Sharpton vs Hitchens

You may have heard about the Al Sharpton vs Christopher Hitchens debate due to Al's derogatory remarks towards Mitt Romney.

But if you haven't seen the debate you are missing out on one of the better defenses of God that I have seen.

What makes Al's case so strong?

He refuses to defend the Bible or the Koran or any other denominational dogma, but rather posits what I call the Morality from Design argument:

Smackdown on Slate

I suspect Al knows that making the claim "God is not great" is a curious claim for an atheist to make (supposing as it does God's existence), and is too good a lawyer to get off a bone with meat like that on it.

Christopher Hitchens does assault religion with gusto and style, but he never did address Al's main thrust and so I give the edge to Al Sharpton.

I think that Socrates addressed Dr. Sharpton's argument in Euthyphro, or at least could provide Dr. Sharpton with a good puzzle to sort out.

His analysis went something like this:

Does God approve of my actions because they are good, or are my actions good because God approves of them?

If my actions are good only because God approves of them, then good is entirely arbitrary, depending upon the whims of God.

If, on the other hand, God approves of my actions because they are intrinsically good, then there must be some divine source of values which we might come to know independently of God.


See what you think of the debate. I enjoyed it.

I'll add one final thought. I feel that Bill Clinton is at his best when being attacked, for instance by Amy Goodman, because it is a chance for him to expose his value judgements and they are usually sound. I feel that Al Sharpton, and perhaps religious leaders in general, grow in my esteem when speaking frankly about their sprirituality rather than their "denominational dogma" (i.e. religious habits).

See what you think.