There seems to be a slight misunderstanding of his actual argument. What he said was that without OBJECTIVE (absolute) moral values there is no true evil or true good. His examples of the holocaust are used to provoke this question-Would the holocaust be evil even IF everyone thought it was not. Is rape TRUELY bad regardless of whether anyone disagrees? What he goes on to say is that- If someone murders another, although it is relevant to the indivual being killed and anyone directly affected by the murder through out the span of structured society and during any period of time in which record of the incident can be accounted for...Why does it matter long after the earth is gone? If something is an absolute truth or Objective in the sense suggests it is. Then it is not contingent on any physical existance or the existance of a non physical mind.
So, if long after human beings walk the earth or even earth itself going out of existance, if one is to assert that rape would still be objectively evil, you would have to assert how. Why is another neccessary question that follows.
If absolute right or wrong exists, it must exist independent of any person's opinion of it. Therefore... If Absolute good or evil exists, it exists in God, becuase to Craig, God is absolute and it is from God that such things are given their truth.
Its a trap.
His argument is actually pretty sound, but only if the opponent concedes that objective moral values DO exist. If you reject that premise, then there is little that can be argued to support the alternative. But to reject it, the perception of you is quite negative regardless of how much sense it makes when one is honest with themselves in approaching the subject philisophically.
The problem is that given the public venue of such a debate, the atheist is forced to assert that rape or the holocaust is not truely, OBJECTIVELY wrong in the absolute sense. This would be a move that would most certainly place the atheist into a stereotype of a "soul-less" drone regardless of how logical such an assertion would be. Craig knows this, and appeals to the prejudice of the audience and banks on it. He uses the setting of the debate to his advantage and puts Harris into an uncomfortable position. If Harris claims anything different, his words would be most certainly qouted out of context and distributed in such distorted versions as-"In the debate against William Lane Craig, Sam Harris claimed that"- "...The holocaust was not truely wrong"-"and Harris went on to say"..."Rape is not truely bad"- You see?!! It's not the right forum for such a debate to be had. Harris was at a disadvantage. Nobody wants to be percieved as a champion of Rape or The Holocaust!!! That's exactly how he would be labeled too. Craig appealed to ignorance in a different way than the fallacy defines it. He appealed to the anticipation of ignorant perception.
So, if long after human beings walk the earth or even earth itself going out of existance, if one is to assert that rape would still be objectively evil, you would have to assert how. Why is another neccessary question that follows.
If absolute right or wrong exists, it must exist independent of any person's opinion of it. Therefore... If Absolute good or evil exists, it exists in God, becuase to Craig, God is absolute and it is from God that such things are given their truth.
Its a trap.
His argument is actually pretty sound, but only if the opponent concedes that objective moral values DO exist. If you reject that premise, then there is little that can be argued to support the alternative. But to reject it, the perception of you is quite negative regardless of how much sense it makes when one is honest with themselves in approaching the subject philisophically.
The problem is that given the public venue of such a debate, the atheist is forced to assert that rape or the holocaust is not truely, OBJECTIVELY wrong in the absolute sense. This would be a move that would most certainly place the atheist into a stereotype of a "soul-less" drone regardless of how logical such an assertion would be. Craig knows this, and appeals to the prejudice of the audience and banks on it. He uses the setting of the debate to his advantage and puts Harris into an uncomfortable position. If Harris claims anything different, his words would be most certainly qouted out of context and distributed in such distorted versions as-"In the debate against William Lane Craig, Sam Harris claimed that"- "...The holocaust was not truely wrong"-"and Harris went on to say"..."Rape is not truely bad"- You see?!! It's not the right forum for such a debate to be had. Harris was at a disadvantage. Nobody wants to be percieved as a champion of Rape or The Holocaust!!! That's exactly how he would be labeled too. Craig appealed to ignorance in a different way than the fallacy defines it. He appealed to the anticipation of ignorant perception.
