THBT: William Lane Craig defeated Sam Harris in their 2011 debate

1587

rating

182

debates

55.77%

won

Description

Debate in question: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yqaHXKLRKzg
Debate topic question/resolution: Is the Foundation of Morality Natural or Supernatural?
Debate transcript: http://www.mandm.org.nz/2011/05/transcript-sam-harris-v-william-lane-craig-debate-%E2%80%9Cis-good-from-god%E2%80%9D.html

William Lane Craig: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Lane_Craig
Sam Harris: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sam_Harris

Debate: A formal debate involves two sides: one supporting a resolution and one opposing it.

Stances (burden of proof is shared)
Pro: William Lane Craig defeated Sam Harris
Con: Sam Harris defeated William Lane Craig

Round 1

12.29.2022 06:54PM

Pro

Overview

I see this as straightforward. In this debate, only one person even stayed on topic, and that was William Lane Craig who simply decimates Harris with basic philosophical problems. This is what I hope to show as concisely as possible.
As a reminder, the debate topic in question was "Is the Foundation of Morality Natural or Supernatural?" Here is a better transcript of the debate than the one provided in the description that has a clear outline of the speeches and includes sources cited on both sides. The video link can be found in the description.

Craigs's case

Craig's case is very simple here, and it is condensed into two propositions: (1) If God exists, then we have a sound foundation for objective moral values and duties, and (2) If God does not exist, then we do not have a sound foundation for objective moral values and duties. First, he outlines how theism provides a clear explanation for objective moral values grounded in the morally perfect character of God. Simple enough.
Second, he brings up two problems with Harris's view. One is the is-ought problem which shows that under Sam Harrs's naturalistic account, you cannot deduce a normative ought from "is" descriptive conditions. This is simply a basic logical category error that and one would be foolish to deny it.
He also shows runs the ought implies can rule, and as Sam Harris is a determinist, and disbelieves in free will, there cannot be normative oughts on his view because an ought implies the ability to act. Thus there is a simple, but devastating criticism of Sam's view of the above propositions.

Harris's Case

As you may have expected, Harris's case lacks any sort of clear structure. I can't even explain his case as I did with Craigs very adeptly because...the clear argument simply...isn't there. His main point however is simply that what is "good" is what improves or maximizes the well-being of conscious creatures.

Clash

I can just summarize this with one quote from Craig's closing "We also looked at the is/ought distinction, and the “ought implies can”, to which Dr. Harris has never replied in the course of this evening’s debate." Yes, Harris simply just...dropped all the criticisms that make his view logically impossible. His solution I suppose was to just not respond to the critiques raised and go on other tangents, but I challenge anyone reading to simply go through the transcript or the video, and you will see the veracity of what Craig expresses here. Because Craig maintains his structure and stays on topic by the end of the debate we must conclude that Craig has proven Hariss's view to simply be impossible, and if that is the case, there is no way he could have lost the debate.
The decision is very clear. If Craig's case is AT LEAST POSSIBLE, and Harris's is IMPOSSIBLE, the debate just goes by default to the person that has a case that is possible. Because Craig showed the logical impossibility of Harris's case on two fronts (the is-ought problem and the ought implies can proposition) and Harris decided to drop both arguments, Craig clearly dominates the debate.

Conclusion

So, here is my argument using w as a variable to represent Craig.

P1) If in a formal debate, a debater's relevant arguments stand unless contested or refuted, and debater w gave an argument that proves that his opponent's case is impossible, and it is maintained that w's case is at least possible, then w won the debate. ((P ∧ (Q∧R)) → S)

P2) In a formal debate, a debater's relevant arguments stand unless contested or refuted (P)

P3) W gave an argument that proves that his opponent's case is impossible (Q)

P4) It is maintained that w's case is at least possible (R)

C) W won the debate (∴ S)

12.30.2022 06:06PM

Con

Preamble:

We are currently discussing the 2011 debate about whether morality is natural or supernatural. I will argue why William Craig did not win.

Burden of Proof:

This is an on-balance debate, which means proof is shared. I win if I prove Sam Harris won and Pro wins if he proves William Craig won.

To begin, let’s talk about.:

l. William Craig’s two major contentions

If God exists, we have a foundation for which to base moral objectivity.

Sam Harris points out that this POV has led religious terrorists justify their murder in the name of God.
That morally reprehensible crimes such as slavery and human sacrifice can be justified.

In labeling this belief system “psychopathic,” Sam describes how barbarism can be weaponized.

William Craig deliberately mischaracterizes Sam Harris’s argument as a personal attack against himself and other Christians.

Sam Harris calls William out on this deceptiveness and explains the distinction between critiquing a person’s beliefs and attacking the person.

If God does not exist, then there is no framework for objective morality.

Sam Harris questions whether the idea of an eternal hell is Craig’s idea of objective morality.
Sam explains that anybody can be condemned for simply believing in the wrong religion.

Sam picks apart these arguments with ease by saying that religious scripture is not an alternative to this problem and that spiritual accountability is unnecessary for basic morality because morality can be developed by having the interest of human well-being at hand.

ll. The Assumptions of Theism

Sam Harris points out that William Craig assumes God is intrinsically good with no logical justification.
That blind faith is not a solution.

Conclusion:

Sam Harris thoroughly dismantled William Craig by pointing out that if religious faith is the basis for objective morality, who then is to hold it accountable when murder and sacrifice are encouraged in the name of preserving said ideology?

Does celestial tyranny inherently decide fundamentally what is moral and what isn’t?

And ultimately, it becomes a discussion of whether absolute power gets to decide what morality is, or whether the judgment should be reserved for independent thought.

Sam Harris argues that the former should not be considered as an option.

William Craig’s normal tricks of attacking the weakest argument wouldn’t work on someone like Sam Harris who can counter with an equal attack.

Sam Harris also mentions that a deity has not been proven, so deferring back to it as the default guidelines for human conduct is futile.

When you really think about it, it’s basically just Spiritual Tyranny vs Anarchy.

Round 2

12.31.2022 05:49PM

Pro

Overview

I can only describe con's case as a poorly put-together connection of strawmen and false claims. Not only does con fail to respond to any aspect of my case, but his disorganized notions also don't indicate reading or understanding of the debate at hand.

Pro's case I

First, let's look back at my argument for why Craig won this debate:

P2) In a formal debate, a debater's relevant arguments stand unless contested or refuted (P)

P3) W gave an argument that proves that his opponent's case is impossible (Q)

P4) It is maintained that w's case is at least possible (R)

C) W won the debate (∴ S)

Con does not object to any premise of the argument, and as the inference is deductively valid, if con fails to object to at least one then he would naturally lose the debate. While I clearly defended this argument in round one I think it is beneficial to clarify precisely why it works with reference to the debate in question.
For premise one, the principle being invoked is that of "dropped arguments." "In policy debate, a drop refers to an argument which was not answered by the opposing team. Normally, a "dropped" or conceded argument is considered unrefuted for the purposes of evaluating a debate." So this is just a basic tenant of formal debate. Now, suppose someone gives an argument that someone's case is impossible. let's say their view contains a contradiction making it logically impossible, etc. If that argument is dropped, then for the purpose of the debate it is considered conceded or unrefuted.
Craig provided two arguments that show that Harris's case is impossible. They were namely, (1) the is/ought problem and (2) the ought implies can problem. On 1, it is simply logically impossible to make a conclusion of something that does not appear in the premises of your argument. For example the argument:

P1) If a dog is a good pet, it is beneficial to buy a dog (P → Q)

P2) A dog is a good pet (P)

C) Therefore, you ought to buy a dog (∴ R)

Is deductively invalid as you can see from tree proof generator because a new proposition (R) appears from nowhere in the conclusion of the argument. So it is simply impossible to gain an ought from a descriptive set of claims about human well-being under naturalism. Moreover, in Harris's view, because humans lack any form of free will, there cannot be any oughts because an ought implies the ability to commit a moral action, hence the "ought implies can." As Kant said, "For if the moral law commands that we ought to be better human beings now, it inescapably follows that we must be capable of being better human beings." Do we say a hurricane is doing something wrong for hitting an area, or a thunderstorm is doing something wrong? No, because they have no ability to do anything at all, they are contingent, determined forces of nature. And, because this is what Harris believes human beings are, they too under his view do not have any oughts.
So Craig provided two arguments for why Harris's view is simply IMPOSSIBLE, (P2 ) and as you can see from the transcript, both arguments were dropped. Lastly, because Craig's case is at least POSSIBLE (P3) then he wins the debate by default (C). So con is going to have to attack at least one of these premises and so far he has failed to do so.

Rebuttals

religious terrorists justify their murder in the name of God...

Craig responds to this very simply: "He [Harris] says, “But then what about people like the Taliban, who say that God has commanded them to do certain atrocities?” I would say the very same thing to the Taliban that Dr. Harris says, namely, “God did not command you to do those things.” It is certainly possible for people to be mistaken about God's commandments so this simply isn't relevant to Craig's case that morality is grounded in a God.

Sam Harris questions whether the idea of an eternal hell is Craig’s idea of objective morality.

The idea of "hell" is actually irrelevant to Craig's case. As he points out, saying God is the foundation of morality does not entail a specific religion. As Craig stated in his first rebuttal: "I think this is quite irrelevant to tonight’s discussion; there are plenty of Divine Command theorists who are not Jews or Christians and place no stock whatsoever in the Bible. So this isn’t an objection to Divine Command theory that I’m defending tonight. All Craig is arguing is that morality is grounded in a God, and he is not arguing for a specific religion, so this will simply be irrelevant. Even if he was arguing for Christian theism, there is no logical contradiction between the existence of Hell and the existence of morality grounded in God.

Sam Harris points out that William Craig assumes God is intrinsically good with no logical justification.

Unsubstantiated claim. Just like the rest of the nonsense and gibberish that composes the rest of con's case. Let's conclude on this: If Harris's case is impossible and Craig's case is possible, there is no question about who won the debate. It would be no different from Craig having a valid argument and Harris having "fwgrvwifvtweifvtweitwi." If Harris's argument is impossible to be true, there is simply no debate.

01.01.2023 03:13PM

Con

Pro has stated the following.

The idea of "hell" is actually irrelevant to Craig's case. As he points out, saying God is the foundation of morality does not entail a specific religion. As Craig stated in his first rebuttal: "I think this is quite irrelevant to tonight’s discussion; there are plenty of Divine Command theorists who are not Jews or Christians and place no stock whatsoever in the Bible. So this isn’t an objection to Divine Command theory that I’m defending tonight. All Craig is arguing is that morality is grounded in a God, and he is not arguing for a specific religion, so this will simply be irrelevant. Even if he was arguing for Christian theism, there is no logical contradiction between the existence of Hell and the existence of morality grounded in God.

This point, however, contradicts Craig's own argument that he is quoted saying next.

"He says, “But then what about people like the Taliban, who say that God has commanded them to do certain atrocities?” I would say the very same thing to the Taliban that Dr. Harris says, namely, “God did not command you to do those things.” That’s exactly what Dr. Harris would say. The reason he thinks that is that he doesn’t believe that God exists, but I would say that because I think that the Taliban has got the wrong God, that in fact God hasn’t commanded them to commit these atrocities, and, indeed, God will only issue such commands are—as are consistent with his moral nature and for which he has morally sufficient reasons."

To which Sam Harris responds with the following.:

"Now, the, the prospect of somebody becoming a true saint in life and, and inspiring people long after their deaths, is something that I take very seriously. I’ve, I’ve, I’ve spent a lot of time studying meditation with some very great wise old yogis and Tibetan lamas who’ve spent decades on retreat, I mean really remarkable people, ok. People who I actually consider to be spiritual geniuses, of a certain sort. And so I can well imagine that if Jesus was a spiritual genius, you know, a palpably non-neurotic, and charismatic and wise person, I can well imagine the experience of his disciples. I can well imagine the kind of influence he could have on their lives, ok. We do not have to presuppose anything on insufficient evidence in order to explore this higher terrain of human well-being. We don’t have to take anything on faith. We don’t have to lie to ourselves, or to, to our children, about the nature of reality. If we want to understand our situation in the world, along with these deeper possibilities, we have to do it in the spirit of science."

Round 3

01.01.2023 09:48PM

Pro

Overview

So, not only has con dropped all of my arguments, but con has also dropped most of his round 1 points.

Pro's case I

Dropped. Extend. Until then take it that con has not contested a single premise of my argument, meaning its conclusion remains unrefuted: William Craig won the debate in question.

Rebuttals

This point, however, contradicts Craig's own argument that he is quoted saying next.

I think this really needs to be addressed because con seems to have no idea what a contradiction is, and a lot of people get this wrong. A contradiction is the affirmation of a given proposition and its negation. For there to be a contradiction there needs to be a set of propositions that form it, and it is unclear as to where the contradiction is because there is none.
My claim was: "The idea of "hell" is actually irrelevant to Craig's case. As he points out, saying God is the foundation of morality does not entail a specific religion. As Craig stated in his first rebuttal: "I think this is quite irrelevant to tonight’s discussion; there are plenty of Divine Command theorists who are not Jews or Christians and place no stock whatsoever in the Bible. So this isn’t an objection to Divine Command theory that I’m defending tonight. All Craig is arguing is that morality is grounded in a God, and he is not arguing for a specific religion, so this will simply be irrelevant. Even if he was arguing for Christian theism, there is no logical contradiction between the existence of Hell and the existence of morality grounded in God."
In this debate, Craig is defending Divine Command Theory, not Christian Theism, so any specific religion will be irrelevant to his argument that morality, regardless of religion is grounded in the morally perfect character of a God. The Sam Harris quote cited here does not seem to have any bearing on that given proposition or set of propositions. Of course, All Craig argues in this debate is that atheism cannot provide a foundation for objective moral values, and theism alone can so Harris speaking about empirics with respect to this ontological deduction is simply a category error.

Conclusion

In this debate, con has not even attempted to attack my argument for why Craig won the debate, and it seems prudent to take this as some form of concession or withdrawal. Con has also not provided any sort of substantive debate analysis, just sporadic notions that don't form any sort of clear case. He drops my arguments and most of his own points subsequent to my attack on them. I don't the voting decisions are complicated.

01.02.2023 06:18AM

Con

In conclusion, I have established that William Craig got absolutely humiliated in this debate.

Sam Harris completely and utterly eviscerated him with no mercy. Eventually, Pro shall come to accept this in time.

Vote CON

01.06.2023 05:01AM

#17

Was lowkey hoping to win just so I could witness another meltdown in the comments section. 😂

01.06.2023 03:42AM

#16

-->

@Novice_II

Why don't you just do judicial decision instead of public voting?

Barney

01.05.2023 04:50PM

#15

-->

@Public-Choice

@Sir.Lancelot

That vote hasn't actually been reported yet, but for Novice, I have learned to just accept any vote that isn't pure rainbows about how wonderful he is will be reported.

Any time I vote on his debates, I alert other mods that a review will be needed. Heck, even when just reviewing reports I alert other mods, since he'll escalate like a Karen if he doesn't get his way.

01.05.2023 04:33PM

#14

-->

@Public-Choice

In our previous debate, Novice vented his frustration at the voter for giving me the point which I knew meant he reported it.

So I tagged SupaDudz and Barney in the comments. For some reason, he has beef with both of these mods.

01.05.2023 04:48AM

#13

-->

@Public-Choice

Dead serious.

01.05.2023 04:24AM

#12

-->

@Sir.Lancelot

For real or are you joking?

01.05.2023 04:20AM

#11

-->

@Public-Choice

Reported.

01.05.2023 04:17AM

#10

Welp... I'm awaiting my vote to be reported lol

01.04.2023 04:23AM

-->

@Public-Choice

Only takes 3 minutes to write a response.

01.04.2023 04:11AM

-->

@Sir.Lancelot

You're currently in 10 debates? Where do you find the time???

01.04.2023 04:08AM

-->

@Novice_II

@Sir.Lancelot

As any shrewd debater should do. There's no law against reporting debates.

01.04.2023 03:13AM

-->

@Public-Choice

Thanks

01.04.2023 02:55AM

-->

@Public-Choice

Careful. If you vote for me, Novice will report it.

01.04.2023 02:25AM

-->

@Novice_II

@Sir.Lancelot

I will try to get to this one.

01.03.2023 07:26PM

Vote Con.

01.03.2023 07:03PM

Votes needed with a mere 5 days remaining.

01.02.2023 02:45PM

Votes needed, please. Only a week's time is allowed.