I have a new way of celebrating the holiday season.
Early on, someone notes that he was friends with people who he completely disagreed with. He was scathing in a public conversation, but that was his job. When the debate was over, he was interested in people.
At 37 minutes Stephen Fry tells a story of Hitch as a cancer patient that explains his approach to the problems of the world. He tells how Hitch was “at war with the cliche’”. Hitchens said, “I am not battling this *&^% disease. I’m not at war with it. I’m lying back and submitting to doctors who are telling me what to do. How do I battle it? Do I shake my fist? Do I talk to it? It’s nonsense, my fight with it. It’s not a fight. It’s something else. Think about what it is.” Fry then applies that to Hitch’s life, “everything about Christopher was this, don’t trust what you hear, examine it, find out what the thing itself is that is being talked about, whether it’s a war, an opinion, a faith, whatever it might be.”
I’ve seen this from earliest years of pitting science against religion. I resisted and sometimes gave into the urge to do battle with stupidity. I see it everywhere now (yes, the stupidity, but this particular brand of it where people “fight” something when they should be examining it). It’s part of the resistance to facts, the digging in of the heels when presented with new data that goes counter to life experiences. If you look at the history of science, it grew out of the world where culture was wrapped up with everything, from explanations for the stars to how you do your laundry, if you disagreed with that culture, you had a miserable life, or you left the country/tribe/family, or you got burned at the stake. Science allows you to question anything, but that includes questioning your question and requiring evidence for an answer.