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

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
• Landscape

[theELUSIV]

I think Harris is basicly stating the obvious. Morality is subject to the opinion of the concious beings who abide by the said moral values thus meaning the foundation of morality is humanity.

[Eventsbyresonance]

The last question is the nail in Craig's coffin. Even if god exists, even if he is the ultimate good, even if his commands are supposed to be the objective moral foundation - there is zero consensus among theists as to what those commands are. Craig claims there is, but that's a blatant lie: you have only to look at Christian teachings on issues of sex: masturbation, divorce, homosexuality, abortion, contraception are all called mortal sin by some, minor by some, and praiseworthy by others.

[snoweyeball]

@. Eventsbyresonance nah its worse than that... it means that the westboro baptist church is true! literal interpretations of the bible FTW!

[1988Leger]

Good last question - it's a shame it wasn't answered very well

[theELUSIV]

@MsPROOFthatGODexists Well yes thats pretty obvious, you stated the morality based on humanity doesn't quite work out, how is that relevant to the premise being ture or false? Your asserting that morality should be or is objective yet in reality it is observed as being completely subjective.

[MsPROOFthatGODexists]

Dr Craigs response to Dr. Harris analogy about the teacher in the classroom should have been that under the Athiests view, there would BE no Teacher in the classroom to give the student any directive such as 'punch them in the face', since Athiesm has no objective basis for morality, therefore, the equivalent scenario under Dr. Harris world view would be to do what would allign w/his own 'well being', & allow him to 'flourish', so it follows that if the child was a bully, he SHOULD punch him..

[MsPROOFthatGODexists]

@Shadowlooker12

EXACTLY.

[MsPROOFthatGODexists]

@Eventsbyresonance

Dr. Harris, and apparently you, are missing the issue of the debate.As Dr. Craig astutely points out,Dr Harris is continually introducing red herrings in order to distract from his faulty premise of there not being an OBJECTIVE source for 'morality' in the Athiest world view. Whether there is 'concensus' on the subject of Thiesm is not whats being debated, but whether Athiest have a OBJECTIVE basis to deem ANYTHING 'good' or 'moral' without an objective authority. They don't.

[MsPROOFthatGODexists]

@theELUSIV

...Humans are often guilty of INhumane things, therefore, if Dr. Harris contention is that the 'foundation of morality is humanity', then that would mean that our morality is subject to being INhumane. That doesn't quite work out.

[Shadowlooker12]

Consensus does nothing to prove or disprove something unless the consensus is backed by some proven 100% factual data (in this case it is not) and consensus does nothing in or out of Christianity. People won't fully agree on topics, that's humanity. I wouldn't have asked such a question as well as coupling it with assertions.

[Shadowlooker12]

Political correctness, tolerance and a changing social structure. This makes saying anything is laid to rest, irrelevant. Again 100 years from now the social structure of the world may be different which then changes what the secular world would view offensive, wrong, right etc this does not mean anything is laid to rest, this just means in the secular world things are dictated by an "in general" principle which can be influenced,changed and manipulated for any means,again "Truth by popularity".