Tuesday, April 12, 2011

Thinking God's Thoughts: The Aftermath of Craig Destroys Harris

Brennon has posted his remarks on the debate last week between William Lane Craig and Sam Harris. I think he's right in his assessment. The thing that just amazes me the most is that I wonder how Harris didn't manage to answer Craig directly. Dr. Craig uses the same arguments he always uses when he debates about morality. How could Harris not been ready for them (not that Harris could counter them anyway, but still some effort would have been nice)? Follow the link to read Brennon's post.

Thinking God's Thoughts: The Aftermath of Craig Destroys Harris
Enhanced by Zemanta
at

12 comments:

  1. AnonymousApril 12, 2011 at 7:29 PM

    The fact that you and "bossmanham" think "destroyed" is the right word to use here diminishes you both.

    ReplyDelete
  2. AnonymousApril 12, 2011 at 7:55 PM

    Just out of curiosity, why do you refer to William Craig as "Dr. Craig" and Sam Harris as just "Harris". You are aware Sam Harris has a PhD as well, right?

    ReplyDelete
  3. mmcelhaneyApril 13, 2011 at 9:29 PM

    Actually "demolished" or "annihilated" more accurately describes what I think happened to Dr. Harris' arguments. How about "decimated"?

    Yup, I know Sam Harris has a Ph.D. I've done several posts on his work in the past. If you think it's a slight to refer to WLC as "Dr" while not referring to Harris as "Dr" in the same sentence is a slight, then maybe you need to wonder why you would think that. Sounds like you might be hyper sensitive.

    ReplyDelete
  4. AnonymousApril 14, 2011 at 3:16 AM

    No, typically you don't refer to someone with a PhD as "Dr." at all. For example. I just find it funny that you only refer to "your guy" as Dr. Shows your biases.

    ReplyDelete
  5. AnonymousApril 14, 2011 at 5:48 AM

    So I originally posted Matt’s review of the Craig/Harris debate to serve as an example of how normal people don’t refer to William Craig as “Dr.”, but then I realized his review also should serve to highlight how trivial, divorced from reality and juvenile yours and Brennon’s little cheerleader blog posts are.

    ReplyDelete
  6. mmcelhaneyApril 14, 2011 at 11:36 AM

    Well, at least you got the link to Matt's blog correct. So is the only thing you got out of his post that he didn't call either Harris or craig "Dr" or did you really read and understand his criticisms of Harris? Guess not. Is your point that Dr. Flannagan raised issues and concerns about what Craig did wrong and neither me nor Brennon did? Okay. I wish Dr. Craig had done a few things differently or said things that he didn't say. Happy? Also as for the sily statement of yours example of how normal people don’t refer to William Craig as “Dr.” That has not been my experience in American culture and academia. Actually I'm glad you consider Dr. Matt Flannagan "normal". Perhaps you will listen to him and give your life to Christ.

    I realized his review also should serve to highlight how trivial, divorced from reality and juvenile yours and Brennon’s little cheerleader blog posts are.

    Rah, Rah, Go Craig, Go Craig!!!! Harris lost, he ate the apple sauce! How was that? Now go back and read Brennon's and Matt's reviews and actually learn something. Did you read this part?

    Harris’s attitude appeared to be, “’in spite of the agreed-on subject of the debate, I’ll say whatever negative thing I like about Christianity and that will surely count as an awesome argument.” Unfortunately for the new atheists rational discussion does not function this way. Rational discussion involves listening to what your opponent actually contends, attempting to understand it, responding with reasoned arguments and sticking to the topic you agreed would be the focus of the discussion.

    Me, Brennon, and Dr. Matt Flannagan agree.

    ReplyDelete
  7. AnonymousApril 14, 2011 at 11:48 AM

    did you really read and understand his criticisms of Harris?

    Yes.

    ReplyDelete
  8. mmcelhaneyApril 14, 2011 at 11:57 AM

    And you still think he won?

    ReplyDelete
  9. AnonymousApril 14, 2011 at 12:36 PM

    Did I ever indicate that I thought Harris won? I will say "winning" a debate and being "right" are not necessarily correlated.

    ReplyDelete
  10. mmcelhaneyApril 14, 2011 at 12:48 PM

    All I said was that Dr.William Lane Craig won the debate because he had better Arguments than Sam Harris. How is that being biased and cheerleading? It's not.

    ReplyDelete
  11. AnonymousApril 14, 2011 at 12:52 PM

    Well, you (Bossmanham, actually) said Craig "destroyed" Harris, which he didn't. You said Harris didn't manage to answer Craig directly, which he did. It's pretty clear you have a skewed view of what actually happened.

    ReplyDelete
  12. mmcelhaneyApril 18, 2011 at 12:10 AM

    Just curious: Did you really get anything out of Flannagan's critique? If you wanna say that Craig didn't destroy Harris...Fine. The point is that Harris lost this one and not just because Craig is a better debater.

    ReplyDelete