Sharpton / Hitchens Debate - Can Morality Exist Without God?
Vložit
- čas přidán 15. 05. 2007
- Complete video at: fora.tv/2007/05/07/Al_Sharpton...
Author Christopher Hitchens debates the Reverend Al Sharpton on the question of whether morality can exist in the absence of God.
-----
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. -- NYPL
Christopher Hitchens is an author, journalist and literary critic. Now living in Washington, D.C., he has been a columnist at Vanity Fair, The Nation and Slate; additionally, he is an occasional contributor to many other publications.
Al Sharpton Jr. is a Pentecostal minister, a political activist, civil rights activist and film actor. In recent years, Sharpton has also become a perennial candidate in his quest for the Democratic Party's nomination for President of the United States. Author of "Go and Tell Pharaoh: The Autobiography of the Reverend Al Sharpton."
How the hell does Christopher Hitchens manage to stay calm all the time? Even when he's angry, he still looks reserved.
Sharpton and Hitchens. That's like getting Floyd Mayweather to fight a 10 year old girl.
zamardii12 it’s like getting Fury to fight Mayweather
Alex Baxter you do mean Billy Fury there don’t you?
HEY, HEY!
Don't insult 10 year old girls.
It seems that we are in agreement that there is a mismatch. It is a little less likely that we have chosen the same champion.
Seriously this question is every christians debate to win like how did he lose this badly 🤣🤣🤣
"If you're a black Christian, you have a real short memory" - Chris Rock.
Hmmmm; but Christian is nowhere in biblical text. Fascinating you would think that. However, Frederick Douglas believed in God. He did not believe the religious extremism he was under, but miraculously escaped for his freedom and lived to tell about it. I wouldn’t consider him a warped definition of the word Christian, but he most certainly believed in God!
What kind of memory, a memory like MLK or Harriet Tubman? Well, I'll take memories of God like they had over anything Chris Rock has!
@@jthanrubio1126 Thank you for proving my point - and I wager you're completely oblivious of it.
Adults are SUCH CHILDREN when it comes to god. It's like they are a bunch of first graders sitting around asking each other if they believe in Santa Claus. "I believe in god. Do you?" "Yes-I believe in god too". Fkn children. IF GOD WERE REAL HE WOULD SHOW HIMSELF IN WHATEVER WAY HE NEEDED TO IN ORDER TO MAKE IT SUPREMELY CLEAR THAT HE IS THERE AND EXISTS. But he doesn't. 25000 children die each day under age 5. Starvation, malnutrition, disease, homocide, accidents-AND ALL YOUR DAMNED GOD WANTS IS PRAISE AND TITHES AND ADORATION. FK HIM-let him get his adoration some other way. Name JUST ONE thing he does/has done to make the world a better, safer place.
@@aaricaceleste just for clarification the term Christian is in the biblical Text. Acts 11:26 And when he had found him, he brought him unto Antioch. And it came to pass, that a whole year they assembled themselves with the church, and taught much people. And the disciples were called Christians first in Antioch.
Poor Christopher....how tedious to deal with someone who thinks they're far smarter than they actually are.
'Twas his entire life.
Hitchens couldn't answer😂. He kept on giving subjective responses on morality.
Not so much smarter, as more "knowledgeable," more certain. Even the faithful doubt,...
...except in relation to others.
What a mismatch of intellects.
Hitch was incredible because he seemed to think not in words and sentences, but to have his thoughts formed in whole paragraphs. And there's always a present at the end, a little embellishment, "How about that for a Modest Proposal?" By the beard of Daniel Dennett, Hitch had a gorgeous mind. We need him now more than ever.
Poor AL was getting schooled the entire discussion. This was brutal. Sharpton didn’t go to divinity school or college and it shows.
Sharpton really tries to act respond intellegently. doesn't work. What a fool.
I don't think he understood much of this.
Of course he didn't understand much of it. He had the nerve to call Hitchens arrogant. It's his arrogance that is keeping him from understanding what Hitch is saying!
His belief in a religion is the root cause. If he didn't believe in a religion I don't believe All would be arrogant, he wouldn't be a Reverend than either.
If you base morality on the dictates of Yahweh then you must concede that morality is mutable according to the whims of God. Rape, theft, genocide, infanticide (yes, God and God's people both killed babies) and murder were all either engaged in or ordered by the God of the Old Testament.
Religious morality is the RELATIVE morality. Atheistic morality, based on reason and empathy, while being subjective, is the CONSISTENT morality.
An atheist can say that genocide and the killing of innocents is ALWAYS wrong.
A theist can only say that it is wrong when God says it is wrong, and right when God says it is right.
The moral problem for theists is that anyone can claim that they are doing the will of God at any time to suit their selfish goals. No one can say that certain people were hearing the voice of God when he said 'kill your enemies' and other people are mistaken or lying when they slaughter for God.
The truth is the OPPOSITE of the theistic attack on atheistic morality. You can ONLY be a moral person if you reject the oscillatory pseudo-morality of the theistic God.
The first few minutes . . . the look of disdain on Hitchens’ face is priceless.
You're probably right. Reasoning is impossible without experience. The time we reason out is the time when we question. When we experiencing nothing, there's nothing we can question about.
Yup, all morality comes from god... dont forget to sacrifice a cow to Poseidon for safe travels on your vacation!!!
Fuck! I knew I forgot something!
Lmao, ahh you two..stahpp it! :P
Yep! Don’t forget to come see if they discover a cure for the disease classified as death in another million years. It took longer to invent the automobile than it did to believe in self evidence of God.
I don’t do cows, but I imbibe a whole bottle of red wine before going on trips, on behalf of Dionysus yes, and I feel his presence when I’m buzzed. 😊
Thank you --I dearly needed that.
"Jesus did walk on water (natural explanation)..."
I would REALLY like to know this "natural explanation"?
"Thy cline in your direction, Sir." I still can't believe he held the civility on that one...
Morality or sense of right/wrong can arise out of many avenues, but for some reason I've personally never understood how this is linked with a concept of god or not, let alone be dependant upon it.
Hitchens is a brilliant thinker/speaker and let's hope he successfully battles his cancer for a few more years yet.
I love how Chris cites Dostoevsky's Smerdyakov: a sad, epileptic, nihilist...
sounds like a modern day Christian.
"The answer, I think... is to try and move people up to a cultural and intellectual level where they are above that kind of appeal, where they are not credulous, where they don't take things on faith, where they don't make gods or idols or images out of anybody, including fellow human beings; and they learn the pleasures of thinking for themselves, how about that for a modest proposal." - Christopher Hitchens
I'm a positive person but I ddon't see that happening in the next thousand years.
morality can only exist without god, for morality is what we think is right and wrong. in religion you only have orders, and you either obey or disobey. god ordered not to kill but ordered abe to kill his own son. against his own morality he wanted to please god. morally he knew it was wrong to kill his son but also knew disobedience of god meant hell. abe elects to kill his son. morality comes from religion? not even once. but its ok because later in the bible god took a whole village of first borns. so god still got what he wanted. obey or die and burn in hell. that is not how to build a moral compass.
The problem is, if we are just following someone else's instructions, in what way are we acting morally? Aren't we just being obedient to something stronger that has made rules for us?
Obedience is not acting morally.
@BeggarSyu Can you please provide the verses in the Bible that you are referring to?
"Which is more likely? That the whole natural order is suspended, or that a Jewish minx should tell a lie."
that is just utter brilliance, love that quote!
Let's assume there is a God. How are we supposed to know what He thinks is moral?
We wouldn't know unless he told us somehow. Since he didn't there's no reason to assume that there is one.
because he said thy shall not kill and then told people to kill people. dont you understand his position?
***** The 10 commandments were written by men. Supposedly they were given to men by God, but we don't know that. We're just trusting the men that claimed that God talked to them.
Not to worry. He has given us his priests and his prophets to tell us. Of course, since all those who claim to among this elite, we must choose.
I used to think these debates were useless too, and they are if you give faith as much credibility as fact. But these debates are important in that they might just open up the minds of a few; and in fact that has been the case. Sure, there are plenty of people who fall into the two categories you mentioned, but there are also those who just haven't thought about it, and there are lots more people like that then you'd think. They are the ones who benefit the most from these debates.
@AstronomyGuru1 Which bit has the forced cannibalism?
Lift yourselves out of the sheepish slavery of religion and live a life of maturity.
What is the "proof" you keep speaking of? I have yet to see it anywhere.
And after that, Sharpton realized that HE was the one that needed help from the "referee".
Al is more of an intellect than I realized but Christopher should be declared a global treasure for his powerhouse intellect.
@WitnessoftheTruth Heard it before.
Which do you think it will be? a, b, or c? I'm guessing b, but it well could be a.
If you need religion for morality, you don’t lack morality, you lack empathy
@sleepyredbull I see i may have gotten over wrong :-) I completely agree with everything you wrote, i was just taking up your comment and answering it in regard of Religion's use of the words "guidance", "protection" and "lost". It wasn't meant to be a direct answer to you using them, if you know what i mean. I may be lacking a bit of grammatic precision in my argument since i'm from Austria (Vienna) :-)
The evidence of innate morality existing by pure chance would indeed be a most peculiar phenomenon, however, the morality innate in humanity does not exist simply by pure chance and there is indeed a force of control - society.
Morality is born from our need to live and work together.
@Fwickie How can I help you? Not sure what your asking?
How so what?
very interesting.
There's a part of this debate where Hitchens asks "why does the best guy I know get cancer of the throat?"
Three years later, I think a lot of us fans of Hitchens are asking the same question.
If he didn't know already I'm sure he knew something was wrong. Would love to hear what George carlin and christopher Hitchens take on wtf is going on nowadays
@sleepyredbull my wholefamily is muslim in the cultural sense, i myself am not however i need to "act" like i am because they wouldnt understand what i beleive & they are after all my parents i wouldnt want to upset them. Is there a specific reason why you have messaged me? :) il be happy to help with my limited knowledge
morality is based on the golden rule "treat others as you yourself would like to be treated". since birth we expect care, attention and compassion, a very comfortable set of traits which gives us a feeling of being accepted and recognized. we later than hold onto these traits and make up standards in order to remain away from pain, both physical and mental, because it causes us discomfort and we need to show others compassion in order to receive compassion back.
"To make a good person do an evil thing that takes religion"
"So you think every evil thing was done by a religious person?"
These are the people who challenge us
Well thats essentially what Hitchens says, atheists cant do evil only religion can do it. Chris didnt even respond to it
@@ceceroxy2227 no, that isn't what he said meant. I know simple logic can be difficult for theists, but that isn't what that means.
Well ogirv, i gotta go but i had a blast..
despite my tone, i do have a great deal of respect for someone such as yourself who is willing to ask all the hard questions in pursuit of the truth...
I will await this natural explanation for walkin on water in the meantime ;P
@Trelli28 so i should drop my opinion of him to take on yours? that's kind of hypocritical of you, and maybe he seems long-winded because his opponent lacks a retort, that certainly seems to be the case in this debate
Love the way at the start where Hitchens looks as though he can't believe the shite coming out of Sharptons gob 😂😂😂
True True very true. I was trying to find the answer to that question
Hitchens is such a master of debate. He rarely looks at Sharpton or even acknowledges him, while Sharpton is staring intently. Hitchens just plain doesn't give a shit about him. He is talking to us...not Sharpton. He knows he won't win him over, so he doesn't care. Sharpton wants to beat Hitchens yet Hitchens wants to educate us. Thank you Christopher. While I believe we won't see each other after we are dead, I am glad today to have seen this.
U know he is dead right and also If he were here i dont think he would even care abt u😂
I do not think that people get their morality from religion. People have morality _despite_ religion.
YEAHHH Christopher!!! WOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!
@mezzanur I think you missed my point about the cold-warm analogy. My point is regardless of how hot or cold we perceive the room to be, the room has to be hot or cold. What the true heat of the room is not subjective, only our opinion of the room's heat is subjective. The truth is then the standard we can use to decide who was more right then wrong.
Suffering is never a good thing otherwise it wouldn't be suffering. We all avoid suffering unless to escape worse suffering.
*Hitchens* Why Reverend, I seem to have flustered you. Your perm is curling. *snide smirk*
I'm an atheist but I agree, without a higher power how can there be morality? For anything to be 'evil' or 'good' there must be a deity to judge it, I don't think humans have that power. Events are just reactions between particles, how can you have an 'evil' reaction? To us some things may be not nice, but we can't say they're ultimately bad. We do nice actions because its simply nice to be nice.
All People should Adhere to : The Simple , Golden Rule ! No God Needed to Beg For Your Money Required ! It Was The ' Christians ' Who Hung The ' Witches ' ? in Salem , Mass . ! Not The : Golden Rule Followers !
Morality is based on logic. the golden rule is basic reciprocity: if you hurt others then they will be likely to hurt you.
Well it is easy to debate when you've got logic, reason, and proof on your side; I'll give you that.
I completely agree with this sentiment. The existence of God in no way shows us what exactly constitutes a moral action. I apologize if I seemed to promote a religious ideology based on revelation or divine wisdom (I wholly reject the idea of God 'interceding' to select group of individuals, but that is a discussion for another post). Reason is the only tool we have in establishing morality, but I see God as a necessary 'backstop' in order to end the infinite regress that goes along with reason.
I agree with the modest proposition. Thinking for yourself is the way to go. We're human after all. We're adapted for the purpose. That and running for long distances on our hind limbs. :-)
No, i'm saying that "complexity doesn't imply design." You can describe the complexity all you want, and it doesn't change the fact that complexity doesn't imply design.
Now we speak of significant individuals in history. Mother Teresa is a Catholic and she continue to inspire people until now. So are the popes, saints, and missionaries and Florence Nightingale too. These are examples of people who changed the world through their faith in Jesus Christ. Their influence on today's society is immense.You will never understand the true essence of Christianity unless you first empty your cup.
This debate was akin to a 16yo sparring prime Mike Tyson.
Why isn't there?
@Scape9047 I agree, as for thinking of whether dropping change in a donation box is moral or not. When i see one, i think, it would be a great deed to drop change in it. Dropping change in a lose change dish wouldn't be equivalent. We place thoughts in all of our actions and decide whether its good or bad. I do anyhow, lol.
The argument that you can't have a sense of morality without faith has always been lost on me. I, as an Atheist, consider myself to have a very strong moral compass and i haven't needed a God to get that. I obviously don't follow them, but i can safely look down the list of commandments and the Bible's teachings and say that i've never broken any of them in my life - even though i haven't explicitly followed them either.
Having faith does not make you a good person (fundamentalists, anyone?).
The Hitch simply NAILS Sharptons arse to the floor. It is OBVIOUS that the reverend did NOT 'listen' to a single word that Hitchins said here. :(
"Morality is innately in us" should be understood figuratively, not literally. Selfishness comes from our genes (not exactly "coincedental masses of tissue"), and morality/altruism is an important part of selfishness. In our evolution, we needed to cooperate with each other in order to survive and reproduce. We treat our family altruistically because they're likely to share our genes. We keep promises because we expect others to do the same (reciprocate). Morality is the expression of our genes.
An athiest can not obey the great commandment, 'Love the Lord your God with all your heart, all your soul, and all your mind'
What is your morality based on?
A: Some "moral/immoral" hierarchy? Upheld from on high by god or some other cosmic structure?
B: The principle that each individual has wishes for his own body and possessions; and to violate those wishes means that you have just sanctioned the violation of your own wishes?
Is "right vs wrong" REALLY the basis for morality, or is there a principle behind it? Like mathematics?
Compare it to a math problem. Is 1+1 = 2 "right" because of some notion of rightness that exists in the universe? Or is it based on some structure layed out by man?
@brokentwice78 What about animal morality? Are they divinely inspired as well?
Good point.
I can hardly imagine a better advocate than Hitch.
"If you want a 'good' person to do a wicked thing that takes religion." That is a good sound byte for the debate, but is only his opinion.
extremely well put CapnFleur.
@daemonowner , what would Ur basis be for saying we do not have freewill, because we are not as perhaps as absolute as a religionist's god?
I believe when the term free will is used, it is not meant to be absolute, but rather one of ability to make a reasoned choice. ( Diff than an animal deciding what animal to attack if in a target rich environ
Because in order to disgrace one's self, there must be some standard which we owe to ourselves that was created outside of ourselves. If we all decide what constitutes 'grace', independently, then the term becomes meaningless. In order for us to 'owe' anything to ourselves, we must have intrinsic worth, as people. That worth can't simply come from ourselves, but it must come from outside of ourselves. Otherwise, there is no basis on which to say, "I disgraced myself." Anybody can do anything.
Regardless of your opinion of Christopher Hitchens or his points of view, you must acknowledge that he is an absolutely superb orator.
Why?
@@aaricaceleste Why what, honey?
The video is missing entire debate, so I’m unable to tell if he’s a great orator or not.
@@aaricaceleste you can find him in many other videos. If you are a believer I’m sure you will not like his point of view, but if you can overlook that I think you’ll agree he is very good at oration.
@@tommym321 Perhaps.
human morality should be judged by one rule and one rule alone: EMPATHY. when you see someone undergoing pain, the same parts that are active in the person's brain undergoing the pain are active in the observer. (e.g. have you ever cringed after seeing a barticular brutal scene?) empathy is the only measure of ethics, and any other detracts from empathy itself.
He answered it with the shortened version of Steven Weinberg"Religion is an insult to human dignity. With or without it you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion" There are evil people period, there are good people, but it takes someone thinking that they are acting under divine rule and believing they have "god on their side" to do evil things!
@commandyou --good point.
@strikenetter No, it's a logic argument put forth by Plato which talks about the nature of moral or pious deeds.
I believe you've missed my point.
When I say: "Nothing is unnatural", it might be more proper for me to say:
"Everything is 'natural'..."
Because everything in existence exists naturally? Does it make sense now?
Oh Al 🤦♀️
Religion teaches us to be satisfied with not understanding the world in which we live.
@mez It's our human interpretation of Morality that is Subjective, but that doesn't stop there from being a Right and Wrong. It's like Truth. Our interpretation of Truth is Subjective, but things are still either objectively True or False. Our interpretation of suffering is subjective, but things either cause harm or don't. Thus by using suffering as a standard, which we do anyway, we can determine what is Moral is what helps us avoid harm and prosper, and what is Immoral is what causes harm.
Because there is no convincing Sharpton as to the errors of his ways- but there is a great chance of Chris educating the audience.
Actually we can represent it mathematically: ∞ (if you can't see that it is a lemniscate, also known as the infinity symbol). So what are you talking about?
When Catherine the Great came to power in Russia she said, 'I shall be an autocrat, that's my job, and God will forgive me, that's his.'
@Trelli28 as do i, but i wouldn't refer to it as droning on and on, i'd call it something along the lines of reinforcing arguments with reason and logic
Yes but its a vague indirect response to a direct question in which Sharpton tried to apply his own point of view while dismissing the point made previous (4:42-4:49) which is often done in these types of debate as you see Hitchens more directed to the crowd trying to win with charm over reasoning
Did Hitch answer his question about whether folks do immoral things without consideration of Religion?
As for Al Sharpton, I don't always agree with him either but at least he is wise enough to acknowledge the obvious and that is that God is real.
I guess I was generalizing, sorry. Thank you for your courage for our country. :)
Beyond Prevenient Grace is another discussion altogether.
Sorry Hitchens that I must preface my view of you on this video with a word you may find offensive but: GOD, I love everything you say in this video. You are genius!
may I ask what this strong evidence is?
@LemUUU Exactly! We have the ability to reason the consequences of our actions, and that is what stops us from running wild. It doesn't take a supernatural being to make us "do good". Of course someone could make the argument that every action a person takes is therefore "selfish", but that would require a redefinition of what the word "selfish" fundamentally means in the context of a functioning society.
@trubornagain, christianity only came on the scene the last 2000 years. What was the way say 7000 years ago?
Sharpton. You are intellectually overwhelmed. Not even close.
@83Hammerhead , I'm still trying to work this thru, but I guess I would have to say that it is innate, that is tied to an emotional basis, that it is not mostly dependent on reasoning. If I say that incest, pedophilia are wrong, not just because of potential genetics, but rather of destroying the fabric of society ( the family) then what do I do with homosexuality? Would you say that adultery is immoral? cont
Atheism seems rather empty of supplying an answer.
Moral (definition): "expressing or teaching a conception of right behavior". This concept is only practiced when there is fear involved, wether it's fear of God (or a supreme being), authority, or the fear of being repelled, subjigated or injured mentally or physically by one's loved ones, peers, enemies or society in general. In otherwords, people practice morals as a survival mechanism, nothing more. Survival of the species trumps all.
@AChildsEnigma I cannot speak for Hitchens. However, there are many who argue along the lines that, in the absence of supernaturally dictated morality, our own human sense of right & wrong is something that developed culturally over many thousands of years. Essentially, our intellect allows for empathy & the ability to learn from the hardships of others. Also: to benefit society benefits yourself, thus harmful acts should be avoided, beneficial acts encouraged. It's not complicated.
@mezzanur I never used the word develope. I'm saying our sense of morality evolved with us. When we were apes what was good and bad was the same as it is today but our capacity for understanding and behaving morally was limited. As we evolved we could make more complex judgments about what is good or bad. Objective morality is the abstract, we have to perceive what is moral ourselves the same we have to perceive what is true, using logical and reason. It is our perception that is subjective.
The actual source of our morality is obviously the development (a better word might be "evolution"? :) of sociology. It is something that cultures have developed over thousands of years. One nice thing about this answer is that it explains every aspect of morality from the commonalities between all cultures to the specific differences between cultures. It also clearly explains how someone like Stalin or Hitler could have come to power with support of his people despite being amoral.
"Keep" your illusion private.
Hitchen's family will all one day have opportunities to ponder God. Right now, Hitchens needs to be 100% certain that he is leading them correctly and I honor that decision. If Hell is real, and I believe it is, than I would not be so adamant in my rejection of those attempting to rescue them.
@mezz But we make those definitions from our own observations, what stops our observations from being subjective? If moral values are not based on facts and observation but just on personal opinion, there is no reason to hold on to them. All beings try to avoid suffering. We feel pain so we avoid harm because harm can lead to death, and all life seeks to live. If i'm an axe-murderer most people would think i was bad, not because of personal opinion, but because i am a danger to their well being.
Morality IS determined by power. Case in point, churches. Religious groups teach the existence of an objective, set moral code regardless of who is in charge or in power; yet their mere existence is disproof of their own ideology.
Why do people believe in morality? Because religion tells them to. Why do people do what their religion tells them? Because religious groups are POWERFUL.