cant-make-life-matter/
"I wouldn't be terribly surprised, in fact, if he jumped into the Arms of The living God at the end, regardless of how he said he wouldn't."
As an atheist myself, I have to ask what would surprise you! I am unaware of any evidence that the man equivocated. To the contrary, he anticipated claims like yours and prepared clear explanations for them.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=QbBVB66DC5k
So good you had to name me twice! And you did say more, even if it was only providing me a link.
I didn't say there was any evidence Hithchens equivocated. Nobody knows what a man thinks in his final moments, neither you nor I. But I'm around long enough to know that there is often a lot of difference between what people reveal of themselves publicly and their deepest inner thoughts. As regards whether, as in the video, he might be upset about people with patronising views of him on his deathbed, if he and you are correct, it doesn't make any difference to him now, as he doesn't exist, so there's no reason for you to get so excited. But methinks he doth protest too much!
With you on that one, I think Hitchens protested entirely too much. For an atheist, there really isn't any point in dying well, or poorly, or loudly drunk, or quietly drugged, or in the next few seconds, or any way at all.
It doesn't matter! So why would he care?
The "arguments" for atheism have not improved since Thomas Aquinas met them 850 years ago. Today's "New Atheists" (ha, ha, ha,... infinite spasm of uncontrolled laughter) are marketers with a specific calling to self-promotion, not thinkers. I have not seen a respectable argument for atheism. Nothing to believe in.
"To say that some event means something without at least some implicit understanding of *who* it means something *to* is to express an incomplete idea, no different than sentence fragments declaring that “Went to the bank” or “Exploded.” Without first specifying a particular subject and/or object, the very idea of meaning is incoherent.
Yet too often people still try to think of meaning in a disconnected and abstract sense, ending up at bizarre and nonsensical conclusions. They ask questions like: What is the meaning of my life? What does it matter if I love my children when I and they and everyone that remembers us will one day not exist? But these are not simply deep questions without answers: they are incomplete questions, incoherent riddles missing key lines and clues. Whose life? Meaningful to whom? Matters to whom? Who are you talking about?
Once those clarifying questions are asked and answered, the seeming impossibility of the original question evaporates, its flaws exposed. We are then left with many more manageable questions: What is the meaning of *my/your/their* life *to* myself/my parents/my children? These different questions may have different answers: your parents may see you as a disappointment for becoming a fireman instead of a doctor, and yet your children see you as a hero."
So life can matter, even very much, *to* an atheist. Even if they don't think there's a God for that life to matter to as well.
The atheists have nothing to offer but absolute, absurd, pointless and empty desolation. If they say otherwise, they are simply trying to deceive you, themselves or both.
@ David M:
"... live a good life and die without believing in an afterlife."
But why on earth would you live a good life, if you're an atheist? 'Good' would have no meaning in this situation, it would merely be a deluded construct of those victims of the 'God delusion'. There certainly would be no reward for being 'good'. I should think, if one was a convinced atheist, one would be a fool not to partake of all the pleasure you could get away with, good or evil, and at the slightest hint of unalleviatable pain, emotional or physical, to end it all as painlessly as possible, perhaps taking a few innocent people with you for 'kicks' or as a post-modern 'artistic' statement for posterity.
Its good to ask clarifying questions such as "matters to whom?" or "meaning for which person" but I don't think these kinds of clarifying questions really do away with the essential problems that you think they do. The question "what makes something true?" or "what is truth in its essence?" is a very sensible question, because it is a foundational question with implications for many other areas of human inquiry. Many serious philosophers have given some interesting answers to these questions such as the correspondence theory of truth, the Socratic Dialogue, and the reference theory of truth. You may want to look further into this if you are interested.
Mike: many of your comments have really failed to bring the discussion forward in a productive sense so I will just leave my comments towards you where they lay.
You could, for example, see some things I wrote: http://ingles.homeunix.org/rants/atheism/ which actually answers your questions. You may not agree with the answers, but I hope you'll at least acknowledge that such answers exist.
If it doesn't really matter, then it really doesn't matter. Atheism is absurd, but not funny.
Or are you saying that your life has meaning in the sense of making a statement? What does your life say?
I was treating meaning in the second sense- importance or significance, which is what I think most people intend when they ask the question "what is the meaning of my life?" I took things a step further in addressing meaning as it is related to truth. In both types of meaning, (viz. meaning in the sense of "importance or significance" or meaning in the sense of "what is the underlying truth of this statement?") you are referring to truth. That is really the essential component of the quotation you selected. If you are asking what the significance of something is with respect to your life, you are asking factual questions which deal with truth, and perhaps personal questions which also deal with truth in a moral sense. Similarly, when you are looking at the meaning of a statement, you are attempting to identify what is true about the statement; and this is why it matters to you to point out that it is absurd to say something like "what does your life say?" because the statement is false and incoherent.
Looking back at your original comment, your point was simply that Atheists can have significant and meaningful lives apart from belief in God or an afterlife, which I mostly agree with. But the argument you have used to support that point with respect to "meaning" and reworking our questions so that they have a proper subject or object, seems weak and untrue, and I have tried to make that a bit clearer.
I also have trouble seeing how it follows that because one is able to point out that some people tend to err grammatically or logically with statements regarding meaning, that Atheists are therefore have lives of purpose. That doesn't really seem to follow from that point at all. What does seem to follow is that people (religious or non-religious) ought to amend or clarify themselves when making broader philosophical points.
Significance can be a truth, sure. But atheists can believe in truth, and can believe they are subjects, not objects. And thus, there's no contradiction or irrationality when they believe in significance and importance *to them*.
I wasn't just defending the claim "that Atheists can have significant and meaningful lives apart from belief in God or an afterlife" directly. I was also attacking an argument that atheists *can't*, pointing out its flaws.
As I noted, I didn't even write the essay I linked to. I just linked to it because I thought it made the point well. It also makes further arguments - you might enjoy reading it.
That’s a good point thank you for clarifying. I'd like to quote something I read on First Things about a week ago:
"True, we are as subject as any other animals to the circle of natural existence: the rise and fall of generations, the cycle of birth and death. But, as we are rational beings, endowed with reflective consciousness, our existence is not simply circular or organic, but also prospective and creative. To be human is to be open to the future, to a horizon of possibilities that cannot be contained within the limits of nature. We form plans, harbor expectations and ambitions, obey desires that far exceed the present moment; we are capable of novelty, imagination, resolve. When death comes, therefore, even late in life, it comes as the interruption of a story that might otherwise have continued to unfold- an anticipated guest, perhaps, but always arriving out of season. Death confirms us in our animal nature but contradicts something essential to our humanity"
Religious people believe that even within day-to-day life it is clear that we have a capacity to connect with something greater than ourselves. I think what motivates the kinds of fallacious comments which say that "atheists necessarily live a life without any meaning or purpose because they do not believe in God" is a fundamental belief that daily experience is grounded by the connection with God. Does that sound like such a far-fetched idea?
I think this speaks to your position very well Ray.
Tingley's essay dodges several points. For example, Christianity is a religion that makes at least *some* claims that can be evaluated on the basis of evidence (e.g. http://blog.newhumanist.org.uk/2012/04/leading-indian-rationalist-facing.html ). There's a brief concession that "there are skeptics who" "doubt that there is any evidence besides the standard, demonstrable kind" - but Tingley asserts that none of the 'new atheists' do so. (And you apparently claim it of me, sight unseen, since you claim this essay 'speaks to my position'.) I disagree with that assertion.
Then Tingley echoes Pascal on the 'reasons of the heart', but there's the unmentioned issue of different people's hearts saying radically different things. And then there's the fact - which you didn't know because you didn't ask - that I, y'know, actually *have* looked into my heart, asked the questions... and gotten different answers than Tingley. And forgive me, but I actually think I'm a better judge of my own heart than you or Tingley.
Tingley claims that "the atheist] has... arrived at his commitment to evidence without evidence." By doing so, Tingley falls into the kind of problematic skepticism he decries, since he begs the question about whether there might still be reasons to insist on evidence that aren't based on evidence. ( http://ingles.homeunix.net/rants/atheism/faith.html )
(Oh, and finally, nothing in that essay explains how our awareness of the future "cannot be contained within the limits of nature".)
So... are you going to work from new evidence or not?
With respect to the sentence you are having trouble with: "To be human is to be open to the future, to a horizon of possibilities that cannot be contained within the limits of nature." I think the author is making a descriptive point (likely epistemological) about the way a person functions. To say that our awareness of the future cannot be contained within the limits of nature, is not to say that the function of thinking isn't containable within the person (which I think is your issue), but rather, that the process of thinking about the future is distinctly different within nature as a whole. The author is underlining the point that a human death is fundamentally different from other forms of death, and he is using the epistemological difference of "thinking about the future" to make that point clearer. I don't see anything incoherent or false here at all.
I enjoyed the links you sent me. I actually think that Tingley's criticism hits very close to home with you. On both of your pages, you say something like, "lacking any convincing evidence, I don't believe in God(s)." And it is true that you agree that there are certain beliefs that you have which don't require strong empirical evidence (which you spell out on one of the pages), but, as you say yourself, when it comes to the question of whether or not God exists, you require evidence. Tingley's point is that you are switching between being a good seeker for truth and a bad one. If the principle of requiring evidence doesn't apply in the case of God, or might not apply in the case of God, then why is it that you insist that there must be evidence for the question of whether or not God exists?
Tingley doesn't fall victim to the skepticism he decries. You may want to say that he assumes that an Atheist has committed to requiring evidence without evidence, but nothing in that assertion is an example of a fundamental refusal to accept a (potential) path to truth. That’s not even a good argument about what Tingley has to say, it’s just patently false.
Finally, your last question: what is it exactly that you are aiming at here? Is this a silly question asking me to look at “new evidence” on your web pages to understand your point better? Well, thank you for providing the links, I appreciate the clarification (and the dialogue we have had thus far). I do think, as I said earlier, that they confirm that you believe evidence is necessary for the question of whether or not God exists, but perhaps you have some more websites that you would like to send me to? :)
Can you explain *why* I specify those particular things? What distinguishes those specific propositions from other propositions?
It's hardly a trick question. I'm about as explicit as I know how to be on that very page. Even if you've forgotten, I can't imagine it'd take more than 30 seconds to track down the answer.


