4 Comments

G. Kyle Essary

Good grief. Check out the comments. One person says that neuroscience may one day discover “good,” and that Harris’s argument will then no longer be prey to the naturalistic fallacy. Besides misunderstanding the fallacy, the comment shows an attempted reduction of the metaphysical into the physical and would lead to all sorts of absurdities.

dios_mio

Of course. Who said that Sam Harris is the best we got? Dawkins should stick to proving evolution, and Harris should actually try arguing why there is no soul or someting. They both go into fields they are not experts in. Dawkins trying to refute the ontological argument, or Harris trying to make history in meta-ethics is just dumb. Then we become easy targets for WLC and other professionals.

But then again you Christians got Ray Comfort and Lee Strobel. So we are even.

thrik

I would agree with this if Comfort called your leading atheist philosophers a buffoon. Like Dawkins did with Craig.

Moral and Cultural Apologetics

[…] (as repeatedly noted by reputable figures both inside and outside of atheism – for example https://choosinghats.org/2011/10/atheist-philosopher-michael-ruse-says-little-value-in-sam-harris… and http://www.booksandculture.com/articles/2007/marapr/1.21.html), but they are exceedingly nasty […]


Leave a Comment

Leave a Reply to thrik Cancel reply