Review of William Lane Craig vs Sam Harris 'Does Good Come From God?'

A very interesting debate took place on 7th April at Notre Dame University where these two guys debated their own ideas as to an objective basis of morality.

To watch the full debate (well worth it) you will find it all here:
http://www.youtube.com/user/ItsCWG

Category:

Education

Tags:

• Sam
• Harris
• William
• Lane
• Craig
• Debate
• 2011
• Theist
• Atheist
• Moral
• Values
• The
• Landscape
• Objective
• Subjective

[kMondrakken]

@kMondrakken

As an addendum. The structure of this debate or in general such debates is that the two sides are not actually addressing each other's point and hence never actually debate. Here is possibly where Craig is indeed very adept since he weaves counter points into his argumentation but it was pretty obvious that the two sides were argueing on completely different base concepts. Overall the debate should have been about absolutist morality vs. objectified relative morality.

[kMondrakken]

@kMondrakken

All those assumptions have no arguments going for them. There is no indication of a God being necessary for the creation or existance of the universe, a creator does not need to be benevolent towards its creation and a creator does not need to declare a morale framework how his creation should behave since usually a creator creates his work so it _does behave_ as he intended to begin with.

Otherwise the debate is about different concepts of morality to begin with.

[kMondrakken]

It kind of baffles me why Craig is supposedly so successful in debating atheists or scientists. His proposition is a completely random, unbased allegation aka that there is a God, that he is good and that he thought he needs to impose a morale framework for sentient life.

[Candyliz2003]

@jeromyrutter

That's why I'd like to know what Sam's take on the event was.

[jeromyrutter]

this is what it is. should I change it? (is/ought) science's unbiased standpoint says it has 0 to say in such matters. better left for philosophy in ethics than to an indifferent field of study.

[jeromyrutter]

@jeromyrutter nor will he argue the ontology. the entire debate seems like a philosophical waste of time. like I said before, I think sam recognizes the double standard and cowardice of craig, so he unloads on the bible anyway, as well as the general arguments, like epicurus' problem of evil. he is actually merciful. it could have gone much worse for craig.

[jeromyrutter]

@Candyliz2003 craig has no argument. arguments look like this

premise 1

premise 2

conclusion

all he issues are statements of equal value (which is none) that he seems to be presenting as a choice instead of true or false. because he won't allow epistemology, he has no premises to even make a conclusion that "god is good and omnibenevolent." this is an empty statement without reasons to support it. he is, essentially, refusing to make it an argument for sam to interact with.

[jeromyrutter]

@needtoalwayslearn there are other factors that are never mentioned, only in accusation from craig...that morality is freewill dependent, unfortunately, religion doesn't allow freewill, regardless of how theologians have tried to create it. for something to be moral, the means must be chosen voluntarily (not coerced, this negates choice) it must be understood (WHY: misunderstanding creates unintended ends), and the end should not be to cause distress or violate someone's will

[needtoalwayslearn]

@jeromyrutter It depends. There are stipulative definitions, and ontological definitions. Which of these is being applied here ?