David Hume vs. Sam Harris

[annnnoid]

Harris' problem is that he wants the moral certainty that comes with a religious viewpoint, but balks at the metaphysical costs involved.

I would say that describes it pretty well. That's the impression I got from watching the debate. He seemed to realize that he couldn't summon the metaphysical ammo to go where Craig was quite comfortable going. Deflated...he retreated to the usual religious caricatures (which, Craig tried to point out, had nothing to do with the subject of the debate). Heard it all before and simply wanted more.

 

[westprog]

I would say that describes it pretty well. That's the impression I got from watching the debate. He seemed to realize that he couldn't summon the metaphysical ammo to go where Craig was quite comfortable going. Deflated...he retreated to the usual religious caricatures (which, Craig tried to point out, had nothing to do with the subject of the debate). Heard it all before and simply wanted more.

I deleted my post because I realised I hadn't watched the debate - but looking at it, it's clear that the terms of the debate give Harris nowhere to go. Craig opens up by showing that he doesn't have to show that religion is good or probable, he doesn't have to show that God exists - all he has to do is establish a tautology, and Harris has to prove a contradiction. I don't feel sorry for Harris - he chose to set himself up in a situation where he could only lose.

 

[angrysoba]

I know that William Lane Craig has a bit of cultish fan club but annnnoid is quite right that Craig tears Harris apart. And he did pretty much the same to Hitchens as well. And, as has been said, they both thought they could fall back on crowd pleasers despite the fact that they were irrelevent to the debate.

Dawkins would probably look even more ragged if he tried to debate Craig simply because he is so completely unfamiliar with those kinds of arguments and so Dawkins has stood on the sidelines looking foolish pretending that the real reasons he doesn't debate William Lane Craig is that Craig is not a reputable philosopher (in fact I have a number of mainstream philosophy books by atheists who cite him as an authority on such arguments for the existence of God, whether those atheists think they are good or not) or because William Lane Craig supports the Biblical massacres etc... [/OT]

Anyway, one of the most important points that William Lane Craig made was that there is a distinction between "Good and Evil" and "Good and Bad". Harris seems to have never explained why it is that the peaks and troughs can represent both Good/Good and Evil/Bad at the same time. It may well be good to live in a nice house with a nice wife drinking nice wine etc... and it may be bad to live in a gang of child soldiers, drugged up and orphaned but it can't be said to be ethically Good to live in a nice house etc... and ethically evil to live a poor miserable life. This is one thing Harris misses and it is so glaring and obvious when WLC demonstrates it that Harris just looks silly for the rest of the debate.

 

[TubbaBlubba]

So, is this Craig guy undefeated, or has anyone given him a sound beating?

 

[Paul2]

All Harris seemed capable of was resorting to the usual.. ‘ oh but religion is nasty and hypocritical and contradictory and psychotic and and and ‘. I mean…c’mon, I put up with that caliber of kindergarten drivel from juvenile JREFers.

I'm gonna need an actual, specific quote from Harris (timestamp from a linked video would be OK) that illustrates what's you're talking about in order to accept what you're saying.

 

[westprog]

I'm gonna need an actual, specific quote from Harris (timestamp from a linked video would be OK) that illustrates what's you're talking about in order to accept what you're saying.

In his second speech, he simply ignores the original question and goes after religion. He doesn't address any of the points made by his opponent. He doesn't deal with the issue at all.

Since his opponent didn't make belief in religion a plank of his argument, it simply abandoned his argument altogether. He gets a nice round of applause, but it's meaningless in the context of the debate.

Craig quite rightly points out that even if Harris had effectively disproved the existence of God, it wouldn't affect his argument in the slightest. Craig puts forward two alternatives - one, if God exist, and the other if he doesn't. Harris' argument is to claim that God doesn't exist, and if he did, he would be evil.

 

[Paul2]

I was looking for "kindergarten drivel" (not my term).

 

[westprog]

I was looking for "kindergarten drivel" (not my term).

IMO (which may differ from others) it was not that the attack on religion was incorrect in itself - it was that it was irrelevant to the argument in question.

 

[Wowbagger]

I think I did see parts of that debate video, before.

Harris always sucked as a debater. It's on my list of the reasons I never cared much for him, in general.

But, to this day, I still respect his general efforts for promoting how science can help us answer moral questions.

Unfortunately, y'all are going to have to wait until next week, after SkeptiCamp NYC, before I have time to finish my next "chapter" on how to interpret his writings.

 

[the PC apeman]

... how to interpret his writings.

 

[Wowbagger]

I think he is using terms such as "is", "ought", "well-being", etc. differently that most philosophers would use them, and that is what might really be causing this sense that there is a "Hume vs. Harris" battle going on.

This might be because Harris is a lousy communicator, from the perspective of philosophers. But, I suspect both the Hume Camp and the Harris Camp actually agree on almost everything, fundamentally.

If my hypothesis is true, then I should be able to demonstrate this by "translating" Harris Language (Harrisese?) into Hume Language (Humese?) and vice versa.

But, the demo will have to wait until after SkeptiCamp NYC.

 

[the PC apeman]

That phrase just had a certain ecclesiastical-exegetical ring to my ears.

 

[angrysoba]

I think I did see parts of that debate video, before.

Harris always sucked as a debater. It's on my list of the reasons I never cared much for him, in general.

So Harris is an awful writer and a terrible debater but has brilliant ideas?

In fact, I think he's usually quite a clear writer and good at explaining philosophical problems usually. But it is clear that with his new book he's now trying to brass it out that as he probably now realizes his book is fatally flawed but can't admit it.

I think he is using terms such as "is", "ought", "well-being", etc. differently that most philosophers would use them, and that is what might really be causing this sense that there is a "Hume vs. Harris" battle going on.

This might be because Harris is a lousy communicator, from the perspective of philosophers. But, I suspect both the Hume Camp and the Harris Camp actually agree on almost everything, fundamentally.

If my hypothesis is true, then I should be able to demonstrate this by "translating" Harris Language (Harrisese?) into Hume Language (Humese?) and vice versa.

But, the demo will have to wait until after SkeptiCamp NYC.

If Hume and Harris were in agreement Harris wouldn't have gone to the trouble to say that Hume was wrong!

Wowbagger, I don't mean to sound rude here because I think on other threads I have seen you comment on you seem to be pretty smart but on this thread it appears almost as if you are playing some kind of Sokal Hoax. I can't believe that you are saying what you are saying half the time.

 

[Wowbagger]

If Hume and Harris were in agreement Harris wouldn't have gone to the trouble to say that Hume was wrong!

Harris might not realize he is using the words differently, himself. Or, if he does, he might not respect that such a difference matters so much to intellectuals.

 

[the PC apeman]

Is it too late to change my answer to eisegetical?

 

[Wowbagger]

Is it too late to change my answer to eisegetical?

That could, indeed, be what someone is doing. Hopefully, it's not me, at least not any more.
I have been trying to unravel what each person is trying to say, here, since I came up with the "Attitudes" post, a while back.

But, I do accept the fact that I could be wrong.

If it weren't for time commitments, I would get into this now. I am, like, soooo eager to get more of my thoughts out. But, alas, it will have to wait. I don't want to risk rushing out a draft that will only continue to be misinterpreted too much.

 

[Dragoonster]

I'm gonna need an actual, specific quote from Harris (timestamp from a linked video would be OK) that illustrates what's you're talking about in order to accept what you're saying.

I really don't care to watch that debate again, but I echo what others have said. Harris gave a sorta fulfilling opening, but in his second and third he pretty much regurgitated "Isn't Islam bad?", "Can you imagine?", "Imagine for a moment", "God is evil", "Old Testament God killed a lot of people", "Biblical God God God talking points", when even after skewering Harris' first entries Craig purported to not be making any claims about Biblical God. (Though of course, and damningly, he did describe God Biblically as All-Good; too bad Harris isn't smart enough to have pointed to that).

Truly, Harris' side of the debate was pathetic. He went totally sideline and off-topic. I haven't seen a more pathetic intellectual display since I was on my high school quiz show and got zero questions right and cost my team the win. It's even more pathetic since Craig left a ton of openings.

Btw, I also don't care to watch his TED talk again, or read his refutation essays on objections to his Moral Landscape again. If someone who's seen/read all of these isn't aware he's an idiot, there are no actual specific quotes anyone can give to convince them otherwise [obviously if I'm wrong, there's no quotes that can in turn make idiots like me see the Scientific Moral Light].

This seems to be a clear reality in dozens of pages on Harris thus far in these forums, where actual specific, unambiguous quotes have been given many times. Defenders of Harris seem to fashion superior ideas to those Harris has had in order to retroactivally claim he had these ideas in the first place. If we could collect defenders of Harris ideas into a book, it would be far superior to the actual book Harris put out.

Annnnoid and Wowbagger--agree with your responses and observations. Sorry if I was too piquant.

 

[Dragoonster]

Harris might not realize he is using the words differently, himself. Or, if he does, he might not respect that such a difference matters so much to intellectuals.

It matters to reality.

Or, if we consign reality and logical proofs to the quaint dustbin of history, it still matters to current pragmatic political theory. As has been said, Harris' "Scientific answering of moral questions" seems wholly Western-based (except for his Buddhism fetish). He'll continue to shoehorn his distaste of other cultures (particularly Islam) into his supposedly scientific, objective moral landscape.

Even more dangerous, he IS actually seeking or becoming a title of new Prophet, with Science in the place of God. The analogy is apt imo because neither religion, nor Harris' ridiculous claims are grounded in logic or science, yet both seek to be a transcendant and wholly truthful idea.

I'm reminded of a baffling objection to some philosophical positions: "Then what does it offer?" As in science, philosophy isn't intended to provide a comfortable blanket. Their purpose isn't to offer anyone any easy position to lie in. If a particular science or philosophy can't "offer" any easy comfort, that doesn't mean it's wrong. And if idiots who exploit them can, that doesn't mean they're right just because/if this makes adherants think they have an answer. Some things don't have an answer, and never will.

 

[Paul2]

I really don't care to watch that debate again, but I echo what others have said. Harris gave a sorta fulfilling opening, but in his second and third he pretty much regurgitated "Isn't Islam bad?", "Can you imagine?", "Imagine for a moment", "God is evil", "Old Testament God killed a lot of people", "Biblical God God God talking points", when even after skewering Harris' first entries Craig purported to not be making any claims about Biblical God. (Though of course, and damningly, he did describe God Biblically as All-Good; too bad Harris isn't smart enough to have pointed to that).

Truly, Harris' side of the debate was pathetic. He went totally sideline and off-topic. I haven't seen a more pathetic intellectual display since I was on my high school quiz show and got zero questions right and cost my team the win. It's even more pathetic since Craig left a ton of openings.

Btw, I also don't care to watch his TED talk again, or read his refutation essays on objections to his Moral Landscape again. If someone who's seen/read all of these isn't aware he's an idiot, there are no actual specific quotes anyone can give to convince them otherwise [obviously if I'm wrong, there's no quotes that can in turn make idiots like me see the Scientific Moral Light].

This seems to be a clear reality in dozens of pages on Harris thus far in these forums, where actual specific, unambiguous quotes have been given many times. Defenders of Harris seem to fashion superior ideas to those Harris has had in order to retroactivally claim he had these ideas in the first place. If we could collect defenders of Harris ideas into a book, it would be far superior to the actual book Harris put out.

Annnnoid and Wowbagger--agree with your responses and observations. Sorry if I was too piquant.

I wasn't looking for evidence that Harris is a bad debater; I was looking for "kindergarten drivel." The example from
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=7806750#post7806750 was "oh but religion is nasty and hypocritical and contradictory and psychotic."

Specific quotes or timestamps need only apply.

 

[annnnoid]

I wasn't looking for evidence that Harris is a bad debater; I was looking for "kindergarten drivel." The example from
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=7806750#post7806750 was "oh but religion is nasty and hypocritical and contradictory and psychotic."

Specific quotes or timestamps need only apply.

…seriously ?!?!?!? You actually want me to hunt around JREF for examples of posts describing religion as nasty, hypocritical, contradictory, and / or psychotic!!!

You’re kidding right?

Or is it the ‘kindergarten drivel’ bit that sticks in your craw. Skeptics endlessly stew religion in every variety of illiterate nonsense. I call it what it is....kindergarten drivel.