Atheism isn’t very fashionable on the Right nowadays. It never really was. But I never saw a conflict between unbelieving and Right-wing notions, in fact they seemed highly compatible: evidence-based; a rejection of utopian thinking; rational; grounded in reality. Thus around 20 years ago I was basking in ‘thrilling godlessness’, as Martin Amis had it, digesting in quick succession Richard Dawkins’ The God Delusion, Sam Harris’s The End of Faith, AJ Grayling’s The God Argument, Christopher Hitchens’ God is not Great, and many others.
When said Hitchens came to my city to do a bookshop signing for his memoir Hitch-22 in May 2010, it was incredibly exciting to me. I actually only got to meet him by accident – I hadn’t realised he was at the store that day. A couple of hours earlier I’d attended a Bill Bryson book signing, and only then saw the poster in the window advertising the fact that Hitchens would be there that evening. There was no way I was going to miss that.
And so that evening, accompanied by a female friend, I approached the shop front. And who was standing right there in front of it: Hitch himself. I decided in that moment I wasn’t going to be diffident, so I strolled up to him and said “Welcome to the city, Christopher!” (I made sure to call him Christopher, not Chris, which he hated and would have started us off on the worst possible note.) He thanked me, and I could see instantly that he was an open, genuine person ready to engage. He had no security at all, by the way, which, sadly, I can’t imagine would be the case now.
Obviously I can’t recall the entirety of our ten-to-15-minute conversation, so here are a few snippets that linger in the memory.
He was smoking what looked to me like cheap cigarettes. “I thought you’d stopped smoking,” I said. “I have,” he retorted, which amused me, because I knew what he meant: the ‘official’ line put out, which is what I’d read on the internet, was that he had stopped smoking.
In between cigarettes (I think he smoked three as we stood there talking) he sipped a coffee given to him by the bookstore owner. He grimaced and made some comment about how awful it was. “See why I left Britain?” he grumbled, as we smiled.
Boris Johnson came up in conversation for some reason. Hitch spat ‘that phoney!’ In 2010 I was still a huge Boris (as I called him then) fan – now I regard Johnson as the man who destroyed my faith in the Tory party, in the British government, in institutions, in truth, in decency, and I will despise him to the grave for the inhuman insanity of lockdowns and masks – so I attempted a rebuttal. I defended the then London Mayor to Hitch; he didn’t argue, but his expression subtly indicated that I didn’t know what I was talking about. Time has shown that, as usual, Hitch was right.
I told him I’d seen Bill Bryson here earlier today. Hitch remarked, semi-grumpily, that Bryson’s book was in the shop’s window, but his wasn’t.
My companion asked him where he lived. He told her Washington DC, indicating not a great deal of enthusiasm for the place. I told him I was sad he had followed in the footsteps of Charlie Chaplin, Alfred Hitchcock and John Lennon by leaving us for the States. “He had to, he had to…” Hitch intoned, meaning I think Chaplin, although it could have been about any of them. It could have been about him.
I told him that the previous year I had seen him and Stephen Fry in an Intelligence Squared debate against Ann Widdecombe and Archbishop John Onaiyekan on whether or not ‘The Catholic Church is a force for good in the world’. I told him I’d had my copy of God is not Great in my bag ready for him to sign, but hadn’t had the chance to approach him. He let me into a secret about the debate. At Intelligence Squared debates, a vote is taken before the programme starts and when it ends, to ascertain whether the audience has significantly changed its mind.
The votes for the motion of whether the Catholic Church was a force for good in the world were initially: For 678, Against 1,102, Undecided 346
When the vote was taken at the end, the results were: For 278, Against 1,875, Undecided 34
Hitch told me that a number of his fans there had voted ‘For’ or ‘Undecided’ at the beginning, to give the illusion that lots of the audience had had their minds changed by Hitch and Fry. Sneaky some might say, but I thought it was okay, because it still meant that the vast majority were always unconvinced by Widdecombe and the African bishop’s arguments (who I told Hitch I thought was ‘barely coherent’). Besides, I was hardly going to tell him it was wrong even if I thought that.
I contrast my meeting with Hitch to Richard Dawkins, who isn’t nearly as approachable. I’ve met him on four occasions and we’ve had a bit of chatter, but he’s not the same. I won’t forget the time he was very curt when a nice Spanish girl asked him if she could get me to take a photograph of him beside her. He refused and snapped “look at the length of the queue” at her. She looked shaken. I went off him a little bit in that instant. Conversing with Dawkins is not straightforward because he’s so incredibly intelligent, but then Hitch was equally intelligent – he could just get on better with us commoners though.
Our personal chat came to a close when Hitch was asked inside to begin his talk before the book signing. His presence became more commanding as he addressed the small crowd. At one stage, though, he started coughing. His expression was mild puzzlement, he felt his throat with his hand and let out some guttural deep throaty noises as he tried to clear it. A year and a half later, on 5 December 2011, he would die, slain by the oesophageal cancer – I wonder whether this was one of the first instances in which he felt something was wrong.
In the Q and A afterwards I put my hand up to ask a question. “Comrade,” he uttered, gesturing me to speak. More nervous talking to him in front of a crowd than I had been one-to-one, I asked him what his next book would be. He said it would be about the Ten Commandments. We would never get to see it.
During the book signing shortly afterwards, I asked him which hotel he was staying at in the city. He said he couldn’t remember the name. I doubt that, I think he didn’t want to tell me in case I was a stalking nutter!
And then I thanked him profusely for everything, wished him luck and said farewell. I’ve made a fool of myself in front of plenty of famous people but not on this occasion, hopefully. They say never meet your heroes: I would say mostly never meet your heroes. But sometimes, it’s fine to.
Russell David is the author of the Mad World Substack.
If you enjoy The New Conservative and would like to support our work, please consider buying us a coffee or sharing this piece with your friends – it would really help to keep us going. Thank you!
(Photograph: Ari Armstrong, CC BY-SA 3.0 <https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0>, via Wikimedia Commons)
Seldom in my life have I witnessed more arrogance in someone, that in Christopher Hitchens. The arrogance just oozed out of him. Of course, I didn’t meet him, Russell David did, but in that meeting, we know that, according to Russell, he lied twice. The fixed Intelligence Squared vote, and his hotel – he couldn’t remember the name of is hotel? Well, just in case he really couldn’t remember, benefit of the doubt time, I will amend the above statement to read he lied about the debate vote, and was possibly untruthful about his hotel. Either way, unimpressive but not unsurprising for someone who rejects the ultimate truth about God, and who could not hide his hatred for Christ’s Church.
Thus, for me, the above article was an interesting read – it’s always helpful to hear another perspective. I’m just a little surprised that Russell David did not touch on the ever-surprising fact that self-proclaimed atheists (there’s no such thing, in fact) want to read, write and talk about God/religion at every turn. I mean, why would someone who doesn’t believe in the existence of God enter into conversations and debates on the subject, and further, write about His Commandments? Except, of course, he didn’t get to write about those Ten Commandments. Sobering thought. I mean a nephew-in-law of mine asked me years ago if I believed in aliens. I said “no” and he went on to ask if I would keep my mind open to the possibility that aliens existed; again negative. We’ve never discussed it since.
As for that televised debate. I remember being disappointed at the choice of Ann Widdecombe as a speaker in defence of the Catholic Church at the Intelligence Squared debate. Ann Widdecombe is a convert from Anglicanism and – with some very notable exceptions – most alleged converts from the Church of England remain Anglicans. So, that was a disappointing choice, as was the African Archbishop (now Cardinal) John Onaiyekan because he was ordained in 1969, in the full flow of the modernist take-over of the Catholic Church so if he was incoherent (I can’t remember) that would be why. At these sorts of events, especially televised, real – i.e. traditional, fully believing – Catholics are not invited. On the few occasions when one slips through the net, they are cut short, given short shrift. I’ve been there, bought the T shirt.
Christopher Hitchens was applauded in life by admirers like Russell David, who may (probably?) share his Godless outlook on life – and, worse, death. Chillingly, in an interview following his cancer diagnosis Hitchens was asked if, on his deathbed (I’m paraphrasing) he might ask for a priest (he’d been brought up in an Anglican family, I believe). His reply was immediate: he would never do that so if he did, it was to be assumed that there was some kind of explanation connected to his illness – do not send for a clergyman. Chilling, as I say, to those of us raised to pray against “an unprovided death”. On the contrary, “be prepared to meet God at any moment” has always been the Christian exhortation.
So, Russell David’s opening words confirmed that bold atheist confidence that they were not going to meet God at any moment. Russell writes: “I never saw a conflict between unbelieving and Right-wing notions, in fact they seemed highly compatible: evidence-based; a rejection of utopian thinking; rational; grounded in reality.”
Christopher Hitchens did find, in the end, that God exists, that there is no “utopian thinking” but that the Faith is rational and definitely grounded in reality.
I won’t finish with “Rest in peace” because Christopher made clear that he didn’t want that. He didn’t want the “utopian” Heaven and so, unless by some final last-second miracle of grace in which he fully co-operated, he won’t be resting in eternity. As I keep saying, chilling.
Yes it is odd that Atheists often feel the need to try and convert others to their ‘no-faith belief’ through talking down religion instead of just basking in their own perceived wisdom of (rightly or wrongly) having seen through it all.
It’s as cynical and disingenuous as certain things involving two high profile fakes that just occurred in Rome.
I agree, Nathaniel. It’s hilarious the way they dismiss, so smugly, centuries of much greater minds than theirs, who not only believed in God (no big deal – even the Devil believes in God) but – in the case of many famous scientists, for example, they devoted their work of exploring the natural world to learn more about Him! Giving glory to God was a key motivation for many scientists (and I hope remains so) with Isaac Newton revealing that he read the Bible daily and Johannes Kepler’s inspiring remark: “I had the intention of becoming a theologian… but now I see how God is, by my endeavours, also glorified in astronomy, for ‘the heavens declare the glory of God.’”
As for your concluding sentence – yes, agree: if only, for example, Pope Leo were truly praying he’d be sure to become a Catholic. We still have a bit of a wait before the old joke becomes meaningful again: “Is the Pope Catholic?”
You probably misunderstand my comment, I’m now more with the Atheists myself but don’t feel the need to try and convert others. Strangely I would respect Catholicism and Anglicanism more if both were consistent and stopped pretending that differences can be hidden by PR stunts.
Yes, Nathaniel, I have certainly misunderstood your comment – I’d not have put you in the atheists’ camp at all.
And be assured that I share your opinion about the PR stunts – I am very much opposed to the so-called ecumenical movement. One of my friends phoned me years ago with a question about Catholic dogma. I expressed surprise since I knew she had a large number of Catholic academics in her circle, so why not ask them. Because, she replied (and I paraphrase): I know that you will tell me the real thing – they know I’m a Protestant who attends church so they will tell me something that they think is less offensive. That really was the sense of what she said.
So ridiculous is the entire ecumenical movement, that if you attend a Catholic funeral these days, you will find a notice in the booklet containing the hymns etc., explaining that only [practising] Catholics may receive Holy Communion but everyone else may approach for a blessing from the priest. However, not to worry about this, because, remember, “there are more things that unite us than divide us.” Now, that is a falsehood. Patently so. The key things which divide us are central to Catholicism, so that is a clear falsehood.
Once again, then, Nathaniel, we agree!
I was a huge fan of Christopher Hitchens when he wrote for Vanity Fair – many thought provoking & interesting articles which have stayed with me & have piqued my interest to find out more.
Carolyn,
More about what?
More about the subject matter he wrote about – please note this was many years ago.
If only he hadn’t smoked he would have made mincemeat of our disreputable and dangerous politicians…