Newsweek has The God Debate between pastor Rick Warren and atheist author Sam Harris.
I didn’t get a chance to read the whole debate, but it seems Warren is a little out gunned. Warren is a pastor of a growing megachurch and the author of a best-selling book about finding purpose in God. He is not a philosophical Ph.D. with all the facts to match wits with Harris.
I think Warren does a decent job, but I believe many others could have given a much better defense of the belief in God.
A pastor, even one of a giant church, is not always equipped and informed in areas of apologetics and science. Warren is an intelligent man, but it almost seems like Newsweek set him up.
Sam Harris is one of the leading atheists thinkers alive today. He writes books about his philosophy. He rountinely deals with this type of discussion and debate. Warren spends his time as a pastor. Those two are not the same.
There are numerous Christian scholars who can defend the faith against Harris and any others. But Newsweek chose a “name” instead of someone with the expertise.
One area where Warren did expose Harris was “spirituality.” Harris wanted to maintain some sense of being “one with the universe,” while still clinging to the fact that everything he believes is grounded in logic and science. How do you justify atheistic materialism with “You can close your eyes in meditation and lose the sense of your physical body, totally.” How can that statement be defended logically or scientifically?
It is interesting to see how Allahpundit, a conservative atheist, responds to the interview.
I have to say, For the most part, I agree with Seeker's observations on the debate. I read the allahpundit take as well. If you want to see Harris evenly matched in a debate try this one…
Sam Harris vs. Reza Aslan (Author of no God But God)
This one is much better. Reza Aslan is probably the most convincing and reasonable theologian I've seen so far. It's like a heavyweight fight at times, trading intellectual blows for 90 minutes :) Aslan exposes Harris' position on religion as a cause of terrorism. Excellent. It should also be noted though that the moderator is a devout theist (Jewish) so Sam is outnumbered in a sense.
Best exchange of the Warren Harris debate:
Newsweek: Rick, if you had been born in India or in Iran, would you have different religious beliefs?
WARREN: There's no doubt where you're born influences your initial beliefs. Regardless of where you were born, there are some things you can know about God, even without the Bible. For instance, I look at the world and I say, "God likes variety." I say, "God likes beauty." I say, "God likes order," and the more we understand ecology, the more we understand how sensitive that order is.
HARRIS: Then God also likes smallpox and tuberculosis.
Janet,
Of course Warren has explored the issues of his faith, but I still contend it is an unfair debate. Think of it this way, there may be someone who is a committed atheist and has done research on it, but pitting them against one of the leading Christian philosophers/apologists would be a mismatch. It would not be a fair "fight" so to speak.
I don't think you read the article if you think Warren was "robotic and uninformed." You have seen and see what you want to see in order to justify your own faith in the absence of a god. We all have our blinders, we must work to remove them (or have them removed) in our search of the Truth.
I think that Janet has a point, but we have to remember that pastors are not solely apologists. While Harris has focused almost entirely on this one issue, Warren has been focusing on many more important things, like church and community building, international famine relief, helping people find purpose in small group programs, and many other things that pastors must do.
I dare say that Sam Harris has the skills to perform any of these other things. Pitting Harris against Warren is really not fair at all, even if you think that Warren should have a better apologetic.
A better matchup would be Harris v. someone who has also honed their skills in apologetics, like James White or Gary DeMar.
I am curious. I assume most posters on this site are theists (because of the site itself) and hold many of Warren's views. Considering this do you find Sam Harris likeable?
I enjoy reading his articles and hearing him speak because he doesn't strike me as arrogant (a feature seen in both sides of the debate way to often). Thoughts?
Of all the anti-theist atheists, he is the most reasonable and logical. He can come across with a demeaning, superior and detached attitude. Some of his logic is well done, but his primary assumptions, and many of his conclusions, have serious consequences, and his anti-religion broad-brushing is tiresome and lazy, even if he thinks it is correct.
He may be a nice guy, but his assertiveness on matters he lacks the evidence to be assertive on is annoying at best, and shipwrecking the faith of those not as 'smart' which is a tragedy, esp. if he is wrong (which I think he is).