I usually don’t speak about Ben Shapiro or Sam Harris but they recently had a debate. I reject both materialism and Judaism. Both men are prominent and popular in current conservative circles. They represent the two sects that exist in conservativism: Religious and Non-religious. The question will one day become which of these undergird that political system. The village atheist thinks that Harris is actually some genius and the theist thought Ben got him on the issue of Freewill. This goes to show how each group lacks critical thinking skills.

Harris is asked how does he avoid the naturalistic fallacy. Harris in response asks a question that just assumes naturalism. He asks that if we knew all the physical facts of the universe, then we would be able to figure out what we ought to do. The issue at heart here is that facts are about what “is” the case. They in no way provide what “ought” to be the case. The issue is that man has no purpose in a materialist universe. That is a problem because to say a man is acting wrongly implies that he was designed to act a certain way. The issue at hand is simply that ethical facts are a different kind of fact than a physical fact. It is as if he hasn’t learned anything from his encounter with Dr. William Lane Craig.

Eric Weinstein points out that he doubts that we know what reality is truly like. Sam Harris thinks he is correct because evolution is about survival and not about how men can ascertain the truth. They both don’t know what reality is like. Harris’ case is thus undermined because it may not be possible that he knows any truths about reality.

Ben Shapiro argues that we can’t have moral responsibility without libertarian freedom. The problem is that that is not something that everyone takes for granted. It is itself very problematic. I’m a compatibilist. I think human responsibility and determinism are compatible. Humans actions are only free in the sense that they are voluntary.

Shapiro argues that naturalism is incompatible with reason. That is true, but he argues it wrongly. He focuses on the fact that Harris is a determinist. Determinism isn’t incompatible with reason. He later readjusts it to attack materialism. Dr. Bahnsen style argument.

The “debate” ended with Sam Harris speaking about his acid trips and being amazed at a tv guide with Dick Van Dyke on the cover. This is probably where his philosophical views arise from. I’ll be honest that no one won this debate and that everyone on that stage was wrong.