I have been reading a lot of the stuff that has come out since his death -- commentary on him, and links to past his material -- to try to get a better read on him.

I have to preface this by saying that he only came on my radar in relation to his atheistic arguments. Although I am an atheist, his style of argument is one I find uncomfortable. It's a style that's more likely to offend than persuade (and can even offend those who are already persuaded).

From my reading, I can see that those who had personal contact with him, including believers who debated him, found him personally charming, and a good friend. That's where that public style fails: in fact, while he was against religion, he saw no reason to reject religious people, but a noisy argument overshadows that. If you call religion "idiotic", people who are religious might reasonably think you consider them idiots. You're left with the relatively small set of people who actually have conversations with you who understand more fully what you mean.

(Similarly if you call someone a "fuckhead", for people of my disposition, you shut down conversation.)

I confess I had tuned him out along with the other "New Atheists". Going back and listening more, I do hear the points with which I agree. But, I recognize that there's a difference in how I hear him when I have been persuaded to listen with a charitable ear.

Many of his friends found that they could understand his support of the Iraq war because they understood the moral basis from which his support arose (even if they did not agree, or like Andrew Sullivan, found that they changed their mind).

But, this morning I think I read the best piece, from one of my favorite current thinkers: Ta-Nehisi Coates of the Atlantic. The world is not a black-and-white place (!), and a debate style of approach -- grab onto an argument and defend at all costs -- whether in discussing ideas or people can results in babies being lost with the bathwater.

Coates says:

"Virtues don't excuse sins; they cohabit with them."

"I'd like to say that ... there's no demand for exclusion, or any sense that Hitchens worthy of unalloyed admiration. No one should ever receive, or wisely desire, such a thing. I can't really speak for other people, but I don't believe in an essential, irreducible moral nature. I don't see Hitchens, or anyone else, as a case of either/or."

A commenter wrote: "While I understand your point about how great virtues and great vices can coexist in the same person, I'd like to see more elaboration about why you think this man's virtues (which you remain silent on in this post) outweighed his vices. "

Coates replied:

'Again, I think the frame is wrong. I don't know that his "virtues outweigh his vices." That presumes a kind of grand authority that I neither want, nor feel qualified, to exercise. It's just not a case I would ever make. Nor am I really interested in making the case, it's sort of irrelevant to me. It seems to originate from the need to either declare someone a "good person" or a "bad person." I think it's clear from my writing on slavery and race that I don't really see the world that way.'

Is this way of looking at people wishy-washy? I don't believe so, but someone like Hitchins might find it so. It certainly makes it hard to have a conversation with someone who has that more adamant style of thinking and speaking.

(If you made it to the bottom of this, thanks.)

~ Becky in Tucson