Show Hide image

I’m a believer

In our increasingly secular society, many religious people feel their voices are not heard. So here,

After four centuries of breathtaking scientific progress, many wonder why intelligent people would still feel the need to believe in God. Andrew Zak Williams decided to find out. Over the course of several months, he corresponded with dozens of scientists and other public figures, quizzing them on the reasons for their faith. Here is a selection of the responses.

Cherie Blair, barrister
It's been a journey from my upbringing to an understanding of something that my head cannot explain but my heart knows to be true.

Jeremy Vine, broadcaster
There is a subjective reason and an objective reason. The subjective reason is that I find consolation in my faith. The objective reason is that the story of the gospels has stood the test of time and Christ comes across as a totally captivating figure.

In moments of weariness or cynicism, I tell myself I only believe because my parents did; and the Christian faith poses more questions than it answers.

But I still return to believing, as if that is more natural than not doing so.

Richard Swinburne, emeritus professor of philosophy, University of Oxford
To suppose that there is a God explains why there is a physical universe at all; why there are the scientific laws there are; why animals and then human beings have evolved; why human beings have the opportunity to mould their character and those of their fellow humans for good or ill and to change the environment in which we live; why we have the well-authenticated account of Christ's life, death and resurrection; why throughout the centuries millions of people (other than ourselves) have had the apparent experience of being in touch with and guided by God; and so much else.
In fact, the hypothesis of the existence of God makes sense of the whole of our experience and it does so better than any other explanation that can be put forward, and that is the grounds for believing it to be true.

Peter Hitchens, journalist
I believe in God because I choose to do so. I believe in the Christian faith because I prefer to do so. The existence of God offers an explanation of many of the mysteries of the universe - es­pecially "Why is there something rather than nothing?" and the questions which follow from that. It requires our lives to have a purpose, and our actions to be measurable against a higher standard than their immediate, observable effect. Having chosen belief in a God over unbelief, I find the Christian gospels more per­suasive and the Christian moral system more powerful than any other religious belief.

I was, it is true, brought up as a Christian, but ceased to be one for many years. When I returned to belief I could have chosen any, but did not.

Jonathan Aitken, former politician
I believe in God because I have searched for Him and found Him in the crucible of brokenness. Some years ago I went through an all-too-well-publicised drama of defeat, disgrace, divorce, bankruptcy and jail. In the course of that saga I discovered a loving God who answers prayers, forgives and redeems.

James Jones, Bishop of Liverpool
One word: Jesus. All that you imagine God would be, He is. His life and His love are compelling, His wisdom convincing.

Richard Chartres, Bishop of London
I believe in God because He has both revealed and hidden Himself in so many different ways: in the created world, the Holy Bible, the man Jesus Christ; in the Church and men and women of God through the ages; in human relationships, in culture and beauty, life and death, pain and suffering; in immortal longings, in my faltering prayers and relationship with Him. There is nothing conclusive to force me into believing, but everything sug­gestive, and constantly drawing me on into the love of Christ and to "cleave ever to the sunnier side of doubt".

David Alton, Lib Dem peer
The notion that humanity and the cosmos are an accident has always seemed implausible. A world littered with examples of complex genius - from developments in quantum theory to regenerative medicine - points us towards genius more perfect and more unfathomable than ourselves. The powerful combination of faith and reason led me as a child to believe in God.

Unsurprisingly, as I matured into manhood, that belief has not been immune against the usual catalogue of failure, sadness and grief; and belief has certainly not camouflaged the horrors of situations I have seen first hand in places such as Congo and Sudan. Paradoxically, it has been where suffering has been most acute that I have also seen the greatest faith.

By contrast, the more we own or have, the more difficulty we seem to have in seeing and encountering the Divine.

Professor Stephen R L Clark, philosopher
I believe in God because the alternatives are worse. Not believing in God would mean that we have no good reason to think that creatures such as us human beings (accidentally generated in a world without any overall purpose) have any capacity - still less any duty - to discover what the world is like.

Denying that "God exists" while still maintaining a belief in the power of reason is, in my view, ridiculous.My belief is that we need to add both that God is at least possibly incarnate among us, and that the better description of God (with all possible caveats about the difficulty of speaking about the infinite source of all being and value) is as something like a society. In other words, the Christian doctrine of the incarnation, and of the trinity, have the philosophical edge. And once those doctrines are included, it is possible to see that other parts of that tradition are important.

Nick Spencer, director of Theos, the public theology think tank
I would say I find Christianity (rather than just belief in God) the most intellectually and emotionally satisfying explanation for being.

Stephen Green, director of the fundamentalist pressure group Christian Voice
I came to faith in God through seeing the ducks on a pond in People's Park, Grimsby. It struck me that they were all doing a similar job, but had different plumage. Why was that? Why did the coot have a white beak and the moorhen a red one? Being a hard-nosed engineer, I needed an explanation that worked and the evolutionary model seemed too far-fetched and needful of too much faith!

I mean, what could possibly be the evolutionary purpose of the bars on the hen mallard's wings, which can only be seen when she flies? Or the tuft on the head of the tufted duck?

So I was drawn logically to see them as designed like that. I suppose I believed in an intelligent designer long before the idea became fashionable. So, that left me as a sort of a deist. But God gradually became more personal to me and I was drawn against all my adolescent atheist beliefs deeper and deeper into faith in Jesus Christ.

Douglas Hedley, reader in metaphysics, Clare College, Cambridge
Do values such as truth, beauty and goodness emerge out of a contingent and meaningless substrate? Or do these values reflect a transcendent domain from which this world has emerged? I incline to the latter, and this is a major reason for my belief in God.

Paul Davies, quantum physicist
I am not comfortable answering the question "Why do you believe in God?" because you haven't defined "God". In any case, as a scientist,
I prefer not to deal in "belief" but rather in the usefulness of concepts. I am sure I don't believe in any sort of god with which most readers of your article would identify.

I do, however, assume (along with all scientists) that there is a rational and intelligible scheme of things that we uncover through scientific investigation. I am uncomfortable even being linked with "a god" because of the vast baggage that this term implies (a being with a mind, able to act on matter within time, making decisions, etc).

Professor Derek Burke, biochemist and former president of Christians in Science
There are several reasons why I believe in God. First of all, as a scientist who has been privileged to live in a time of amazing scientific discoveries (I received my PhD in 1953, the year Watson and Crick discovered the structure of DNA), I have been overwhelmed by wonder at the order and intricacy of the world around us. It is like peeling skins off an onion: every time you peel off a layer, there is another one underneath, equally marvellously intricate. Surely this could not have arisen by chance? Then my belief is strengthened by reading the New Testament especially, with the accounts of that amazing person, Jesus, His teaching, His compassion, His analysis of the human condition, but above all by His resurrection. Third, I'm deeply impressed by the many Christians whom I have met who have lived often difficult lives with compassion and love. They are an inspiration to me.

Peter J Bussey, particle physicist
God is the ultimate explanation, and this includes the explanation for the existence of physical reality, for laws of nature and everything. Let me at this point deal with a commonly encountered "problem" with the existence of God, one that Richard Dawkins and others have employed.
It goes that if God is the ultimate cause or the ultimate explanation, what then is the cause of God, or the explanation for God? My reply
is that, even in our own world, it is improper to repeat the same investigatory question an indefinite number of times. For example, we ask, "Who designed St Paul's Cathedral?" and receive the reply: "Sir Christopher Wren." But, "No help whatever," objects the sceptic, "because, in that case, who then designed Sir Christopher Wren?" To this, our response will now be that it is an inappropriate question and anyone except a Martian would know that. Different questions will be relevant now.

So, likewise, it is very unlikely that we know the appropriate questions, if any, to ask about God, who is presumably outside time, and is the source of the selfsame rationality that we presume to employ to understand the universe and to frame questions about God.
What should perhaps be underlined is that, in the absence of total proof, belief in God will be to some extent a matter of choice.

Reverend Professor Michael Reiss, bioethicist and Anglican priest
At the age of 18 or 19, a religious way of understanding the world began increasingly to make sense. It did not involve in any way abandoning the scientific way. If you like, it's a larger way of understanding our relationship with the rest of the world, our position in nature and all those standard questions to do with why we are here, if there is life after death, and so on. That was reinforced by good teaching, prayer and regular reading of scripture.

Peter Richmond, theoretical physicist
Today most people reject the supernatural but there can be no doubt that the teachings of Jesus are still relevant. And here I would differentiate these from some of the preaching of authoritarian churches, which has no doubt been the source of much that could be considered to be evil over the years. Even today, we see conflict in places such as Africa or the Middle East - killings made in the name of religion, for example. As Christians, we recognise these for what they are - evil acts perpetrated by the misguided. At a more domestic level, the marginalisation of women in the Church is another example that should be exposed for what it is: sheer prejudice by the present incumbents of the Church hierarchy. But as Christians, we can choose to make our case to change things as we try to follow the social teachings of Jesus. Compared to pagan idols, Jesus offered hope, comfort and inspiration, values that are as relevant today as they were 2,000 years ago.

David Myers, professor of psychology, Hope College, Michigan
[Our] spirituality, rooted in the developing biblical wisdom and in a faith tradition that crosses the centuries, helps make sense of the universe, gives meaning to life, opens us to the transcendent, connects us in supportive communities, provides a mandate for morality and selflessness and offers hope in the face of adversity and death.

Kenneth Miller, professor of biology, Brown University
I regard scientific rationality as the key to understanding the material basis of our existence as well as our history as a species. That's the reason why I have fought so hard against the "creationists" and those who advocate "intelligent design". They deny science and oppose scientific rationality, and I regard their ideas as a threat to a society such as ours that has been so hospitable to the scientific enterprise.

There are, however, certain questions that science cannot answer - not because we haven't figured them out yet (there are lots of those), but because they are not scientific questions at all. As the Greek philosophers used to ask, what is the good life? What is the nature of good and evil? What is the purpose to existence? My friend Richard Dawkins would ask, in response, why we should think that such questions are even important. But to most of us, I would respond, these are the most important questions of all.

What I can tell you is that the world I see, including the world I know about from science, makes more sense to me in the light of a spiritual understanding of existence and the hypo­thesis of God. Specifically, I see a moral polarity to life, a sense that "good" and "evil" are actual qualities, not social constructions, and that choosing the good life (as the Greeks meant it) is the central question of existence. Given that, the hypothesis of God conforms to what I know about the material world from science and gives that world a depth of meaning that I would find impossible without it.

Now, I certainly do not "know" that the spirit is real in the sense that you and I can agree on the evidence that DNA is real and that it is the chemical basis of genetic information. There is, after all, a reason religious belief is called "faith", and not "certainty". But it is a faith that fits, a faith that is congruent with science, and even provides a reason why science works and is of such value - because science explores that rationality of existence, a rationality that itself derives from the source of that existence.

In any case, I am happy to confess that I am a believer, and that for me, the Christian faith is the one that resonates. What I do not claim is that my religious belief, or anyone's, can meet a scientific test.

Nick Brewin, molecular biologist
A crucial component of the question depends on the definition of "God". As a scientist, the "God" that I believe in is not the same God(s) that I used to believe in. It is not the same God that my wife believes in; nor is it the same God that my six-year-old granddaughter believes in; nor is it the God that my brain-damaged and physically disabled brother believes in. Each person has their own concept of what gives value and purpose to their life. This concept of "God" is based on a combination of direct and indirect experience.

Humankind has become Godlike, in the sense that it has acquired the power to store and manipulate information. Language, books, computers and DNA genomics provide just a few illustrations of the amazing range of technologies at our fingertips. Was this all merely chance? Or should we try to make sense of the signs and wonders that are embedded in a "revealed religion"?

Perhaps by returning to the "faith" position of children or disabled adults, scientists can extend their own appreciation of the value and purpose of individual human existence. Science and religion are mutually complementary.

Hugh Ross, astrophysicist and astronomer
Astronomy fascinates me. I started serious study of the universe when I was seven. By the age of 16, I could see that Big Bang cosmology offered the best explanation for the history of the universe, and because the Big Bang implies a cosmic beginning, it would require a cosmic beginner. It seemed reasonable that a creator of such awesome capacities would speak clearly and consistently if He spoke at all. So I spent two years perusing the holy books of the world's religions to test for these characteristics. I found only one such book. The Bible stood apart: not only did it provide hundreds of "fact" statements that could be tested for accuracy, it also anticipated - thousands of years in advance - what scientists would later discover, such as the fundamental features of Big Bang cosmology.

My observation that the Bible's multiple creation narratives accurately describe hundreds of details discovered much later, and that it consistently places them in the scientifically correct sequence, convinced me all the more that the Bible must be the supernaturally inspired word of God. Discoveries in astronomy first alerted me to the existence of God, and to this day the Bible's power to anticipate scientific discoveries and predict sociopolitical events ranks as a major reason for my belief in the God of the Bible. Despite my secular upbringing, I cannot ignore the compelling evidence emerging from research into the origin of the universe, the anthropic principle, the origin of life and the origin of humanity. Theaccumulating evidence continues to point compellingly towards the God of the Bible.

Steve Fuller, philosopher/professor of sociology, University of Warwick
I am a product of a Jesuit education (before university), and my formal academic training is in history and philosophy of science, which is the field credited with showing the tight links between science and religion. While I have never been an avid churchgoer, I am strongly moved by the liberatory vision of Jesus promoted by left-wing Christians.

I take seriously the idea that we are created in the image and likeness of God, and that we may come to exercise the sorts of powers that are associated with divinity. In this regard, I am sympathetic to the dissenting, anticlerical schools of Christianity - especially Unitarianism, deism and transcendentalism, idealism and humanism. I believe that it is this general position that has informed the progressive scientific spirit.

People such as Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens like to think of themselves as promoting a progressive view of humanity, but I really do not see how Darwinism allows that at all, given its species-egalitarian view of nature (that is, humans are just one more species - no more privileged than the rest of them). As I see it, the New Atheists live a schizoid existence, where they clearly want to privilege humanity but have no metaphysical basis for doing so.

Michael J Behe, scientific advocate of intelligent design
Two primary reasons: 1) that anything exists; and 2) that we human beings can comprehend and reason. I think both of those point to God.

Denis Alexander, director, Faraday Institute for Science and Religion, Cambridge
I believe in the existence of a personal God. Viewing the universe as a creation renders it more coherent than viewing its existence as without cause. It is the intelligibility of the world that requires explanation.

Second, I am intellectually persuaded by the historical life, teaching, death and resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth, that He is indeed the
Son of God. Jesus is most readily explicable by understanding Him as the Son of God. Third, having been a Christian for more than five decades, I have experienced God through Christ over this period in worship, answered prayer and through His love. These experiences are more coherent based on the assumption that God does exist.

Mike Hulme, professor of climate change, University of East Anglia
There are many reasons - lines of evidence, if you will - all of which weave together to point me in a certain direction (much as a scientist or a jury might do before reaching a considered judgement), which we call a belief.

[I believe] because there is non-trivial historical evidence that a person called Jesus of Naza­reth rose from the dead 2,000 years ago, and
it just so happens that He predicted that He would . . . I believe because of the testimony of billions of believers, just a few of whom are known to me and in whom I trust (and hence trust their testimony).

I believe because of my ineradicable sense that certain things I see and hear about in the world warrant the non-arbitrary categories of "good" or "evil". I believe because I have not discovered a better explanation of beauty, truth and love than that they emerge in a world created - willed into being - by a God who personifies beauty, truth and love.

Andrew Zak Williams has written for the Humanist and Skeptic. His email address is: andrewbelief@gmail.com

This article first appeared in the 18 April 2011 issue of the New Statesman, GOD Special

Show Hide image

Men who fight

I thought that boxing was a display of pointless violence – but an unheralded prizefighter changed my mind.

Tommy Martin threw the first punch – then a series of hooks and jabs that struck the arms of the Commonwealth super-lightweight champion, John Wayne Hibbert. All eyes strained to follow the boxers as they skipped and shuffled their way around the bright blue ring.

Boxing is controlled chaos. The referee, watchful and sharp in his bow tie, brings the control; the boxers bring the chaos. From the terrace of the Copper Box Arena at the Olympic Park in London, the action seemed remote at first. The men in the spotlight were the size of toy soldiers and their grunts and gasps were inaudible. Only the heaviest blows seemed to make any sound: pop-pop, like rain on an umbrella.

Then the ferocity of Martin’s attacks, of Hibbert’s responses, registered among the crowd. Conversations ended mid-sentence. As the boxers showered each other with their punches, pop-poppop-pop-pop, a shiver of delight ran across the arena. A man to my left started laughing. Another stood up. Just 20 seconds into the fight, Martin was driven against the ropes but broke free, perhaps a little frantically. He raised his gloves. Hibbert, grim-faced, advanced.

Champion from Big Face Art on Vimeo.

Hit someone in a bar, at home, or on the street and you might soon find yourself in jail. Do so in a ring and you could win a belt. For decades, the World Medical Association has called for a total ban on boxing, arguing that a fighter’s “basic intent” is “to produce bodily harm in the opponent”. The New Yorker journalist A J Liebling called it “the sweet science”, but there was nothing sweet in the images of the 25-year-old middleweight Nick Blackwell being carried out of Wembley Arena on a stretcher in March after his defeat to Chris Eubank, Jr; there was nothing sweet about his seven-day coma that followed. The violence of boxing is unapologetic.

Yet a curious thing about the sport is that this bodily harm is inflicted largely without malice. There is little cruelty here, at least in the conventional sense. A boxing match is a test of strength, speed, endurance and strategy. It is not a brawl.

Anomalies are fairly easy to list – such as the 1997 WBA title fight in which Mike Tyson bit off part of Evander Holyfield’s right ear – but much of what we might read as anger or hatred in the ring exists, in reality, outside of it. “There is so much hate among people, so much contempt inside people . .  . that they hire prizefighters to do their hating for them,” the former heavyweight champion Floyd Patterson once said. The fighters perform animosity on our behalf – but do they feel it?

Boxing is ritualised aggression, qualified by the paraphernalia of sport, scored by judges, watched by members of a society in which the state has been granted a monopoly on physical force. Violence, licensed all but exclusively to the police and the army, is enshrined as a civilising instrument: we are appalled when it is wielded by anyone outside of this social covenant and condemn it as barbaric, senseless or criminal. Yet here at the Hibbert-Martin fight, one evening in January, was a carnivalesque exception. We watched men fight for money and we thrilled to it.

I’d first seen Hibbert on TV the previous September. I knew next to nothing about his sport but I was transfixed by the sight of the 30-year-old boxer – his blue eyes sunken in a face grown puffy with bruises – fighting the then Commonwealth super-lightweight champion, Dave “Rocky” Ryan. I initially recoiled from what seemed a pointlessly ­violent spectacle; it all felt oddly wasteful. But something compelled me to keep looking. And the more I looked, the more heroic the men appeared, and the less certain I became of my first impressions.

Hibbert won that fight and took the title. When he announced that he would soon be defending it against an up-and-coming fighter called Tommy Martin, I googled the promoter’s website and bought a ticket.

***

Martin, a boyish, sandy-haired 21-year-old from St Neots in Cambridgeshire, had speed and much of the crowd on his side. Maybe God, too. “I believe everything happens for a reason,” he told a local newspaper shortly before the fight. “I just believe it’s my time . . . It’s just about putting my faith and trust in the Lord.”

Between rounds, he would cross himself. Hibbert sought no such protection – not visibly, at any rate.

Although Hibbert was now the Commonwealth champion in his weight cate­gory (with a maximum of ten stone), the odds were against him. The title fight I’d seen on television in September had ended in unusual circumstances: Ryan had suffered a sudden, unexplained back injury in the tenth round. He froze, no longer able to dodge Hibbert’s punches. Hibbert took his chance and trapped Ryan in a corner, stunning him with a right hook to the head. The referee ended the bout.

Sceptical of Hibbert’s ability to hold on to the belt, the bookies listed Martin, a decade younger and still unbeaten after 13 fights, as the clear favourite to win. “They will be losing a few quid,” Hibbert countered, in a statement to the press. When I visited him at his “spit-and-sawdust” gym in Corringham, Essex, four weeks before the big night, he told me that Martin was a “stepping stone”.

“He’s in my way. He’s there [to let me] get to where I want to get to.” His voice was calm and steady, empty of bravado. This was a statement of fact.

In the weeks that followed, Hibbert declared repeatedly that victory would be his. “Whatever he brings to the table, I have the answer for,” he said. “It will be a short night.” He seemed to believe it.

He had to believe it. Since his professional debut in the summer of 2009, Hibbert had fought 19 bouts, many of them bloody and bruising, and had come out on top in most. Martin entered the ring as a pro three years later at the age of 18, and had six fewer matches’ worth of experience.

“I’ve been involved in much harder fights,” Hibbert said. “I can’t wait to get in there now and do the business.” Yet ­boxing is a risky business, even for old hands. As Joyce Carol Oates once observed of the sport: “Loss, humiliation, shame are only part of the risk – physical injury, even death, awaits as well.”

***

When Hibbert was first marched into a gym as a teenager by his father, he wasn’t quite prepared for what he would find. “I was a young lad in a little village, Horndon-on-the-Hill, and causing a bit of mischief,” he told me. “My dad sort of thought that boxing would be the right thing for me to do. You know? Give me a bit of discipline.”

What he felt, he said, was fear. “Going into a gym was quite intimidating – the trainers in there, everything, the smells. There were some lads, the lads around town, and they would dig you out a bit. It weren’t the nicest thing.”

Soon, however, Hibbert was able to get “the hang of it” and learned to “love training, love boxing”. He smiled at the memory and seemed to nod in agreement with himself. He was right to have persevered. But I was struck by his ability to work through his initial fear – a rational fear of violence and pain – and then to turn it into something he loved.

Outside the glare of ring lights, Hibbert was no-nonsense but not brusque; he was thoughtful and gave little impression of aggression. His movements were controlled, as those of sportsmen often are, and he answered my inexpert questions with patience. In short, he was dignified. Sitting at ease in his gym, with photographs of Mike Tyson and other champions glaring down from their frames on the cold, concrete walls, he projected none of the aggression that he had spent nearly two decades of his life training for. I asked him if he enjoyed boxing. “Yeah, I do like getting in there and having a bit of a fight,” he answered, with what looked like a guilty grin. “It’s in you, you know?”

But the will to keep fighting when confronted with physical danger is not entirely innate. Endurance of this kind is honed – it can’t just be dared or forced into existence. Before winning the Commonwealth title last September, Hibbert had twice been beaten by Ryan. Their second fight in May 2015 was furious, with relentless combinations of punches hitting their targets on both sides. Hibbert was felled after half an hour or so in the ring. A similar stoppage seemed likely in their third encounter: halfway through the match, Ryan dug his fist into Hibbert’s solar plexus and brought him to his knees. But the challenger collected himself. He got to his feet and kept pacing, parrying and lunging at his ­opponent until the bell rang.

I asked him what had given him the resolve to continue after that sixth-round blow. “It did hurt,” he said, recalling the shaky moment – the way he had staggered and struggled for breath, sweat gathering on his brow. Then he shifted in his seat and told me a story that was clearly important to him; he would return to it repeatedly during our conversations. “Dave Ryan was winning the fight but I’d promised my two children, especially my little girl, that I’d bring [the Commonwealth belt] home for her,” he said. “She loves that rainbow belt. She ain’t got a clue what it’s about. She just wanted it ’cause it looked nice.”

Hibbert is a family man and I believed him each time he resurrected this theme: that he drew strength to fight from the thought of his children, Lexie and Connor, aged six and three. (I wondered about his interests outside boxing. “Family!” he informed me.) It pained him to spend so much time apart from them. “They go through a lot,” he said, “because you spend your life in the gym. Sometimes, you get home – say, if you’re training three times a day – and you know you’ve got it going again the next day . . . but your kids just want to play with you.”

He visibly softened. “My little girl wants me to help her do her homework. Not that I’m very good at that – she’s cleverer than me already. But you’re tired and you need your rest . . . There’s a lot of things that go on that people don’t see.” His wife, Kerrie, who he met at a local pub a decade ago, comes to each of his fights.

Hibbert’s first name is actually Wayne. John was his grandfather’s name. He adopted it when he registered for his pro licence, to honour the man who had pushed him, who had shouted, “Come on, boy, let’s get it going!” whenever he was “a bit wayward . . . knocking about round the streets”. The original John would sit ringside at the gym, smoking away at his pipe, proud of his grandson. He died eight years ago, without witnessing Hibbert’s rise up the ranks of the sport. Later, I noticed on his shiny, blue-black shorts the word “Granddad”, above a picture of a golden crucifix and a pair of angel wings. On the front and back were “Lexie” and “Connor”.

Yet the love of family alone could not explain Hibbert’s resilience: his “heart”, in boxing parlance. There must have been something else, something harder. Hunter S Thompson once wrote of pursuing “the edge” – the liminal space between deadening security and the danger of a literal
death – and I thought I could sense something of this impulse in fighters. To walk habitually on such a precipice, surely some deep, evolutionary instinct for self-preservation must be negotiated, if not negated altogether. How was this possible? Few fighters win every bout and even a victory can prove damaging in the long run. Injury is part of the job description.

When I pressed Hibbert on this, his look of focus returned. “That’s what a lot of people say: ‘How can you just get punched?’” He seemed almost bemused by the question. “You just don’t think of it. It is what it is. I’ve done it for so long now. It’s what I know. I don’t know anything else.”

***

By the ninth round of the Copper Box fight, the judges’ scorecards were even. Hibbert had dominated the first five, walking through Martin’s attempts at combinations and forcing him against the ropes time and again. Yet a solid right to Hibbert’s side had emboldened the younger boxer, who made the most of the champion’s defensive lapses in the seventh round. Martin threw a hook. He drove back his opponent. Hibbert began to squint. His left eye was swelling badly and his nose was bleeding.

With just three of the 12 rounds left, the pace slackened for the first time. Both boxers were exhausted and they stared at each other, hesitating. As the eleventh began, Martin’s comparative inexperience was showing. He was now throwing single punches, which Hibbert countered with swarms. One of Martin’s attacks connected. Hibbert pounded back, pop-pop-pop.

In their corners, the trainers looked on. Their heads moved with those of their charges. They shouted and waved their hands. In the minute-long intervals between the action, they applied Vaseline to cuts and delivered bullet-point lectures on strategy. Mark “Sach” Bates, Hibbert’s lead trainer, gave advice on how to exploit Martin’s habit of falling back and standing with his gloves covering his face. Then the bell announced the fight’s final three minutes.

Instead of marching straight into combat, Hibbert gave his opponent a brief hug. It was a surprising, touching gesture. Then he raised his fists and charged into Martin, all merciless determination.

Ninety seconds was all it took. The 21-year-old challenger dropped to his knees after Hibbert’s machine-like pounding had pushed him on to the ropes once again. As the referee started the count, Martin’s eyes drifted to his corner. His trainers stared back. Then he tilted his head in Hibbert’s direction, but the champion just hopped on the spot, readying himself for another push. “Seven, eight . . .” the referee bellowed. Martin didn’t hear it. When he finally stood up, it was too late. The fight was over.

“You just don’t think of it,” Hibbert had told me: he was able to face the punches because he could banish the thought of the pain they would cause and the consequences they could have. “You just don’t think of it”: he was able to fight Martin and make an enemy of him for this one night by banishing the knowledge that they are, in his own words, “pretty close”. Shortly before the match, Tommy had called Wayne his “best friend in boxing”.

They had been sparring partners as ­Hibbert trained for the Dave Ryan fights last year. Martin was ringside to watch his friend win the Commonwealth title; he was “over the moon” when Hibbert’s victory was declared. But all of that was irrelevant in the run-up to their own fight. “Boxing gives you discipline and respect [for your opponents]. They’re in the ring to do their job and I’m in there to do mine,” Hibbert explained. “But losing would set me back financially and ruin things for my kids. You’ve got no friends when you go in there. They’re your enemies.”

So: “You just don’t think of it.” But Hibbert did think of it. He couldn’t help it. From early on in the fight, the two boxers would fist-bump each other in the intervals between their 180-second battles: an expression of “hang in there” that was at odds with the jabs and hooks that followed. Their embrace in the final round was only the most open gesture of a friendship that couldn’t quite be denied, even in the midst of physical conflict.

The chime of the final bell faded. Hibbert jumped up in joy – or maybe it was relief – and acknowledged his fans. Then he walked over to Martin and consoled him. The younger man looked up at him, almost in tears. In the post-match interview, Hibbert insisted that, although he had won, Martin had hurt him badly, a strange compliment in any other circumstances but a generous one here. Martin leaned over and kissed him on the side of his head before thanking the referee and Jesus Christ for keeping them safe.

***

“You discipline your mind. That’s the art of training,” Hibbert told me as we sat in his Essex gym. “It keeps your mind active.” Yet boxing, to him, was ultimately “a business”. “You’ve got to do what you’ve got to do to provide for your family,” he said. I asked him how much he makes. “I don’t really wanna say,” he replied, but added: “Hopefully, my next few fights might get me a house paid for, or most of it, anyway.” (While world heavyweight champions such as Tyson Fury can earn purses of over £3.5m, Commonwealth title fights in Hibbert’s category are far less lucrative. Other boxers have received about £30,000 for comparable bouts.)

He did not romanticise the sport, something that writers find oddly difficult to resist – Ernest Hemingway even took it up as an amateur and built a ring in the backyard of his house in Key West, Florida. Hibbert spoke of his years as a manual labourer, laying floors, with almost as much fondness as he described his boxing career. It was
work, that’s all.

But work of this sort, which takes for granted the risk of severe injury, seems to confer on its practitioner an aura of strength that goes beyond the merely physical. Talking to Hibbert as he trained at his gym and as he rested at his London hotel on the morning of the fight, I was reminded of Ruskin’s thoughts on mountain climbing. In a letter to his father in 1863, he wrote:

“. . . if you come to a dangerous place, and turn back from it, though it may have been perfectly right and wise to do so, still your character has suffered some slight deterioration . . . whereas if you go through with the danger, though it may have been apparently rash and foolish to encounter it, you come out of the encounter a stronger and better man, fitter for every sort of work or trial, and nothing but danger produces this effect.”

***

My impression of John Wayne Hibbert was one of solidity of character. I suspect that he is not alone among boxers to have this trait, forged, perhaps, by the tempering of the will that is necessary for such an extreme occupation.

The morality of the sport has been much debated but, in the same spirit as we can condemn wars but honour the soldiers who fight them, I think the bravery and the glory of boxers are beyond dispute. And there I go – romanticising it, when it’s strictly a matter of business. It’s work, that’s all.

Yo Zushi’s latest album, “It Never Entered My Mind”, is released by Eidola Records

Yo Zushi is a sub-editor of the New Statesman. His work as a musician is released by Eidola Records.

This article first appeared in the 28 July 2016 issue of the New Statesman, Summer Double Issue