The God Debate II: Harris vs. Craig
12,817,573
2011-04-12に共有
コメント (21)
-
People debating without labelling each other racist, nazis, bigots & getting canceled. The good old days
-
I searched for "anime documentary" and watched the first or second video (I don't remember), I fell asleep and this is what I woke up to
-
"When something good happens, then God is good but when some agony happens then God is mysterious" Pure sensible statement by Harris
-
"Threatening an atheist with hell is like threatening to punch them in the aura." that's hilarious
-
Sam harris continually used the words such as terrain, bedrock, landscape so my conclusion to this debate is that he is a minecraft veteran.
-
Timestamps: opening speech (20 min) 7:53 [William Lane Craig] 27:42 [Sam Harris] rebuttal (12 min) 46:36 [William Lane Craig] 58:38 [Sam Harris] rebuttal no. 2 (8 min) 1:10:26 [William Lane Craig] 1:17:48 [Sam Harris] closing speech (5 min) 1:25:58 [William Lane Craig] 1:31:10 [Sam Harris] questions 1:37:11
-
“If someone doesn’t value evidence, what evidence are you going to provide that they should value it?” “If someone doesn’t value logic, what logic argument could you provide to show the importance of logic?” VERY well said and the root of the problem.
-
🎯 Key Takeaways for quick navigation: 00:17 🎙️ Introduction and Recognition of Sponsors - Introduction to the God Debate event. - Recognition of the sponsors and supporters from the Notre Dame community. - Reading of a passage about the ongoing philosophical discussion. 03:03 🏛️ Background of the Debate and Speaker Introductions - Background information on the Center for Philosophy of Religion and its goals. - Introduction of the debaters, Sam Harris and William Lane Craig, and the moderator, Professor Mike Ray. - Brief overview of each speaker's credentials and areas of expertise. 07:20 🕰️ Debate Structure and Ground Rules - Explanation of the debate format, including speaking times for each debater. - Guidelines for audience participation in the question and answer session. - Strict enforcement of timekeeping and rules regarding applause and disruptive behavior. 08:01 🧠 William Lane Craig's Opening Argument - Craig argues that objective moral values and duties are grounded in God's nature. - Theism provides a foundation for moral values and obligations based on divine commandments. - Critique of atheistic perspectives on morality and the value problem. 19:04 🤔 Critique of Sam Harris's Moral Landscape - Craig challenges Sam Harris's attempt to ground morality in naturalistic terms. - Criticism of Harris's redefinition of moral terms and semantic approach to the value problem. - Examination of the implications of atheism on objective moral duties and moral responsibility. 25:23 📜 The foundation of objective moral values and duties - Objective moral duties are seen as a social construct rather than an objective reality. - Sam Harris's view posits that moral responsibility is determined by thoroughgoing determinism, leading to the absence of objective moral duties. - William Lane Craig argues that without God, there is no sound foundation for objective moral values and duties. 27:34 🧠 The role of religion in shaping morality - Sam Harris critiques the notion that belief in God is necessary for an objective morality. - He argues that morality can be understood in terms of human well-being, independent of religious frameworks. - Harris highlights a double standard in moral judgment, contrasting reactions to religious practices with concerns about secular morality. 32:29 🔬 Science and morality - Harris presents the concept of a "moral landscape" where morality is based on the well-being of conscious creatures. - He argues that moral truths can be understood through scientific inquiry, as they depend on facts about human well-being. - The discussion involves the intersection of science, philosophy, and ethics in understanding moral values. 46:30 🛡️ Defending the foundation of objective moral values - William Lane Craig restates his contention that God provides a sound foundation for objective moral values and duties. - He clarifies the distinction between moral ontology and semantics, focusing on the grounding of moral values rather than their linguistic meaning. - Craig reaffirms the argument that without God, there is no adequate basis for objective moral values and duties. 48:06 📚 Divine Command Theory and Objective Moral Values - Moral values are grounded in God ontologically. - Moral duties are grounded by God's commandments, reflecting his nature. - Divine Command Theory is defended against objections, emphasizing its independence from specific religious texts. 49:41 🧠 Objective Moral Values in Atheism - Without God, there's no explanation for the existence of objective moral values. - Atheism fails to provide a basis for identifying the flourishing of conscious creatures as objectively good. - Dr. Harris's assertion that the property of being good is identical to creaturely flourishing lacks a defense. 55:19 ⚖️ Absence of Moral Duties in Atheism - Atheism lacks a basis for moral duties or obligations. - Moral obligations arise from imperatives of a competent authority, which is absent in atheism. - Without freedom of the will, there is no moral responsibility, rendering moral duties impossible in atheistic frameworks. 58:50 🕊️ Critique of Theistic Moral Framework - Criticism of the theistic moral framework's implications, particularly related to the concept of hell. - The argument questions the morality of a God who allows immense suffering, especially among innocent children. - The debate addresses the moral implications of religious doctrines, particularly regarding salvation and damnation. 01:11:11 📜 Refutation of Red Herrings - Objective moral values exist because God's essence is good. - The problem of evil and other objections are red herrings distracting from the debate. - Evil actually proves the existence of God as it necessitates objective moral values. 01:17:44 🧠 Scientific Objectivity and Moral Grounding - Science relies on axiomatic assumptions, including moral axioms. - Objective moral values can be grounded in well-being without the need for God. - Human experiences, including profound ones, are accessible without resorting to religious claims. 01:25:57 🔍 Summary and Concluding Arguments - God provides a foundation for objective moral values and duties due to his inherent goodness. - Atheism lacks a coherent basis for objective moral values and duties. - The debate extends beyond Christianity, as similar arguments could be applied to other religions like Islam. 01:33:20 📜 Critique of Christian scripture and morality - Sam Harris critiques the Christian scriptures, highlighting the narrow worldview and moral inconsistencies of its authors. - The authors of the Bible had limited access to scientific information and moral perspectives, making their worldview incompatible with modern understanding. - Harris argues against the notion that biblical teachings provide timeless moral guidance, advocating for a morality based on contemporary knowledge and inquiry. 01:35:03 🌍 Building a global civilization based on secular morality - Harris emphasizes the need for a global civilization grounded in secular morality. - He challenges sectarian moral denominations and advocates for honest inquiry as the tool for moral progress. - The goal is to create a world where thegreatest number of people can live fulfilling lives, free from the constraints of religious dogma. 01:37:41 🤔 Exploring the grounding of morality and the problem of evil - Harris discusses the grounding of morality and the problem of evil in the context of religious belief. - He argues that objective moral values and duties don't necessarily require a religious foundation. - Harris questions the necessity of religion for moral grounding and highlights the role of subjective well-being in moral considerations. 01:42:23 🌐 Understanding moral ontology and epistemology - William Lane Craig clarifies the distinction between moral ontology and epistemology. - He asserts that while moral growth and development occur over time, the foundation of objective moral values and duties remains unchanged. - Craig defends the necessity of God as the source of objective morality, arguing against naturalistic explanations for moral values. 01:54:03 🌍 Morality and Interconnectedness - Morality is rooted in our intuitions about the sanctity of human life, trust, and community. - Killing everyone would eradicate suffering but also nullify all possibilities of happiness and experience. - Our happiness is interconnected with the happiness of others, and we are not separate individuals but part of a community. 01:55:38 🕊️ Perspectives on Different Religions - Dr. Craig discusses reasons for believing in Christianity over Islam based on historical evidence. - There are points of commonality between Christianity and Islam, but fundamental differences exist, particularly regarding Jesus. - Dr. Harris poses challenges to Christianity but returns to the debate topic on the objectivity of morality. 01:57:15 🤔 The Basis of Objective Morality - Dr. Harris argues for objective morality based on the recognition of suffering and movement towards the sublime. - Objective paradigms, including morality, require axiomatic judgments that are not self-justifying. - The spectrum of human experience informs the understanding of what is morally preferable. 02:00:14 🔄 Is Statements vs. Ought Statements - The distinction between "is" statements and "ought" statements is crucial for understanding moral obligations. - Dr. Harris challenges the notion that morality stems solely from the commands of a competent authority. - He raises concerns about divine command theory, linking it to psychopathy and moral relativism. 02:03:48 🤝 Consensus and Moral Values - Dr. Craig discusses the relevance of consensus in moral debates, distinguishing it from doctrinal issues. - Disagreements about moral perceptions are viewed as epistemological rather than ontological. - He argues for a transcendent basis for moral values rooted in a being of goodness beyond human nature and cultural sh
-
I hate this format of debate, I'd rather see Sam and William Lane Craig respond to each other on the spot. I feel it would have held each debater more accountable. This format just seems disconnected and is frustrating to follow.
-
Comments are pretty simple. Atheists: I came here to see sam Harris win and he won. Theists: I came here to see WLC win and he won.
-
The fact that someone has replied to this debate 12 years after , shows how good it was . Good on you SAM
-
"We have hit philosophical bedrock with the shovel of a stupid quesiton," what a way to put it
-
“You have 20 min for an opening statement” “Now you have 10 min for a rebuttal” “5 min for a rebuttal” “You have 2 min to answer” “30 seconds for a rebuttal” “You now have 10 seconds for a closing statement” “2 seconds for a rebuttal” “You have 0.5 seconds for last rebuttal” “0.01 milliseconds for closing remarks” “You have 0.000000E-999999999999999 nanoseconds to get TF OUTTA HERE !!!”
-
"If someone can prove me wrong and show me my mistake in any thought or action, I shall gladly change. I seek the truth, which never harmed anyone: the harm is to persist in one's own self-deception and ignorance." ~ Marcus Aurelius
-
Amazing to realize this is accessible for free!
-
-
Sam Harris' right eyebrow can literally lift a dumbbell.
-
-
I dont understand what dr craig is saying at 1:26:31 . “God is a being worthy of worship…therefore he must be good”. What is the criteria to determine if a being is worthy of worship, and where does that criteria come from?
-
I feel like we were robbed of a great debate. I wish there would have been a cross examination. Or at the very least, that both would have been required to respond to the same question during the Q&A portion. What a shame...
