Sam Harris vs. Rabbi David Wolpe

Sam Harris debates Rabbi David Wolpe about God and Religion. I think the debate is from 2006.
siftbotsays...

Promoting this video and sending it back into the queue for one more try; last queued Friday, November 7th, 2008 8:43am PST - promote requested by Deano.

Deanosays...

*findthumb

Good chat, didn't watch all of it as I felt the Rabbi was getting a little silly after some interesting rhetoric. Saying there's no "evidence" that you can't "suspend" the laws of physics is just crazy. We know alot more about how the world works than we ever did which is probably why religion and science became progressingly distinct over the centuries. Fact is if religion disappeared tomorrow we'd all get on just fine. The arguments we have wouldn't end but they might be more interesting.

gwiz665says...

I always like Sam Harris. He's so calm and assured of himself, with no need to sort of force his view, like for instance Christopher Hitchens tends to do.

imstellar28says...

sam harris is awesome. he is a genuine atheist who speaks under pressure as well as he writes, unlike that hack christopher hitchens. if you listen to hitchen's interviews you can tell hes not really even an atheist hes just making a buck off the books.

letter to a christian nation ftw.

gwiz665says...

Oh yeah, it's great to see them all together. Hitchens is probably the odd-man-out in that setting. Dennett and Dawkins are more scientists, while Harris is a philosopher and Hitchens is a historian.

I like all four, but for different qualities. Dawkins is a great scientific mind, because he seems to have that inquisitive stance towards most things. Dennett is very knowledgeable and seems like a great thinker. Harris is very reasonable and down to earth, and able to cut through the crap. Hitchens bases his arguments in history and from the "dictatorship" angle.

(I think I'm gonna copy this comment to that sift too.. )

HadouKen24says...

This is one of the best atheist vs. theist debates I've seen. The Rabbi articulates just about the only way one can justify theism, though I'm not sure it's a viewpoint that's entirely compatible with the religions of the Book--more with 19th century Transcendentalism or Theosophy. In reply, Sam Harris responds with fairly good lines of argument which follow more or less straightforwardly from an empiricist viewpoint.

The one thing I would like to see Sam Harris do would be to clarify that it's not science specifically which he's using to attack theism, but the philosophical position underpinning science--empiricism. The real substance of the disagreement between Rabbi Wolpe and Harris is a disagreement about the importance of empirically justifying one's beliefs.

Wolpe is correct when he says that belief in God is a philosophical claim. Harris could more effectively respond by showing how it is that philosophical claims fail when subjected to adequate philosophical attacks.

Send this Article to a Friend



Separate multiple emails with a comma (,); limit 5 recipients






Your email has been sent successfully!

Manage this Video in Your Playlists




notify when someone comments
X

This website uses cookies.

This website uses cookies to improve user experience. By using this website you consent to all cookies in accordance with our Privacy Policy.

I agree
  
Learn More