Last night, Sam Harris and William Lane Craig went head to head at the University of Notre Dame over the topic: Is Good From God? In other words, “Are the foundations of moral value natural or supernatural?”
Let’s hope that everyone agrees that the foundations of moral values aren’t supernatural.
I am listening to the audio now in the background of my morning work load. The audio for last night’s debate can be found here.
Enjoy.
***UPDATE***
I have had this debate running in the background most of the morning. I haven’t been listening to every single word like I want to, but that’s what happens when you multitask something as heavy as this topic.
I am at minute 46. I’ve listened to Craig’s and Harris’ opening and I’m in the middle of Craig’s first rebuttal.
Craig just said (again), “If God exists, than we have a sound foundation for objective morals and duties” (quote might not be exact). We’re assuming Craig is referring to the Christian God and that that God inspired/wrote/communicated the contents of the bible to humanity. If that’s the case, there is in no way a responsible, thoughtful person can agree with that statement as the bible is not a moral framework for proper behavior. If it is, we would be doomed.
I find Craig’s statement to be riddled with error, as even he wouldn’t follow the laws written in the bible.
He said in his opening statement that God is love and all that is good. But how can this be true? Should I take Craig’s word for it? The bible’s word for it? From what I know of the biblical God, he is not loving or all that is good.
His people tend to exhibit good, moral behaviors. God’s people tend to be the bee’s knees. But the written record of god’s behaviors fall very short of how I hope a “loving” being would behave.
Le Café Wittypoots 
Actually the question of whether the bible is a reliable account of Gods commands, and whether our moral obligations are constituted by Gods commands are two different questions. One can affirm one without affirming the other, in fact leading defenders of divine command theory like Robert Adams reject biblical inerrancy.
Moreover, this has been pointed out repeatedly, and Craig pointed it out repeatedly, so why do critics of a divine command theory keep conflating these issues?
We’re assuming Craig is referring to the Christian God and that that God inspired/wrote/communicated the contents of the bible to humanity. If that’s the case, there is in no way a responsible, thoughtful person can agree with that statement as the bible is not a moral framework for proper behavior. If it is, we would be doomed. This is a really bad argument, your suggesting that if a divine command theory is conjoined with some other claims, then the divine command theory is false because these other claims are false. That simply is bad logic.
You are an interesting robot. Thanks for the disdain.
I find that Craig’s arguments are poor and laugh out loud when people like you repeat what you wrote above.
You’re right. I’m the idiot.
Let me put it this way.
I realize you agree with those who think that it’s sound logic.
And it may be sound.
I’m not impressed by it and i think it limits the mind to consider it sound. I do not agree with everything Harris said in the debate either. I felt he fumbled on some important moments.
The fact is that you can point at me all day for missing the logic. Whether it’s fallacious or not, I find when you tell me it’s fallacious, you give credence to disbelief. You can’t tell me i’m wrong simply because I don’t get it.
I find that Craig hides behind rhetoric and pomp, and that he’s dishonest within the framework of reality. You probably think the same of Harris.
At which point, we are at a certain impasse.
If god is real, you win. So what do you care if I’m illogical or not?
So Matt,
Are you saying that divine command theory is the best evidence that the bible in not inerrant? Because it sounds like that is exactly what you are saying.
What my argument amounts to is this: Where do morals come from?
Matt: Divine Command
Me:Command from who?
Matt:God. Morals have to come from somewhere….
Me:Why presuppose a God? Why not assume that morals are a byproduct of a social species with higher faculties and the luxury to artificially maximize their interactions? Besides, what evidence do we have for a God in the first place?
Matt:The revelation of scripture.
Me:But scripture contradicts common sense morality.
Matt: I wasn’t talking about morality, you asked for evidence of God.
Me: You can’t evidence God without scripture, yet you rule out divine command with scripture. What point are you trying to make here?
Matt:That the existence of morality is evidence of God.
Me:Just not a Christian one?
Matt:You just don’t get it.
Me:Oh, I get it…more than you know…
My question to you is this: If the bible is errent, which you seem more than willing to concede; how do we give any real evidence for a Christian God? Which parts are errant? Which parts are inerrant? How do we argue that morals come by divine command if we cannot test that theory against some relevant explaination of what divine morality must look like?