Difference Between Harris And William Craig

This debate between Dr. William Craig and Dr. Sam Harris was fascinating from the perspective that we were presented with two extremely intellectual individuals who take opposing viewpoints on the topic of religion. Both these individuals are clearly well educated on this topic and provided effective reasonings to support their side. As a result, this debate allowed for the audience to devise their own opinions on this topic and obtain a sufficient amount of evidence to support their ideology. The debate kicks off with Dr. William Craig expressing his support for the question,”Does Goodness Depend on God?” Craig states that God is the paradigm from which all good is measured due to his loving and kind nature. He also expresses that all
Craig moral ontology versus semantics. He adds how Dr. Harris frequently misused the meaning for the word,”Good”(51:05-52:25). There is a difference between morally good and performing a good move in chess. Moral ontology discusses the origin of our moral values while semantics discussing the meaning of moral terms (47:25-47:37). Dr. Craig effectively attacked Dr. Harris’ ideology of the moral landscape. He states how certain evil individuals who don’t regard the goodness and well being of society can be living their lives in peaks while other individuals who strive to live their lives morally can live in valleys. Dr. Craig concluded his rebuttal by presenting his idea of relevant authority and how God is in the highest position of authority which thus gives him the power to assign us moral goods and wrongs. Dr. Harris’ rebuttal is centered around his denial for the existence of God. He conveys that if Good is from God, then why would God make a place like Hell (58:48-58:58). He also articulates how there is a lack of moral accountability with people who live their lives morally wrong and on their deathbed, they ask for forgiveness and get to enter paradise (1:02:20-1:02:37). Harris brings up the issue in many religions where when good things happen, we praise God, but when bad things happen we simply claim that God is mysterious
William Craig. In my opinion, Dr. Craig provided a stronger argument from start to finish. I believe that Dr. Craig stayed more on the topic of whether goodness originated from God, while Dr. Harris centered his argument about his opinion that God doesn’t exist. In my opinion, goodness does come from God because that is his nature. Without God, I believe that we would live in a world full of chaos and greed. Religion plays a big role in keeping society in check and instills a sense of goodness in the hearts of billions. Regarding Dr. Harris’ argument that if God is real, why would he have created an eternal Hell, and why would he allow for children to be wrongfully killed. I believe that God has created a Hell for all the evil people such as murderers and serial killers. I also believe that God allows children and women to be wrongfully killed because God chooses to test people that he loves. In Islam, these people will be sent to an eternal heaven. Without a supreme figure like God, I believe that there would be no law giver and no reason for anyone to live their life in good. People would choose to live their lives that will benefit themselves and the happiness of others will be neglected. In conclusion, both Dr, William Craig and Dr. Sam Harris provided valid evidence to support their viewpoints, however I believe that Dr. Harris focused too much energy on trying to prove that God