Below are the videos from yesterday’s debate between Dr. William Lane Craig and Sam Harris. The topic of the debate was “Does Good come from God?”
*update (4/11)* The entire 2 hour video has been posted!
below are the 9 parts which were originally posted the day after the debate. I’ll keep ‘em here for old time’s sake…
Part 1 of 9 – Sam Harris vs William Lane Craig – Debate: Does Good Come From God – 7 April 2011
Part 2 of 9 – Sam Harris vs William Lane Craig – Debate: Does Good Come From God – 7 April 2011
Part 3 of 9 – Sam Harris vs William Lane Craig – Debate: Does Good Come From God – 7 April 2011
Part 4 of 9 – Sam Harris vs William Lane Craig – Debate: Does Good Come From God – 7 April 2011
Part 5 of 9 – Sam Harris vs William Lane Craig – Debate: Does Good Come From God – 7 April 2011
Part 6 of 9 – Sam Harris vs William Lane Craig – Debate: Does Good Come From God – 7 April 2011
Part 7 of 9 – Sam Harris vs William Lane Craig – Debate: Does Good Come From God – 7 April 2011
Part 8 of 9 – Sam Harris vs William Lane Craig – Debate: Does Good Come From God – 7 April 2011
Part 9 of 9 – Sam Harris vs William Lane Craig – Debate: Does Good Come From God – 7 April 2011
The stage of the debate
Dr. Craig with Paul Copan's book
Audio
You can download the mp3 of the debate below:
Audio clip: Adobe Flash Player (version 9 or above) is required to play this audio clip. Download the latest version here. You also need to have JavaScript enabled in your browser.
Source: Apologetics 315
The problem with Harris’ argument is that it is very easy to refute on the basis of his atheism.
Let’s say he is giving a lecture on this and Pol Pot is in the audience listening. After the lecture someone interviews (Int) Pol Pot and asks, ‘What do you think sir?’ Pol Pot (PP) replies, ‘Obviously he is a very learned man.’ Int. ‘So you agree with him then?’ PP ‘Not really, i mean he can have that in his turf but not in my turf. Nature is “red in tooth and claw” and i like it that way. In my turf i follow the G rule–he who has the Gold, the Goons, and the Guns rule–and as of the moment that’s me!’ Int ‘But that’s wrong according to Harris.’ PP ‘According to him yes, but not according to me. He wants his ice cream frozen, i like mine melted. You see all the talk about wrong and right is in the end just nonsense. There is no such thing. Who is Harris to tell me i’m wrong? Is he God? If not then he can’t tell me what and what not to do. Just because he has all this very learned explanation of things doesn’t mean i have to agree with him. I choose not to. If he doesn’t like that then tough. Couldn’t care a bit.’ Int ‘But you can’t run or live in a world like that?’ PP ‘Says who? Watch me!’ Harris better not step in my turf or else he’ll end up in a pile of dead bodies. My life, my choice. Why should I let Harris tell me what I could or could not do? If he’s God then perhaps I’ll listen but he better prove that first.’
Craig can come up to PP and tell him that there is a sound reason to believe in morality. Just as the universe is governed by the laws of physics (we woke up with these laws and it’s not psychopathic just because we can’t choose our own actions and walk off the top of the Empire State building unharmed) the world of humanity is also governed by a moral and spiritual structure. We also woke up with this structure in place and its source is the ruling authority in the universe i.e. God (and it’s not psychopathic just because we humans are not completely autonomous, there is a greater reality beyond humanity that is the foundation of humanity). Pol Pot can argue that there is no God, but if Craig is able to convince him that God is a reality then Pol Pot will begin to see that he is not totally an autonomous blob of complex chemicals but a creature with true dignity with the capacity to make real, moral choices, and he is responsible for those choices.
I can agree with Harris IF the world is simply matter. But Harris only assumes that. He has not proven that. He must prove that first to ground his argument. Otherwise his feet are firmly planted in midair. What if he is wrong? That is why the debate on the existence of God is critical to this question. If there is no God then life is fair game–you can have your Harris’s but you will also have your Pol Pots.
Cont… But if there is a God who has structured the moral and spiritual landscape of the universe we do have a solid ground for true morality and moral actions, responsibilities and consequences.
It’s unclear who the real winner is. Dr. Craig clearly demonstrated the sound logic and clear reasoning required to totally debunk Dr.Harris’ stance, which would naturally make him the winner. It seems though, Dr.Harris was contending for something entirely different.
Sam Harris debated a man of one book.
There, I think, you put your finger on the heart of the matter. The two men were arguing, in many ways, past each other.
Craig said “I don’t know that god exists, but if he does, I know that he’s good ” a contradiction. Harris said objective bad and evil are easily defined in the abstract – as the worst possible pain for everyone. There’s no need for god to define that. And since anything else is better, no need for god to define goodness.
Craig said god is goodness, but what does that mean? He created us, and our supportive environment, friends, family, love, etc. All those things fall under Harris’ definition of goodness – that which promotes wellbeing for the species. So there is no need for god in order to understand that those things are good – good means wellbeing.
Craig is a much more skilled debater, but he resorted to semantics and didn’t address the possibility that Harris’ definition removes god from the equation. Harris underestimated Craig and came ready to do his usual speech, which wasn’t on topic.
A draw.