Is the Foundation of Morality Natural or Supernatural?

Sam Harris and William Lane Craig debated the moot Is the Foundation of Morality Natural or Supernatural? at the University of Notre Dame.

Craig argued that if theism is true, goodness could be identified with God himself. His view is that goodness is best understood in terms of an exemplar, that good is identified with the perfect paradigm of a good person and that the goodness of everything else is measured by its resemblance to this paradigm.

Harris objected that a divine command theory entails that any action at all could be right, no matter how abhorrent. A second line of argument Harris made was his allegation that the Old Testament teaches the permissibility of genocide and slavery.

Harris also argued that: 1. The existence of evil in the world suggests that God does not exist; 2. The doctrine of hell as a place of eternal conscious torment is unjust; 3. The doctrine of exclusivism is unjust; 4. These beliefs are jointly psychopathic.

Talks and Lectures You Might Also Like

Sacking the City of God!

The Three New Commandments

New Testament History and Lit...

How the Bible Was Forged

http://pulse.yahoo.com/_ZMK6YNWJACHQ5CRCJW5TNYFURI KsDevil
‘Because I said so’ is not a valid argument. Diverting questions is not an honest response. And, besides, I was disappointed in the level of quality from an audience in such a highly rated University.
Jeffrey Allen
Dr. Craig owned Sam Harris here.
http://www.facebook.com/people/Sébastien-Talbot-Vachon/1134112677 Sébastien Talbot-Vachon
William Lane Craig handles very well logical fallacy and other sophism. His use of linguistic gymnastics demonstrates that he truly master the art of rhetoric, but he is completely indifferent to reason and science. For better understanding, I refer you to any book that can introduce you to critical thinking and rationallity. Or just type sophism on wikipedia.
http://www.facebook.com/kiwicarioca Robert McCall
How idiotic to try and justify morality via a supernatural being; a God. Ignorance isn´t a defence in law, and nor should it be in the debate between creationist and evolutionistic theory.
wald0
Usually sam is not one of my favorite debators but he does an excellent job in this case in my opinion. His arguement that if morality comes from the commandments of God then if God commanded infanticide it would become moral kind of does away with this notion that objective means dictated by God and therefore not subject to opinion. Clearly our opinion on the matter would matter a great deal to us if God commanded us to do such a thing, and most of us would rightly refuse on moral grounds. Dr. Craig is cleverly trying to change the meaning of objective in this context to mean something other than scientifically or empirically provable. Saying God declared something to be this or that way does not make it objective truth, that is absurd. Objective truth is something we can prove empirically and observe in such a manner as to make it not open to interpretation or opinion. Which means Sam’s case makes perfect sense, that if we look at morality as avoiding human suffering and seeking out human flourishing there are clearly empirical, objective truths about which are the best paths to take in order to reach our goal. We can demonstrate this via the scientific method by studying how these different paths affect the individual human’s ability to flourish. The path that affects the least amount of people in the least negative way and the most amount in the most positive way is the moral path to be on.