The Logical Incoherency of Atheist Sam Harris

[skaloon]

too bad that morality is decided by humans. there is no other morality. if 99 proc of the people were killer psychopats - killing would be moral. so Sam Harris is working with current situation - we got a majority of sane people. so we build our morality around them using objective observation - however in higher sense it's still subjective morality.

[Allallt]

Harris defines morality as something built into wellbeing. He then defines morally good and morally bad against the rise and fall of wellbeing.

In this video, Craig is trying to address prioritizing morality.

Let me put Sam Harris' argument another way: if morality does not consider the wellbeing of conscious creatures, what does it consider?

If it considers the preferences of a God, then it doesn't consider wellbeing. So the violent bits of the Bible are morally okay; God's preference.

[drcraigvideos]

@MrPurpose79 You don't realize that he knows that. Listen to the video, please. Dr. Craig specifically said you DON'T need to believe in God in order to live moral lives!

[Tuber77]

Athiest are hardly logical because they cut themselve off from the possibility before the all facts are known. And Therefore dont bother to look any further.

[pimpdarlin]

@Tuber77

Yeah, I have always thought that.

They feel the need to feel certainty about something they cannot be certain of.

I have found many atheists are reacting emotionally against religious indoctrination

[supersonicfaceplant]

Life is fleeting ever so fast. Your time on Earth is so very short. If you believe it is only about yourself so be it, I hold no domain over your life. I cannot tell you what to do, or what to say. If you spend your days defiling his name, or praising it...you should know I'm no better than you. We are all equal in the eyes of God. Please know this, banish ur pride, repent you sins, accept what Jesus did for you...and you will be as pure as freshly fallen snow. Copy and paste this msg Christians

[slimone87]

not a compelling argument at all. In fact a pretty useless and tired one

[granddad2002]

Elaborate morality has a utility; essentially what a social group subscribe to for the benefit of the collective population for tolerant and empathetic co-existence of the whole. As an atheist I do not attempt to justify or rebuke morals... I accept the customs and tradition of the society I live in... an disagree if only I find myself in conflict with the bigotry or intolerance of others. Win, lose or concession is a matter of conscience. Claiming something as a 'logical' fallacy is not a win.

[07Aristotle]

@granddad2002 Yes, but a logical fallacy destroys any credibility. It essentially means your wrong and incoherent.

[themediocrenontheist]

If a good God prohibits torture he does so because torture is intrinsically wrong, not merely because he declares torture to be wrong by fiat; but if torture is intrinsically wrong, then it is wrong regardless of whether or not God exists. Either certain acts are wrong regardless of anyone's opinions or commands (including God's), or else all that we mean by "torture is wrong" is "God prohibits torture." Rather than grounding the objectivity of ethics, DCT completely undermines it.

[themediocrenontheist]

WLC attempts to mingle the concepts of *a* god, and *my specific* god. He can ontological this and epistemological that all he wants; Even if creationism were true, that would be akin to an autopsy revealing that the cause of death were not natural, and that foul play was to blame. However, "someone did it," and "Colonel Mustard did it in the Ball Room with the lead pipe" are two different concepts, the latter of which would require a separate investigation. You can't 'logically deduce' Yahweh.

[mvpuz]

Just my two cents.

[mvpuz]

Also. Well-being is not just a mentality. If i kill people because it makes me happy, but I end up in jail and can no longer kill people and am therefore unhappy, then I've compromised my well-being. If I consistently eat chocolate because the taste makes me happy, but I end up getting fat when I wanted to lose weight, then I've compromised my well-being. Seeking 'here and now' pleasures (like a murderer being happy because he killed someone) is not identical to seeking one's well-being.

[mvpuz]

Just argue that psychopaths who are happy inflicting harm on others are not well. Argue that a sane, rational, mentally stable person who seeks his/her well-being is better than a insane, irrational, mentally unstable person who seeks his/her well-being. Craig does give a very clever argument, but its Sam Harris's fault for not defining what he meant by well-being or who he believes could seek their well-being without it being tainted.

[episcophagus]

Well, if an idiot speaks, only idiots listen.

[drcraigvideos]

@episcophagus Then stop talking to yourself.

[carlosbassos]

@drcraigvideos wow

[alanswindoll]

This is a terrific argument

[agnostaxian]

2 of the atheist horsemen down, 2 to go. but dawkins is hiding under his oxford desk

[TheXiantruth]

@agnostaxian He has a sweet, oh so sweet, cash cow to protect.

[agnostaxian]

@TheXiantruth yes, he saw what happened to hitchens when he debated craig, don't want to get beat like a grand canyon mule as well, lol

[TheXiantruth]

@agnostaxian Hell....my mother could beat Dawkins if it was truly a debate based on Logic instead of anti-religious bigotry and logical fallacies which are the bread-and-butter of Dawkins' whole pathetic argument.

I bet her hairdresser and even the guy who washes her car for her could too.

Is Dawkins convincing ANYBODY these days but his usual little atheist pin-headed minions?

I think his 15 minutes of fallaciousness is over personally.

[agnostaxian]

@TheXiantruth lol, yes, i call them the utube dawkins dufus possey, they swarm a site against dawkins to vote it down over and over again, no life, lol

[sanyo1974]

Some People Are Just virus of Other blind atheist ideas. and I ask to myself, why Some people want to close eyes at front to So Many Evidence about the Religious and spiritual quality of the human beign? and I wonder, if evolution is to go far away from the animal kingdom, then the religious quality of the human, most be the first razon for not to be an atheist. Adherence to flesh, thats the razon to become an atheist. Jhon8:19-27

[beesleeper]

I am glad people are rejecting the wishful thinking and hate-filled fairy tale bullshit of religion. The time for DEFERENCE to religion is over. Confront religious nonsense every time it pops up. Every time.

[sanyo1974]

@beesleeper I am glad people are rejecting the wishful thinking and hate-filled fairy tale bullshit of Atheism. The time for DEFERENCE to atheism is over.

Confront Atheism nonsense every time it pops up. Every time.

[agnostaxian]

@beesleeper move to china, the government totally rejects religious nonsense there

[beesleeper]

@agnostaxian Goofy religious shit-bags like you will move before I do. But I guess you can kneel in prayer (EMPHASIS ON KNEELING) and try to pray me and all other rationalists away.

Get to it.

[agnostaxian]

@beesleeper nice come back, you suuurrre got me.;) also, i hear North Korea is also an atheist utopia that hates all things religious and religious shitbags, they actually imprison and kill people like me, it should be paradise for guys like you, go and enjoy

[beesleeper]

@agnostaxian

Like I said, cowardly pathetic religious fuckstain, go kneel in prayer and pray all the scientists and atheists away.

[agnostaxian]

@beesleeper lol, that is the best you got? You are going to have to get a little better at insults if you want to be a true member of the angry utube atheist dufus possey. maybe drop a few more F bombs and better and more ad homs?? :);):)

[Birdieupon]

@beesleeper

"Confront religious nonsense every time it pops up. Every time."

Well poor old Sam Harris certainly didn't do that!

X-D

[beesleeper]

@Birdieupon

poor?

Religious shit refutes itself, you fucking clown.

[Birdieupon]

@beesleeper

"Religious shit refutes itself, you fucking clown."

I should hope so, because you're certainly not doing any good at it!

X-D

[JesusforLife2]

@beesleeper Another angry mindless anti-theist drone who hates God. Your anger and malice towards Jesus Christ leads me to ask you a serious question - You mad bro?

[TheXiantruth]

I have no doubt that if WLC stood up and simply read the phone book YT "new atheists" would argue and put him down.....

...Fear does strange things to these silly "new atheists."

[drcraigvideos]

@TheXiantruth The new atheist followers are mindless zombies. They'll believe anything new atheists say.

[TheXiantruth]

@drcraigvideos ah....I miss the old days when the word "atheist" at least meant somebody who could think some instead of just parrot crap.

[sebah1991]

@drcraigvideos coming from a religious person......

[drcraigvideos]

@sebah1991 coming from a mindless zombie...

[Assaultpredator]

@drcraigvideos

All people are agnostic. I'm an atheist by conventional definitions, but anyone claiming to be certain of something that can in no way be known are all crooks in my book.

Atheists included. Especially the ones that feel they're in some intellectually superior club. It's disgusting.

Most new atheists (or bandwagon atheists) are just as illogical in their reasons as fundamentalist muslims or christians

[themediocrenontheist]

@Assaultpredator "All people are agnostic. I'm an atheist by conventional definitions, but anyone claiming to be certain of something that can in no way be known are all crooks in my book." - Assaultpredator

Even Dawkins is a 6.9 of 7 on a scale of disbelief, because he knows that to assert a claim that "the universe was not created" for 100% truth would be the antithesis of logic. He knows he can't know in general. Now, some *specific* interpretations of God are demonstrably false, I feel.

[Assaultpredator]

@themediocrenontheist

I agree with you, I was just making the point because too too many atheists and theists really have no idea what the philosophical arguments are.

[Assaultpredator]

@themediocrenontheist

I'm speaking of most teenage self named "prodigies," and quite honestly most people in general.

Etymologically

A=without

gnostic= knowledge

I am a strong atheist but technically first and foremost an agnostic. Like EVERYONE.

That is my point, but you don't general hear people defining their terms, it's mostly just speaking past one another, ya dig?

[Assaultpredator]

@themediocrenontheist

BTW Sam Harris argues against using the term atheist altogether. And I happen to agree with him from the standpoint that atheism has nothing to do with it. It's simply doing what should have been done a long time ago is leave the burden of proof with them and watch them fight on top of each other.

Sam Harris is a G. Look up "dangers of atheism" he is not your average intellectual twat. (not that intellectuals are twats lol)

[SaintsOfImpurity]

@drcraigvideos You sound intolerant of other ideas when you unscrupulously lump people into categories. Many people like myself who listen to the new atheists truly try to find points of disagreement with them for risk of agreeing to much. Unless you've missed the point the idea is to keep an open mind and to engage in conversations about what is beauty, what is truth, and what is good. As this seems the only way to move towards a time, a world, and even a moment worth anything at all

[drcraigvideos]

@SaintsOfImpurity ... okay. Anyway, if you think you can find anything genuine from the new atheist crowd, eat your heart out. I call it as it is, complete shallowness.

[SaintsOfImpurity]

@drcraigvideos Well even if all the atheist have been mislead in some way and christianity turns out to be right, there is an admirable trait that often ties with atheists. Its the thirst to understand.Among other things, to understand if religions hold something right.I couldnt express my revulsion anymore than if I met god and he hasnt the slightest sympathy for my confusion. After all he created the circumstances that lead to my genuinely disbelief.That other things seem much more convincing

[scar504]

@SaintsOfImpurity Mute point for there are theists who constantly question and doubt their belief, for instance Dr. Craig has stated he is a christian because the argument for it is better then the ladder meaning if an atheist could refute this belief invariably he would become an atheist because it would then be the more sensible worldview.

to suggest that theists do not "thirst to understand" is a myopic generalization

[SaintsOfImpurity]

@scar504 of believing christianity. I dont doubt that the world could make perfect sense if working the way as chhristianity says it does, though so could many religions. There is a point though were you just have to believe that what these books are saying are true, with little to no evidence other than the book itself. Thats what the difference is. Thats where the jump you make pushes reason aside. It seems that there is something wrong with this kind of thought to me.

[cdstingj]

Sweet!

[95TurboSol]

I hardly ever see such a powerful refutation of a position as this, I think Sam Harris's moral land scape is literally DOA in light of it's internal logical incoherence.

I just hope he is intellectually honest enough to deal with the problems brought out here in the coming months.

-Matt

[TrustinJC]

Gotta love Graig and his reasoning. Though I'm interested in how Harris responded.

[empreme]

@TrustinJC He insulted Christianity. That's how he responded.

[DigitalDecadence]

@TrustinJC Well he kind of didn't respond, that's the thing. His next speech didn't address anything WLC said, instead he went on a bit of a rant against the OT God and Christianity (and a little Islam) in general.

[RepentCaloocan]

Dr. Harris do received a good spanking!

[kmsoileau]

If there is no objective morality, then there is no moral authority at all, and no one has any moral authority above themselves. There is no middle ground.

[empreme]

Although it's bold for Harris to claim objective morals exist. This was one of the worst showings by an atheist I've ever seen. However, I still think Dawkins' would get flogged by Craig in a worse way than even this.

[DigitalDecadence]

@empreme I tend to agree, which is likely why I think Dawkins won't debate WLC directly. Dawkins is an exemplorary scientist, but a very poor philosopher and a terrible theologian. I've seen WLC debate similar people, such as Lewis Wolpert, and it's been a demonstration on how to educate and debate someone at the same time, which is sort of bad really.

[RyanEaster91]

It seems to me on atheism, you have to subscribe to the irrational viewpoints.

1. The universe is eternal (Even though contemporary science disagrees)

2. There is no freewill (everything is predetermined by the way you react to certain stimuli)

3. There are no objective wrongs or rights (under this however, my opinion is just as valid as yours on killing, raping, etc.)

How can any rational person believe those things? It seems like you have to, to save face for atheism.

[arcguede]

@RyanEaster91 My friend, this is exactly the synthesis of atheism.

They claim to justify rationality are irrational.

[yhwhizlife1]

Harris B.A in philosphy stands out like a soar thumb after this ... its my opinion but i think harrris is a crummy philosopher even more so after seeing this highlight

[TheXiantruth]

@yhwhizlife1 Harris has a B.A. in Philosophy!!....Damn! Or does he just have two community college degrees?

Philosophy major here: if I had been a 20 year old Philosophy major and wrote papers like this my professors would've jerked a know in me because of the stupidity of his arguments!!

[themediocrenontheist]

@yhwhizlife1 "Harris B.A in philosphy stands out like a soar thumb after this ... its my opinion but i think harrris is a crummy philosopher even more so after seeing this highlight."

I'm sure that to obtain that B.A. in philosophy, that he had to write papers in which he could properly differentiate between the words 'sore,' and 'soar.' I think you are a crummy linguist after seeing this comment.

[slimone87]

@themediocrenontheist read his books

[yhwhizlife1]

Harris got the rug pulled out from under him in this part

[allabasterkt]

Whomp!

[drshamast]

Dr Craig is killing him With his arguments

[Ledwix]

In no way does my admission to subjective morality mean that I want to go around killing people. It just means that I understand where my values came from. Actions within the universe are never moral or immoral. They are just amoral.

[DazedSpy2]

@Ledwix no one magically claimed that subjective morality means you want to kill people? It means there is no right or wrong on killing people and that any comment to the contrary is simply wrong, thats all. Has nothing to do with advocating or inflicting wants on others your braindead fool.

[Ledwix]

@DazedSpy2 How can you call me a braindead fool when my cognitive abilities are obviously at least somewhat proficient? Internet etiquette sucks.

[DigitalDecadence]

@Ledwix So then, killing and raping children is not morally polar, it's just neutral?

[Ledwix]

@DigitalDecadence They are only morally wrong to humans. If, for instance, an animal existed that needed to eat humans to survive, then under that animal's system of morals, killing and eating humans would be a "good" thing, because the alternative is starvation. Morals are relative to the needs of an organism in the context of its environment and civilization.

The predator-prey models that exist in the environment show that the universe is a heated competition in a neutral battlefield.

[BigG99]

such a good clip of the debate.. Harris is left naked in this argument

[MasterWok7]

He has merely proposed a horribly shallow version of utopianism and has not solved the problem that's picked at the greatest atheist minds in history; that on atheism, human beings are just accidents in an indifferent universe, and they have no more OBJECTIVE value than an ant or a rock.

[MasterWok7]

By his logic, one could say that human beings pollute and destroy the earth, and so they should be killed off to preserve the maximum number of flourishing creatures. And if we killed everyone over 65 and handicapped people, and that contributed to societal flourishing as a whole (financially, medically, and genetically), then it would be morally good.

[MasterWok7]

I really don't understand why people get behind Harris. I know that atheists on YouTube probably don't like Dr. Craig, but Harris just really has no idea what he's talking about. His argument is not only logically incoherent at its core (as shown in this video); it would also create all kinds of problems when if applied to different situations.

[tynytian]

I like how after Craig completely decimates Harris' argument here, the only thing Harris talks about in his next rebuttal is the God of the Bible! He completely misrepresents Christianity and shows just how little he understands Mosaic law and the history of Israel depicted in the Old Testament. No wonder it's a favorite place to go for irrelevant arguments for atheists, when one so prominent as Sam Harris goes running to it for his stock of red herrings!

[sgedeon01]

@tynytian I concur 100%.

[Epydemic2020]

That is called the open question argument.

[4Chanonymous]

You have one thing right, nothing Craig has done so far shows that Harris isn't a good philosopher.

[tynytian]

@4Chanonymous Craig just spelled out a clear case of the fallacy of equivocation.

[4Chanonymous]

@tynytian No, Craig bases his entire 'objective morality' ramblings on presupposition.

[drcraigvideos]

@4Chanonymous And what do you think Harris is doing, dummy?

[tynytian]

@4Chanonymous Craig pointed out in the first five minutes of his opening speech that both he AND Harris believe in objective morality, but that they base it on different things. In that sense, the presupposition is mutual. Besides, whatever "ramblings" Craig may have offered elsewhere does nothing to negate the fact that Harris equivocated the flourishing of sentient beings with morality. These are two very different things.

[emailjough]

@Ledwix So you and I have no intrinsic value. Raping little children isn't actually wrong, it's just socially taboo. The Crusades, apartheid, slavery and the Holocaust weren't objectively wrong. And for my grandmother on life support we may as well pull the plug because she's just consuming resources.

Do I have that right on your worldview?

[Ledwix]

@emailjough Correct, we have no intrinsic value embedded within the universe. Raping little children is socially taboo. The Holocaust wasn't objectively wrong, it only feels wrong.

You have my worldview correct. In order for something to be wrong, there needs to be an objective moral code. And I don't believe a god is giving us that, so there is no objective moral code.

It is beneficial for us to hate suffering and react negatively to what you just said. We evolved these reactions.

[Ledwix]

I agree with Craig on this, and I am basically atheist. There is no way to justify objective morality under atheism. Good and evil are not intrinsic to the universe. They only emerge as behaviorally evolved traits.

[SmokiSounds]

@Ledwix Not even that. Morality is the enemy of natural selection, which operates on survival-of-the-fittest principle.

[Ledwix]

@SmokiSounds Natural selection can select for traits that promote the survival of the population. In cooperative societies, killing everyone off is very, VERY bad for you own survival. I don't make my own clothes or farm my own vegetables and livestock. If I killed everyone, I'd be dead, too. Same principle applies to civilizations as a whole. The more social the animal, the more codes of morality you'd expect between neighbors. Humans are particularly social, thus...morality developed.

[Ledwix]

Reciprocal altruism can develop in animals when members of a population can recognize faces, enforce punishments on cheaters, if there is enough advantage to cooperating on each end, and if there is enough mutual interaction to care. Few animals are smart enough to develop complex moral codes, but some examples do exist, and at the top of this phenomenon is our human civilization.

[SmokiSounds]

@Ledwix I'm sorry, wrong. Just an unsubstantiated claim. Clothes, by the way - I wonder at which point natural selection saw a necessity in clothes, since it's devolving from originally strong, resistant human body. Ever thought about that?

Surely, killing everyone off won't help a societal group. But I'm talking about stronger species conquering/using weaker species, while you're talking about farmers and clothes makers within the same human group.

[Ledwix]

@SmokiSounds Yes, I have thought about it. It's weird. But what are you saying? Clothes had to appear magically? Maybe migrating tribes found it was too cold away from the tropics and covered themselves up against the elements. After all, you do see the more primitive human tribes acting more naked than most modern people. Maybe someone else knows better...

Behavioral evolution applies not only between species, but within species, too. Are you suggesting that it doesn't apply within a species?

[Ledwix]

You might be talking about species versus species, but I'm just trying to establish that morals evolved particularly in humans, in a process similar to how more primitive morals formed in chimps. All types of cultural things evolve: music, art, religion, language, entertainment, sport, etc. I don't think behavior is any different.

[SmokiSounds]

@Ledwix Cultural things evolve? Right now all I'm seeing is complete cultural devolution in society. Music gets repetitive, lyrics get dumber and simpler. Same with entertainment. If you mean technical evolution, that's just another thing.

[Ledwix]

@SmokiSounds As far as I'm concerned, there is no distinction between evolution and devolution, because that assumes a goal or direction to it. In the same way, physicists make no distinction between acceleration and deceleration, for objectively, it's all acceleration, just in different directions.

[SmokiSounds]

@Ledwix Uhh, honestly man, don't tell your evolutionary scientist that devolution is the same thing. Evolution implies, by definition, a nature-driven progression from simple to complex, an adaptation to the environment, a growth of self-sufficiency. Devolution is just the opposite - a progressive loss of adaptive qualities, intellectual capacity, etc.

And c'mon man...Two things both having a goal doesn't equal them, lol.

[Ledwix]

@SmokiSounds No, evolution doesn't have to be simple to complex...it is just a response to the environment. Complexity evolves when incentive is in place.

Devolution "is rejected by modern evolutionary theory, in which adaptation arises from natural selection of forms best suited to the environment, and so can lead to loss of features when these features are costly to maintain. Thus for cave dwelling animals the loss of eyes arises because it is an advantage, not degeneracy" ~Wiki

[SmokiSounds]

@Ledwix No what I'm suggesting is a human caring and feeling love for a dog contradicts natural selection on all fronts. Same with any interaction between higher/lower stronger/weaker species, with no benefit apart from emotional fulfillment. And that's without even mentioning self-sacrifice of a stronger one to protect a weaker one (NOT its children). Objective moral good, man - it just doesn't appear like that, naturally. It's "installed", it's given.

I'm a christian if you want to know.

[BenjaminBattington]

@SmokiSounds

Dogs have protected us, hunted for us, carried loads, dragged carts, aided the disabled, assisted the police, and fought in our wars. Hell, the NAMES of most dog breeds refer directly to the jobs they were bred for; The "Sheepdog" is so called because it was bred to herd sheep, the "Bloodhound" or "Sleuthhound" has an extremely powerful sense of smell originally bred for the hunting of boar and deer.

The idea that the human/dog relationship has not been beneficial is ludicrous.

[TheMonsterofcookie]

Got it.  Thanks.

[TheMonsterofcookie]

do you have a link to the full debate?

[drcraigvideos]

@TheMonsterofcookie Look in the description area. There's a link there.

[drcraigvideos]

This is probably my favorite part in the debate between Craig and Harris. Notice that Harris did not respond to this during the debate.

[ChadMStevenson]

@drcraigvideos Didn't respond to much of anything.

[drcraigvideos]

@ChadMStevenson Yeah, I noticed that. Harris went off on tangents about the morality of hell, the non-Christian who hasn't heard of God, the religious fanatics causing havoc in the world, etc. Harris just refused to talk about the philosophical issue of morality.