A Reconciling Comment (and Appeal) about a Debate Between Dr. William Lane Craig and Dr. Sam Harris
By
Giorgio Piacenza
Based on "The God Debate II: Harris vs Craig" at the University of Notre Dame
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yqaHXKLRKzg
The question was, what could be the basis of morality? One reply comes from a religious theistic rational philosophical position and the other from a rational, non-religious, atheistic, scientific position.
Dr. Craig (the theist) should admit that Dr. Harris (the atheist) has a valid point when he mentions doctrines that can be immoral, doctrinal errors found in various theistic religions and which undermine the essential theist position because these
(also absolutist) doctrines are associated
with theism. We should not confuse the main rational ontological arguments with the specific doctrines of various religions and sects. Perhaps theism can be based on the Absolute but doctrines based on theism not and these can be refined and evolve.
Quite often rationalists confound the abuses related with doctrines with the ontological basis of theism and I think that, in trying to make this distinction, Dr. Craig is correct.
Quite often rationalists confound the abuses related with doctrines with the ontological basis of theism and I think that, in trying to make this distinction, Dr. Craig is correct.
Religious doctrines which today (under modern and post-modern sensibilities) are considered as immoral errors and probably held sway (and still may hold sway with some extremists and fundamentalists) in relation to
the level of understanding theologians and religious leaders in previous developmental levels could have and therefore, interpretations and understandings of doctrines can, therefore be
improved along with the cultural and psychological evolution of sensibilities and
inclusiveness in distinct religious leaders and their cultural contexts.
On the other hand, Dr.
Harris should admit the ontological argument that objective moral values need
to be based on an Absolute Good or God. Both intellectuals are partially correct and I think
that an intelligent resolution to this polarized discussion would require a valiant coming
together on some of the contended issues. Both admitting their mistakes rather than feeling that in order to maintain consistency the secondary issues related to their respective positions be kept. Both appreciating the element of correctness of the oponent's position.
perhaps only a classical win/lose mentality
and the fear of their public self-images and private self-identities being
eroded by admitting the elements of truth in their oponents' positions prevent
an integrative and intelligent (even new common sense) resolution which would elevate the level of discussion for the good of
society. It would require admitting what elements of their respective positions
are probably mistaken, incongruous or incomplete.
There is room for science and its methods and facts about the natural
world to illumine theistic understanding and there is room to rational theology to illumine an integrative religious and science-friendly morality coming together without considering
each other dismissively or as being extremely defficient perhaps by focusing only on their blind spots. We need to learn to see our own blind spots to overcome the social, intellectual and extremist polarization taking many forms in the world today. The other option would be to continue going on in circles without listening and learning from the best of each others' positions. Both religious and scientific views need to evolve and intelligently come together.
Our polarized society requires for all of us to rise to an improved way of thinking and we need this possibility of reconciliation demonstrated by the examples from our most recognized intellectuals (many at the forefront of social movements - such as humanism, atheism, religious faith-based living - as the best solutions for today's social problems): We urgently need a more intelligent and logical coming
together of these important issues rather than stubbornly holding on to previous views as if they were complete and perfectly coherent systems of ideas!
There is a major civilizational crisis and there are reasons for the polarizations arising in the world today. Society and the political world system is becoming way too complex and with emergent properties to remain cohesively organized under traditional, previous, linear-thinking stages and non-compatible ideological options, be they traditional religious, political or scientific.
A new compatible way of thinking, feeling and being in agreement with this multi-systemic complexity operating under more life-like forms of self-organization (materially compatible as a finite extension or appearance based on God and - in the realm of form - inextricable from a co-equal subjectivity and intersubjectivity) should be intuitively understood as obvious and necessary. Otherwise (by not knowing that the gists of worldviews, doctrines and ideologies is incompatible under a traditional stance that are logically compatible under a deeper-subjacent and higher-more inclusive form of understanding) we will continue to have a highly dysfunctional dialogue among the mutually deaf intellectuals, politicians and other cultural and opinion leaders. It is very dangerous.
There is a major civilizational crisis and there are reasons for the polarizations arising in the world today. Society and the political world system is becoming way too complex and with emergent properties to remain cohesively organized under traditional, previous, linear-thinking stages and non-compatible ideological options, be they traditional religious, political or scientific.
A new compatible way of thinking, feeling and being in agreement with this multi-systemic complexity operating under more life-like forms of self-organization (materially compatible as a finite extension or appearance based on God and - in the realm of form - inextricable from a co-equal subjectivity and intersubjectivity) should be intuitively understood as obvious and necessary. Otherwise (by not knowing that the gists of worldviews, doctrines and ideologies is incompatible under a traditional stance that are logically compatible under a deeper-subjacent and higher-more inclusive form of understanding) we will continue to have a highly dysfunctional dialogue among the mutually deaf intellectuals, politicians and other cultural and opinion leaders. It is very dangerous.
