A Debate: God Is Not Great with Al Sharpton and Christopher Hitchens.
Taking on possibly the greatest issue of our time - the malignant force of religion in the world - Christopher Hitchens makes the ultimate case against religion through a close and learned reading of the major religious texts, citing numerous historical instances in which sexual repression and outrageous acts of violence have been committed in the name of God. He argues for a more secular life based on science and reason, in which hell is replaced by the Hubble telescope's awesome view of the universe, and Moses and the burning bush give way to the beauty and symmetry of the double helix.
Join The New York Public Library as the Reverand Al Sharpton and author Christopher Hitchens debate faith, religion and God.
Bio
Christopher Hitchens
Christopher Hitchens is an author and journalist whose books, essays, and journalistic career span more than four decades. He has been a columnist and literary critic at The Atlantic, Vanity Fair, Slate, World Affairs, The Nation, Free Inquiry, and became a media fellow at the Hoover Institution in 2008.
Reverend Al Sharpton
Reverend Al Sharpton is one of the nation's most-renowned civil rights leaders and the founder and President of the National Action Network (NAN), a not-for-profit civil rights organization based in Harlem, New York. Rev. Sharpton’s strong commitment to equality and progressive politics has had an irrefutable impact on national politics, as evidenced by his noteworthy presidential run as a U.S. Democratic candidate in 2004 and his compelling speech at the Democratic National Convention. Throughout his career he has challenged the American political establishment to include all people in the dialogue regardless of race, gender, class or beliefs. He is a nationally-syndicated radio host, T.V. personality, and columnist. He has three popular radio shows broadcast throughout the country, a regular television show featured on TV One, and a column that appears in national newspapers across the country. Rev. Sharpton says his religious convictions are the basis for his life and he preaches throughout the country most Sundays.
Relation of human beings to God or the gods or to whatever they consider sacred or, in some cases, merely supernatural. Archaeological evidence suggests that religious beliefs have existed since the first human communities. They are generally shared by a community, and they express the communal culture and values through myth, doctrine, and ritual. Worship is probably the most basic element of religion, but moral conduct, right belief, and participation in religious institutions also constitute elements of the religious life. Religions attempt to answer basic questions intrinsic to the human condition (Why do we suffer? Why is there evil in the world? What happens to us when we die?) through the relationship to the sacred or supernatural or (e.g., in the case of Buddhism) through perception of the true nature of reality. Broadly speaking, some religions (e.g., Judaism, Christianity, and Islam) are outwardly focused, and others (e.g., Jainism, Buddhism) are inwardly focused.
Sharpton clearly couldn't defend against Hitchen's logic and kept insisting that god is one thing and the books that say what a god is are another, while without the bible there would be nothing to which christians could place their faith. Therefore when Hitchen's was so eloquently talking about the bible, the koran and all the other aspects of religion, he was in fact attacking god himself, while Sharpton couldn't see it and instead was refusing his own religion for an agnostic one.
Sharpton resorts to the absolutely ridiculous argument that morality doesn't exist without religion. I swear, if someone ever uses that argument on me in person, I will punch them in the face! Also, love the way Sharpton is so condescending towards evolution in part 26. It just shows how limited his knowledge and understanding are on the topic. What a windbag.
This was always going to be somewhat of an intellectual mismatch in pure debating terms. Sharpton does deserve credit in making this an easily viewed and entertaining debate. Sadly though any discussion lasting longer than five minutes was always going to show his limitations and lack of depth.
I feel Hitchens was as usual superb, although working very much within his capabilities.
Watching Hitchens was rather like watching a Ferrari overtake a Mini in the fast lane, knowing that a gentle nudge on the accelerator whilst in second gear was all that was required to achieve its goal.
"science is the primary cause of "inhumanity and moral corruption" in the modern world"
- Science is the study of the natural world through observation and experiment. There is no moral quotient for the man made tenant: Science. That very thing is not at all responsible for anything. It makes no decisions and travels no where ever. Science does not chose to DO anything. A blade being able to fall and cut a head from it's body takes the study of metal and wood and gravity. There is a scientific basis behind the guillotine and it's the same basis behind chopping vegetables to be used in soup for the homeless in soup kitchens. Science did not decide to chop off heads of people or lettuce, religious humans did.
------------------------
"So it is easy to show that "Science" has been the major source of evil during the past 200 years, easily eclipsing the evil that Al Qaeda and the Taliban have done in the name of religion."
Evil, the word, has been repurposed by the religious to justify such acts of murder committed by those political/terror groups. Ignored, as always and apologized for continually are the inquisition and the crusades that were acts of terrorism by religious humans. Evil the word, first meant "uppity". It is uppity of one to claim that it is easy to accuse science for uppity-ness during the past 200 years. Of course, science is the study of the natural world and only humans such as scientists and the religious can actually be "uppity".
-----------------------
"...it is the religious standard that we use to make that (moral) judgment."
Is it the religious standard(R.S.) that is used to determine the man, Lot, a righteous man when he rapes his own daughters in a cave? What of this R.S. where a man vows to kill the innocent whomever that meets him first upon return of a war won? She was given some time to think about her life but then he kills his own daughter. No religious person holds any higher moral ground than any non-believer. The present pagan witch pope reassinged a child molester to an upper position in the church in vatican city to protect the molester from police.
Is it that high moral religious standard you speak of?
There may be no absolutes but crusading through Europe in mass murder is a wrong, certainly. Those that are living and are aware of this must have a right to live. It IS a "wrong" to claim that Hitler had a right to take those lives and certainly an uppity religious person would want to get away with such genocide.
It is easy to find people in any group who contribute to the "inhumanity and moral corruption of this world." I am a scientist, so take believers in science. If I were to argue that science is the primary cause of "inhumanity and moral corruption" in the modern world I might start with the invention of scientific execution with the guillotine which in the name of reason and science was used to slaughter so many innocent people during the French Revolution. Thus started the modern age. I might move on to the theories of Darwin which "scientifically" proved the right of more highly evolved people to take up the "white man's burden" and colonize so many people. Move on to slavery and its follow on, Jim Crow, which of course was only the more evolved people taking responsibility, as Darwin "clearly showed" was their evolutionary right, for less evolved people. At the start of the 20th century scientific reasoning introduced "scientific materialism" which was used to justify the slaughter of uncounted millions in Russia, China, Cambodia, etc. And let us not forget the scientific proofs for the "master race" which though not as deadly as scientific materialism in terms of numbers of lives, showed the depths of depravity to which science can lead us. (I need only mention the scientific investigations of Dr. Mengele, the angel of death.)
So it is easy to show that "Science" has been the major source of evil during the past 200 years, easily eclipsing the evil that Al Qaeda and the Taliban have done in the name of religion.
To me the major difference between Atheism and Religion in the moral sense is that Atheism offers no basis for moral action. For the Atheist, morality is reduced to personal preference. As I was assured by the Faculty President of the Humanist society at Harvard in 1988, while we might abhor what Hitler did, we cannot say, in any absolute sense, that he was "wrong".
On the other hand, we can always call upon the religious person to live up to the standards of his religion. We cannot force him to accept and live the teachings he claims to espouse, but at least there are teachings which provide a moral standard.
Individual Atheists may live much more moral lives and have higher standards than individual Religious believers, but in judging the relative morality, it is the religious standard that we use to make that judgment.
Your download link is dead. I refuse to use your crappy ad-infested embedded flash player. I had to enable javascript for a dozen sites with NoScript on FireFox. Suggest you hire a real webmaster who knows how to code for non-IE browsers.
Sharpton is right, (I can't believe I'm writing those words, but he is).
Why is it that Hitchens has SUCH a difficult time distinguishing between belief in the God of Abrahamic religions, (i.e. a punitive God), and a Transcendental God?
Hitchen's argument against the existence of God rests solely on the absurdities of a handful of religions from the Middle East in the Bronze Age. A fifth-grader could do that. Try arguing against the possibility of a Collective or Supreme Consciousness (for lack of a better term) at the heart of the universe. Much more difficult task.
I don't think this gave us much of an idea of what Christopher Hitchins is about. Read his book if you want to get more insight into his position. It's a good read and, while I don't agree with many of his conservative positions, I am in almost complete agreement with his assessment of organised religion.
This was painful to watch. Very much because of the first 'question'. But also, because much like the platform he was defending, Sharpton could only offer ambiguous fluff. Hitchens addressed every one of the questions clearly and at great length. Some of you, obviously, would have preferred the answers not to be so lengthy. I'm sure Sharpton is a decent man, but all he was able to do was play the 'personal conviction' card. Nobody can take this away from him, not even the knowledgeable Christopher Hitchens. The Personal conviction card, in situations such as this one, is a conversation killer, a dead end and in many cases a coward's way out. If the debate had gone according to what Sharpton considered relevant, then the only things said would have been, 'Well, I can't prove it, you can't disprove it, therefore, the existence of god is inconclusive! Thank you for coming, everybody!' To his credit though, he took the criticism rather well (I thought). People can call Hitchens names all they want, but at least when he says something particularly nasty sounding about someone else, it's not at all unfounded (at least not in any of the public interviews with him I've seen).
member. 
