On the Origin of Morality: The Sam Harris v Wm Lane Craig debate pt 2

I'd like to talk about Sam Harris.....anyone else?

I spent the last two mornings watching his debate with William Lane Craig (whom I've heard of but with whom I was unfamiliar) "The God Debate II" on youtube.

I had not heard of, nor heard, him before, but was aware of several other 'atheist debaters'......
This debate is on multiple youtube 'offerings', and there a some that claim William Lane Craig "destroyed" him....
but, I watched it without knowing what others' opinions of it were. I was disappointed that they didn't have a "vote" at the end....
but, I thought Harris won it hands down.

I know a few of you are aware of him.

I'd like to discuss things.
Anybody?

Anyone aware of the website "patheos.com" ?
Well worth checking out.

Really? A two hour video?

reply to post by wildtimes


I don't have time right now to watch this, but can you some up the video pretty easily or no?

reply to post by VoidWalker


Sure. Sorry.
It's a debate at Notre Dame University (an acclaimed school for philosophy and theology) between Sam Harris, an atheist, and William Lane Craig, a Christian apologist.

The issue of topic is whether or not "God" has to exist because 'morality' is part of our 'human condition'. Whether or not morality can be an 'objective issue' among human beings without "God" being there.

Harris says: Morals can be objective and arise in a deeply social species without a 'God' advising us....

Craig says: We have morals, therefore God exists; and therefore "He" is the source of morality, and without 'Him' there would be none....

reply to post by wildtimes


That's an incredibly stupid argument. Is "empathy" a foreign concept to these people? Are they unfamiliar with the latest advancements in the physiological functionality of the human brain? Do they not know what these new or improved bits of flesh in their skulls are responsible for?

Of course not. That requires actually knowing something. These people aren't paid to know, they're paid to utter buzzwords.

reply to post by AfterInfinity


Okay, Grimpachi recently posted a five-minute yvid of Harris, which was part of this debate. It was embellished by a great video backdrop.

It was Grim's thread (plus some posts by Lucid Lunacy) that prompted me to watch the entire debate.

It's similar to Dawkins and Hitchens vs whomever....

but, slightly different. And interesting.
Of particular note as I was viewing it was that Craig's hands were shaking, and Harris kept an eyebrow raised the whole time, and also held his head in manner that kept his his 'brow' positioned in a way to partly obscure his eyes.

Also, he wore no tie.
Craig had on a tie.

It was simply a fascinating 'clash' of worldviews regarding the source of morality....
but there were/are so many body-language, linguistic, tonal cues as to their positions as opponents.

I was sad there was no 'vote' by the audience at the end. In my opinion, Harris won. But others think it was a Craig slam-dunk.

Just wondering what the crew here thinks!!!

reply to post by AfterInfinity

That's an incredibly stupid argument.

Wait...
on whose part?

The two of them are PhDs. Harris's is in neuroscience and philosophy. en.wikipedia.org...

Samuel B. Harris (born April 9, 1967)[2] is an American author, philosopher and neuroscientist, as well as the co-founder and CEO of Project Reason.[3] He is the author of The End of Faith, which was published in 2004 and appeared on The New York Times Best Seller list for 33 weeks. The book also won the PEN/Martha Albrand Award for First Nonfiction in 2005.[4] In 2006, Harris published the book Letter to a Christian Nation as a response to criticism of The End of Faith. This work was followed by The Moral Landscape, published in 2010, his long-form essay Lying in 2011, and the short book Free Will in 2012.

Harris is a contemporary critic of religion and proponent of scientific skepticism and the "New Atheism".[5] He is also an advocate for the separation of church and state, freedom of religion, and the liberty to criticize religion.[6]

Craig's is in philosophy and Christian apologetics.

Craig graduated from East Peoria Community High School in 1967 before attending Wheaton College, Illinois, where he received a Bachelor of Arts degree in communications in 1971 and two summa cum laude master's degrees from Trinity Evangelical Divinity School in Deerfield, Illinois, in 1975, in philosophy of religion and ecclesiastical history and in the History of Christian Thought.[1] He earned a Ph.D. in philosophy under John Hick at the University of Birmingham, England, in 1977 and a D.Theol. under Wolfhart Pannenberg at the University of Munich, in the former West Germany, in 1984.[7]

From 1980 to 1986 he was an assistant professor of philosophy at Trinity Evangelical Divinity School. He briefly held the position of associate professor of religious studies at Westmont College in Santa Barbara, California, from 1986 to 1987. From 1987 to 1994 Craig pursued further research at the University of Louvain, Belgium. Since 1996 he has held the position of research professor of philosophy at Talbot School of Theology, Biola University in La Mirada, California.[7]

en.wikipedia.org...

reply to post by wildtimes


Okay, I've watched the first 20 minutes of Craig's intro. Here's my problem. Craig claims that objective morality exists and only arises out of "God". We know God's morals through his commandments, and then he quotes Jesus' famous two, to love God and to love others.

Craig automatically assumes that the God of the Bible is "The God" and the "Law Giver". I can only assume that Craig believes that the 10 Commandments are God's issued morality. Personally, I think the 10 Commandments are the root of immorality.

Secondly, Craig seems to insinuate that, because GOD, humans are superior to every other species on earth.

I couldn't disagree more!

Now, I'm off to listen to more.

reply to post by windword


Yup! Thanks for spending the time watching it!!


ETA:
Also, on patheos this morning, I saw that Glenn Beck had recommended Harris's book "Lying."!!!
Shocking!
www.patheos.com...

reply to post by windword


Can you elaborate on the 10 commandments and immorality? I can't say I've ever heard that before.

reply to post by AfterInfinity

Can you elaborate on the 10 commandments and immorality? I can't say I've ever heard that before.

Wow, AftIn. You're in rare form this afternoon!!

Not gonna watch the vid, but meanwhile gonna act mocking like that??

Also....
note that in the wiki bios, it's reported that Harris was BORN in 1976; the same year that Craig GRADUATED FROM HIGH SCHOOL.

Incidentally, I also graduated from High School in 1976.
I was 17.

See, the thing isn't just about "religion"....
it's also about the "human condition/circumstance".....perhaps even MORE than it's about religion.

But, maybe nobody else gets that.....
socioreligiosity. I just made that up.

reply to post by AfterInfinity


Sure. I did a thread on it, The 10 Commandments are Unnecessary, Irrelevant and Immoral, that outlines my main objections, I think, in the OP.

I don't trust a God that commands his followers to worship him.

I don't trust a God who forbids education, condemns murder, then leads his people to war, and issues the death penalty for breaking his laws. He condemns stealing but supports property rights, likens a man' wife to his neighbor's ass in personal ownership, and condemns youth for offering opposing views of their elders' culture. Everyone should have at least on day of relief from the burdens of work, but it should be on their terms.

I haven't watched this for a long time, but as I recall, Harris lost, hands down, because it's a debate and he doesn't know how to debate. William Lane Craig is a fantastic debater, and fairly consistently wins these things, for that very reason. He is very adept at setting up his opponent and working them into intractable positions, which he did with Harris. As I recall, Harris' rebuttals didn't address the issues Craig raised, and his closing statement was irrelevant to the subject of the debate.

Now, as to whom has a more convincing point of view, I suppose that is largely a result of pre-existing bias on the part of the viewer, but as a seasoned debater, it's pretty clear to me that Harris got his clock cleaned, though not as bad as Christopher Hitchens did when he went up against Craig -- that one was an utter embarrassment, even to sympathetic atheists:

The debate went exactly as I expected. Craig was flawless and unstoppable. Hitchens was rambling and incoherent, with the occasional rhetorical jab. Frankly, Craig spanked Hitchens like a foolish child. Perhaps Hitchens realized how bad things were for him after Craig’s opening speech, as even Hitchens’ rhetorical flourishes were not as confident as usual. Hitchens wasted his cross-examination time with questions like, “If a baby was born in Palestine, would you rather it be a Muslim baby or an atheist baby?” He did not even bother to give his concluding remarks, ceding the time instead to Q&A.

This always seemed like a pointless matchup to me. One is a loudmouthed journalist and the other is a major analytic philosopher. You might as well put on a debate between Michael Martin and Bill O’Reilly. (Source)

Harris is either willingly or unknowingly ignorant and misinformed on a lot of Christian doctrine. He shapes it to be what he wants it to be as an atheist and is not objective at all. For example, he says that Christians believe that all non-Christians are bound for Hell, that Hell is a place where you are eternally tortured in fire, that God is responsible for tragedies caused by men who have free will, that the beautiful and diverse world we call home is somehow a terrible place because there are occasional natural disasters, that God killed righteous people, that God destroyed cities without warning them through prophets and giving them a chance at repentance, that true followers of Christ are not called to love everyone including their enemies, that the Catholic Church killed people for reasons other than heresy or just war, that the papacy approved of executing all heretics, etc. He is ignorant and often just wrong.

wildtimes
reply to post by AfterInfinity

 

Can you elaborate on the 10 commandments and immorality? I can't say I've ever heard that before.

Wow, AftIn. You're in rare form this afternoon!!

Not gonna watch the vid, but meanwhile gonna act mocking like that??

Posts like that discourage me from interacting with you. Assumptions are clearly not your forte. I was not mocking anyone, and you're usually not so quick to assume I'm such an asshole.

reply to post by windword


Well said. I'd forgotten that thread, actually.

reply to post by ghostfacekilah00

For example, he says that Christians believe that all non-Christians are bound for Hell, that Hell is a place where you are eternally tortured in fire, that God is responsible for tragedies caused by men who have free will, that the beautiful and diverse world we call home is somehow a terrible place because there are occasional natural disasters, that God killed righteous people, that God destroyed cities without warning them through prophets and giving them a chance at repentance, that true followers of Christ are not called to love everyone including their enemies, that the Catholic Church killed people for reasons other than heresyor just war, that the papacy approved of executing heretics, etc. He is ignorant and often just wrong.

It took me 3 times to read this to get your meaning, but I'm still not sure I really do.

Are you saying that Harris says that "Christians believe all those things"? Or that Harris does??

I think you mean that he says that all Christians believe that..... (starting with 'all non-Christians are bound for hell, and then continuing on)

Is that correct?

So, have you seen the debate, then? Or read either of their books? What did Craig say that is considered by some to be a 'slam-dunk'?

AfterInfinity
Really? A two hour video?

AI, why you holding out on us? Why didn't you give the whole Sweet Autotune...Oh Jesus it's a fire!

@Wildtimes

I have seen these debates, also check out The Devil's Delusion, it's a good one also.

And every side always says the other side got owned, pwned or destroyed.

reply to post by adjensen

I haven't watched this for a long time, but as I recall, Harris lost, hands down, because it's a debate and he doesn't know how to debate. William Lane Craig is a fantastic debater, and fairly consistently wins these things, for that very reason.

Interesting.

I didn't know either one of them; it was my first exposure to both.
I thought Harris won it 'hands down'.

Craig said several things attempting to refute Harris, and sounded like he was floundering.....yet Harris came back every time and pointed out how Craig had taken it out of context and misconstrued it....(which Craig had certainly done).

Sorry. No. Harris won.