Sam Harris v William Lane Craig

Page 1 of 3 [ 45 posts ] Go to page 1, 2, 3 Next

91
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 30 Oct 2010
Age: 40
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,063
Location: Australia

08 Jan 2011, 1:44 am

A debate has been agreed to between those two interesting speakers. The date has not been set, but it will take place at Notre Dame University and the subject will most likely be something to do with Harris's latest book.

_________________
Life is real ! Life is earnest!
And the grave is not its goal ;
Dust thou art, to dust returnest,
Was not spoken of the soul.

Awesomelyglorious
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 17 Dec 2005
Gender: Male
Posts: 13,157
Location: Omnipresent

08 Jan 2011, 9:25 am

The debate will likely suck. Harris is not a philosopher, and he does not have a significant background in the field.

ruveyn
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 21 Sep 2008
Age: 88
Gender: Male
Posts: 31,502
Location: New Jersey

08 Jan 2011, 10:07 am

Awesomelyglorious wrote:

The debate will likely suck. Harris is not a philosopher, and he does not have a significant background in the field.

All the better for Sam Harris, who is scientifically inclined. Three thousand years of philosophy has produced very little of practical use.

ruveyn

NobelCynic
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 28 Nov 2006
Age: 76
Gender: Male
Posts: 600
Location: New Jersey, U.S.A.

08 Jan 2011, 12:30 pm

Awesomelyglorious wrote:

The debate will likely suck. Harris is not a philosopher, and he does not have a significant background in the field.

He is not really an atheist either, which is perhaps why you would prefer someone like Dennett to take his place, but I think this has potential. It will simply be the religious versus the anti-religious. I just hope the result is available in text so we don't have to rely on videos.

_________________
NobelCynic (on WP)
My given name is Kenneth

91
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 30 Oct 2010
Age: 40
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,063
Location: Australia

08 Jan 2011, 4:20 pm

Awesomelyglorious wrote:

The debate will likely suck. Harris is not a philosopher, and he does not have a significant background in the field.

It depends on if Harris underestimates Craig or not. Craig however will not underestimate Harris.

_________________
Life is real ! Life is earnest!
And the grave is not its goal ;
Dust thou art, to dust returnest,
Was not spoken of the soul.

ruveyn
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 21 Sep 2008
Age: 88
Gender: Male
Posts: 31,502
Location: New Jersey

08 Jan 2011, 5:35 pm

Why are people debating issues which cannot be resolved empirically?

ruveyn

Awesomelyglorious
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 17 Dec 2005
Gender: Male
Posts: 13,157
Location: Omnipresent

08 Jan 2011, 6:26 pm

ruveyn wrote:

All the better for Sam Harris, who is scientifically inclined. Three thousand years of philosophy has produced very little of practical use.

ruveyn

The issue isn't "practical use". The issue is debating. They're going to debate something likely very metaphysical, that is the existence of God. As such, Harris isn't in a strong position at all. Especially given that science, while allowing practitioners to analyze things, doesn't play much with the idea of what is necessary for an analysis. So... Craig is likely going to run circles around Harris, while Harris won't have a freaking clue what he is doing.

This isn't to say that scientists can't argue, but philosophy is much much much more geared towards constructing and destroying arguments. The issue is that philosophy needs to be more scientifically oriented.

ruveyn
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 21 Sep 2008
Age: 88
Gender: Male
Posts: 31,502
Location: New Jersey

08 Jan 2011, 7:17 pm

Awesomelyglorious wrote:

ruveyn wrote:

All the better for Sam Harris, who is scientifically inclined. Three thousand years of philosophy has produced very little of practical use.

ruveyn

Debate (i.e. forensic debate) is a waste of time. If one has facts he/she should publish them and let the facts speak for themselves. Trying to change someone's mind is just plain impolite.

ruveyn

Awesomelyglorious
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 17 Dec 2005
Gender: Male
Posts: 13,157
Location: Omnipresent

08 Jan 2011, 9:01 pm

ruveyn wrote:

Debate (i.e. forensic debate) is a waste of time. If one has facts he/she should publish them and let the facts speak for themselves. Trying to change someone's mind is just plain impolite.

ruveyn

Facts don't speak for themselves though, but rather they always have their weight when presented in a theoretical context. Especially given that the sheer set of facts is cognitively overwhelming.

Even further, some minds need to be changed. The effort, for this reason, continually exists.

ruveyn
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 21 Sep 2008
Age: 88
Gender: Male
Posts: 31,502
Location: New Jersey

08 Jan 2011, 9:12 pm

Awesomelyglorious wrote:

ruveyn wrote:

Debate (i.e. forensic debate) is a waste of time. If one has facts he/she should publish them and let the facts speak for themselves. Trying to change someone's mind is just plain impolite.

ruveyn

Facts don't speak for themselves though, but rather they always have their weight when in a theoretical context. Especially given that the sheer set of facts is cognitively overwhelming.

Even further, some minds need to be changed. The effort, for this reason, continually exists.

The only person who can change a mind is the owner of the mind. Mind changing must come from within. Debate is really a waste of time if taken seriously. As a sport or contest it is not bad. It requires wit, skill and focus.

ruveyn

91
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 30 Oct 2010
Age: 40
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,063
Location: Australia

09 Jan 2011, 1:52 am

ruveyn wrote:

Why are people debating issues which cannot be resolved empirically?

ruveyn

I take your point. However, I personally think it is important that people like Sam Harris who actively encourages his readers to engage in debate. He promotes what he calls 'conversational intolerance' of religion. His position assumes that the Christian has no intellectual basis what-so-ever for believing what they do. It is important that people like Dr. Craig defeat such people in debate, not to convince Harris but to upend the assumption at the heart of his doctrine.

_________________
Life is real ! Life is earnest!
And the grave is not its goal ;
Dust thou art, to dust returnest,
Was not spoken of the soul.

ruveyn
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 21 Sep 2008
Age: 88
Gender: Male
Posts: 31,502
Location: New Jersey

09 Jan 2011, 6:35 am

91 wrote:

ruveyn wrote:

Why are people debating issues which cannot be resolved empirically?

ruveyn

Religion is absurd. I am rooting for Harris, even though debate is really a waste of time. I think that mindless faith in the empirically unproven or unsupported is childish bullsh*t. Kids believe in Santa, grownups should not. And I think it is high time that proponents of religion no longer be given a "free pass". They should be challenged to support their view factually just like anyone else.

Nobody changes someone else's mind. The only one who can change a mind is the owner of that mind.

ruveyn

91
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 30 Oct 2010
Age: 40
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,063
Location: Australia

09 Jan 2011, 9:40 am

ruveyn wrote:

Religion is absurd. I am rooting for Harris, even though debate is really a waste of time. I think that mindless faith in the empirically unproven or unsupported is childish bullsh*t.

Trowing obscenities and charges of mindlessness at religion does nothing reinforce your implicit contention, that your view is the more rational one.

_________________
Life is real ! Life is earnest!
And the grave is not its goal ;
Dust thou art, to dust returnest,
Was not spoken of the soul.

Last edited by 91 on 09 Jan 2011, 9:45 am, edited 1 time in total.

Awesomelyglorious
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 17 Dec 2005
Gender: Male
Posts: 13,157
Location: Omnipresent

09 Jan 2011, 9:45 am

91 wrote:

ruveyn wrote:

Religion is absurd. I am rooting for Harris, even though debate is really a waste of time. I think that mindless faith in the empirically unproven or unsupported is childish bullsh*t.

ruveyn

Trowing obscenities and charges of mindlessness at religion does nothing reinforce your implicit contention that your view is the more rational one.

You do realize that ruveyn already stated that he thought changing another person's mind was impolite. You're better off just leaving ruveyn to his foolishness.

91
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 30 Oct 2010
Age: 40
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,063
Location: Australia

09 Jan 2011, 9:47 am

Awesomelyglorious wrote:

You do realize that ruveyn already stated that he thought changing another person's mind was impolite. You're better off just leaving ruveyn to his foolishness.

What a strange and interesting concept of manners.

_________________
Life is real ! Life is earnest!
And the grave is not its goal ;
Dust thou art, to dust returnest,
Was not spoken of the soul.

leejosepho
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 14 Sep 2009
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,011
Location: 200 miles south of Little Rock

09 Jan 2011, 10:20 am

ruveyn wrote:

I think mindless faith in the empirically unproven or unsupported is childish bullsh*t. [Children] believe in Santa ...

... as taught by grownups, and both would do well to distinguish from him The One who actually created us.

_________________
I began looking for someone like me when I was five ...
My search ended at 59 ... right here on WrongPlanet.
==================================

Page 1 of 3 [ 45 posts ] Go to page 1, 2, 3 Next

Jump to:

Sam Harris v William Lane Craig Post Reply New Topic

Sam Harris v William Lane Craig