Finished listening to Craig and Harris

Heard the debate to the end now. One thing became obvious during that most revealing part of any debate - the open questions at the end. Harris, who had spoken with spontaneity and sincerity throughout his allotted time periods, continued in exactly the same vein when responding to questions. Craig, no longer supported by his carefully rehearsed, set-piece speeches, came across like the proverbial fish out of water. A lady questioner pinned him down neatly and brilliantly, extending his analogy of light as an idea long described but only recently understood. The questioner suggested that light was once ascribed to a supernatural creator, and later its true nature became known. Perhaps, she offered, the same might be true of morality in our own future? Craig affected not to understand the question. When the moderator summarised it for him, he resorted to simple repetition of his analogy, and had the temerity to suggest that the questioner had misunderstood it. I believe that he knows that she did not misunderstand it.

Harris hit the nail on the head when he explained psychopathy in the sense of blindly receiving rules from an authority without distinguishing them on grounds of morality. This ranks among Harris's best taken points during the debate.

Another questioner pointed out that Craig's arguments are based on nothing, and Craig simply diverted his response onto repetitive definition of the terms ontological and epistemological. He also ducked the question about homosexuality, resorting to an ad hominem dismissal of the questioner on the grounds of insincerity. Oh, the irony.