"Is Good From God?" Craig v Harris

[Recusant]

Supposedly this debate will be streamed live on Notre Dame TV, at 7PM EDT (UTC/GMT -5) today.  However, that site didn't have anything about the debate listed when I looked a couple of minutes ago.

I'm not a fan of Harris's take on morality (I disagree with his idea that there is an actual objective morality based on human biology), so don't really have a dog in this fight.  I'm closer to Harris's position than Craig's: I think that there are some instinctive tendencies that form a sort of proto-morality which result from the evolutionary path followed by the human species, but that those tendencies don't constitute a morality, let alone an objective morality. For an obvious reason (I don't believe in a god, duh) I don't agree with Craig's position at all.  Harris is articulate, but whether he'll be able to compete effectively against Craig on this topic remains to be seem.  As I said, I think that neither of their positions hold any water.

THE PERSISTENT QUESTIONS â€" AN EXCHANGE website has a preview of the debate.

[Recusant]

OK, the link in the above post works for the live stream of the Craig v Harris debate. It should start in a little bit, as scheduled. Link

[freeservant]

This should be good but I have yet to listen

Link to the mp3 of the debate:  http://eyeonapologetics.com/blog/2011/0 ... -from-god/

[Davin]

Napalming babies is bad, starving the poor is wicked, buying and selling eachother is depraved, there is in the world, such a thing as evil, all together now, says who? God help us.

Funny he should mention attrosities that the god ordered and did, then ask that god to help us. As if to say "There is evil in the world, and it's the god of Abraham."

[Ulver]

lol

Napalming babies is bad, starving the poor is wicked, buying and selling eachother is depraved, there is in the world, such a thing as evil, all together now, says who? God help us.

Funny he should mention attrosities that the god ordered and did, then ask that god to help us. As if to say "There is evil in the world, and it's the god of Abraham."

I think this kind of thing commences the golden backpedaling. "God didn't order those things, HUMANS did them." *see fine print; God does the good things, though God made humans in his image, when they act badly, they're just...yanno...SINNERS.


We're shitheads!

[Recusant]

Part 1 of the video of this debate:

 [youtube:3j8z1gxv]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7UigeMSZ-KQ[/youtube:3j8z1gxv]

Right at the end of this video there's a link to the next, and so on (there are 9 parts in total, though the last couple are questions from the audience) or you can click the links below.  I didn't want to embed them all; seems a waste of bandwidth.

Part 2
 Part 3
 Part 4
 Part 5
 Part 6
 Part 7
 Part 8
 Part 9

I have to yet to watch the whole thing myself.  I'll grit my teeth and try not to skip Dr. Craig's speeches when I do.  

[freeservant]

Yes I see that the debate about the debate as started:

Who do you think won??

Let's start here:

In the end, my sense was that Craig was quietly exasperated at Harris for failing to deliver; and Harris was exasperated at Craig for being a Christian.

http://thinkingmatters.org.nz/2011/04/h ... hty-puppy/

Yet... Did not Harris spank us naughty puppies who follow religion and only see objective morals as coming from God?

Let me see if I can emulate Harris's pontifications and emotional appeals...  while also employing a few smelly red herrings

Yes the goodness of science sees evolution as the process of fitness and health under tooth and claw. Billions die so that other billions can survive and reproduce.  If there is a less moral, moral framework then the goodness of science and evolution then I would like to hear of it.  We should bury Christians in the post holes of Scientific institutions so that we know that they will not come and knock down the healthiness of our naturalistic science presuppositions.  In fact it would be the moral duty of every grounded neuro-typical member of the purposeless and meaningless indoctrinated Scientist to seize the children of Christians so that the objective moral good of science can be indoctrinated into a new generation of upstanding scientifically minded good and healthy atheists.  After all is it not the moral obligation of the operation of natural selection to help the health of mankind by killing all followers of religion much like the body has a defense mechanism against disease.  The reality that we need to reduce suffering is demonstrable in the medical sciences so we have a basis to extend this to those who have ideological suffering like Christians who want to do good and decrease the suffering of fellow humans because we are all our brothers keepers.  We don't need that now that science can do the same thing by killing off Christians and re-educating their brood from the hive mentality of love for everyone as God has loved us by the sacrifice of God in the person of Jesus Christ.  I mean look at the good it will do to save this love of our brothers and sisters by the health inducing mutilation of all Christians so that they can not reproduce their silly non-scientific religion that can't reduce suffering like science can do.

I could go on and in a nice steady emotionless voice so that I win the debate by shear smoothness of speech alone.  Science needs to get out there and start spanking these unhealthy puppies if we are to evolve into the godless utopia that is a far better place then we have now.

[Davin]

They see you trolling, they hating...

[Sophus]

lol

Napalming babies is bad, starving the poor is wicked, buying and selling eachother is depraved, there is in the world, such a thing as evil, all together now, says who? God help us.

Funny he should mention attrosities that the god ordered and did, then ask that god to help us. As if to say "There is evil in the world, and it's the god of Abraham."

It would seem that way. If only we could get you in the debate.

[Davin]

It would seem that way. If only we could get you in the debate.

I wish I could debate Craig, that includes a decent ability to debate that I currently lack. But I do not wish it enough to spend time on that instead of the other stuff I'm doing.

[Recusant]

Dr. Craig is quite willing to condone and perhaps even praise acts of genocide when they are ordered by his god. In the linked article from which the quote is taken, he has already explained why the slaughter of the adult Canaanite population was a good thing (after all, YHVH can only command good things, don't you know), but here addresses why it was good that the Israelites also slaughtered the Canaanite children and infants.

From On Guard, "Slaughter of the Canaanites" by Dr. William Lane Craig:

By setting such strong, harsh dichotomies God taught Israel that any assimilation to pagan idolatry is intolerable.  It was His way of preserving Israel’s spiritual health and posterity.  God knew that if these Canaanite children were allowed to live, they would spell the undoing of Israel.  The killing of the Canaanite children not only served to prevent assimilation to Canaanite identity but also served as a shattering, tangible illustration of Israel’s being set exclusively apart for God.

Moreover, if we believe, as I do, that God’s grace is extended to those who die in infancy or as small children, the death of these children was actually their salvation.  We are so wedded to an earthly, naturalistic perspective that we forget that those who die are happy to quit this earth for heaven’s incomparable joy.  Therefore, God does these children no wrong in taking their lives.

[Davin]

Aye, he appeals to these atrocities as something that we all would consider bad or "evil", the god he believes in does those things, ergo he believes his god is bad/evil. So he has to drop his appeal the atrocities as examples of bad/evil or he must accept that the god he believes in is bad/evil... at least if he wishes to be consistent. But I get the feeling that his criticism of others being "illogical" is merely to shield against his own failures at logic. I mean look at the monkey! If Chewbaca is good, then my client is innocent, I rest my case.

[Recusant]

You're still not getting it, man!   ) When I debated in high school, it was all about rapid fire presentation, but Craig's style is much more sophisticated. He's quite good at using subtle emotional appeals as well as efficiently presenting his arguments and answering his opponent's points. The man is no slouch.

[Davin]

I guess one can't argue with that logic.

And yes, debating Craig in person is much more difficult than in writing (I'm extrapolating from other debates I've had, because I've never even talked to the man), I would enjoy a debate with him, but Craig I doubt would enjoy it, and onlookers would be either bored as hell or in excruciating pain watching me make hundreds of mistakes.

[Sophus]

Dr. Craig is quite willing to condone and perhaps even praise acts of genocide when they are ordered by his god. In the linked article from which the quote is taken, he has already explained why the slaughter of the adult Canaanite population was a good thing (after all, YHVH can only command good things, don't you know), but here addresses why it was good that the Israelites also slaughtered the Canaanite children and infants.

From On Guard, "Slaughter of the Canaanites" by Dr. William Lane Craig:

By setting such strong, harsh dichotomies God taught Israel that any assimilation to pagan idolatry is intolerable.  It was His way of preserving Israel’s spiritual health and posterity.  God knew that if these Canaanite children were allowed to live, they would spell the undoing of Israel.  The killing of the Canaanite children not only served to prevent assimilation to Canaanite identity but also served as a shattering, tangible illustration of Israel’s being set exclusively apart for God.

Moreover, if we believe, as I do, that God’s grace is extended to those who die in infancy or as small children, the death of these children was actually their salvation.  We are so wedded to an earthly, naturalistic perspective that we forget that those who die are happy to quit this earth for heaven’s incomparable joy.  Therefore, God does these children no wrong in taking their lives.

Dear God. I think there's something about these stories being so far in the past that it is easier for people like Craig to say stupid stuff like this. I can't picture him ever saying the same of a recent or current genocide. Or am I sadly mistaken?