@lourak Craig refutes over and over, statements not even made by Sam, "If atheism is true", atheism is not a true or false. "Human well being", once again, Sam doesnt use this at all, "well being of conscience creatures". These not so small semantic mistakes foundationally undermine all arguments that follow. Changing your opponents assertions into somthing you wish they had said in order to refute those assertions is dishonest. And shows desperation. LISTEN to BOTH speakers. Nice try...
@salapuyou89 There are things that are objectively better for human well-being than others. This provides an objective basis for morality. Sure, there's no objective morality outside of humanity, but why should there be?
"Why is maximizing the well-being of conscientious creatures good?" This is a common sense question that needs no explanation and the answer is not "because we define it as good." Humans are conscientious creatures, since when have you EVER wanted your well-being to worsen? Also, if you define morality as "what's conducive to the flourishing of sentient life on this planet" no different than a christian defining it as "what's written in the bible" then I see no problem.
remove God from the morality equation and all your left with is "ANYTHING GOES" morality... no objectives no standards no subjection.... just ill do what i think is moraly right and you do what you think is morally right... if it means reproducing with my own family and they consent it thats my call, if it means me killing my own kids because i cant afford to feed them then i can because i see it right.. i really dont think society can handle a individualistic moral society.
@6gunwalker Wrong—there are more than the two options you propose—the "burning bush" or "completely arbitrary moral relativism." If you assert that these are the only two conceivable explanations for moral actions, then you have an infantile understanding of both philosophy and science. You should read Aristotle, Epicurus, Democritus, Kant, Nietsche, Kierkegaard, and studies of moral evolution by evolutionary psychologists to get some idea of the scope of alternative explanations. science a
I can't believe that Dr. Harris and Dr. Craig both fail to see the apparent contradiction in WLC's argument from the is-ought gap. I submit that any theist that promotes such a nihilistic argument is doomed to failure.
For instance: Thou shalt not kill- is an OUGHT statement but, God said, 'Thou shalt not kill'- is an IS statement
On the christian worldview, we merely have the latter statement: that god said killing is wrong, and there is no way to move from one to the other, philosophically.
Harris doesn't even seem to understand what Craig is arguing. Either that or he can't refute it and instead tried to argue the problem of evil to save face.
The problem with a moral base in god is ¿Which God? What if the real god is baal and we aren't killing enough babies. First we need to figure it out which god.
@xmenprince how about one that promotes life? simply because life is (after all) good and beautiful.. quit your cynicism and be for real now! be grown up !
@xmenprince If you look at the reference to Anselm, God is defined as the greatest of all conceivable things, which leads to the conception of a being that is moral to the highest order, powerful to the highest order, wise to the highest order, etc.etc. Thus baal or any other tyrant, someone who is morally corrupt, would be inconsistent with the very definition provided. There's also a lot of Plato in this discussion, with respect to the Phaedo, Symposium, Republic, Phaedrus, and the Philebus.
Harris showed that the real God-ontology of Craig is co-extensive with the moral domain of baal, or any other tyrant. He went further in the examination of the eschatology of billions of unsaved infants.
Dr. Athiest. "Well.... since I can't beat his logic, I will attack his beliefs."
Any god is that allows suffering..... he just goes into the problem of evil in this debate. He is directly ignoring the questions posed by Dr. Craig. He automatically assumes the "god" of calvinism and just attacks the idea of certain religions. SAD!
Sam Harris is an intellectual yet he is blinded by his belief yes belief in atheism. He knows what he is talking about yet he idoesnt comprehend religious morality because he views it as flawed without actually realizing he is making vast misconceptions about all morality here
Sam Harris: well your bible old testament is immoral. so i will acknowlege that GOD does exist and prove your point craig only so that i can say bad things about GOD to prove he doesn't exist by acknowleging his existance to make an argument to prove he doesn't exist....
1. Modern science by it's very methodology can only conclude free-will as no more than illusion, more complex illusion doesn't lead to truth in or from any illusion in any case. Science limits itself to the 5 human senses as the only truth seeking tools for reality. Science accepts the evolution over time of these 5 senses as devolving as a 1st then 2nd, then 3rd & so on but in the same breath concludes that we experience our external world fully without the need for 6th or 7th sense. Cont>
2. Cont> This is how science has become more about a world-view than a truth seeking method. Science's assumption that nothing exists beyond the reach of these 5 evolved human senses goes against the very notion that evolution has advancement and is continuing and at the same time this assumption posits that the evolution of humans is complete and was directed in such a way that humans must already experience our external world fully. Cont>
3. Cont> Our self-awareness as an individual with free-will, culpability and choice in our actions is so self-evident that scientists start to sound like philosophers to justify it. In a limited world-view that only gives credence to what is possible or natural via only our limitedly evolved 5 senses alone denies any possible truths in humanity, morality and ones self-awareness as an individual with free-will as no more than biochemical illusory. Cont>
4. Cont> Modern method science has become a dogmatic world-view that clings to only claims to natural causes that also puts itself in charge of defining the limits of what is natural within it's limited world-view. It ignores our very own human nature and consciousness as mere natural biochemical illusion. In this limited methodology science may be able to discover what we are but never truthfully inform us of who we are. Cont>
5. Cont> Our very self-awareness as an individual with free-will, culpability and choice in our actions and consciousness as humans could be itself a newly emerging human 6th sense and if we don't keep open the eyes of this 6th sense and stop letting the dogma of modern science claim us our very selves as delusional delusion, we will never find that reality in which we all know as self-evident and never get the chance to ask and answer, "who am I?" Cont>
6. Cont> Science not only can't answer truths in human morality, justice & ones self awareness as an individual with free-will; it discounts all of these carte blanc as mere illusion. Science is only a sub-set of human philosophy but it's proposition as the sole truth mechanism discounts the very notion of truth in humanity & philosophy as no more than biochemical illusory. In this world-view philosophy has birthed a god called science which has proven it's own mother to be a myth! Cont>
7. Cont> The field of science is no more of a tool that can find truth in human moral obligation or free-will than a hammer can sweep a floor. Free-will to moral obligation like culpability can NEVER be derived solely from a stand-alone mind-brain-body relationship! That's like stating a drone aircraft has free-will to fly over a mountain simple because it's programmed to do so with flight guidance & GPS. Without an outside free-will agent there is no human free-will to grant moral culpability!
This debate was all over the place and Harris shouldn't have been there. There is absolutely no problem with atheism not having it's own internal morality.
Moral obligations are grounded in equal consideration of interests.
When driving a car I have free will to drive through a red light or stop, social contracts dictate for the well being of all in society & my self I should stop at red lights.
My 'stopping at red lights' contributes to the well being of conscious creatures.
I must say it was a good debate. I saw evasion and leaps to conclusions on both sides but nonetheless they have 2 well thought out notions on the topic. I am however disappointed that neither went much into altruism and elaborated upon that because I think that would have added a whole new dimension to the debate.
While Harris attacks the compilation of books known as The Bible, he can't defend his own book xD new atheists has done an excellent job exposing the madness of atheism.
WLC argues that morality is based upon an incoherent space timeless being. Sam Harris argues that morality is grounded in finite conscious beings capable of happiness and suffering. The problem with space timeless beings, apart from our inability to comprehend space timelessness, is that humans disagree as to what this being is. Sam Harris provides a real ground of morality...ourselves struggling to survive in a harsh physical world with other humans.
@drcraigvideos No, he grounds morality on conscious beings living in a reality that can be examined by logic and science....Why would you presume I hadn't actually listened to the debate.
@drcraigvideos Oh, I understand exactly what he is saying....if you feel otherwise, please make free to discuss the matter instead of making nebulous little comments.
@adstanra My comments are right. You don't understand Sam Harris' argument. He says science dictates it. That's an impossibility, because science can't tell you a thing about morality and ethics. Better thinking philosophers understand this.
@drcraigvideos Science certainly can tell you about morality. There really are better ways to improve human well-being than others. Science can inform us. I noticed you did not allow my response to ab9070, but allow his response. You will allow that response or delete his if you want any further discussion with me.I am not going to tolerate your biased picking and choosing of responses. That is an abuse of conversation!
@adstanra Science has nothing to do with the metaphysical like morality. If you actually knew science you'd know it only deals with the physical world. That's all. Science is totally amoral. It has no sense of morality at all. You haven't even begun to show how science deals with morality at all.
@drcraigvideos science is a tool of discovery, like logic and reason. It is neither good nor bad, but it can be used to determine the activities and policies that improve human well being. Those that improve human well being can be called Good, in the sense of the usage of this word everyday. that is SHs point.I am not going to continue this conversation for fear you will simply censor my posts, while allowing theists to say anything they wish. I don't want you to distort our conversation.
@adstanra I think you ought to learn some basic philosophical facts: Science, by definition, has nothing to do with logic OR reason, it's pure empirical understanding. Logic and reasoning are metaphysical truths in that sense, wholly apart from science. You here use the same infantile emotionalist rhetoric as Harris when he talks about 'people like Dr. Craig' 'disagreeing with logic/reason', on the contrary! Harris was the one who was completely and utterly destroyed by his lack of reasoning!
@shatakan Hello...i said science is a tool of discovery,like logic and reason.
"logic and reasoning are metaphysical truths in that sense,wholly apart from science".....logic and reasoning are not metaphysical truths, but tools for discovering truth, like science. And like science, they are neither good nor bad.
@adstanra this is David humes is/ought fallacy. you can say sceintically what helps people, but with science you cant say why that ought to be done. I understand where DC is coming from mate you dont seem to know what science can and cannot do.
@tarasan1 certainly science can examine the options available to create a moral society...as can logic and reason...when moral is defined as that which benefits the well being of humans.Perhaps you think the term "moral" should be defined as that which a spacetimeless being commands....
@adstanra And you're stupid ass thinks that non-moral matter made morality. That's a contradiction. And Harris said that morality arises from science. That's bullshit. Science has nothing to do with scinece whatsoever. Why are you mind-fucked atheists so fucking stupid?
Never expected that Harris would come up with the argument: ''The Bible supports slavery'' at 1:00:47.
Nowhere in the Bible does it support forced slavery, rather, it shows how to deal with slaves of that time, who would sell themselves as slaves to richer people in return for a roof above their head and food.
Sam Harris is just the same as all Atheist: Coming up with sleazy, dirty, dogmatic, brainwashed arguments that dont hold any ground, and are refuted pretty easily...
@tjobv You need to read the bible a bit more my friend.....it talks repeatedly about the ownership of slaves ....how a master can beat a slave, how children born into slavery are the property of the owner and never condemns the institution....You are just the same as every theist...coming up with sleazy,dirty,dogmatic,brainwashed excuses that don't hold any ground...
1:30:45 Craig looks positively bored by Harris' ramblings and I don't blame him. It's obvious Harris is used to only preaching to the choir, he seems way out of his depth here.
@EsenHanIm Well, if an atheist can make a comment that criticizes Craig without trolling, cussing, or lying I would allow it. I know that's asking for the impossible given that we're talking about youtube atheists (where literally 99% of them are emotionally hunhinged) but I'm trying my best.
"these comments seem to only criticize Harris. hmm"
This is because Harris fared extremely poorly throughout the debate, by -any- objective measure of debate performance regardless of your world view inclination. Both atheistic and theistic facets of the professional philosophical community agree how dismal Harris' showing was.
@coltsrule5150 LOL, you are too funny as if human beings can possibly ever know whether or not a monkey believed in God. Last times I checked only one a few were ever able to learn a human language. The only on I can think of is KOKO.
Here is something interesting if you remove god, then anything is possible. The reason why is because History has proven that over and over again. With the Romans, Greeks, Babylons, and the USSR (plus there are so many other civilizations). Sam Harris is so blind to understand that it has been done, and rather unsuccessfully. Without objective morality there is no right or wrong, and even more shockingly personal responsibility becomes obsolete. These nations fell because of the lack of morality
@vivaramones1 If the motivation for being good is getting into heaven, then is it really goodness? I think not. It is just being a disciplined robot without understanding the essence of compassion. Being good regardless of belief in a god is the test of true goodness, and humans are afraid of that because they have no faith in their own goodness. It is not your actions but the contents of your heart that make you good. Good deeds and a good person are different from each other.
Seems to me Harris is always borrowing Craig's worldview when he wants a "good" life and wants to reduce suffering. That Harris even thinks that there is uniformity in nature and predictability yet cannot provide a basis for it besides a "that's just the way it is" mentality characterizes him as a secular bigot. So often people don't "want" to consider a theistic foundation and so just stop thinking past an ad-hoc explanation.
Personally, I don't have enough faith to be an atheist.
People which were "massacered" by Hebrews in Old Testament, Philistines had ritual murders of children. Ancient Greeks often times killed their girl babies. Babylonians and Sumerians also had human sacrifice.
So, are those people you atheists are defending?
I should remind you that your state is bombing small states like mine in the name of "human rights". You had absolutely no problem with bombing of Serbia, because you believed we deserve it.
Why do atheists always start, imagine this? That's not the science.
Why is he even talking about Taliban's?
Or Catholic Church?
What does them have to do with religion? Or Christianity? Catholicism is heretical teaching banned from Christian Chruch in 1054. Islam also, is full of heretical teachings contrary to Christianity.
True Christianity (Orthodox), never had any of deeds from above two. Orthodox are greatest proof that doctrine and deeds can be one.
@Htogrom Christianity (Orthodox or otherwise) is a human creation. It developed before the Bible was compiled.
Christianity was not based on the bible. Christianity developed before the bible was compiled. The bible was compiled be the early catholic church and only those writings that were in general agreement with existing doctrine were included. Catholicism was Orthodox. Protestantism was a break away from existing orthodoxy. True Christianity is what?
@MrToby9999 The way you use the term 'bible' here, you refer to the collection of writings canonized by the Christian church. By definition, the church have must preexisted this bible...so what is your point? Christian doctrine is strongly rooted in the NT authors' understanding of the Hebrew bible, on the other hand, which was written and compiled well before those authors' lives. Lastly, NT writings were compiled by communities long before the 'catholic' church devised an official canon.
Sam Harris is good with rhetoric and persuasion, however he failed to provide any valid rebuttals to Craig's arguments. This was hardly a challenge for the seasoned Dr. Craig.
@dessdinovakj I never thought Harris was good at rhetoic or persuasion. I wonder why people say that. Every time I hear him talk he's far from being blessed with the language of a philosopher or scientist.
@drcraigvideos True, but I think anyone with a follower base as big as Harris's can be called somewhat persuasive. I just had a feeling that during his second rebuttal he just gave up the debate and started throwing the red herrings, precisely because he knew that's what would get the audience fires going. Either that, or he really is pretty bad at formal debate.
"For the time will come when men will not put up with sound doctrine. Instead, to suit their own desires, they will gather around them a great number of teachers to say what their itching ears want to hear." 2 Timothy 4:3 NIV
It was unwarranted for both speakers to go on about psychopaths and the rest. The subject was not whether the Christian God is good etc. Both speakers agree that morality is 'grounded'. Rather they were to debate, which ground is more logically feasible - natural or supernatural. If one were to stick to this actual question - I think Dr. Craig won. In the sense that he gave better reasons for his position and also cast some pertinent doubts on Harris's moral landscape theory.
@308W82 Well, there's nothing in the debate where Craig said that hell should be the motivation to act morally. And science by definition is amoral. Harris is engaging in quack-science as far as I can tell. He's not giving scientists a good name.
In a nutshell, Craig says (1) science can't justify itself (2) it's contingent on human minds (3) trusting in Scientific Method at all for discovering objective reality takes 'faith'. Harris responds (1) no science could be absolutely self-justifying - high standards of evidence is all we can ask for (2) theism too (3) in that case everything we do takes 'faith' and the word becomes meaningless
sam what does god of the bible or misrepresenting Christianity has to do with the toppic at hand when craig said that many divine command theorists do not take god of the bible or the bible as authority?
playing on emotions or stupidity of the bible as an argument is not the point of the debate here
although he is right to the point where lane should explain in detail where does this objective morality come from and how do we know its from god and what is this objective moral standard with which we discern what parts of the bible will we obey.
What is the point of objective morality if you cannot know what it is, or if we simply do not care what it is since we will ultimately decide for ourselves by majority rule?
@niinja2 What are you talking about? Craig sited two commandments that come from *the Bible* to indicate God's wishes and God's goodness. Craig obviously takes the Bible as an authority on God's word. Harris' point about God just as well being evil or there being many Gods should have been emphasized more. Craig defines God as good, but naturally if evil exists, it comes from God also. God is good and evil.
no your right, if craig didnt appeal to the god of the bible 2 times it would be ok but he would still need to clarify what this philosophical god is. But later on in the debate he did appeal to the bible and did not explain the thing dr. harris is pointing out , how do we discern what of the gods commandments to follow.
How many times did Craig use the word "objective?" How many times did Craig define the word "objective?" How many times did Craig explain why an "objective" point of view was important with regard to morality?
How many times did Craig use the word "objective?" How many times did Craig define the word "objective?" How many times did Craig explain why an "objective" point of view was important with regard to morality?
I like how Harris completely ignored the claptrap that Craig spewed, didn't address any of his points and talked about things of real worth and value in understanding not only the human mind, but the world in general. This is how all noteworthy scientists should treat the detractors who have nothing of value to add to the discussion.
@drcraigvideos yes it would be what most ppl would consider nonsensical because he arguing from standpoint of humanitarianism not using the bible. Dr. Craig is doing the same thing only he is supporting the bible. However its rather disingenuous for any theist to talk about morality that supports humanitarian morals from a source such as the bible that has so much genocide, rape, murder, etc.
@tamu77095 Dr. Craig is arguing from natural theology, and even if we grant that the Bible justifies rape, genocide, etc. (I sincerely doubt you've done any real research on this topic), why would an atheist have a problem with that? There is no problem of evil in atheism because you can't even deem anything as morally right or wrong.
I don't understand why the religious confound themselves with mysteries where none exist. Is it all that difficult to grasp the concept of human solidarity and that altruistic behavior within a society is beneficial to all without "dad" having to tell us so? Then us, the happy and healthy on the secular side will be the expositors of objective morality to the vapid and vacuous on the religious side. So be it. But please. Call me Uncle.
Seeing how genocide, murder or rape isn't wrong, if god commands it to be right, according to WLC, I think he has exhausted any and all possibilities to be taken seriously at this point. It went from wild obfuscation to downright moral retardation from WLC. So sad.
@razieldumas I absolutely love how you say that the fact that Harris ignored the topic of the debate and disregarded his opponents points is a good thing. If only the whole world accepted your theories... we could just solve all of our arguments by beating each other with sticks, like smart, civilized, logical people.
@Maidenfanatic Harris didn't ignore the topic at all. He responded to all of Craig's significant arguments. Craig even defeated himself with the apparent 'knock-down argument'. God is goodness, right? God loves us, right? If human goodness doesn't identically match human well-being then what is God's morality for? Why give us commandments to love each other?
@razieldumas the claptrap? he didnt address them because he could not take the arguments down. Moreover, even Atheist websites agree that Craig won this debate.
Call me naive, but I have an issue with William Lane Craig's argument:
Morality doesn't prove God's existence - shouldn't we therefore be required to prove God's existence before we attribute morality as a result?
For example:
In a patient we wouldn't attribute leukaemia as a result of hair loss - instead we'd first prove leukaemia existed, then consider the effects of hair loss as a possible result.
God's existence is required for this moral framework idea to function, not the reverse.
Sam Harris couldn't use logic to rebuttal and has no foundation to make his point, so he revert to make the entire debate ranting and trashing to Christianity. What a pity. More pity to the viewers who don't have the philosophical capacity to understand the flow of logic of this debate.
Unfortunately, that's the most that Harris contributes in his account for objective morality. I plan on making a video response to Harris' talk on TED Talks, because there are a huge number of times where he makes appeals to ridicule of Abrahamic religions and appeals to indecisive and pseudoscientific claims on human nature compared to other living organisms.
@ElasticGiraffe how very Christ like , to insult people .I dont think people should insult people at any level . I am sorry you find things in the bible to back up your actions then deem them ok . Being an adult helps me think what to say and not to say before I say it . I think Jesus would be more for the "do unto others side . Also , I am a Christian , who said I was athiest , you just assumed this I assume.? I guess because I complimented another person on their talent, I like to compliment=)
@manuatheist1977 Yes, but that position (yours) even Harris objects to. My personal qualms about fully embracing atheism is just that -- the idea that it could be all relative and society can change on some fundamental principles. To the Nazis, exterminating Jews and other undesirables (like the mentally handicapped) was OK. We need (or I'd like) some objective basis, if God is not there, to say NO. Plus where does the individual fit into this? I fear giving 'society' that much power.
@manuatheist1977 I think that is basically right, but then there is still the problem, if it is society and no more, what happens if society changes? For example -- what value, really, do people with sever retardation bring to society? Society could say that we would all flourish more if this extra weight were abolished. Would this be morally OK?
@manuatheist1977 Right, well that is both Craig and Harris' fear (and Harris' problem) - it is just utility, but just because it worked for our early development in Africa, why should I, a modern man, follow those intuitions today when I recognize I only have them in the first place because it managed to help our ancestors when they were in the African safari?
@manuatheist1977 Craig's point is that w/out God there is no ultimate basis for objective morality b/c, let's say it is all from evolution - OK - I can know I feel a certain way because I inhereted it from my ancestors and it worked well for their survival, just as I know I like to eat everything on my plate b/c my body wants to store energy for the coming famine. But so what? I recognize its just an evolutionary process, why objectively should I obey it? Because it helped my monkey ancestors?
@manuatheist1977 Agreed, which is why I'm not religious :). I would say, to play Devil's Advocate (or God's) that yes it is an intuition (natural law) and when people do awful things (e.g. Hitler) it is usually by reasoning themselves out of what they already know to be true/just/right.
@manuatheist1977 So actually Craig would agree with you that morals existed before the Abrahamic Religions and he would argue that strengthens his argument. The argument here isn't Christianity = Good/Moral?, but rather, do we have a basis for Objective Morality if there is no ultimate moral authority (God)?
@manuatheist1977 I'm secular but I think you might miss the point. Yes, these moral rules/philosophies (I wouldnt necessarily include Hammurabi in this, but anyway) preceded Christianity, Judaism and Islam, but someone like Craig isn't arguing that religion brought morality but rather that God is the source of ultimate morality and it is His moral law that is within men and women and this is aside from any particular theology. Pagans have it within their nature just as Christians.
Kantian moral arguments i.e. afterlife required for true morality would have worked much better here than Craigs version. I think he needs to modify his moral argument! Replies welcome.
And to be honest, I think Sam was the winner of this debate. As he showed that you don't need God or divine sanction for morality. Which is surprising because I think his case was very very weak and could have been exploited a lot better by Craig. Non theists just will not find Craig convincing because, like Sam, they won't see God as required for morality. This reinforces to me what I always thought about Craig's objective moral argument - it's just not as convincing for others.
I think there were a lot of things missed in this debate from the theist side, after watching it for the second time. Craig for example could have brought up the idea of justice as somehow not dependant upon fallible human consensus. As an example someone who is grossly abused or neglected and there are no consequences in this life for the actions of the perpetrator, thus God is needed to ensure there is justice, and an afterlife is also needed for a proper moral theory, not prohibitive.
Dr. Sam Harris wins this debate on every level. When you have a Doctorate from UCLA in Neuroscience vrs a degree like Dr. Craig from schools such as Wheaton College (B.A. 1971) and graduate studies at Trinity Evangelical Divinity School. Dr Harris is one on the finest minds in the World and his degrees speak to that . Very hard to take on a person like this in a debate. Dr. Craig try and Dr Harris uses facts for the win.
@ElasticGiraffe I love everyone and would just like to see peace in this world . I am sorry my comment somehow warranted , somehow , sexual insults. I was just saying that Sam uses fact based argument and his degree does back up the method in which he delivers his statements . Peace and Love to All , jc
@jcStarkravingmad Sexual insults? Geez, learn to lighten up a bit. :P His rebuttal in which he took it upon himself to judge the moral character of God (as presented in the Bible) because he had nothing relevant to say was completely off-topic and inappropriate, and his degree backs up nothing at all. If they were debating about the function of the pineal gland, then maybe so. It is a purely philosophical debate, and an atheistic moral nihilist or a Hindu could have argued for Craig's position.
@ElasticGiraffe Yes, sexual insults that you had in your comment that is deleted, not very Christ like imo . As for the rest of your new comment , its a repeat of your old comment. So I dont need to write anything new also , re read my other comments to rebut that one ^^ . Happy Mothers Day All !
@jcStarkravingmad I repeated it because one time is never enough for ignorant hero-worshipers who can't manage to see passed the rhetoric to the substance of the arguments. And as mercilessly offensive as outspoken atheists tend to be these days, I would think you'd have a stronger constitution and not be so hyper-sensitive. ;) Lastly, please don't pretend to know what Jesus would or would not have said. Jesus frequently chewed people out and used language that would have been deemed offensive.
Were you people watching the same debate? Harris owned Craig. Period. Craig ASSERTED that without God there can be no objective morality. He did nothing to prove his ASSERTION. When the girl in the question period asked him how he knew that it was God that was the origin of objective morality, he said that he could not think of any other answer. Well sir, that is the basis of an argument form ignorance, just because you can not think of an alternative, does not make it true.
@manuatheist1977 Saddam Hussein was a controversial figure yes it was percieved differently by different ppl, do u believe he deserved the death penalty?
@manuatheist1977 It was unlikely that she would get married, women who were victims of rape would rather marry their rapist than go unmarried for the rest of their lives, secondly he would have to support the woman for the rest of his life, the prostitute Rahab was a special case she had changed and had helped Israel it would have been seen as an honour to marry a woman who had helped the Israelites against Jericho. If she doesnt get married she will probably become a prostitute.
@manuatheist1977 Some various forms of caste systems are practised in some Buddhist countries. A Sect of Jainism believes that women cannot achieve liberation unless they are reborn as a man, Chsristianity says Galatians 3:28 all are equal God loves us all which is why he badly wants us to be saved . Right now I'm a Roman Catholic but I'm soon gonna leave might become non-denominental. You might change and decide to convert but you seem pretty strong on your atheism so...
@manuatheist1977 I dont understand what this has to do with moral determinism, Saddam Husseins death was welcomed because of the evil he done im talking about MURDER
@manuatheist1977 Hinduism and some parts of Buddhism use the caste system, Jews were elected as a nation to show others the glory of God, in the Old Testament there were gentiles who were accepted, Christianity in my opinion is the most rationally defensible faith and its not just a case of Abrahamic religions changing around for a differentv type of salvation,it's more complicated than that. I think you lack a solid enough knowledge in the bible to say that
@manuatheist1977 You do realize that women had to be in marriage in those days, in order to have a chance of living, it doesnt matter if the woman wanted the man NOBODY ELSE WOULD MARRY HER. She wouldnt be able to get a man anyway, and i'm not even sure that the quote talks about rape it just says he took her and slept with her unless you read into it, the "violation" could just be the fact that he took her virginity
@manuatheist1977 Im not saying morals didnt exist before Abrahamic religions im saying that morals were always grouded in some kind of religion or philosophy, the babylonians had pagan religions, Egyptians worshpped pagan religions stoicism and the rest are either based on philosophies or of pagan character (stoicims was banned by Emperor Justinian I in 529 AD because of this) and that morals came about in some sort of religion
@manuatheist1977 Wheres the evidence that morals evolved, look around the world morals are decided by religion. From islamic countries to western civilisation as i said befre its grounded originally on christianity, look at history morals have always been dependent on religion whether pagan or Christian theres no evidence that ppl together as a society started to evolve morals it was always based on some kind of religion till Jesus ame to save us.
@manuatheist1977 Its an acknowledgement of whats right and wrong, we know whats right and wrong according to our conscience, everyone has a conscience thats why we feel offended abot others being raped, even children know the difference between fair and unfair, its just in us if morals were determined by me then we wuldn't have a conscience becvause its relative.
@manuatheist1977 Well first of all it does condemn rape becasue they quote says he has "violated" her so that is a condemnation. Sex before marriage is condemned you have to understand the culture of that time who was going to marry her, if she was raped? its much fairer to give her to the guy because that incident would end her chances of getting married anyway to someone else.
@manuatheist1977 I see, so if humans are just evolved animals why should we get offfended by rape?after all some evolutionists argue that it might have given early humans an advantage for the process of evolution. And exacly it is your perception that makes you decide whether somethings good or evil so when ppl rape or murder or commit incest they shouldnt be judged according to moral relativism
I find it pretty comical that the two contentions being held were 1. If God than obj. morality. 2. If not God than no obj. morality - Yet, somehow Harris felt that listing his personal problems with the Bible was responsive. It seemed obvious to me that regardless of the truth of either person's position Craig is the clear winner of the "debate." Harris ironically was the one who seemed agenda oriented and should probably do a Google search on the word rejoinder.
Oh, and Craig fans just might want to google "One More Reason Why Religion is Messed Up: Respected Theologian(Craig) defends genocide and infanticide"
Theists here seem to be more praising Craig's delivery and charisma than his actual points. Many of you claim Harris to be dodging questions and "not staying on topic", yet Craig is simply appealing to emotions. All I hear are regurgitated arguments. He espouses this tiresome notion that Christianity 1) "created" human morality and 2) Christianity essentially owns the rights to morality. LOL it's funny reading comments here, people are terrified of the growing number of atheists, it's no fad.
@manuatheist1977 Thats a form of absolutism, some morals change over time (homosexuality)"while others are just WRONG. There's nothing relative about deciding whether murder is wrong it just is. In 50 years time will the majority of ppl decide rape is acceptable? after all 50 years ago gay marraige was laughable. At the end of the day sir i find moral relativism self refuting because you've admitted that forced sex is wrong. With moral relativism nothing can be evil becuz theres no evil
Agreed lourak.
SanEverett 1 week ago
it boggles my mind that there are those, here, who do not see how thoroughly William Craig has refuted every single assertion made by Harris.
lourak 2 weeks ago
@lourak Craig refutes over and over, statements not even made by Sam, "If atheism is true", atheism is not a true or false. "Human well being", once again, Sam doesnt use this at all, "well being of conscience creatures". These not so small semantic mistakes foundationally undermine all arguments that follow. Changing your opponents assertions into somthing you wish they had said in order to refute those assertions is dishonest. And shows desperation. LISTEN to BOTH speakers. Nice try...
sparkhart1 2 weeks ago
I signed in just to say this: In response to 1:30:34 , Muslims made algebra!
AdmiralLemons 1 month ago
@salapuyou89 There are things that are objectively better for human well-being than others. This provides an objective basis for morality. Sure, there's no objective morality outside of humanity, but why should there be?
Svoig 1 month ago
craig speaks and looks very much like the lawyer on it's always sunny in philadelphia :)
treize32 1 month ago
"Why is maximizing the well-being of conscientious creatures good?" This is a common sense question that needs no explanation and the answer is not "because we define it as good." Humans are conscientious creatures, since when have you EVER wanted your well-being to worsen? Also, if you define morality as "what's conducive to the flourishing of sentient life on this planet" no different than a christian defining it as "what's written in the bible" then I see no problem.
Aldridge517 1 month ago
at least craig directs his arguments at adults, most religious types just lie to children.
okfanriffic 2 months ago
remove God from the morality equation and all your left with is "ANYTHING GOES" morality... no objectives no standards no subjection.... just ill do what i think is moraly right and you do what you think is morally right... if it means reproducing with my own family and they consent it thats my call, if it means me killing my own kids because i cant afford to feed them then i can because i see it right.. i really dont think society can handle a individualistic moral society.
6gunwalker 2 months ago
@6gunwalker Wrong—there are more than the two options you propose—the "burning bush" or "completely arbitrary moral relativism." If you assert that these are the only two conceivable explanations for moral actions, then you have an infantile understanding of both philosophy and science. You should read Aristotle, Epicurus, Democritus, Kant, Nietsche, Kierkegaard, and studies of moral evolution by evolutionary psychologists to get some idea of the scope of alternative explanations. science a
LoGos7891 1 month ago
I can't believe that Dr. Harris and Dr. Craig both fail to see the apparent contradiction in WLC's argument from the is-ought gap. I submit that any theist that promotes such a nihilistic argument is doomed to failure.
For instance: Thou shalt not kill- is an OUGHT statement but, God said, 'Thou shalt not kill'- is an IS statement
On the christian worldview, we merely have the latter statement: that god said killing is wrong, and there is no way to move from one to the other, philosophically.
APaleDot 2 months ago
sam harris should just stick to debating muslims/islamists.. that's where he's good at..
lovellespice 2 months ago
Harris doesn't even seem to understand what Craig is arguing. Either that or he can't refute it and instead tried to argue the problem of evil to save face.
KeithTruth 2 months ago
The problem with a moral base in god is ¿Which God? What if the real god is baal and we aren't killing enough babies. First we need to figure it out which god.
Thank god I'm atheist
xmenprince 3 months ago
@xmenprince Which kind of atheist, materialist, naturalist, relativist, humanist, etc.? *ROLLS EYES* Anyway...
drcraigvideos 3 months ago
@drcraigvideos That has to be the best comeback I've seen in a while, well done.
NotDuncan 1 month ago
@xmenprince how about one that promotes life? simply because life is (after all) good and beautiful.. quit your cynicism and be for real now! be grown up !
bagassa 3 months ago
@xmenprince If you look at the reference to Anselm, God is defined as the greatest of all conceivable things, which leads to the conception of a being that is moral to the highest order, powerful to the highest order, wise to the highest order, etc.etc. Thus baal or any other tyrant, someone who is morally corrupt, would be inconsistent with the very definition provided. There's also a lot of Plato in this discussion, with respect to the Phaedo, Symposium, Republic, Phaedrus, and the Philebus.
Wrob99 2 months ago
@Wrob99
Harris showed that the real God-ontology of Craig is co-extensive with the moral domain of baal, or any other tyrant. He went further in the examination of the eschatology of billions of unsaved infants.
Tubeistdan 2 months ago
So since Dawkins is too afraid to debate does this mean the 4 horsemen are officially defeated?
9pt9 3 months ago
Timekeeper: "All videotaping is prohibited".
:yaoming:
SycrosD4 3 months ago
Dr. Athiest. "Well.... since I can't beat his logic, I will attack his beliefs."
Any god is that allows suffering..... he just goes into the problem of evil in this debate. He is directly ignoring the questions posed by Dr. Craig. He automatically assumes the "god" of calvinism and just attacks the idea of certain religions. SAD!
TheChristcrucified 4 months ago
@TheChristcrucified Dr. Atheist... lol!
jonnyneo53 3 weeks ago
good debate
HateTheNewLayout 4 months ago
54:31 The answer of a defeated man.
MysteryoftheGods 4 months ago
@MysteryoftheGods Really? how so?
HateTheNewLayout 4 months ago
@MysteryoftheGods really? how so?
HateTheNewLayout 4 months ago
Sam Harris is an intellectual yet he is blinded by his belief yes belief in atheism. He knows what he is talking about yet he idoesnt comprehend religious morality because he views it as flawed without actually realizing he is making vast misconceptions about all morality here
Zaviex 4 months ago
Harris was more interested in watching south park on his laptop than engaging in each argument lol.
HebrewTiger 4 months ago
Sam Harris: well your bible old testament is immoral. so i will acknowlege that GOD does exist and prove your point craig only so that i can say bad things about GOD to prove he doesn't exist by acknowleging his existance to make an argument to prove he doesn't exist....
Falcondick69 4 months ago
@willthewgman 'Modern science by it's very methodology can only conclude free-will as no more than illusion'. What?
'Science's assumption that nothing exists beyond the reach of these 5 evolved human senses'. What?
'Science has become more about a world-view than a truth seeking method'. What?
What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence. Do you have any more claims you'd like me to ignore?
Corbs4u 5 months ago
1. Modern science by it's very methodology can only conclude free-will as no more than illusion, more complex illusion doesn't lead to truth in or from any illusion in any case. Science limits itself to the 5 human senses as the only truth seeking tools for reality. Science accepts the evolution over time of these 5 senses as devolving as a 1st then 2nd, then 3rd & so on but in the same breath concludes that we experience our external world fully without the need for 6th or 7th sense. Cont>
WILLTHEWGMAN 6 months ago
2. Cont> This is how science has become more about a world-view than a truth seeking method. Science's assumption that nothing exists beyond the reach of these 5 evolved human senses goes against the very notion that evolution has advancement and is continuing and at the same time this assumption posits that the evolution of humans is complete and was directed in such a way that humans must already experience our external world fully. Cont>
WILLTHEWGMAN 6 months ago
3. Cont> Our self-awareness as an individual with free-will, culpability and choice in our actions is so self-evident that scientists start to sound like philosophers to justify it. In a limited world-view that only gives credence to what is possible or natural via only our limitedly evolved 5 senses alone denies any possible truths in humanity, morality and ones self-awareness as an individual with free-will as no more than biochemical illusory. Cont>
WILLTHEWGMAN 6 months ago
4. Cont> Modern method science has become a dogmatic world-view that clings to only claims to natural causes that also puts itself in charge of defining the limits of what is natural within it's limited world-view. It ignores our very own human nature and consciousness as mere natural biochemical illusion. In this limited methodology science may be able to discover what we are but never truthfully inform us of who we are. Cont>
WILLTHEWGMAN 6 months ago
5. Cont> Our very self-awareness as an individual with free-will, culpability and choice in our actions and consciousness as humans could be itself a newly emerging human 6th sense and if we don't keep open the eyes of this 6th sense and stop letting the dogma of modern science claim us our very selves as delusional delusion, we will never find that reality in which we all know as self-evident and never get the chance to ask and answer, "who am I?" Cont>
WILLTHEWGMAN 6 months ago
6. Cont> Science not only can't answer truths in human morality, justice & ones self awareness as an individual with free-will; it discounts all of these carte blanc as mere illusion. Science is only a sub-set of human philosophy but it's proposition as the sole truth mechanism discounts the very notion of truth in humanity & philosophy as no more than biochemical illusory. In this world-view philosophy has birthed a god called science which has proven it's own mother to be a myth! Cont>
WILLTHEWGMAN 6 months ago
7. Cont> The field of science is no more of a tool that can find truth in human moral obligation or free-will than a hammer can sweep a floor. Free-will to moral obligation like culpability can NEVER be derived solely from a stand-alone mind-brain-body relationship! That's like stating a drone aircraft has free-will to fly over a mountain simple because it's programmed to do so with flight guidance & GPS. Without an outside free-will agent there is no human free-will to grant moral culpability!
WILLTHEWGMAN 6 months ago
Harris seems to be supporting the idea that all outcomes exist that justify's that morality exist.
BeatleEDs 6 months ago
@VibrantNTingling - I don't think you listened to Craig's argument.
BeatleEDs 6 months ago
@BankHeistVideos Where is your proof? Self-organisation does not mean having objective morality.
CyprusHot 6 months ago
This debate was all over the place and Harris shouldn't have been there. There is absolutely no problem with atheism not having it's own internal morality.
Apjooz 6 months ago
Moral obligations are grounded in equal consideration of interests.
When driving a car I have free will to drive through a red light or stop, social contracts dictate for the well being of all in society & my self I should stop at red lights.
My 'stopping at red lights' contributes to the well being of conscious creatures.
Sam rules!
veganath 7 months ago
I must say it was a good debate. I saw evasion and leaps to conclusions on both sides but nonetheless they have 2 well thought out notions on the topic. I am however disappointed that neither went much into altruism and elaborated upon that because I think that would have added a whole new dimension to the debate.
smawshot 7 months ago
Comment removed
Scorched70twink 7 months ago
While Harris attacks the compilation of books known as The Bible, he can't defend his own book xD new atheists has done an excellent job exposing the madness of atheism.
IloveYOUviruses 7 months ago
Hahahahahah Harris got PWNED!!! :P Well done Dr. Craig! :D
shatakan 7 months ago
Comment removed
Scorched70twink 7 months ago
WLC argues that morality is based upon an incoherent space timeless being. Sam Harris argues that morality is grounded in finite conscious beings capable of happiness and suffering. The problem with space timeless beings, apart from our inability to comprehend space timelessness, is that humans disagree as to what this being is. Sam Harris provides a real ground of morality...ourselves struggling to survive in a harsh physical world with other humans.
adstanra 7 months ago
@adstanra If you actually listened to the debate, his basis for morality is on science, which, he believes, is objective and "beyond" human opinion.
drcraigvideos 7 months ago
@drcraigvideos No, he grounds morality on conscious beings living in a reality that can be examined by logic and science....Why would you presume I hadn't actually listened to the debate.
adstanra 7 months ago
@adstanra Because you don't get what Sam Harris is saying.
drcraigvideos 7 months ago
@drcraigvideos Oh, I understand exactly what he is saying....if you feel otherwise, please make free to discuss the matter instead of making nebulous little comments.
adstanra 7 months ago
@adstanra My comments are right. You don't understand Sam Harris' argument. He says science dictates it. That's an impossibility, because science can't tell you a thing about morality and ethics. Better thinking philosophers understand this.
drcraigvideos 7 months ago
@drcraigvideos Science certainly can tell you about morality. There really are better ways to improve human well-being than others. Science can inform us. I noticed you did not allow my response to ab9070, but allow his response. You will allow that response or delete his if you want any further discussion with me.I am not going to tolerate your biased picking and choosing of responses. That is an abuse of conversation!
adstanra 7 months ago
@adstanra Science has nothing to do with the metaphysical like morality. If you actually knew science you'd know it only deals with the physical world. That's all. Science is totally amoral. It has no sense of morality at all. You haven't even begun to show how science deals with morality at all.
drcraigvideos 7 months ago
@drcraigvideos science is a tool of discovery, like logic and reason. It is neither good nor bad, but it can be used to determine the activities and policies that improve human well being. Those that improve human well being can be called Good, in the sense of the usage of this word everyday. that is SHs point.I am not going to continue this conversation for fear you will simply censor my posts, while allowing theists to say anything they wish. I don't want you to distort our conversation.
adstanra 7 months ago
@adstanra I think you ought to learn some basic philosophical facts: Science, by definition, has nothing to do with logic OR reason, it's pure empirical understanding. Logic and reasoning are metaphysical truths in that sense, wholly apart from science. You here use the same infantile emotionalist rhetoric as Harris when he talks about 'people like Dr. Craig' 'disagreeing with logic/reason', on the contrary! Harris was the one who was completely and utterly destroyed by his lack of reasoning!
shatakan 7 months ago
@shatakan Hello...i said science is a tool of discovery,like logic and reason.
"logic and reasoning are metaphysical truths in that sense,wholly apart from science".....logic and reasoning are not metaphysical truths, but tools for discovering truth, like science. And like science, they are neither good nor bad.
adstanra 7 months ago
@adstanra this is David humes is/ought fallacy. you can say sceintically what helps people, but with science you cant say why that ought to be done. I understand where DC is coming from mate you dont seem to know what science can and cannot do.
tarasan1 7 months ago
@tarasan1 certainly science can examine the options available to create a moral society...as can logic and reason...when moral is defined as that which benefits the well being of humans.Perhaps you think the term "moral" should be defined as that which a spacetimeless being commands....
adstanra 7 months ago
@adstanra And you're stupid ass thinks that non-moral matter made morality. That's a contradiction. And Harris said that morality arises from science. That's bullshit. Science has nothing to do with scinece whatsoever. Why are you mind-fucked atheists so fucking stupid?
ab9070 7 months ago
You can't mark comments down here?
I WONDER WHY.
deepspecies 7 months ago
@deepspecies You just made a comment. I wonder if you actually realized that.
drcraigvideos 7 months ago
@drcraigvideos I'm wonder if you realize what it means to 'mark' a comment 'down'.
Perhaps you have someone else upload videos for you?
deepspecies 7 months ago
@deepspecies I'm wondering if you can type "thumbs up" or "thumbs down" the next time you mean to makr a comment down.
Perhaps you should think better before commenting?
drcraigvideos 7 months ago
Never expected that Harris would come up with the argument: ''The Bible supports slavery'' at 1:00:47.
Nowhere in the Bible does it support forced slavery, rather, it shows how to deal with slaves of that time, who would sell themselves as slaves to richer people in return for a roof above their head and food.
Sam Harris is just the same as all Atheist: Coming up with sleazy, dirty, dogmatic, brainwashed arguments that dont hold any ground, and are refuted pretty easily...
tjobv 8 months ago
@tjobv You need to read the bible a bit more my friend.....it talks repeatedly about the ownership of slaves ....how a master can beat a slave, how children born into slavery are the property of the owner and never condemns the institution....You are just the same as every theist...coming up with sleazy,dirty,dogmatic,brainwashed excuses that don't hold any ground...
please read Leviticus and Deuteronomy!
adstanra 7 months ago
Well , there can be no altruism if a heavenly reward is your motivation for good deeds.
ilikezappa 8 months ago
1:30:45 Craig looks positively bored by Harris' ramblings and I don't blame him. It's obvious Harris is used to only preaching to the choir, he seems way out of his depth here.
mrarcher857 8 months ago
these comments seem to only criticize Harris. hmm...
EsenHanIm 8 months ago
@EsenHanIm Well, if an atheist can make a comment that criticizes Craig without trolling, cussing, or lying I would allow it. I know that's asking for the impossible given that we're talking about youtube atheists (where literally 99% of them are emotionally hunhinged) but I'm trying my best.
drcraigvideos 8 months ago
@EsenHanIm
"these comments seem to only criticize Harris. hmm"
This is because Harris fared extremely poorly throughout the debate, by -any- objective measure of debate performance regardless of your world view inclination. Both atheistic and theistic facets of the professional philosophical community agree how dismal Harris' showing was.
Calenfeyn41 8 months ago
Who won the debate?
I mean according to the poll they took.
idky1349 8 months ago
lets use our cousin primates as an example
monkeys will fight for each other in some cases risking their own lives
they do this without a belief in god
coltsrule5150 8 months ago
@coltsrule5150 LOL, you are too funny as if human beings can possibly ever know whether or not a monkey believed in God. Last times I checked only one a few were ever able to learn a human language. The only on I can think of is KOKO.
OWNED from a guy on neither side sukka
IXSuperRadGamerXI 8 months ago
Here is something interesting if you remove god, then anything is possible. The reason why is because History has proven that over and over again. With the Romans, Greeks, Babylons, and the USSR (plus there are so many other civilizations). Sam Harris is so blind to understand that it has been done, and rather unsuccessfully. Without objective morality there is no right or wrong, and even more shockingly personal responsibility becomes obsolete. These nations fell because of the lack of morality
vivaramones1 8 months ago
@vivaramones1 If the motivation for being good is getting into heaven, then is it really goodness? I think not. It is just being a disciplined robot without understanding the essence of compassion. Being good regardless of belief in a god is the test of true goodness, and humans are afraid of that because they have no faith in their own goodness. It is not your actions but the contents of your heart that make you good. Good deeds and a good person are different from each other.
MsWildtiger 8 months ago
i think its so rude when Sam Harris is on his laptop instead of listening!
vivaramones1 8 months ago
Seems to me Harris is always borrowing Craig's worldview when he wants a "good" life and wants to reduce suffering. That Harris even thinks that there is uniformity in nature and predictability yet cannot provide a basis for it besides a "that's just the way it is" mentality characterizes him as a secular bigot. So often people don't "want" to consider a theistic foundation and so just stop thinking past an ad-hoc explanation.
Personally, I don't have enough faith to be an atheist.
jaggedlittlebill 8 months ago
People which were "massacered" by Hebrews in Old Testament, Philistines had ritual murders of children. Ancient Greeks often times killed their girl babies. Babylonians and Sumerians also had human sacrifice.
So, are those people you atheists are defending?
I should remind you that your state is bombing small states like mine in the name of "human rights". You had absolutely no problem with bombing of Serbia, because you believed we deserve it.
Htogrom 9 months ago
Why do atheists always start, imagine this? That's not the science.
Why is he even talking about Taliban's?
Or Catholic Church?
What does them have to do with religion? Or Christianity? Catholicism is heretical teaching banned from Christian Chruch in 1054. Islam also, is full of heretical teachings contrary to Christianity.
True Christianity (Orthodox), never had any of deeds from above two. Orthodox are greatest proof that doctrine and deeds can be one.
Htogrom 9 months ago
@Htogrom Christianity (Orthodox or otherwise) is a human creation. It developed before the Bible was compiled.
Christianity was not based on the bible. Christianity developed before the bible was compiled. The bible was compiled be the early catholic church and only those writings that were in general agreement with existing doctrine were included. Catholicism was Orthodox. Protestantism was a break away from existing orthodoxy. True Christianity is what?
MrToby9999 3 weeks ago
@MrToby9999 The way you use the term 'bible' here, you refer to the collection of writings canonized by the Christian church. By definition, the church have must preexisted this bible...so what is your point? Christian doctrine is strongly rooted in the NT authors' understanding of the Hebrew bible, on the other hand, which was written and compiled well before those authors' lives. Lastly, NT writings were compiled by communities long before the 'catholic' church devised an official canon.
bakerj61 1 week ago
Sam Harris is good with rhetoric and persuasion, however he failed to provide any valid rebuttals to Craig's arguments. This was hardly a challenge for the seasoned Dr. Craig.
dessdinovakj 9 months ago
@dessdinovakj I never thought Harris was good at rhetoic or persuasion. I wonder why people say that. Every time I hear him talk he's far from being blessed with the language of a philosopher or scientist.
drcraigvideos 9 months ago
@drcraigvideos True, but I think anyone with a follower base as big as Harris's can be called somewhat persuasive. I just had a feeling that during his second rebuttal he just gave up the debate and started throwing the red herrings, precisely because he knew that's what would get the audience fires going. Either that, or he really is pretty bad at formal debate.
dessdinovakj 9 months ago
@drcraigvideos
"For the time will come when men will not put up with sound doctrine. Instead, to suit their own desires, they will gather around them a great number of teachers to say what their itching ears want to hear." 2 Timothy 4:3 NIV
FindingTruthToday 9 months ago
Can any man re-up this video with spanish subtitles please?
NandoGSI10 9 months ago
It was unwarranted for both speakers to go on about psychopaths and the rest. The subject was not whether the Christian God is good etc. Both speakers agree that morality is 'grounded'. Rather they were to debate, which ground is more logically feasible - natural or supernatural. If one were to stick to this actual question - I think Dr. Craig won. In the sense that he gave better reasons for his position and also cast some pertinent doubts on Harris's moral landscape theory.
wakeuptj24 9 months ago
Comment removed
308W82 9 months ago
@308W82 Well, there's nothing in the debate where Craig said that hell should be the motivation to act morally. And science by definition is amoral. Harris is engaging in quack-science as far as I can tell. He's not giving scientists a good name.
drcraigvideos 9 months ago
Sam Harris for Sheriff.
theDuctapeUnion 9 months ago
In a nutshell, Craig says (1) science can't justify itself (2) it's contingent on human minds (3) trusting in Scientific Method at all for discovering objective reality takes 'faith'. Harris responds (1) no science could be absolutely self-justifying - high standards of evidence is all we can ask for (2) theism too (3) in that case everything we do takes 'faith' and the word becomes meaningless
CausticMystic 9 months ago
the talk starts at 56 minutes
sam what does god of the bible or misrepresenting Christianity has to do with the toppic at hand when craig said that many divine command theorists do not take god of the bible or the bible as authority?
playing on emotions or stupidity of the bible as an argument is not the point of the debate here
niinja2 9 months ago
@niinja2
although he is right to the point where lane should explain in detail where does this objective morality come from and how do we know its from god and what is this objective moral standard with which we discern what parts of the bible will we obey.
What is the point of objective morality if you cannot know what it is, or if we simply do not care what it is since we will ultimately decide for ourselves by majority rule?
niinja2 9 months ago
@niinja2 What are you talking about? Craig sited two commandments that come from *the Bible* to indicate God's wishes and God's goodness. Craig obviously takes the Bible as an authority on God's word. Harris' point about God just as well being evil or there being many Gods should have been emphasized more. Craig defines God as good, but naturally if evil exists, it comes from God also. God is good and evil.
CausticMystic 9 months ago
@CausticMystic
no your right, if craig didnt appeal to the god of the bible 2 times it would be ok but he would still need to clarify what this philosophical god is. But later on in the debate he did appeal to the bible and did not explain the thing dr. harris is pointing out , how do we discern what of the gods commandments to follow.
niinja2 9 months ago
How many times did Craig use the word "objective?" How many times did Craig define the word "objective?" How many times did Craig explain why an "objective" point of view was important with regard to morality?
Plummet01 9 months ago
How many times did Craig use the word "objective?" How many times did Craig define the word "objective?" How many times did Craig explain why an "objective" point of view was important with regard to morality?
Plummet01 9 months ago
@Plummet01 How closely did you listen to the video?
drcraigvideos 9 months ago
I like how Harris completely ignored the claptrap that Craig spewed, didn't address any of his points and talked about things of real worth and value in understanding not only the human mind, but the world in general. This is how all noteworthy scientists should treat the detractors who have nothing of value to add to the discussion.
razieldumas 9 months ago
@razieldumas Uhm, yeah, being philosophical is claptrap. I suppose attacking Harris' argument is complete nonsense too, huh?
drcraigvideos 9 months ago
@drcraigvideos yes it would be what most ppl would consider nonsensical because he arguing from standpoint of humanitarianism not using the bible. Dr. Craig is doing the same thing only he is supporting the bible. However its rather disingenuous for any theist to talk about morality that supports humanitarian morals from a source such as the bible that has so much genocide, rape, murder, etc.
tamu77095 9 months ago
@tamu77095 Dr. Craig is arguing from natural theology, and even if we grant that the Bible justifies rape, genocide, etc. (I sincerely doubt you've done any real research on this topic), why would an atheist have a problem with that? There is no problem of evil in atheism because you can't even deem anything as morally right or wrong.
drcraigvideos 9 months ago
@drcraigvideos
I don't understand why the religious confound themselves with mysteries where none exist. Is it all that difficult to grasp the concept of human solidarity and that altruistic behavior within a society is beneficial to all without "dad" having to tell us so? Then us, the happy and healthy on the secular side will be the expositors of objective morality to the vapid and vacuous on the religious side. So be it. But please. Call me Uncle.
theDuctapeUnion 9 months ago
@drcraigvideos
Seeing how genocide, murder or rape isn't wrong, if god commands it to be right, according to WLC, I think he has exhausted any and all possibilities to be taken seriously at this point. It went from wild obfuscation to downright moral retardation from WLC. So sad.
Aaberg123 9 months ago
@Aaberg123 Dr. Craig never said God can command something immoral to be moral. Why lie about him?
drcraigvideos 9 months ago
@razieldumas I absolutely love how you say that the fact that Harris ignored the topic of the debate and disregarded his opponents points is a good thing. If only the whole world accepted your theories... we could just solve all of our arguments by beating each other with sticks, like smart, civilized, logical people.
Maidenfanatic 9 months ago
@Maidenfanatic Harris didn't ignore the topic at all. He responded to all of Craig's significant arguments. Craig even defeated himself with the apparent 'knock-down argument'. God is goodness, right? God loves us, right? If human goodness doesn't identically match human well-being then what is God's morality for? Why give us commandments to love each other?
CausticMystic 9 months ago
@razieldumas the claptrap? he didnt address them because he could not take the arguments down. Moreover, even Atheist websites agree that Craig won this debate.
danielpinto20 9 months ago
@danielpinto20 No, no they really don't.
dcx1287 9 months ago
Call me naive, but I have an issue with William Lane Craig's argument:
Morality doesn't prove God's existence - shouldn't we therefore be required to prove God's existence before we attribute morality as a result?
For example:
In a patient we wouldn't attribute leukaemia as a result of hair loss - instead we'd first prove leukaemia existed, then consider the effects of hair loss as a possible result.
God's existence is required for this moral framework idea to function, not the reverse.
villainandfox 9 months ago
Sam Harris couldn't use logic to rebuttal and has no foundation to make his point, so he revert to make the entire debate ranting and trashing to Christianity. What a pity. More pity to the viewers who don't have the philosophical capacity to understand the flow of logic of this debate.
mechael 9 months ago
@mechael
Unfortunately, that's the most that Harris contributes in his account for objective morality. I plan on making a video response to Harris' talk on TED Talks, because there are a huge number of times where he makes appeals to ridicule of Abrahamic religions and appeals to indecisive and pseudoscientific claims on human nature compared to other living organisms.
BassP86 9 months ago
Every time that old guy gets up and speaks all I hear is white noise
Yebisu22 9 months ago
Why does he keep saying "doodies", is he a bit senile?
Yebisu22 9 months ago
Is this the smartest Christian they could find?
Yebisu22 9 months ago
0:05:44 Somehow I don't think Sam Harris is taking this seriously.
Yebisu22 9 months ago
@ElasticGiraffe how very Christ like , to insult people .I dont think people should insult people at any level . I am sorry you find things in the bible to back up your actions then deem them ok . Being an adult helps me think what to say and not to say before I say it . I think Jesus would be more for the "do unto others side . Also , I am a Christian , who said I was athiest , you just assumed this I assume.? I guess because I complimented another person on their talent, I like to compliment=)
jcStarkravingmad 9 months ago
@manuatheist1977 Yes, but that position (yours) even Harris objects to. My personal qualms about fully embracing atheism is just that -- the idea that it could be all relative and society can change on some fundamental principles. To the Nazis, exterminating Jews and other undesirables (like the mentally handicapped) was OK. We need (or I'd like) some objective basis, if God is not there, to say NO. Plus where does the individual fit into this? I fear giving 'society' that much power.
B21983 9 months ago
@manuatheist1977 I think that is basically right, but then there is still the problem, if it is society and no more, what happens if society changes? For example -- what value, really, do people with sever retardation bring to society? Society could say that we would all flourish more if this extra weight were abolished. Would this be morally OK?
B21983 9 months ago
@manuatheist1977 Right, well that is both Craig and Harris' fear (and Harris' problem) - it is just utility, but just because it worked for our early development in Africa, why should I, a modern man, follow those intuitions today when I recognize I only have them in the first place because it managed to help our ancestors when they were in the African safari?
B21983 9 months ago
@manuatheist1977 Craig's point is that w/out God there is no ultimate basis for objective morality b/c, let's say it is all from evolution - OK - I can know I feel a certain way because I inhereted it from my ancestors and it worked well for their survival, just as I know I like to eat everything on my plate b/c my body wants to store energy for the coming famine. But so what? I recognize its just an evolutionary process, why objectively should I obey it? Because it helped my monkey ancestors?
B21983 9 months ago
@manuatheist1977 Agreed, which is why I'm not religious :). I would say, to play Devil's Advocate (or God's) that yes it is an intuition (natural law) and when people do awful things (e.g. Hitler) it is usually by reasoning themselves out of what they already know to be true/just/right.
B21983 9 months ago
@manuatheist1977 So actually Craig would agree with you that morals existed before the Abrahamic Religions and he would argue that strengthens his argument. The argument here isn't Christianity = Good/Moral?, but rather, do we have a basis for Objective Morality if there is no ultimate moral authority (God)?
B21983 9 months ago
@manuatheist1977 I'm secular but I think you might miss the point. Yes, these moral rules/philosophies (I wouldnt necessarily include Hammurabi in this, but anyway) preceded Christianity, Judaism and Islam, but someone like Craig isn't arguing that religion brought morality but rather that God is the source of ultimate morality and it is His moral law that is within men and women and this is aside from any particular theology. Pagans have it within their nature just as Christians.
B21983 9 months ago
@manuatheist1977
People will be Judged on what understanding or "light" they have. Some will be destroyed for rejecting knowledge.
Also hell is not eternal. Eternal life are for those who are saved.
TheGeneralOfWar 9 months ago
Kantian moral arguments i.e. afterlife required for true morality would have worked much better here than Craigs version. I think he needs to modify his moral argument! Replies welcome.
Mylth 10 months ago
And to be honest, I think Sam was the winner of this debate. As he showed that you don't need God or divine sanction for morality. Which is surprising because I think his case was very very weak and could have been exploited a lot better by Craig. Non theists just will not find Craig convincing because, like Sam, they won't see God as required for morality. This reinforces to me what I always thought about Craig's objective moral argument - it's just not as convincing for others.
Mylth 10 months ago
I think there were a lot of things missed in this debate from the theist side, after watching it for the second time. Craig for example could have brought up the idea of justice as somehow not dependant upon fallible human consensus. As an example someone who is grossly abused or neglected and there are no consequences in this life for the actions of the perpetrator, thus God is needed to ensure there is justice, and an afterlife is also needed for a proper moral theory, not prohibitive.
Mylth 10 months ago
Dr. Sam Harris wins this debate on every level. When you have a Doctorate from UCLA in Neuroscience vrs a degree like Dr. Craig from schools such as Wheaton College (B.A. 1971) and graduate studies at Trinity Evangelical Divinity School. Dr Harris is one on the finest minds in the World and his degrees speak to that . Very hard to take on a person like this in a debate. Dr. Craig try and Dr Harris uses facts for the win.
jcStarkravingmad 10 months ago
Comment removed
jcStarkravingmad 10 months ago
Comment removed
ElasticGiraffe 10 months ago
@ElasticGiraffe I love everyone and would just like to see peace in this world . I am sorry my comment somehow warranted , somehow , sexual insults. I was just saying that Sam uses fact based argument and his degree does back up the method in which he delivers his statements . Peace and Love to All , jc
jcStarkravingmad 10 months ago
@jcStarkravingmad Sexual insults? Geez, learn to lighten up a bit. :P His rebuttal in which he took it upon himself to judge the moral character of God (as presented in the Bible) because he had nothing relevant to say was completely off-topic and inappropriate, and his degree backs up nothing at all. If they were debating about the function of the pineal gland, then maybe so. It is a purely philosophical debate, and an atheistic moral nihilist or a Hindu could have argued for Craig's position.
ElasticGiraffe 10 months ago
@ElasticGiraffe Yes, sexual insults that you had in your comment that is deleted, not very Christ like imo . As for the rest of your new comment , its a repeat of your old comment. So I dont need to write anything new also , re read my other comments to rebut that one ^^ . Happy Mothers Day All !
jcStarkravingmad 10 months ago
@jcStarkravingmad I repeated it because one time is never enough for ignorant hero-worshipers who can't manage to see passed the rhetoric to the substance of the arguments. And as mercilessly offensive as outspoken atheists tend to be these days, I would think you'd have a stronger constitution and not be so hyper-sensitive. ;) Lastly, please don't pretend to know what Jesus would or would not have said. Jesus frequently chewed people out and used language that would have been deemed offensive.
ElasticGiraffe 9 months ago
Were you people watching the same debate? Harris owned Craig. Period. Craig ASSERTED that without God there can be no objective morality. He did nothing to prove his ASSERTION. When the girl in the question period asked him how he knew that it was God that was the origin of objective morality, he said that he could not think of any other answer. Well sir, that is the basis of an argument form ignorance, just because you can not think of an alternative, does not make it true.
pnowicki 10 months ago
@pnowicki well said and well put . Peace and Love to everyone!
jcStarkravingmad 10 months ago
LOL at 55:00 that was probably the worst rebuttal I have ever seen. Even Hitchens' rebuttal was better than Dr. Harris'.
I can't believe he used the "Bible supports slavery" crap.
LOL
karozans 10 months ago
@karozans
Peter 2:18
Servants, be subject to your masters with all fear; not only to the good and gentle, but also to the fraudulent.
carryall69 10 months ago
@karozans
Ephesians 6:5
Slaves, obey your earthly masters with respect and fear, and with sincerity of heart, just as you would obey Christ.
carryall69 10 months ago
@karozans True. Worst rebuttal ever....
MusicianPR12 10 months ago
Did anyone else snort a little when that guy mentioned Sam Harris and the whole "four horsemen" bit? lol..
mintyb011 10 months ago
@manuatheist1977 I see, well its been nice debating you
kenomy66 10 months ago
@manuatheist1977 Saddam Hussein was a controversial figure yes it was percieved differently by different ppl, do u believe he deserved the death penalty?
kenomy66 10 months ago
@manuatheist1977 It was unlikely that she would get married, women who were victims of rape would rather marry their rapist than go unmarried for the rest of their lives, secondly he would have to support the woman for the rest of his life, the prostitute Rahab was a special case she had changed and had helped Israel it would have been seen as an honour to marry a woman who had helped the Israelites against Jericho. If she doesnt get married she will probably become a prostitute.
kenomy66 10 months ago
@manuatheist1977 Some various forms of caste systems are practised in some Buddhist countries. A Sect of Jainism believes that women cannot achieve liberation unless they are reborn as a man, Chsristianity says Galatians 3:28 all are equal God loves us all which is why he badly wants us to be saved . Right now I'm a Roman Catholic but I'm soon gonna leave might become non-denominental. You might change and decide to convert but you seem pretty strong on your atheism so...
kenomy66 10 months ago
@manuatheist1977 I dont understand what this has to do with moral determinism, Saddam Husseins death was welcomed because of the evil he done im talking about MURDER
kenomy66 10 months ago
@manuatheist1977 Hinduism and some parts of Buddhism use the caste system, Jews were elected as a nation to show others the glory of God, in the Old Testament there were gentiles who were accepted, Christianity in my opinion is the most rationally defensible faith and its not just a case of Abrahamic religions changing around for a differentv type of salvation,it's more complicated than that. I think you lack a solid enough knowledge in the bible to say that
kenomy66 10 months ago
@manuatheist1977 You do realize that women had to be in marriage in those days, in order to have a chance of living, it doesnt matter if the woman wanted the man NOBODY ELSE WOULD MARRY HER. She wouldnt be able to get a man anyway, and i'm not even sure that the quote talks about rape it just says he took her and slept with her unless you read into it, the "violation" could just be the fact that he took her virginity
kenomy66 10 months ago
@manuatheist1977 Im not saying morals didnt exist before Abrahamic religions im saying that morals were always grouded in some kind of religion or philosophy, the babylonians had pagan religions, Egyptians worshpped pagan religions stoicism and the rest are either based on philosophies or of pagan character (stoicims was banned by Emperor Justinian I in 529 AD because of this) and that morals came about in some sort of religion
kenomy66 10 months ago
@manuatheist1977 Wheres the evidence that morals evolved, look around the world morals are decided by religion. From islamic countries to western civilisation as i said befre its grounded originally on christianity, look at history morals have always been dependent on religion whether pagan or Christian theres no evidence that ppl together as a society started to evolve morals it was always based on some kind of religion till Jesus ame to save us.
kenomy66 10 months ago
@manuatheist1977 Its an acknowledgement of whats right and wrong, we know whats right and wrong according to our conscience, everyone has a conscience thats why we feel offended abot others being raped, even children know the difference between fair and unfair, its just in us if morals were determined by me then we wuldn't have a conscience becvause its relative.
kenomy66 10 months ago
@manuatheist1977 Well first of all it does condemn rape becasue they quote says he has "violated" her so that is a condemnation. Sex before marriage is condemned you have to understand the culture of that time who was going to marry her, if she was raped? its much fairer to give her to the guy because that incident would end her chances of getting married anyway to someone else.
kenomy66 10 months ago
@manuatheist1977 I see, so if humans are just evolved animals why should we get offfended by rape?after all some evolutionists argue that it might have given early humans an advantage for the process of evolution. And exacly it is your perception that makes you decide whether somethings good or evil so when ppl rape or murder or commit incest they shouldnt be judged according to moral relativism
kenomy66 10 months ago
Hey guys, be sure to look in the descriptioin area. I just posted a link to the transcript of the debate!
drcraigvideos 10 months ago
I find it pretty comical that the two contentions being held were 1. If God than obj. morality. 2. If not God than no obj. morality - Yet, somehow Harris felt that listing his personal problems with the Bible was responsive. It seemed obvious to me that regardless of the truth of either person's position Craig is the clear winner of the "debate." Harris ironically was the one who seemed agenda oriented and should probably do a Google search on the word rejoinder.
Coexistentialism 10 months ago
this Sam Harris guy is a mess.
CumSeNumesteMelodia 10 months ago
Oh, and Craig fans just might want to google "One More Reason Why Religion is Messed Up: Respected Theologian(Craig) defends genocide and infanticide"
TheGreaterGood80 10 months ago
Theists here seem to be more praising Craig's delivery and charisma than his actual points. Many of you claim Harris to be dodging questions and "not staying on topic", yet Craig is simply appealing to emotions. All I hear are regurgitated arguments. He espouses this tiresome notion that Christianity 1) "created" human morality and 2) Christianity essentially owns the rights to morality. LOL it's funny reading comments here, people are terrified of the growing number of atheists, it's no fad.
TheGreaterGood80 10 months ago
@manuatheist1977 Thats a form of absolutism, some morals change over time (homosexuality)"while others are just WRONG. There's nothing relative about deciding whether murder is wrong it just is. In 50 years time will the majority of ppl decide rape is acceptable? after all 50 years ago gay marraige was laughable. At the end of the day sir i find moral relativism self refuting because you've admitted that forced sex is wrong. With moral relativism nothing can be evil becuz theres no evil
kenomy66 10 months ago
@manuatheist1977 Do you believe in Good and Evil?
kenomy66 10 months ago