Part 3 of 9 - Sam Harris vs William Lane Craig - Debate: Does Good Come From God - 7 April 2011

Part 3 - Sam Harris debated William Lane Craig at Notre Dame University on 7 April 2011 on the topic Does Good come from God?
Are the foundations for moral values natural or supernatural? - This was the way the debate was introduced by the moderator.

Introduction overview of the speakers (taken from the website):

Sam Harris, one of the "Four Horsemen of Atheism," a neuroscientist, philosopher, and bestselling author, will seek to show that the separation between scientific facts and human values is an illusion. Harris will prove that science, not religion, should provide the basis for morality.

William Lane Craig is an American Evangelical Christian apologist, theologian, and analytic philosopher known for his work in the philosophy of religion, historical Jesus studies, and the philosophy of time. One of the foremost apologists in the field, Craig has faced some of the best and has been known to hold nothing back in his sharpshooting style of debate.

Category:

Nonprofits & Activism

Tags:

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

[ptango101]

You listen to Harris speak and and you feel like you are actually learning something. You feel yourself actually gaining incite into a complex area, that being the development of what we have labeled moral behaviour and it's implications. When Craig speaks you just feel like he is trying to sell you some crappy insurance that he insists you need. I am moral without your god Mr Craig and so are all my friends.

[revo1974]

@Dauphin35

.....the term "objective" is not shared by the vast majority of philosophers. Both were arguing for a different type of objective morality. Sam addressed this as well.

[AD6043]

In a secular view, morality serves a purpose. The reason we regulate ourselves during our interactions with one another is to be able to coexist and cooperate and we all benefit from this cooperation. What behavior will help us achieve this goal can be objectively discussed based on what we know about the universe and human nature

In theism, what purpose does morality serve? What is the goal? If it is to please a God, the behavior we need to adapt is to pay attention to what he likes, of course

[sweetmovie07]

All I see from Harris is red Herrings.

[sweetmovie07]

Harris got owned in this debate! He didn't even address Craig's arguments! I don't think he knows how to debate.

[yshua1337]

It seems that Dr. Harris, rather than arguing for the existence of a universal basis for objective morality, is merely exercises his own moral judgement in deeming certain acts right or wrong. The question of the debate, however, already assumes that there are objective moral values! His task was to prove that Dr. Craig's argument that objective moral values and duties are best explained by the existence of God is wrong, then establish a scientific basis for objective morality.

[yshua1337]

The problem here is that Dr. Harris is not adequately treating the subject of the debate. Dr. Craig immediately presents his clear, sound arguments and Dr. Harris does not refute them and offers no logical justification of his contention that objective morality has naturalistic explanation. I agree with Dr. Craig that without an objective metaphysical reality, which naturalists such as Dr. Harris deny, there are no grounds for moral values and duties.

[ptango101]

@mbelma6329 Sorry no. I will not. Craig is just another apologist that is pissing on my leg and telling me it is raining. Respect is earned not just given. His debating techniques are subtle in their dishonesty but they are dishonest. The smartest person on that stage was Sam Harris. Craig's level of education and articulation mean squat to me. Instead of just nodding your head to everything he says use your brain.

[mbelma6329]

@ptango101 Ever heard a theoretical physicist give a discussion on astrophysics and TOTALLY know what he/she was talking about?

Yeah, me neither. Craig is a highly educated, articulate, well-spoken PhD who has written numerous books on theology and philosophy as well as hundreds of scholarly articles on topics you've never even heard of.

Show a little respect

[mbelma6329]

I can totally FEEL the open-mindedness and balance oozing from the screen as I read all the nice,non-militant, and fully educated commentary from all the posters here.

HA!

[mouthyweasel]

@BattleshipAgincourt Yeah. Agreed.

[BattleshipAgincourt]

@mouthyweasel

First I agree with what you stated, but Craig takes this one step further.

When a person admits they don't know something, they're still left with room to explore and find the actual answer for themselves. What Craig does is to say 'god is the only answer' for everything. In answering everything with 'god did it,' Craig replaces ignorance with some phony explanation that answers absolutely nothing. People cannot learn if they're unwilling to accept that they're ignorant.