On April 7 at Notre Dame University, William Lane Craig and Sam Harris debated whether morality requires God. Dr. Glenn Peoples posted a detailed play-by-play of the debate on his blog, including links to the audio. There are several other reviews listed here.
I have a reflection rather than a review to offer here. At least two of Craig’s arguments could be described as “knock-down” disproofs of Harris’s position. Craig himself used that term for one of them, noting as he did so that such strong proofs are hard to come by in philosophy, but that this one, based on the logic of identity relationships, was certainly one of them. The other had to do with the impossibility of moral realism if determinism in the strictest sense is true, as Harris believes it to be.
Harris’s response to these two logical arguments was to ignore them completely. His rebuttal was essentially a series of word pictures depicting moral outrages for which he held religion responsible. It was an appeal to the gut, not to the head. Now, I would be first to admit that morality has an emotional component, and emotionally-based arguments like Harris’s deserve answers. Craig did respond to them briefly, for example making reference to Paul Copan’s recent work on Old Testament morality.
And yet there is something strange in this. Harris is the founder of Project Reason (“Spreading Science and Secular Values”). In that role he illustrates and represents the New Atheists’ oft-sounded claim that they represent reason in the face of the irrationality of faith. Yet his response to Craig’s logical arguments was mostly in the form of emotional appeals.
There was definite power in Harris’s approach. My guess is that for those who are not oriented toward logical reasoning as a guide to knowledge, he scored more debate points than Craig. But he essentially forfeited the logical argument: the argument based on reason and rationality.
Doesn’t that seem odd for the man who leads Project Reason?
Also posted at The Point
May 16th, 2011 | 3:14 pm | #1
“Doesn’t that seem odd for the man who leads Project Reason?”
Not really.
If you can’t win by reasoning, appeal to emotion; even if you’re the leader of Project Reason.
Reminds me of the old story about lawyers or Kruschev banging his shoes against the table. Sam Harris will do the same thing.
May 16th, 2011 | 4:27 pm | #2
Harris, not only believes that, God, is unnecessary for morality, but thinks that, science can justify morality. H. Allen Orr, provides an excellent review, of Harris’s book: THE MORAL LANDSCAPE: HOW SCIENCE CAN DETERMINE MORAL VALUES. Here’s the link: http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archives/2011/may/12/science-right-and-wrong/
Orr, who I don’t believe is religious, (although I could be wrong) has been very fair, in his reviews of books, in THE NEW YORK REVIEW OF BOOKS, that are germane, to religion. For example, he was critical of Dawkin’s THE GOD DELUSION http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archives/2007/jan/11/a-mission-to-convert/
May 16th, 2011 | 10:31 pm | #3
“Doesn’t that seem odd for the man who leads Project Reason?”
No, atheism is an emotion based faith, that masquerades as reason.
May 17th, 2011 | 3:48 am | #4
“No, atheism is an emotion based faith, that masquerades as reason.”
I’m no atheist, and indeed I find all presented atheist conceptions of morality to be fundamentally unsatisfying, but I do grant my opponents some ground. Your point is absolutely spurious. There are reasonable arguments for being an atheist. Atheists can use reason to make their arguments and beliefs; the idea that they are solely emotive is an unwarranted stereotype.
May 17th, 2011 | 6:01 am | #5
“There are reasonable arguments for being an atheist.”
If you don’t mind, please list them.
May 17th, 2011 | 10:33 am | #6
Maybe there are reasoned arguments in favor of atheism. I’ve encountered several. I’ve never run into one that stood up to serious examination, though. And it seems like if there were some reasoned arguments that could stand up to a test, the founder of Project Reason would have relished the opportunity to bring them forth.
Do you think in the name of accuracy he might be persuaded to change his group’s name to Project Gut Feeling?
May 17th, 2011 | 12:29 pm | #7
“Maybe there are reasoned arguments in favor of atheism.”
“Maybe” is an important qualifier.
“I’ve encountered several. I’ve never run into one that stood up to serious examination, though.”
If an argument doesn’t stand up to serious examination, does it still count as a “reasonable” argument?
“Do you think in the name of accuracy he might be persuaded to change his group’s name to Project Gut Feeling?”
This is not a serious or “reasonable” question.
;-)
May 17th, 2011 | 2:38 pm | #8
What was unreasonable about it? I’m just talking about truth in labeling!
(By the way: I said “reasoned,” not “reasonable.”)
May 17th, 2011 | 5:19 pm | #9
I think we’re equivocating on the word “reasonable.” I have yet to hear an atheistic argument that convinces me of anything, but I have heard cogent arguments. “Reasonable” doesn’t mean perfectly correct; it means that it’s an argument that is using internally coherent logic that doesn’t undermine its position. For instance, though I disagree with the doctrine of unconditional election, that doesn’t mean that I find it unreasonable. It just means that I don’t find its argument convincing.
The best example of an atheistic philosopher in my book is David Hume, mainly because he is so consistent with his atheism. He notes that absent a theistic framework, we have no reason to believe cause and effect exists. I think his atheistic framework is reasonable, although wrong. It wasn’t based solely on emotion or feelings like the caricature Mike presented.
Moreover, I think the pervasiveness of suffering and evil are reasonable grounds for not believing in God. Alvin Plantiga’s solution to the problem of evil resolves the existence of evil and God, not the nature of evil as it has manifested itself in the world. Now, I personally think that God’s existence better solves this problem than an atheistic framework, but there are nonetheless reasonable positions that could be held in regard to this argument.
I don’t want to put out the idea that I see eye to eye with atheists in all things or anything of the sort. But one of the greatest problems facing the Christian community today are Christians who straw man their opponents, which only further harms the ability of Christians to spread the gospel. Reducing atheism to pure emotivism does just that.
May 17th, 2011 | 5:34 pm | #10
Nikolai: I’m not sure Hume was an atheist. A case can be made that he was agnostic, or perhaps deistic. And his argument that, we cannot decipher causes, was not based on a nontheistic set of premises. It was based on his empirical outlook. We never sense a cause. We only sense to events, say, that occur at simialr times, in our sense experience. We then make, in his view, the unwarranted extrapolation that, one “caused” the other. Where in our sense experience, do we sense “cause”? This has nothing to do with believing in God, or not.
May 17th, 2011 | 5:44 pm | #11
Nikolai: perhaps, given Hume’s radical empirical assumptions, when we see two events, for example, and conclude that one caused the other, we have no justification for this, since “cause” is not sensed, we must bring God to the rescue, in order to have faith that, the one caused the other.
But my point, which I should have clarified better, is that, one can still be a humean, (I’m not) and believe in God. We could just argue that, God set up the world, in such a way that, we will never know causes.
May 17th, 2011 | 5:45 pm | #12
oops, you know I’m typing fast, when I type my own name wrong! Bret Lythgoe! Sorry!
May 17th, 2011 | 6:02 pm | #13
Here’s an excellent article, on whether Hume was an atheist, or not. http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/belief/2009/mar/27/philosophy-religion-hume
May 17th, 2011 | 9:14 pm | #14
Here’s a listing of Hume scholars views of Hume’s religion views. http://socrates58.blogspot.com/2006/11/was-skeptical-philosopher-david-hume.html
May 18th, 2011 | 2:42 am | #15
Hume was an empiricist. That much is for sure. Now, I’m at least certain that he isn’t a theist in any sense of the word. He wrote a whole book, Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion, refuting arguments for the existence of God. I think it’s definitely possible to see him as an agnostic, although not a theist.
And I do think the problems of causation and induction are somewhat contingent on theistic belief. I think even Hume thinks so, given that the argument he spends the most time refuting in the Dialogues is the teleological argument. It’s reasonable to assume that God could craft a force such as causation, and reasonable to assume Hume’s argument if there is no God. Random atoms falling through space, seemingly, does not lead to a legitimate causation.
May 18th, 2011 | 10:36 am | #16
I am not an atheist, as I think most of you know. But there are some good arguments for atheism. Sartre’s, for instance:
In Christian theology, God is perfectly free.
God, being perfect, is also unchanging by nature.
But perfect freedom would allow one to change.
Therefore God cannot exist, at least as classical theology presents Him (a being who is free to change but is by nature unchanging).
Now I think there are good arguments to get around this dilemma (for example, God’s perfect knowledge would also know of His own perfection, and therefore He would not change even given the absolute power to do so). But it is still a good argument and deserves consideration.
On the topic of the original article: My readings in the “New Atheists” tell me that the “rationality” ploy is to them just that–a rhetorical ploy to demean their opponents without the necessity of engaging in rational argument. (By the way, last I heard, Richard Dawkins has refused to debate W.L. Craig. Smart move on his part.)
May 18th, 2011 | 10:44 am | #17
I think you’re right, Craig. That’s what I was getting at in #8 by the difference between “reasoned” (which many arguments are) and “reasonable,” which Nikolai correctly described as equivocating. Sartre’s argument is reasoned and intelligent and therefore also reasonable; unless by “reasonable” one means that it holds up to critical philosophical scrutiny, in which case it fails that test.
You are also correct in saying (I’ll put it in my own words) that if Dawkins values his own hide, he’s better off staying far from Craig. I strongly suspect that’s the number one value that’s keeping him from accepting the debate.
May 18th, 2011 | 11:06 am | #18
What’s Sartre’s epistemic justification for saying perfect freedom would allow God to change?
May 18th, 2011 | 11:19 am | #19
Freedom by definition allows change; it does not demand it. God knows his perfection and is free to choose to remain as he is. What God is not free to do, and no theology says that he is, is to contradict himself; so if Sartre’s premise is that “God is perfectly free,” that’s false. God is perfectly-free in the sense that he is free-and-perfect, but not in the sense that he can do anything that any person might think about him doing.
May 18th, 2011 | 12:52 pm | #20
I don’t see the necessary connection between freedom and change. Can you demonstrate the necessity?
May 18th, 2011 | 2:29 pm | #21
There is no necessary connection between freedom and change. The connection is between freedom and allowing. Freedom allows or permits.
Bear in mind at any rate that I disagree with Sartre’s proposition that God by definition has perfect freedom. He has something like it in the sense that he is perfect and he has freedom, but not in Sartre’s sense of having complete freedom to do anything anyone might think about him doing.
God’s freedom as such would conceivably allow any x if (per impossibile) God’s freedom could be separated from the totality of his nature. Since it can’t, and since other of God’s perfections disallow change, it’s a moot, purely academic and quite irrelevant question whether his freedom as such would allow it.
May 18th, 2011 | 2:58 pm | #22
Dear Orthodoxdj: Agreeing with Tom Gilson: Freedom means that more than one option is open; it doesn’t necessarily require that any option be taken or that any change be made. I think Sartre was arguing that if God is free, He COULD change, but theologically we could argue that He CANNOT change. That is where the supposed conflict lies, I think. But like I said, there seem to be ways around that.
May 18th, 2011 | 3:20 pm | #23
I think freedom is being wrongly defined. Freedom is the ability to choose the good. God is an actualized being, which means He lacks potential. Any change on God’s part would constitute growth which would mean He lacked something prior. This type of freedom uniquely belongs to God. God cannot change. Sartre has proposed something that fits into the categorical fallacy.
May 18th, 2011 | 3:35 pm | #24
I wrote, “There seem to be ways around that”–so, Orthodoxdj, I am taking your post as an exemplification of what I said. :)
P.S. A little off-topic, but: In philosophical circles, does any well-known thinker self-identify as an existentialist any more?
May 18th, 2011 | 4:17 pm | #25
This has been a fun discussion. I wish there were more of this.
May 19th, 2011 | 1:20 am | #26
Craig Payne:
I wouldn’t be surprised, although I’m not familiar with a contemporary philosopher who has embraced classical existentialism wholesale. All the greats of the field, like Kierkegaard, Jaspers, and Sartre, were mid 19th to early 20th century. Jaspers’ Way to Wisdom is a solid example of existential writing, I’d check it out if I were you.
General Commenters:
I too, agree with the incorrectness of Sartre’s freedom dilemma. I do think, however, like Hume, Sartre is a great example of a non-theistic philosopher. The fact that he takes Dostoyevsky’s classic epigram “If there is no God, everything is permissible,” affirms it, and accepts his consequences, shows him to be a solid and consistent philosopher. Again, I obviously don’t agree with Sartre’s embracing the absurdity of life with a quest for “authenticity,” but nonetheless the fact that he accepts the consequences of a non-theistic belief shows him to be a reasonable atheist.
May 19th, 2011 | 9:19 am | #27
Thanks; I will check out the book. (I’ve never read anything by Jaspers.)
May 19th, 2011 | 3:25 pm | #28
Coming in late, it’s been interesting to read the comments by all here. If I read Tom’s post correctly in regards to the New Atheist’s claim, like Harris, the argument proceeds along the lines of ‘Reason’ = rationality, and ‘Faith’ = irrationality.
Tom rightly points out that in this debate, Harris forfeited the logical argument between ‘Reason’ and ‘Faith’, or the ‘rational’ vs. ‘the irrational’, appealing to ‘emotion’ in his defense against Craig.
What I find fascinating, is that no one has asked the question as to ‘why’, or ‘where’ Reason (capital ‘R’) makes sense in an atheistic, existentialist, Humean, Sartrean, Jasperian, (throw any other secular philosopher in the mix) framework? None of these men can account, can give justified warrant, for Reason in the first place. Sartre fails, Hume fails, Jasper fails, Kant fails, Kierkegaard fails. To say that Hume gives a ‘reasonable’ argument for atheism yet we’re still convinced he’s wrong, is to befuddle the issue, and fails to get at the heart of why he thinks ‘REASON’, as an entity unto itself, should be trusted within his own atheistic/agnostic framework.
May 19th, 2011 | 5:30 pm | #29
Still thinking about this “Project Reason” thing. There seem to be a couple of widely accepted definitions of reason:
There’s the medieval idea that reason, or rationality, is the general, overall nature of a normal human person; thus humans as “rational animals.”
There’s the more specific view that reason is the ability to gain knowledge by inferring accurately from things already known. Thus “Let’s reason this out.”
But neither of these seems to be the way “reason” is used by the “New Atheists.” It seems to me that reason to them simply means a general skepticism toward any claims not scientifically testable.
Thus one could by this guideline call oneself “rational”–without any specific exercise of reason, or without responding to rational arguments.
May 19th, 2011 | 5:54 pm | #30
Craig Payne:
There’s the medieval idea that reason, or rationality, is the general, overall nature of a normal human person; thus humans as “rational animals.”
Yes, but how does a normal human person acquire this overall nature? From what ‘framework’, or ‘presupposition’ is this possible? From what worldview does this make sense?
Craig Payne:
There’s the more specific view that reason is the ability to gain knowledge by inferring accurately from things already known. Thus “Let’s reason this out.”
And to what/who do we owe this ability?
Craig Payne:
But neither of these seems to be the way “reason” is used by the “New Atheists.” It seems to me that reason to them simply means a general skepticism toward any claims not scientifically testable.
In other words, empiricism, all knowledge can only be acquired by unbiased observation of the evidence around us. Michael Polanyi, rightly recognized there are no ‘unbiased’ observers.
Craig Payne:
Thus one could by this guideline call oneself “rational”–without any specific exercise of reason, or without responding to rational arguments.
If so, then this is quintessentially irrational, is it not? But this is what they are left with, isn’t it, no use of logic or reason in responding, and like Harris, to emotional appeals as an attempt to score more points. The Christian not bereft of the simple powers of logical reasoning should be able to see right through this.
May 19th, 2011 | 8:57 pm | #31
That’s interesting that Dawkins won’t debate William Lane Craig. Tom mentions that if Dawkins values his hide, he won’t debate Craig. I agree, and would add that, Craig not only would clean Dawkins clock, but sterilize it to the extent that it could be used in surgery :-)
May 19th, 2011 | 9:11 pm | #32
:-)
May 20th, 2011 | 1:20 am | #33
Steve Drake,
Why do you think Jaspers and Kant fail at finding reason? Both were deists, although calling Jaspers a deist is a bit tricky.
May 20th, 2011 | 8:25 am | #34
Nikolai,
They fail at grounding reason in an ultimate source, do they not?
Links
Blogs
Find Us
Contact