One of the things that lead me to Christianity was listening to the New Atheists. Even though I knew next to nothing about theology, Christianity, or the other side of the argument. So many of their arguments seemed to be more along the lines of, "I'd like to speak to the manager. I don't like how your running things." I expected more from those who labled themselves the "brights" and the four horsemen of the new atheism. More like the four karens of the new atheism.
That speech from Harris meant to elicit pathos has been clipped and shared all over the internet (and continues to be shared in atheist circles). So, whether or not he "won" the debate really depends on what his goals were going into it. If this was a formal debate that was being scored by judges, Harris most certainly would have lost, but I suspect that isn't the kind of victory Harris was looking for.
The bar and standards for “winning” a debate is so Low to non existent amongst the internet atheist community. Anyone with a little bit of common sense and a clear mind can see a “debater” that doesn’t even begin to interact with the debate topic or the other participant has already lost the debate, simply because there is no “debate” on pain of his actions. But then again, when was internet atheism about anything intellectual to begin with? On nothing I must say. I would say they’re all style and no substance, but they don’t even have style, for it boils down to the simplistic approach of blaming everything short of bad whether and tooth ache on religion.
“I suspect that isn’t the kind of victory Sam is looking for” Unfortunately, you are probably correct because apparently when you are looking for an excuse to justify torture and claim eugenics works on humans you will find one. Hence why Sam Harris and his fan base believe torture is moral and why Richard Dawkins and his fan base insist eugenics would work on humans, and that the belief that raping and murdering a child is immoral and evil, is as arbitrary as the fact that we evolved five fingers instead of six. Harris actually brags that…. “I am one of the few people I know of who has argued in print that torture may be an ethical necessity.” (Sam Harris). Harris who’s a determinist argues that there are “scientific” “neurological" grounds for supposing that his “moral” reasoning is logically correct and that we “ought” to be torturing people for collateral reasons. We all know which group of people he has in mind. Where he gets his “ought” from including “morality” under “determinism” when there’s no such thing as free will and choice if your completely determined by “matter” is beyond most normal people and most mere mortals. Are women and children exempt if they had information that was required by the state.? “Torture is one of the ultimate abuses of state power, and the use of extreme violence that exploits the powerlessness of individuals subject to state control is anathema to the rule of law. It easily becomes a license to target anyone who is declared to be a threat” (Lutz Oette). Furthermore according to the scientific populariser, utilitarian, pragmatist and moral subjectivist Richard Dawkins…. “It’s one thing to deplore eugenics on ideological, political, moral grounds, It’s quite another to conclude that it wouldn’t work in practice. Of course it would. It works for cows, horses, pigs, dogs & roses. Why on earth wouldn’t it work for humans? Facts ignore ideology.” ( Richard Dawkins). Evolutionary biologists pointed out that it doesn’t works on humans or animals and that it was actually a scientifically illiterate and hurtful comment for Dawkins to make especially for the bereaved relatives of the Jewish Holocaust!! “As an evolutionary biologist, it’s my responsibility to denounce this clown. Richard Dawkins is now supporting eugenics, which is obviously indefensible.” (Dr Blommaert). Equally, the prominent humanist Greg Hepstein from Harvard also thankfully condemned this statement for obvious reasons and responded..... “So unacceptable for Richard Dawkins to tweet about eugenics without clearly condemning it. Dawkins is *supposedly* one of our exemplars of humanism & science outreach. Yet today he's given every manner of passive and active bigot an opening to "consider" persecution on steroids” (Greg Hepstein). It’s hardly surprising that Dawkins was eventually stripped of his (Humanist of the Year Award) by no other than the (Association of Humanists), that’s a secular atheist organisation by the way! According to the Association of Humanists… “Dawkins has over the past several years accumulated a history of making statements that use the guise of scientific discourse to demean marginalized groups, an approach antithetical to humanist values,” (Association of Humanists).
Harris's moral good is the consequentialist sort-- the kind that uplifts the lives, generally, of sentient beings. And it's correct to assume that what you need to discover that moral good is fact-based learning-- discovering what leads or doesn't lead to the "flourishing" of sentient beings. Seem's far clearer and more direct than Craig's supernatural "God commands".
@@WiseDisciple But were they wrong for doing so? I find it odd that a lot of apologists make excuses for just how much evil conduct the Judeo-Christian god commits, both in the bible and in general theology. This is supposed to be a being that is all-powerful, but does absolutely nothing to stop the endless suffering of people both living and dead. Why make excuses for that? Moreover, why ever worship a being like that?
It's an un-defendable argument. An Atheist could NEVER give a "reasonable" defense of why they are Atheist...I've NEVER heard just one good argument. Ever.
Nate, I just found out about your “debate break down/commentary” videos. I am really enjoying them. I have been reviewing debates and discussions on God, religion, morality, etc. for years. I like how you breakdown these videos strictly from a debate
Great review video. I really appreciate the way you instruct through the material. As a lay apologist myself and one certificated through Reasonable Faith, I found your material very helpful!
Isn't the main problem that Harris is not a philosopher? Craig is a well respected scholar and philosopher with real credentials in this area. He's published in a number of academic philosophy journals. They aren't on a a par. I think they should have had him debate with an atheist who is also a well respected philosopher like him.
No.. Harris is very able to philosophise, but he knew WLC would destroy him so he didn't try it! If you watch Harris's debates most of the time Harris is skewering his opponents. Here though he steered clear of WLC's arguments.. One reason was 'cos he knew he'd get demolished. But another reason is he wants to focus on the dogma most people believe in that he thinks is most absurd, rather than the generic God concept.
Not gonna lie…..during Dr. Harris’s rebuttal all I kept saying to myself is what is blud waffling about. It’s remarkable how even the most intelligent of us can just miss the mark completely. I honestly have no clue how he got to where he got to from the topic…
So at 17:00 is Harris ultimately saying that it doesn't matter what you do as long as you excel at it? That puts murderers on par with bakers. That's not morality, that's more like some sort of amoral human potentiality system. Thanks Nate for pointing out that feature in the debate.
Harris doesnt say that at all. It is implied that it will never happen. The murderer that excels at killing is not contributing to the general well being of humanity. Go a few comments up and you will find someone explaining it pretty well. The dude is biased against Harris and makes no real attempt to understand the arguments.
@@berunto8186 17:00 "If evil turns out to be as reliable a path to happiness as goodness is, it would no longer be an especially moral landscape. Rather it would be a continuum of well-being upon which saints and sinners would occupy equivalent peaks." So how exactly does Harris propose that evil could be considered as reliable a path as goodness is? This logic only works if both evil and goodness can be equally as contributive to the well-being of humanity, and frankly I don't see how something like evil which is the privation of goodness can have any kind of positive effect. The absurdity of this quote only becomes more illogical with every successive reading.
Nice notes! Mr. Harris does wax eloquent for awhile, but he does indeed completely lose the track and just start attacking Christianity - or, at least, a strawman of it. To answer, for example, just one of the notes he brought up: that of young children dying at an astonishing rate daily. A powerful topic, to be sure, yet attacking Christianity over that misses the point. Yet, even so, we have two ways to look at this if we take the two worldviews onstage (which is what Mr. Harris wants to do): -Mr. Harris's view, which completely abolishes morality and places 'rapists and saints' as in the same category, and removes all hope for any justice after death or -Mr. Craig's view, of an omniscient Savior Who will perfectly judge all mankind after death To paraphrase Professor John Lennox (a bit from memory, awhile since I saw the video below that covers the quote in full), in response to the idea that the universe is 'at bottom' moral-less, similar to Dawkins's spiel about the universe and its 'blind, pitiless indifference' "Of course, if you take this path you do answer the question of suffering. It's meaningless. But notice what this also does: it removes all hope. The vast majority of people do not get justice in this life, and if [Dawkins's view] is correct, they'll never get it. At the center of Christianity is a cross: and a God who did not just sit back and watch suffering, but has Himself entered into it. And while it may not answer for us the problem of suffering: it provides a window into dealing with it. I've seen it provide real hope." Mr. Harris's view says "What injustice!" when looking at death at such a scale. He then uses this as a reason to adhere to a worldview that abolishes any possibility of temporal and eternal justice, and claims in ink that rape is morally equivalent to saintly behavior. ----- John Lennox's talk "The Loud Absence" - brilliant I think, and it's from which I pulled the above paraphrase of Professor Lennox: ruclips.net/video/MPm6Y-pANYI/видео.html&ab_channel=TheVeritasForum
I just started watching your videos. I am a high school teacher as well. I really appreciate your demeanor and intelligence! Thank you for doing what you do.
Harris is not interested in engaging the topic. He is just trying to ridicule. In fact, Harris showed NO morality whatsoever. Your comparing him to "peeing" all over the stage was very spot on.
I really struggle to listen to Harris debate. He just ignored the topic, lies about arguments, misrepresents Christian beliefs, tries to make Christians defend other religious beliefs and then is just demeaning and insulting. That's the strategy
Now that you have done WLC's debates with both Hitchens and Harris, it seems only fitting that you should round out Craig's debates with the New Atheists and review WLC's debate with Richard Dawkins! Oh, wait a minute...
@@kf8512 Yeah no. If WLC really was a clown, than Dawkins would be eager to debate him since Craig is such a popular Christian Apologist. If Craig really was a clown, Dawkins could debate him and destroy him in front of huge audience, and it would be a huge win for Atheism. Yet Dawkins doesn't. I wonder why 🤔🤔
Although Harris was obviously going completely off topic in his rebuttal period, but arguably even worse than that was the fact that he was begging the question against Christianity/theism almost every time he opened his mouth. Asserting your opinions isn't making a cogent argument.
Hey Nate, great review! There was one big statement by Harris that you didn't comment on that I found especially poignant and contradictory. Around the 21 minute mark he starts presenting a hypothetical case involving a tsunami, which he is using to relate to the millions of children under 5 that will die this year. However, when looping that into his atheistic interpretation around 22:15 he says, "Any god who would allow children by the millions ... either can do nothing to help them or doesn't care to. He is therefore either impotent or EVIL." Given the entire foundation of his argument, admitted or not, the subjective nature of his moral fabric SHOULD prevent him from making statements so conclusive as that. At best, to avoid further compromising his already sandy debate foundation, he should have said something like "he is therefore, IN MY OPINION, either impotent or evil." SMH.
Harris simply argues his same points over and over again, completely bypassing any sort of debate context. These very same points were made in his book, "Letter to a Christian Nation." The guy needs to find some new material.
I am so glad I found your channel on a old debate, but it’s still in the newness of how to debate. Studying to be apologist in the LGBT community. These videos are absolutely essential in learning how to debate. God is truly using you in more ways than you know Affecting a lot of people out here like me who need this. Thank you for your obedience.
You're right on the money! From approximately 20:00 to about 33:00 he is just preaching the word of "Harris" hoping that emotion is going disguise that he brought nothing to the debate. It was pretty embarrassing.
In an apologetics class I teach, we use the last rebuttal to understand rhetoric, and how there’s a difference in understanding a topic and grabbing the heartstrings of people. When your heartstrings are being tugged, you can’t understand logically. And so as Christians, we have to realize when we’re speaking with people we’re actually dealing with heart issue, not head necessarily head.
Doctor Harris, in this debate and others, presented almost nothing other than rhetoric. I appreciate the point you made about how he wasn't even taking the effort to accurately represent Christian doctrine in his rhetoric. And I think this is telling about the calm ethos you said he was presenting. Even the most baseless and incoherent rhetoric can sound amazing when spoken calmly with a good vocabulary. Why present a coherent argument in favor of your position when you can convince people to think what you say is true simply because you're good at rhetoric. I think this very clearly shows the measure of animosity that Harris has for religion, specifically the Christian's god.
As others have said, Harris better understood "winning" this debate. When I watched this the first time, I thought Craig "won", maybe, 65/35. But, if you take Craig's responses out of context, they sound trite and academic. Harris better understood how this debate would be viewed, and he created 12 to 15 minute set pieces that have gone viral. Stand-alone, these are far more compelling than snippets of Craig. So, in debate, Craig won. In the war of ideas, Harris won.
How did he win the war of ideas? Please correct me if I'm wrong but u seem to be grading based on popularity rather than solid points. Popularity should never be the scale to weigh the worth of ideas, ask Galileo.
@@arcguardian Yes, in a war of ideas, either the majority in a democracy or, in other system, the autocrat wins. So, there is no nobility to giving a valiant effort, but not convincing people. Ultimately, the concepts that Harris and Craig were debating were purely conceptual. They were also unfalsifiable. So, since no proof is available, it is precisely the ability to convince that is important.
Actually Criag entirely falsified Harris position almost at the start when he pointed out that Harriss use of the terms good and evil were equivocation...which is a logical fallacy...which destroys Harris entire premise
my man what ? you bought a book just in case to verify the statement. 16:20 wow ! Thats how i can be sure how invested you are not just about the debate but also about seeking the truth. you know what that means ? That means , you just earned a life long subscriber to this channel . I mean wow. Just Wow.
Harris wants to change the subject because he doesn't have an answer to Craig's argument of moral objective foundation. Harris sees Craig's argument as an unclimbable mountain, and instead struggles going downhill with his own
@@JoshMcSwain Well, he is one of the more influential atheists on RUclips. Many atheists really believe he wins his debates. I've been saying for quite awhile that Dillahunty has never actually debated, he concedes all of them. Also, many atheists tout Matt's morality scheme, and Scrivener does a good job dismantling it.
Sam Harris has always been the runt of the New Atheist group. I've never been very impressed by his rhetorical skills. He has a horrid habit of re-using the same talking points. As you pointed out, his anti-Christian rebuttal ignores the entirety of WLC's arguments. In fact, Dawkins and Hitchens weren't much better. People laud Hitchens, but his only real gift was biting one liners. There are atheist philosophers who do a much better job than any of those 3...they still don't convince me though. William Lane Craig wins here.
Sam Harris beautifully exposed himself and showed us two things - once again. 1. Total lack of class. 2. Lack of intelligence Anyone who is able to think a bit, would have at least attempted to engage the topic. He was not even able to understand what the topic is let alone engage it. Those who doubt this, watch his performance in panel discussion with Jordan Peterson. Harris did not know where the heck he was. He was absolutely not capable to comprehend what J. Peterson and other fellow were saying. He is just not on that level, I am sorry. He proved it in this debate with WLC beyond any shade of doubt.
It hasn't, they just claim there is an objective basis and when asked to demonstrate it they either run and hide or say something stupid like "is it morally ok to torture babies for fun?" Which isn't demonstrating anything but the fact that we agree that its no ok to torture babies.
It would be so much better if, PRIOR, to the start of the debate, strict ground rules were explicitly laid down -' There will be no pathological ranting against something that doesn't exist according to the individual!! The debater will restrict his answers SPECIFICALLY to the topic of this debate. If not, he will be stopped and reminded of the rules of the debate '.
Yes, it would be great if a moderator could referee the responses. I'm not certain about interrupting a presenter, but a comment afterwards like, "Said rebuttal loses points because it did not engage the opponent and is irrelevant to the topic of the debate," is something that should be considered. Some years ago, James White debated Roger Perkins on the Godhead (White is trinitarian whereas Perkins is Oneness). The moderator was an atheist who was a parliamentarian with the Australian legislature. While partisans consistently laud the guy who sings their song as the winner, the moderator, who had no dog whatsoever in the fight, said afterwards that Perkins was the clear winner. Those in White's camp would vehemently disagree, but people have a hard time separating their beliefs from the presentation of those beliefs.
Thanks for the content, I find christians and other religious people taking this same strategy like Harris, we need to remember truth is the ideal not our current or preconceived notions, or even accepted doctrines based on our modern reading of ancient documents, we can all of us do better.
The anti-God crowd usually exposes themselves for their anger toward God Himself. I think it clouds their arguments with impassioned nonsense that they think should give them a pass to actually discuss applicable information.
Debates are a waste of time because they function similarly to popularity contests. The person who resonates with the audience the most is the person who wins. Who is going to resonate the most with the audience? It depends entirely upon who is in the audience and what their preconceived notions are. Why bother with such nonsense?
Are you illiterate? The purpose of the debate is for two disagreeing people to present their cases to an ambivalent room as food for thought, an exercise testing the strength of their respective positions.
@@user-hn9qw7ou8d yeah, I attend debates to consider what both people have to say. Very few debates are out of the realm of earnest consideration. You seem to have a high view of yourself
17:00 no, they would *not* be moral equivalents. Harris is literally saying the opposite of that. Harris said in the quote that : it would no longer be a moral landscape. What a fascinating misunderstanding.
Except that distinction is entirely arbitrary since he's not making an argument why one would be the moral landscape and the other wouldn't. His arguments are just a complete mess.
That confusion is entirely due to Harris’s jumbling nonsense. He can’t decide it being a objectivist metaethics, which his promotion of it being an ethical naturalist view would be, or an entirely subjectivist metaethics. I don’t think he even knows the difference. But either way the fault is Harris’ cuz he wants it to be both.
They are literal moral equivalents, he is saying that if it was found through science that there is no such thing as an objective good or evil and what we only consider to be morally good and evil is what derives happiness to the individual, then the saints would be as moral as rapists, thieves, murderers, and psychopaths. To simplify, if happiness is the measure of good and evil, then a happy rapist is morally equivalent to a happy saint.
Agree with him or not I felt from just from A debate stand point that Craig was more precise, and had a better points. Harris just babbled . Didn’t refute any of Craig’s points. Wasn’t impressed
~27:00 - I think this illustrates the problem with the theist perspective. If you don't think that we can judge God on a non religious moral system then what's the point of even having this discussion first place? You've defined objective morality in such a way that it requires God which is fine for you but obviously no atheist is going to accept that definition. Also, I don't see why the fact that murderers and rapists can be seen as on the same moral level as saints is that detrimental to Harris' case. Can't we just say that it only applies to humans with normal psychology? Just like we don't say its immoral for a lion to kill an animal we could say that the actions of humans that derive significant well being from killing and raping are amoral and we can just lock them up in the same way that we'd lock up a lion that was terrorising a town.
Quick bias check my man. When covering Craig's opening statement you said "he threw a few jabs at Sam's position in the process", then not even 2 minute later in Sam's opening you say "Sam is attacking the Christian God". No, he isn't. It isn't possible to attack something you don't believe exists. He is attacking the position held by his opponent.
I absolutely agree on this, Harris' performance is a kind of stand up comedy with punchlines designed to animate the public. But the whole point of a debate is not to adress your fun-club, rather to convince reasonable agnostics. But you convince no one in this way. Quite opposite, you could even loose reasonable atheists.
BY DEFINITION objective morality must come from an external source. That is what is meant by objective. There is no point in trying to debate a definition. So Harris shows that although there is no evidence that a god exists, even if one did exist there would be no guarantee this god’s objective morality would be good - except, again, by definition. He also puts forth a framework for a morality that more closely matches our concepts of good and bad than that of Islam or Christianity in many instances.
Would like to see Jay Dyer versus Dilahunty too. I know Dilahunty doesn’t actually come to debate as he just appeals to the “I’m not convinced” (Pseudo scepticism Fallacy). Nevertheless, Jay was calm all the way through the debate and did a good job of pointing out Matt Dilahuntys metaphysical presuppositions and how they are not consistent with his world view. Matt got pretty angry at one point. The effectiveness of the transcendental argument when it’s used properly would be a good one to review to be honest.
If belief in god is required to establish objective moral values, what is the objective evidence for god’s existence? And if we had objective evidence for a god, what objective evidence do we have to establish his/hers/it’s moral values? Alternatively, could not a person believe in a god and also believe morality as a product of nature? In what sense would god have anything to do with morality to that person? To put it another context, if you accept god created grizzly bears, are you then required to believe there are objective moral values for grizzly bears? Could not one accept that god simply allows bears to figure that out themselves? Craig never presented objective evidence for a god, nor how objective morals values could come from such a belief.
Sam Harris is a brilliant neuroscientist. That's the wheelhouse he needs to stick to. He's a great conversationalist but his "arguments," against theism, specifically Christianity, are really just regurgitated quotes from his books, which he is latently trying to sell by doing these debates.
As a Theologian for 50 years 1. God is not concerned if you live or die... It's an appointment... Why people cling to this damage world is more concerning. 2. God is allowing the Earth to be frustrated 6,000 years and give it a 1,000 year rest Jewish calendar puts us at 5877. One little snag... Unless those days were shortened no flesh would survive. 3. Bad thing happen... Why? Rev 12:12 Woe to the inhabitants of the earth and of the sea. For the devil has come down unto you, having great wrath, because he knoweth that he hath but a short time. 4. :Forever" does not mean Forever... The Hebrew word often used means an extended period of time. 5. The lake of 🔥 is not Forever... It's the 2nd death where both body and soul are destroyed and the destruction is absolute. Many Christians and non believers make GOD TO BE CRUEL because of this misunderstanding. Remember the false prophet and the beast are cast in on the Messiah's return. When Satan is cast in a thousand years later... some Bibles say where the false prophet ARE and some Bibles say WAS.... That one word make a world of difference. You decide...
You're framing yourself as an unbiased debate judge. But you're quite obviously putting on your Christian apologist hat to attempt to bolster the Christian viewpoint. Just be honest and say you're adding commentary from your Christian perspective. It comes across as really disingenuous.
17:00. Regarding murderers being on the same level as saints morally...unfathomable right? Is it not true that, in Christianity, the most vile person can shed all responsibility for their acts by a simple act of contrition and spend eternity in paradise with the saints? Christianity also puts good people and evil people on the same level, so long as everyone takes actions that perpetuate the religion. Sam makes the clear differential between moral and physical well being, which is a valid point.
I remember watching this debate so many years ago, and while Harris' presentation was sensationally impressive, I was frustrated and unimpressed with him in this debate. WLC clearly won the debate. You don't have to be Christian or religious to understand why.
Harris’ rebuttal is cringe worthy. 1. He talks around the debate topic, smuggling in the assertion that Craig is defending the Christian God as the source of morality 2. Harris is arguing that the Christian God is immoral, not that he is not the source of morality. 3. He is making assumptions about Christian belief that not all Christians (and even Dr. Craig) necessarily hold to. He’s coming off as an angry man beating up a straw man to prove that he’s more moral. He completely whiffed the debate topic.
I honestly would’ve appreciated it if you would’ve showed William lanes rebuttal to that wild straw men tangent, of Sam Harris but at the same time I hope William Lane stood on topic.
I remember listening closely to this debate, a few years ago, and it was SO obvious who the winner was. It's truly amazing that there are many people out there who are so unable to see BEYOND the rhetorical tactics, and accurately ascertain who the real winner is. (It's sad as well, I suppose.) Thanks for doing this Debate Teacher Reacts video Nate!
17:25 This is wrong. Harris demarcates that "in this case" (that someone can gain the same happiness from killing compared to altruistic means) makes this idea conceivable. It doesn't make it necessary or even likely as you stated
Robin -' Sam Harris... what time is it?' Sam Harris:' Speaking....... speaking...of...of... time, eternity is a long time to be punished...by...by...by...a cosmic dictator for not rendering proper obeisance to him!!' Robin:' Ok. If you could just answer the question, that would be great!' Sam Harris -' I...I...I... mean...by..by.. the time I finish this sentence...: Robin -' You know what??!! Forget it! I'll ask someone else!'
Sorry I accidentally hit send. I like how you focus on how the presenters perform from a debate perspective. However, I agree with you that many of these presenters don’t really care how well they performed debating his/her opponent or if they are really addressing the topic. It seems to me that there agenda is to simply put down the other side of the argument (and what these people believe in, their worldview). They often do not stick to the topic at hand. Often one side becomes very emotional and unprofessional doing the debate/discussion. You can guess which side I am referring to. Never the less, I am glad both sides are meeting to discuss these important issues and questions. We can all learn something from listening to these debates and discussions.
It's so concerning because some people will listen to this and say "Sam destroyed Craig utterly" so concerning. Unfortunately some of those academics think the same way.
Sam did destroy WLC in this debate, it really isn't even close. All this crying about SH not staying on topic is insanely dishonest. How many times did WLC reference the Christian god or Christianity in his opening alone? It was several different times. WLC is a Christian, the vast majority of the people in the audience are Christian. SH was well with in his right to go after Christianity and he completely shredded the Christian world view.
Sam's appeal to emotions and the problem of pain are the only arguments I have ever seen him give. And every debate or even discussion I've seen him have he will not respond to the issues at hand and play in the same sandbox as his interlocutor. Sam Harris is a bad faith conversation partner and should never be debated. Sam has one trick and this is it.
I've got to say, you're articulate. But quite deliberately misleading in your explanations, and selectively so. How much of your own bias spills into your reviews?
Total aside. You taught at a highschool in Vegas? Which one? When? I attended a private Christian school in Vegas for extra-curricular and I’m curious if I would have ever crossed paths with you.
@@jawdroppingbeautybyjulie61 In this clip ruclips.net/video/4ebnShlP3jM/видео.html you get to see how the whole debate boiled down to Craig getting how simple the answer is and how unnecessarily complicated Craig makes it with his Theological BS.
@@veridicusmaximus6010 I watched your clip. Kagan is very well spoken and handled Craig flawlessly, but I was able to see through the eloquence to the flaw in his argument. Kagan argues that humans have evolved to know that there is good “reason” to not cause harm to others. Sure, we have have the capacity to feel empathy, consider the lives of others, and promote safety and security in our communities. These are all very beneficial to the proliferation of the human race. But on an individualistic view, once resources and security become scarce, an individual or sometimes even a group of people will decide that it is better to survive than to be altruistic or compassionate. We become like animals when survival is paramount and resources are scarce. True objective morality would exist no matter the circumstances. And these are ordained by God. A truly righteous person would sacrifice their life for the survival of another, even if it didn’t benefit himself on a naturalistic level.
@@jawdroppingbeautybyjulie61 Remember the question of the debate was "Is God necessary for morality?" - not whether it is objective. Clearly under that premise Kagan's answer is a resounding no and all Craig had was well "what is so important about that" and Kagan pointed out that you could do that kinda questioning all the way back to Craig's god - what's so damn important about God. Just because you define your end point as not needing any further explanation does not resolve the issue. Every individual must access god's worth. True objectivity cannot be demonstrated becuase Craig defines such as that which is wholly removed from human minds - thus if no humans even existed this objective morality would still exist. This is complete nonsense and can't be demonstrated. Every value we hold as humans is inside our brains - there is nothing more subjective than this. Kagan's objectivity is based upon reason's for actions that we can evaluate among human consequences. That's it - it needs no more explaining as to why we have morality and value certain actions over others. Under certain circumstances one's own life might be the best moral value given the set of circumstances that as such the taking of another's life is justified. If objectivity is not along these lines there is no such thing as objective moral values and Craig can't and never will be able to demonstrate that except via appeals to human emotions about certain actions he finds immoral - again subjective. Very circular and absolutely never going anywhere, but he makes it sound so necessary with his BS.
Thanks for the great review - my sentiments exactly. Sam Harris is appalling. WLC is generally excellent in presenting a coherent, cogent and persuasive argument.
Agree with you on so many points Wise Disciple. William Lane Craig is a highly experienced debater and clearly dominated the debate. However the anti-theist comments Harris made has compelled a lot of people to doubt (new atheist movement), and that was most likely his "goal". By creating doubt in the existence of the Abrahamic God the most popular god he could show morality is not divine. The problem though is Harris' use of "wellbeing" is divine command theory; which turned the debate into a theistic argument with one god being the God of Abraham and the other being the God of Wellbeing. That's too close to a "supernatural" stance to win the debate. Harris should have focused on how the psychopath can believe his behavior to be moral; it's a tough pill but one that must be taken to explain morality from a natural worldview.
It's not a very honest debate review if you cherry pick parts of the debates by each debater and then sum up the rest of their speeches in a biased way.
The reason Craig *IS* wrong in taking a mere theism approach rather than an explicitly Christian one is that mere theism does not provide a foundation for morality either. Mere theism is a general and undefined God who has not revealed in any particular way what his attributes are. Upon what basis then can we ground moral absolutes in such a god if we don't really know who this god is and what he (maybe she?) is like? By not arguing from the foundational starting point of the Triune God of Scripture, Craig finds himself in a similar position as the atheist, having no absolute standard by which he can determine what is good and evil. For while the atheist has a worldview that says there IS no absolute standard of morality (no matter how much he wants ti dance around that to say there is), the general theist at best can say *if* there is one and it is indeed grounded in whoever this god being is, we can't know what it is, for this god has not revealed himself to us.
One of the things that lead me to Christianity was listening to the New Atheists. Even though I knew next to nothing about theology, Christianity, or the other side of the argument. So many of their arguments seemed to be more along the lines of, "I'd like to speak to the manager. I don't like how your running things." I expected more from those who labled themselves the "brights" and the four horsemen of the new atheism. More like the four karens of the new atheism.
Have you heard of Peter Byrom ? He had a similar experince to you.
The four karens 😂😂😂😂
That’s a very good point! Thats all Harris does here. He’s so blinded that he can’t even see the point of this debate.
Haha! Same story.
Exactly. They are just about complaining about the God they don't think exists.
“Can we call the police? The topic is missing” 🤣🤣 incredible line lol.
That speech from Harris meant to elicit pathos has been clipped and shared all over the internet (and continues to be shared in atheist circles). So, whether or not he "won" the debate really depends on what his goals were going into it. If this was a formal debate that was being scored by judges, Harris most certainly would have lost, but I suspect that isn't the kind of victory Harris was looking for.
You're probably right. Hitchens did the same thing (for, probably, the same reason).
The bar and standards for “winning” a debate is so Low to non existent amongst the internet atheist community.
Anyone with a little bit of common sense and a clear mind can see a “debater” that doesn’t even begin to interact with the debate topic or the other participant has already lost the debate, simply because there is no “debate” on pain of his actions.
But then again, when was internet atheism about anything intellectual to begin with? On nothing I must say. I would say they’re all style and no substance, but they don’t even have style, for it boils down to the simplistic approach of blaming everything short of bad whether and tooth ache on religion.
“I suspect that isn’t the kind of victory Sam is looking for”
Unfortunately, you are probably correct because apparently when you are looking for an excuse to justify torture and claim eugenics works on humans you will find one. Hence why Sam Harris and his fan base believe torture is moral and why Richard Dawkins and his fan base insist eugenics would work on humans, and that the belief that raping and murdering a child is immoral and evil, is as arbitrary as the fact that we evolved five fingers instead of six. Harris actually brags that….
“I am one of the few people I know of who has argued in print that torture may be an ethical necessity.”
(Sam Harris).
Harris who’s a determinist argues that there are “scientific” “neurological" grounds for supposing that his “moral” reasoning is logically correct and that we “ought” to be torturing people for collateral reasons. We all know which group of people he has in mind. Where he gets his “ought” from including “morality” under “determinism” when there’s no such thing as free will and choice if your completely determined by “matter” is beyond most normal people and most mere mortals. Are women and children exempt if they had information that was required by the state.?
“Torture is one of the ultimate abuses of state power, and the use of extreme violence that exploits the powerlessness of individuals subject to state control is anathema to the rule of law. It easily becomes a license to target anyone who is declared to be a threat” (Lutz Oette).
Furthermore according to the scientific populariser, utilitarian, pragmatist and moral subjectivist Richard Dawkins….
“It’s one thing to deplore eugenics on ideological, political, moral grounds, It’s quite another to conclude that it wouldn’t work in practice. Of course it would. It works for cows, horses, pigs, dogs & roses. Why on earth wouldn’t it work for humans? Facts ignore ideology.” ( Richard Dawkins).
Evolutionary biologists pointed out that it doesn’t works on humans or animals and that it was actually a scientifically illiterate and hurtful comment for Dawkins to make especially for the bereaved relatives of the Jewish Holocaust!!
“As an evolutionary biologist, it’s my responsibility to denounce this clown.
Richard Dawkins is now supporting eugenics, which is obviously indefensible.” (Dr Blommaert).
Equally, the prominent humanist Greg Hepstein from Harvard also thankfully condemned this statement for obvious reasons and responded.....
“So unacceptable for Richard Dawkins to tweet about eugenics without clearly condemning it. Dawkins is *supposedly* one of our exemplars of humanism & science outreach. Yet today he's given every manner of passive and active bigot an opening to "consider" persecution on steroids” (Greg Hepstein).
It’s hardly surprising that Dawkins was eventually stripped of his (Humanist of the Year Award) by no other than the (Association of Humanists), that’s a secular atheist organisation by the way!
According to the Association of Humanists…
“Dawkins has over the past several years accumulated a history of making statements that use the guise of scientific discourse to demean marginalized groups, an approach antithetical to humanist values,” (Association of Humanists).
Harris's moral good is the consequentialist sort-- the kind that uplifts the lives, generally, of sentient beings. And it's correct to assume that what you need to discover that moral good is fact-based learning-- discovering what leads or doesn't lead to the "flourishing" of sentient beings. Seem's far clearer and more direct than Craig's supernatural "God commands".
@@WiseDisciple But were they wrong for doing so? I find it odd that a lot of apologists make excuses for just how much evil conduct the Judeo-Christian god commits, both in the bible and in general theology. This is supposed to be a being that is all-powerful, but does absolutely nothing to stop the endless suffering of people both living and dead. Why make excuses for that? Moreover, why ever worship a being like that?
Things you should never ask:
Never ask a woman her age
Never ask an atheist to defend his position
I understand this is meant as a joke, but I think as Christians, we should ask exactly that 😉
Christians should always ask women their age 😮
It's an un-defendable argument. An Atheist could NEVER give a "reasonable" defense of why they are Atheist...I've NEVER heard just one good argument. Ever.
Considering how atheists operate these days they'll just ad homonym y ou to de ath.
@@jepprey4953lol! Well played.
Sam Harris has one debate tactic: immediately start speaking past the person he is debating.
Sam Zoolander just makes strawmen and emotional appeal arguments.
@@aarronwilson5647Zoolander 😭😭
Well-spotted…
Nate, I just found out about your “debate break down/commentary” videos. I am really enjoying them. I have been reviewing debates and discussions on God, religion, morality, etc. for years. I like how you breakdown these videos strictly from a debate
Great review video. I really appreciate the way you instruct through the material. As a lay apologist myself and one certificated through Reasonable Faith, I found your material very helpful!
Awesome! Thanks so much for watching 😊
How do you become certified thru Reasonable Faith?
It's a great idea to analyze apologetics' debates, please keep making more. Thanks!
Isn't the main problem that Harris is not a philosopher? Craig is a well respected scholar and philosopher with real credentials in this area. He's published in a number of academic philosophy journals. They aren't on a a par. I think they should have had him debate with an atheist who is also a well respected philosopher like him.
No.. Harris is very able to philosophise, but he knew WLC would destroy him so he didn't try it! If you watch Harris's debates most of the time Harris is skewering his opponents. Here though he steered clear of WLC's arguments.. One reason was 'cos he knew he'd get demolished. But another reason is he wants to focus on the dogma most people believe in that he thinks is most absurd, rather than the generic God concept.
@@boliussa I don't think Harris even made good arguments by atheist standards.
WLC is not well respected outside of Christian circles, lets be real here. WLC is not a serious academic in any real way what so ever.
@@jacoblee5796what??
@@ChristisKing05 What??
Not gonna lie…..during Dr. Harris’s rebuttal all I kept saying to myself is what is blud waffling about. It’s remarkable how even the most intelligent of us can just miss the mark completely. I honestly have no clue how he got to where he got to from the topic…
So at 17:00 is Harris ultimately saying that it doesn't matter what you do as long as you excel at it? That puts murderers on par with bakers. That's not morality, that's more like some sort of amoral human potentiality system. Thanks Nate for pointing out that feature in the debate.
Harris doesnt say that at all. It is implied that it will never happen. The murderer that excels at killing is not contributing to the general well being of humanity. Go a few comments up and you will find someone explaining it pretty well.
The dude is biased against Harris and makes no real attempt to understand the arguments.
@@berunto8186 17:00 "If evil turns out to be as reliable a path to happiness as goodness is, it would no longer be an especially moral landscape. Rather it would be a continuum of well-being upon which saints and sinners would occupy equivalent peaks."
So how exactly does Harris propose that evil could be considered as reliable a path as goodness is? This logic only works if both evil and goodness can be equally as contributive to the well-being of humanity, and frankly I don't see how something like evil which is the privation of goodness can have any kind of positive effect.
The absurdity of this quote only becomes more illogical with every successive reading.
Sean Carroll vs WLC! I will campaign for it until I get it.
We'll get there, we'll get there! LOL. Thanks for the suggestion! Keep the campaign alive :)
That was pretty embarrassing for wlc. I doubt a theist would want to watch it.
@@fentonmulley5895 Capturing Christianity had a good debate review on his channel for it
@@TheEpicProOfMinecraf and Digital Gnosis destroyed it
@@fentonmulley5895 I see. If you find Digital Gnosis to be your standard of intellect, feel free. There's not much I can do for you.
I just found your channel. I'm truly enjoying it
Thank you, that was an excellent breakdown. Your knowledge in debate was very insightful, please do more.
Man, that guy from night at the museum sure doesn’t like Christianity
lmao, no way😂
I was wondering who this guy reminds me of
He also didn’t handle this debate well.
@@BipolarDistortion facts. But with all due respect, I don’t think I’ve ever seen Harris or Hitchens handle any debate well
Isn’t this the one where sam couldn’t stay on topic
🤔
Yes. Sam was dodging on purpose though, because he knew he couldn’t debate Dr. Craig on metaethics.
@@plzenjoygameosu2349 coming from a Christian, how would you justify that?
@@plzenjoygameosu2349 No, he did it specifically because he didn't want to play this ridiculous game.
@@ztrinx1 so why bother even showing up?? What a monumental waste of time...
Nice notes!
Mr. Harris does wax eloquent for awhile, but he does indeed completely lose the track and just start attacking Christianity - or, at least, a strawman of it.
To answer, for example, just one of the notes he brought up: that of young children dying at an astonishing rate daily.
A powerful topic, to be sure, yet attacking Christianity over that misses the point.
Yet, even so, we have two ways to look at this if we take the two worldviews onstage (which is what Mr. Harris wants to do):
-Mr. Harris's view, which completely abolishes morality and places 'rapists and saints' as in the same category, and removes all hope for any justice after death
or
-Mr. Craig's view, of an omniscient Savior Who will perfectly judge all mankind after death
To paraphrase Professor John Lennox (a bit from memory, awhile since I saw the video below that covers the quote in full), in response to the idea that the universe is 'at bottom' moral-less, similar to Dawkins's spiel about the universe and its 'blind, pitiless indifference'
"Of course, if you take this path you do answer the question of suffering. It's meaningless.
But notice what this also does: it removes all hope.
The vast majority of people do not get justice in this life, and if [Dawkins's view] is correct, they'll never get it.
At the center of Christianity is a cross: and a God who did not just sit back and watch suffering, but has Himself entered into it.
And while it may not answer for us the problem of suffering: it provides a window into dealing with it. I've seen it provide real hope."
Mr. Harris's view says "What injustice!" when looking at death at such a scale.
He then uses this as a reason to adhere to a worldview that abolishes any possibility of temporal and eternal justice, and claims in ink that rape is morally equivalent to saintly behavior.
-----
John Lennox's talk "The Loud Absence" - brilliant I think, and it's from which I pulled the above paraphrase of Professor Lennox:
ruclips.net/video/MPm6Y-pANYI/видео.html&ab_channel=TheVeritasForum
*Dr. Craig. He is a professional philosopher, after all.
@@petery6432 Dr. Harris too. Oh that's right, theology is the one true title.
As always, appreciate your thoughts Derek! I'll check Lennox's talk out too!
@@ztrinx1 Imagine taking time out of your day and life to whiteknight for Sam Harris
I just started watching your videos. I am a high school teacher as well. I really appreciate your demeanor and intelligence! Thank you for doing what you do.
Harris is not interested in engaging the topic. He is just trying to ridicule. In fact, Harris showed NO morality whatsoever. Your comparing him to "peeing" all over the stage was very spot on.
I really struggle to listen to Harris debate. He just ignored the topic, lies about arguments, misrepresents Christian beliefs, tries to make Christians defend other religious beliefs and then is just demeaning and insulting. That's the strategy
Now that you have done WLC's debates with both Hitchens and Harris, it seems only fitting that you should round out Craig's debates with the New Atheists and review WLC's debate with Richard Dawkins! Oh, wait a minute...
yeah because dawkins doesn’t debate clowns
@@kf8512 what makes him a clown?
@@kf8512 Yeah no. If WLC really was a clown, than Dawkins would be eager to debate him since Craig is such a popular Christian Apologist. If Craig really was a clown, Dawkins could debate him and destroy him in front of huge audience, and it would be a huge win for Atheism. Yet Dawkins doesn't. I wonder why 🤔🤔
@@kf8512 Dawkins _is_ the clown, bro.
@@petery6432 I think the answer is obvious:
“Buk, buk, buk, buk, buk, BGAAAK!!”
“Quick, Colonel Sanders, he went thataway!”😁
Although Harris was obviously going completely off topic in his rebuttal period, but arguably even worse than that was the fact that he was begging the question against Christianity/theism almost every time he opened his mouth. Asserting your opinions isn't making a cogent argument.
your react series has been really helpful in understanding things that flew over my head, please do a video on Craig v Krauss
Harris’ only response to Craig:
“SQUIRREL!!!”
I loved that movie. Great review! (I told you Harris got massacred).😁👍
LOL!
Your opinion is trash.
The only resonable response to Craig is vacuous ignorant sophistry.
@@WiseDisciple Sir, how does that discount any of the points Harris made about suffering and the objectively evil conduct of the Christian god?
@@jakec9522 what is your standard of objective good and evil?
Hey Nate, great review! There was one big statement by Harris that you didn't comment on that I found especially poignant and contradictory. Around the 21 minute mark he starts presenting a hypothetical case involving a tsunami, which he is using to relate to the millions of children under 5 that will die this year. However, when looping that into his atheistic interpretation around 22:15 he says, "Any god who would allow children by the millions ... either can do nothing to help them or doesn't care to. He is therefore either impotent or EVIL." Given the entire foundation of his argument, admitted or not, the subjective nature of his moral fabric SHOULD prevent him from making statements so conclusive as that. At best, to avoid further compromising his already sandy debate foundation, he should have said something like "he is therefore, IN MY OPINION, either impotent or evil." SMH.
It really is astounding that they say things like that. It's speaking out of both sides of the mouth
Harris simply argues his same points over and over again, completely bypassing any sort of debate context. These very same points were made in his book, "Letter to a Christian Nation." The guy needs to find some new material.
I am so glad I found your channel on a old debate, but it’s still in the newness of how to debate. Studying to be apologist in the LGBT community. These videos are absolutely essential in learning how to debate. God is truly using you in more ways than you know Affecting a lot of people out here like me who need this. Thank you for your obedience.
You're right on the money! From approximately 20:00 to about 33:00 he is just preaching the word of "Harris" hoping that emotion is going disguise that he brought nothing to the debate. It was pretty embarrassing.
I think if someone is not willing to engage in a certain topic, it's probably because they know they are wrong.
"Can we call the police, the topic is missing"😂😂😂
I find your review to be brilliant. Gladly subscribed.
In an apologetics class I teach, we use the last rebuttal to understand rhetoric, and how there’s a difference in understanding a topic and grabbing the heartstrings of people. When your heartstrings are being tugged, you can’t understand logically. And so as Christians, we have to realize when we’re speaking with people we’re actually dealing with heart issue, not head necessarily head.
Doctor Harris, in this debate and others, presented almost nothing other than rhetoric. I appreciate the point you made about how he wasn't even taking the effort to accurately represent Christian doctrine in his rhetoric. And I think
this is telling about the calm ethos you said he was presenting. Even the most baseless and incoherent rhetoric can sound amazing when spoken calmly with a good vocabulary.
Why present a coherent argument in favor of your position when you can convince people to think what you say is true simply because you're good at rhetoric. I think this very clearly shows the measure of animosity that Harris has for religion, specifically the Christian's god.
WLC doesn't present ant other thing than rhetoric neither. He does empty claims based on faith, that's it.
I think a much better debate on this topic is the one between William Lane Craig and Shelly Kagan.
You're right! Check this out: ruclips.net/video/kvQas0AA-Ds/видео.html
@@WiseDisciple Nice! Thanks for the link!
As others have said, Harris better understood "winning" this debate. When I watched this the first time, I thought Craig "won", maybe, 65/35. But, if you take Craig's responses out of context, they sound trite and academic.
Harris better understood how this debate would be viewed, and he created 12 to 15 minute set pieces that have gone viral. Stand-alone, these are far more compelling than snippets of Craig.
So, in debate, Craig won. In the war of ideas, Harris won.
How did he win the war of ideas? Please correct me if I'm wrong but u seem to be grading based on popularity rather than solid points. Popularity should never be the scale to weigh the worth of ideas, ask Galileo.
@@arcguardian Yes, in a war of ideas, either the majority in a democracy or, in other system, the autocrat wins. So, there is no nobility to giving a valiant effort, but not convincing people.
Ultimately, the concepts that Harris and Craig were debating were purely conceptual. They were also unfalsifiable. So, since no proof is available, it is precisely the ability to convince that is important.
Actually Criag entirely falsified Harris position almost at the start when he pointed out that Harriss use of the terms good and evil were equivocation...which is a logical fallacy...which destroys Harris entire premise
@@arcguardian This. Harris won nothing more than the popularity contest among internet materialists. Shocking stuff
my man what ? you bought a book just in case to verify the statement. 16:20 wow ! Thats how i can be sure how invested you are not just about the debate but also about seeking the truth. you know what that means ? That means , you just earned a life long subscriber to this channel . I mean wow. Just Wow.
Harris wants to change the subject because he doesn't have an answer to Craig's argument of moral objective foundation. Harris sees Craig's argument as an unclimbable mountain, and instead struggles going downhill with his own
Glen Scrivener vs Matt Dillahunty on "Unbelievable!" please.
No! Please no more Dillahunty! He's so intellectually dishonest
@@DefenderoftheCross Well, yeah he is, but that's why he does so bad in that debate.
Thanks, got it on the list!
@@WhatsTheTakeaway So why get more of MD being a broken record who isn't convinced of anything?
@@JoshMcSwain Well, he is one of the more influential atheists on RUclips. Many atheists really believe he wins his debates. I've been saying for quite awhile that Dillahunty has never actually debated, he concedes all of them.
Also, many atheists tout Matt's morality scheme, and Scrivener does a good job dismantling it.
As an educator it’s so exciting to listen your videos!
Thanks Charlie! Appreciate the encouragement 😊
Yeah cuz biased teachers are useful. Ugh. Get your head outta your butt.
😂 They sent the wrong Dr. Harris, the topic was lost.
Nate its a plesure to listen to your analysis
I just find them for a first time
great
thanks
Enjoyed your video, brother!
JEROME!! Thank you sir!
Sam Harris has always been the runt of the New Atheist group. I've never been very impressed by his rhetorical skills. He has a horrid habit of re-using the same talking points. As you pointed out, his anti-Christian rebuttal ignores the entirety of WLC's arguments.
In fact, Dawkins and Hitchens weren't much better. People laud Hitchens, but his only real gift was biting one liners.
There are atheist philosophers who do a much better job than any of those 3...they still don't convince me though.
William Lane Craig wins here.
"I have just met you, and I love you!"
-Dug
LOL!
Your bias against anyone who questions religion couldn't be any more clear.
Sam Harris beautifully exposed himself and showed us two things - once again.
1. Total lack of class.
2. Lack of intelligence
Anyone who is able to think a bit, would have at least attempted to engage the topic. He was not even able to understand what the topic is let alone engage it.
Those who doubt this, watch his performance in panel discussion with Jordan Peterson. Harris did not know where the heck he was. He was absolutely not capable to comprehend what J. Peterson and other fellow were saying. He is just not on that level, I am sorry. He proved it in this debate with WLC beyond any shade of doubt.
Sam Harris practically made me a Christian thank you mr sam
Why do morals need an objective basis and when has an objective moral basis ever been demonstrated anywhere much less in Xianity?
It hasn't, they just claim there is an objective basis and when asked to demonstrate it they either run and hide or say something stupid like "is it morally ok to torture babies for fun?" Which isn't demonstrating anything but the fact that we agree that its no ok to torture babies.
It would be so much better if, PRIOR, to the start of the debate, strict ground rules were explicitly laid down -' There will be no pathological ranting against something that doesn't exist according to the individual!! The debater will restrict his answers SPECIFICALLY to the topic of this debate. If not, he will be stopped and reminded of the rules of the debate '.
Yes, it would be great if a moderator could referee the responses. I'm not certain about interrupting a presenter, but a comment afterwards like, "Said rebuttal loses points because it did not engage the opponent and is irrelevant to the topic of the debate," is something that should be considered.
Some years ago, James White debated Roger Perkins on the Godhead (White is trinitarian whereas Perkins is Oneness). The moderator was an atheist who was a parliamentarian with the Australian legislature. While partisans consistently laud the guy who sings their song as the winner, the moderator, who had no dog whatsoever in the fight, said afterwards that Perkins was the clear winner. Those in White's camp would vehemently disagree, but people have a hard time separating their beliefs from the presentation of those beliefs.
Thanks for the content, I find christians and other religious people taking this same strategy like Harris, we need to remember truth is the ideal not our current or preconceived notions, or even accepted doctrines based on our modern reading of ancient documents, we can all of us do better.
You speak as if you have the right answer without asserting a position. That’s where your opinion loses value in the court of public discourse
This isn’t a high school debate! In a real debate like this, you don’t have to stick to the topic! You can talk about whatever you want!
I am learning so much!
Awesome! Thanks so much for watching!
Sadly Sam Harris never seems to comprehend the depth necessary to understand Christianity...or William Lane Craig...
The anti-God crowd usually exposes themselves for their anger toward God Himself. I think it clouds their arguments with impassioned nonsense that they think should give them a pass to actually discuss applicable information.
So basically Harris is mad about God because God don't do or not so what he thinks?🤷🏽♂️
Yeah, it’s like- WHO are you mad at?!? Do YOU get bitter & make abstracts on someone that DOESN’T Exist?? I don’t think so… 😏
I love your channel!
Debates are a waste of time because they function similarly to popularity contests. The person who resonates with the audience the most is the person who wins. Who is going to resonate the most with the audience? It depends entirely upon who is in the audience and what their preconceived notions are. Why bother with such nonsense?
Are you illiterate? The purpose of the debate is for two disagreeing people to present their cases to an ambivalent room as food for thought, an exercise testing the strength of their respective positions.
@@briggy4359 An ambivalent room? Lol. Bless your heart.
@@user-hn9qw7ou8d yeah, I attend debates to consider what both people have to say. Very few debates are out of the realm of earnest consideration.
You seem to have a high view of yourself
Harris' worst offence is his representation of Tolkien's mythos.
17:00 no, they would *not* be moral equivalents. Harris is literally saying the opposite of that. Harris said in the quote that : it would no longer be a moral landscape. What a fascinating misunderstanding.
How would you define moral landscape?
Except that distinction is entirely arbitrary since he's not making an argument why one would be the moral landscape and the other wouldn't. His arguments are just a complete mess.
That confusion is entirely due to Harris’s jumbling nonsense. He can’t decide it being a objectivist metaethics, which his promotion of it being an ethical naturalist view would be, or an entirely subjectivist metaethics.
I don’t think he even knows the difference. But either way the fault is Harris’ cuz he wants it to be both.
They are literal moral equivalents, he is saying that if it was found through science that there is no such thing as an objective good or evil and what we only consider to be morally good and evil is what derives happiness to the individual, then the saints would be as moral as rapists, thieves, murderers, and psychopaths.
To simplify, if happiness is the measure of good and evil, then a happy rapist is morally equivalent to a happy saint.
He said that rapists and saints would "occupy the same peaks" in that moral landscape. Meaning they would be equivalents.
Agree with him or not I felt from just from A debate stand point that Craig was more precise, and had a better points. Harris just babbled . Didn’t refute any of Craig’s points. Wasn’t impressed
~27:00 - I think this illustrates the problem with the theist perspective. If you don't think that we can judge God on a non religious moral system then what's the point of even having this discussion first place? You've defined objective morality in such a way that it requires God which is fine for you but obviously no atheist is going to accept that definition.
Also, I don't see why the fact that murderers and rapists can be seen as on the same moral level as saints is that detrimental to Harris' case. Can't we just say that it only applies to humans with normal psychology? Just like we don't say its immoral for a lion to kill an animal we could say that the actions of humans that derive significant well being from killing and raping are amoral and we can just lock them up in the same way that we'd lock up a lion that was terrorising a town.
Quick bias check my man. When covering Craig's opening statement you said "he threw a few jabs at Sam's position in the process", then not even 2 minute later in Sam's opening you say "Sam is attacking the Christian God".
No, he isn't. It isn't possible to attack something you don't believe exists. He is attacking the position held by his opponent.
LOL.
Agree.
I absolutely agree on this, Harris' performance is a kind of stand up comedy with punchlines designed to animate the public. But the whole point of a debate is not to adress your fun-club, rather to convince reasonable agnostics. But you convince no one in this way. Quite opposite, you could even loose reasonable atheists.
BY DEFINITION objective morality must come from an external source. That is what is meant by objective. There is no point in trying to debate a definition. So Harris shows that although there is no evidence that a god exists, even if one did exist there would be no guarantee this god’s objective morality would be good - except, again, by definition. He also puts forth a framework for a morality that more closely matches our concepts of good and bad than that of Islam or Christianity in many instances.
Jay Dyer and Matt Dillahunty please.
Thank you! Got it on the list :)
Would like to see Jay Dyer versus Dilahunty too. I know Dilahunty doesn’t actually come to debate as he just appeals to the “I’m not convinced” (Pseudo scepticism Fallacy). Nevertheless, Jay was calm all the way through the debate and did a good job of pointing out Matt Dilahuntys metaphysical presuppositions and how they are not consistent with his world view. Matt got pretty angry at one point. The effectiveness of the transcendental argument when it’s used properly would be a good one to review to be honest.
If belief in god is required to establish objective moral values, what is the objective evidence for god’s existence? And if we had objective evidence for a god, what objective evidence do we have to establish his/hers/it’s moral values? Alternatively, could not a person believe in a god and also believe morality as a product of nature? In what sense would god have anything to do with morality to that person? To put it another context, if you accept god created grizzly bears, are you then required to believe there are objective moral values for grizzly bears? Could not one accept that god simply allows bears to figure that out themselves? Craig never presented objective evidence for a god, nor how objective morals values could come from such a belief.
Great video!
Sam Harris is a brilliant neuroscientist. That's the wheelhouse he needs to stick to. He's a great conversationalist but his "arguments," against theism, specifically Christianity, are really just regurgitated quotes from his books, which he is latently trying to sell by doing these debates.
As a Theologian for 50 years
1. God is not concerned if you live or die... It's an appointment... Why people cling to this damage world is more concerning.
2. God is allowing the Earth to be frustrated 6,000 years and give it a 1,000 year rest Jewish calendar puts us at 5877. One little snag... Unless those days were shortened no flesh would survive.
3. Bad thing happen... Why? Rev 12:12 Woe to the inhabitants of the earth and of the sea. For the devil has come down unto you, having great wrath, because he knoweth that he hath but a short time.
4. :Forever" does not mean Forever... The Hebrew word often used means an extended period of time.
5. The lake of 🔥 is not Forever... It's the 2nd death where both body and soul are destroyed and the destruction is absolute. Many Christians and non believers make GOD TO BE CRUEL because of this misunderstanding. Remember the false prophet and the beast are cast in on the Messiah's return. When Satan is cast in a thousand years later... some Bibles say where the false prophet ARE and some Bibles say WAS.... That one word make a world of difference. You decide...
Sam’s argument here is surprising for an atheist. He actually believes in God but argues that he is a moral monster. Lol!
"He actually believes in God but argues that he is a moral monster. Lol!" Why are you lying? No, he does not.
@@LGpi314 I was being sarcastic!
@@jawdroppingbeautybyjulie61 It is hard to see the sarcasm in the comment section. I add /S
@@LGpi314 naturally.
@@jawdroppingbeautybyjulie61 "naturally" WHAT!?!?!
I believe Dr. Craig is a marksman in debates, he focuses and hits the target every time. ❤🎉
Harris went totally Red Herring there: "God this, God that, Christians this, Christians that..."
You're framing yourself as an unbiased debate judge. But you're quite obviously putting on your Christian apologist hat to attempt to bolster the Christian viewpoint. Just be honest and say you're adding commentary from your Christian perspective. It comes across as really disingenuous.
I appreciate this analysis
What I see from Sam Harris, is he is angry at God and wants to "parent" God.
17:00. Regarding murderers being on the same level as saints morally...unfathomable right? Is it not true that, in Christianity, the most vile person can shed all responsibility for their acts by a simple act of contrition and spend eternity in paradise with the saints? Christianity also puts good people and evil people on the same level, so long as everyone takes actions that perpetuate the religion. Sam makes the clear differential between moral and physical well being, which is a valid point.
I remember watching this debate so many years ago, and while Harris' presentation was sensationally impressive, I was frustrated and unimpressed with him in this debate. WLC clearly won the debate. You don't have to be Christian or religious to understand why.
Thank you for this
Harris’ rebuttal is cringe worthy.
1. He talks around the debate topic, smuggling in the assertion that Craig is defending the Christian God as the source of morality
2. Harris is arguing that the Christian God is immoral, not that he is not the source of morality.
3. He is making assumptions about Christian belief that not all Christians (and even Dr. Craig) necessarily hold to.
He’s coming off as an angry man beating up a straw man to prove that he’s more moral. He completely whiffed the debate topic.
I honestly would’ve appreciated it if you would’ve showed William lanes rebuttal to that wild straw men tangent, of Sam Harris but at the same time I hope William Lane stood on topic.
I remember listening closely to this debate, a few years ago, and it was SO obvious who the winner was. It's truly amazing that there are many people out there who are so unable to see BEYOND the rhetorical tactics, and accurately ascertain who the real winner is. (It's sad as well, I suppose.) Thanks for doing this Debate Teacher Reacts video Nate!
17:25 This is wrong. Harris demarcates that "in this case" (that someone can gain the same happiness from killing compared to altruistic means) makes this idea conceivable. It doesn't make it necessary or even likely as you stated
Robin -' Sam Harris... what time is it?'
Sam Harris:' Speaking....... speaking...of...of... time, eternity is a long time to be punished...by...by...by...a cosmic dictator for not rendering proper obeisance to him!!'
Robin:' Ok. If you could just answer the question, that would be great!'
Sam Harris -' I...I...I... mean...by..by.. the time I finish this sentence...:
Robin -' You know what??!! Forget it! I'll ask someone else!'
Sorry I accidentally hit send. I like how you focus on how the presenters perform from a debate perspective. However, I agree with you that many of these presenters don’t really care how well they performed debating his/her opponent or if they are really addressing the topic. It seems to me that there agenda is to simply put down the other side of the argument (and what these people believe in, their worldview). They often do not stick to the topic at hand. Often one side becomes very emotional and unprofessional doing the debate/discussion. You can guess which side I am referring to. Never the less, I am glad both sides are meeting to discuss these important issues and questions. We can all learn something from listening to these debates and discussions.
It's so concerning because some people will listen to this and say "Sam destroyed Craig utterly" so concerning. Unfortunately some of those academics think the same way.
Sam did destroy WLC in this debate, it really isn't even close. All this crying about SH not staying on topic is insanely dishonest. How many times did WLC reference the Christian god or Christianity in his opening alone? It was several different times. WLC is a Christian, the vast majority of the people in the audience are Christian. SH was well with in his right to go after Christianity and he completely shredded the Christian world view.
@@jacoblee5796😂😂😂😂 oh how delusional
Sam's appeal to emotions and the problem of pain are the only arguments I have ever seen him give. And every debate or even discussion I've seen him have he will not respond to the issues at hand and play in the same sandbox as his interlocutor. Sam Harris is a bad faith conversation partner and should never be debated. Sam has one trick and this is it.
WHAT!?!?! WLC is scripting M0R0N who nowadays refuse to debate anyone who does not have a PhD.
“Theology is ignorance with wings.”
― Sam Harris
I've got to say, you're articulate. But quite deliberately misleading in your explanations, and selectively so. How much of your own bias spills into your reviews?
Total aside. You taught at a highschool in Vegas? Which one? When? I attended a private Christian school in Vegas for extra-curricular and I’m curious if I would have ever crossed paths with you.
Hope you also review the debate of WLC and Sean Carroll
There is another great debate between Craig and Shelly Kagan on objective morality and it is excellent. You should review.
Yes, Craig got his ass handed too him.
@@veridicusmaximus6010 I think it was a balanced debate. I don’t think anyone’s “ass” was handled.
@@jawdroppingbeautybyjulie61 In this clip ruclips.net/video/4ebnShlP3jM/видео.html you get to see how the whole debate boiled down to Craig getting how simple the answer is and how unnecessarily complicated Craig makes it with his Theological BS.
@@veridicusmaximus6010 I watched your clip. Kagan is very well spoken and handled Craig flawlessly, but I was able to see through the eloquence to the flaw in his argument. Kagan argues that humans have evolved to know that there is good “reason” to not cause harm to others. Sure, we have have the capacity to feel empathy, consider the lives of others, and promote safety and security in our communities. These are all very beneficial to the proliferation of the human race. But on an individualistic view, once resources and security become scarce, an individual or sometimes even a group of people will decide that it is better to survive than to be altruistic or compassionate. We become like animals when survival is paramount and resources are scarce. True objective morality would exist no matter the circumstances. And these are ordained by God. A truly righteous person would sacrifice their life for the survival of another, even if it didn’t benefit himself on a naturalistic level.
@@jawdroppingbeautybyjulie61 Remember the question of the debate was "Is God necessary for morality?" - not whether it is objective. Clearly under that premise Kagan's answer is a resounding no and all Craig had was well "what is so important about that" and Kagan pointed out that you could do that kinda questioning all the way back to Craig's god - what's so damn important about God. Just because you define your end point as not needing any further explanation does not resolve the issue. Every individual must access god's worth. True objectivity cannot be demonstrated becuase Craig defines such as that which is wholly removed from human minds - thus if no humans even existed this objective morality would still exist. This is complete nonsense and can't be demonstrated. Every value we hold as humans is inside our brains - there is nothing more subjective than this. Kagan's objectivity is based upon reason's for actions that we can evaluate among human consequences. That's it - it needs no more explaining as to why we have morality and value certain actions over others. Under certain circumstances one's own life might be the best moral value given the set of circumstances that as such the taking of another's life is justified. If objectivity is not along these lines there is no such thing as objective moral values and Craig can't and never will be able to demonstrate that except via appeals to human emotions about certain actions he finds immoral - again subjective. Very circular and absolutely never going anywhere, but he makes it sound so necessary with his BS.
Calling Sam Zoolander a doctor will never cease to amaze me.
Please balance your sound levels, the playback is too quiet, and you are too loud.
Finally!... Samah Wrist vs. the great William Elaine Greg!
Can you look at Craig vs Ehrman?
Sam Harris certainly has his own morality from within. He unfortunately rambles and his sarcasm accomplishes the opposite of what he intends.
Thanks for the great review - my sentiments exactly. Sam Harris is appalling. WLC is generally excellent in presenting a coherent, cogent and persuasive argument.
You should add gardening to the tags. Harris gave a spectacular lesson for building straw men.
Agree with you on so many points Wise Disciple. William Lane Craig is a highly experienced debater and clearly dominated the debate. However the anti-theist comments Harris made has compelled a lot of people to doubt (new atheist movement), and that was most likely his "goal". By creating doubt in the existence of the Abrahamic God the most popular god he could show morality is not divine. The problem though is Harris' use of "wellbeing" is divine command theory; which turned the debate into a theistic argument with one god being the God of Abraham and the other being the God of Wellbeing. That's too close to a "supernatural" stance to win the debate. Harris should have focused on how the psychopath can believe his behavior to be moral; it's a tough pill but one that must be taken to explain morality from a natural worldview.
@Anon Ymous If it can be shown that most do not read the Bible would that change your mind that the atheist proselytizer is needed to create doubt?
It's not a very honest debate review if you cherry pick parts of the debates by each debater and then sum up the rest of their speeches in a biased way.
That is what I was thinking to say. I have seen a couple of videos of pastors doing similar things and they think they are truthful. LOL
The reason Craig *IS* wrong in taking a mere theism approach rather than an explicitly Christian one is that mere theism does not provide a foundation for morality either. Mere theism is a general and undefined God who has not revealed in any particular way what his attributes are. Upon what basis then can we ground moral absolutes in such a god if we don't really know who this god is and what he (maybe she?) is like? By not arguing from the foundational starting point of the Triune God of Scripture, Craig finds himself in a similar position as the atheist, having no absolute standard by which he can determine what is good and evil. For while the atheist has a worldview that says there IS no absolute standard of morality (no matter how much he wants ti dance around that to say there is), the general theist at best can say *if* there is one and it is indeed grounded in whoever this god being is, we can't know what it is, for this god has not revealed himself to us.