I think Jeff has written a challenging post. My thanks to Scot for posting it. I do remember watching the debate between Craig and Harris, and though I did think Craig technically won the debate, I was left with an odd taste in my mouth.They Don’t Believe Because Your God Isn’t Desirable
I watched the recent debate between William Lane Craig, a Christian, and Sam Harris an Atheist. The debate (seen Here) was over the foundations of morality. The Christian addressed the philosophical question at hand with skill and insight. By the midway point the atheist struck me as seriously outmatched and overpowered.
Yet then things changed. Sam Harris began putting forth a set of arguments that had nothing to do with the topic at hand: the problem of religious diversity, the problem of pain, reflections on the character of God in the Bible. By the end I thought the Atheist won—not because he actually addressed the question at hand—on that front I thought he failed. But because I don’t recall anything the Christian said that made me want to believe in his God, yet I had a worthy list of things the Atheist said that made me think the Christian God distasteful.
Such experiences are not uncommon. Despite solid, rational rebuttals from philosophers across the board, despite the fact that the “new atheist” clan seems hopelessly naïve about ethics and epistemology—their arguments continue to gain ground because they know something Christian apologist apparently don’t.Is the debate about what is rational or about desire? What do you think of Jeff Cook’s notion that desire needs to be addressed more in apologetics?
The debate about God in our culture is not about what’s rational.
What Harris said didn't strike me as true, nor did it strike me as a proper debate tactic. But it worked in making this very difficult to brush off.
For the rest of the post, click HERE.