Is here.
On Monday 2 August at the University of Auckland Emeritus Professor of Philosophy, Dr Raymond Bradley and Dr Matthew Flannagan (of this blog) debated the topic “Is God the Source of Morality? Is it rational to ground right and wrong in commands issued by God?”
Give it a listen. Matt’s a smart kid.
Biblical, and yet political liberals? Always an oxymoron for me at least.
I can’t hear a word he says and there isn’t a transcript. Mind you I never find these sort of debates particularly valuable. Like debates over the existence of God. I don’t see the point. I like Don Cupitt’s little book Taking Leave of God best – that’s perfectly invaluable. Rather than not thinking God exists, I don’t think the Judeo Christian God is real and I do think Buddhists are moral and I do think ethical values are human and cultural and I don’t think Christians are any more moral than anyone else.
Matthew Flannagan is most certainly not a political ‘liberal’ Robert darling – you won’t find anyone more conservative than him down under.
Steph Lov,
Just going off what I read in their “about” in their own blog. Check it out.
‘classical liberals’ equals modern conservatives ie very right wing. And the proof, sweetie pie, is in the pudding – read their blog. I hope your wife is well – haven’t seen you around for a little while.
Yes Kiwi Lass, I should look closer, some conservatives and libertarians use the term differently. The US is so different here, everything liberal, is liberal! I have been here too long! lol
There is not a transcript online yet but I have Ray and Matt’s opening statements up on MandM and as I was at the debate I can tell you they are very close to a transcript. Definitely worth a read as, despite risking a charge of nepotism, Jim is not wrong, Matt is very good at what he does.
Raymond Bradley’s Opening Statement: Bradley v Flannagan Debate
Matthew Flannagan’s Opening Statement: Bradley v Flannagan Debate
Because they swapped opening papers before the debate Ray also prepared his reply to Matt in advance so I have that and I have permission to publish it, it will be up tomorrow. And Matt had lots of prepared notes as he had an idea where Ray would go which he then brought together for his reply so we’ve been able to piece together a very good approximation of his reply which we’ll publish the day after tomorrow.
The video is being edited so it should be out and online soon.
Irish Anglican we were trying to find a way of expressing our conservative theology and conservative-meets-libertarian political views in universal terms as you are not wrong the terms mean different things in different countries and we thought we’d got it right but maybe we need to rethink that….
Steph why does the claim morality is grounded in Gods commands mean that Christians are more moral than any one else. That certainly does not follow and no one who defends the position has said that, so why bring it the issue up?
Opening statements are transcribed here and here. I think the rest of the transcript is a work in progress. Dr Flanagan’s bold apologetic is becoming recognised in NZ and further afield, he’s speaking on Genocide in the OT at a conference in the USA sometime soon.
Don’t take it out of context Mad. I was specifically talking about Don Cupitt’s book ‘Taking Leave..’ – it’s not all about you. He argues, and I agree, that morals are human. Therefore we share some and some not. Tahitians think it is selfish to have only have one wife and not share. You think polygamy is a sin. Mind you I never find your sort of debates about God and morals particularly valuable. However maybe it follows from a contorted analogy (which I saw later) about puddings and main courses and going out to dinner, which Matt made in reply to someone on your blog, that he implies Christians are supposed to be more moral. Who knows what your divine command question means except people who believe in the biblical God.
Mad,
Edmund Burke should be required reading in the West, yes?
Although me be not Mad, Robert me darling, although your Mr Burke was born Irish, your man flipped to the Anglofilia and became a classical liberal politician and philosopher, so sometimes considered the founder of modern conservatism. Surely as he was a supporter of the American revolution, any history of politics scholar should be of him aware, but why should an 18th century dead Irishman of Wigs be ‘required reading’ for us all? Dead, dull and far inferior to his contemporary poets, musicians and preceding blank versed playwrights, methinks. Interesting and influential, a vigorous person, with whom I would not agree but I still prefer Shakespeare, Beethoven, and Robbie Burns.
My lovely Steph,
For me at least Burke’s mind was much more philosophical, even Aristotelian. And he formed a realtion of philosophical psychology and the philosophy of language. You might really enjoy the latter? I am just drawn by his over-arching philosophical mind and methods. A great mind and thinker for his time. And like many others who would place some Greco-Roman ideas within the conservative place and institution. Even St. Paul, as the Roman citizen. It is the influence and even control of Western Philosophy. From here, I would see Burke, (and note his influence of Locke).
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/burke/
ok you two… get a room….
And talk about “books”, reading, thinking, etc.! A mental Irish love affair!
I see Steph normal patronising language and no answer. Actually what a divine command theory means is well attested, you could for example look at the blackwell guide to ethical theory which has an excellent introduction and it is not the position that Christains are more moral than others, something frequently pointed out in the literature on the subject.
Matt: Because I disagree I’m patronising and don’t answer? Goodness. Must be on another wave length. Answer was: I was talking about Don Cupitt’s argument with which I agree – on morality and not on your question at all. I did not accuse your debate question of implying that Christian’s were more moral than anyone else. I cannot relate to the ‘divine command’ theory because I do not believe the biblical God is real. Seems pretty clear to me, I’m sorry you don’t think so too. Just as well Robert and I understand each other when we disagree.
although Robert – with you on that, I agree.
and Jim – a room??!!! – you just don’t understand
Steph, I said you were patronising because of the language you used not because you disagree with me.
Steph wether you believe in God or not does not mean one cannot understand a theory or relate to it. i do not believe pleasure is the sole good it does not follow I don’t understand utilitariainism, part of being a responsible scholar is the ability to understand positions even though you disagree with them.
Moreover, as has been pointed out in the literature often one does not have to believe in God to accept a divine command theory. A DC theory states right and wrong are constituted by Gods commands, a person could ( and some have) agree with this claim there is no God and conclude therefore that right and wrong do not exist, something like this argument looms in some forms of nihilism.
You state ” I did not accuse your debate question of implying that Christian’s were more moral than anyone else.. Unfortunately in the com box preceeding this you did accuse me of this, you stated
” However maybe it follows from a contorted analogy (which I saw later) about puddings and main courses and going out to dinner, which Matt made in reply to someone on your blog, that he implies Christians are supposed to be more moral.”
Here we see you claim I implied that Christians are more moral so saying you did not does not really wash.
What language did you find patronising?
You are right of course about not having to believe in a theory to understand it and although I corrected my claim not to know what it was when I commented to you by claiming instead that I cannot relate to the divine command theory, perhaps it would have been clearer if I had just said that debating it does not interest me in the same way debating the existence of God does not interest me.
I made my first comment before I saw your own blog comment, and here I said it ‘might’ follow that you ‘imply’. As I found the analogy contorted obviously I could not be sure. I’m still not sure what the analogy was meant to convey. I made no ‘claim’ that you implied it and was not talking about you in my initial comment.
Ok Steph, I get you know, I think an understanding of a divine command theory is essential for anyone who wants to discuss the question of religion and morality for the simple reason that it is one of the dominant positions in the discussion and one that has been at the centre of discussion for 40 years.
I think you missed the analogy ( which was from Law professor Stephen Smith), its not about wether people can be moral without God or belief in God, its rather about the claim that appealing to only secular beliefs somehow is a neutral compromise position that all can agree on, and I think it illustrates the problem nicely.
Thank you for explaining the analogy – I didn’t think it meant that non believers couldn’t be moral. I had in fact read it as suggesting that the non believer’s morals were a compromise and inferior to the believer’s. So perhaps I was right after all. Or perhaps it didn’t declare whose morals were inferior but the compromise implied it.
As I do know what the divine command theory is, as I study religions, I haven’t got a problem with that. But I don’t need to debate it in order to establish my own moral position.
I agree obviously a person does not need to have studied every ethical theory to have a sensible position of their own.
The point of the analogy was that the so called compromise was not a compromise at all. The dispute was about wether to only have dessert. To claim therefore that limiting the meal to dessert was not a compromise that took a common basis into account it was in fact to accept the daughters position.
The trouble with any argument by analogy is that, in order to demonstrate that it is valid, you should demonstrate the appropriateness of the analogy, and in order to do this, you have to demonstrate that the argument which you wish to justify is valid without using the analogy, because otherwise you cannot demonstrate the appropriateness of the analogy. The most famous example is said to be that of Paley (1743-1805), who is supposed to have justified the teleological argument for the existence of God with his analogy of the universe to a watch, and God to a watchmaker. We all know that a watch is made by a watchmaker, but to use this as an argument for the universe being made by God you should first demonstrate that the analogy is completely correct, for which purpose you should demonstrate that the universe was made by God without using the analogy of the watch and the watchmaker, because otherwise the analogy cannot be shown to be appropriate.
Analogies are therefore exceedingly useful to debaters who can entertain people with entertaining analogies, and thereby perhaps deceive them
I’ve recently been unimpressed by a variety of analogies invented by group of atheist mythers where their arguments are undemonstrated and false.
Well Steph I disagree, I don’t think you have to demonstrate your analogy is appropriate for it to be valid. It just has to be similar in the respects being discussed. And its not clear Paley was giving an argument from analogy either. The problem is that some people mistake an analogy for an identity and suggest that if two things differ in some respect they are not analogous, but thats really just a mistake, for them to be disanalogous they need to differ in terms of the properties which were cited to make a difference.
In the case I was refering to the contention was that if two parties dispute, the neutral position is one where a person accepts only what both parties agree with. The point of the analogy is to show that with some disputes thats inaccurate. For this to work we only need to find an example of (a) a dispute (b) where accepting what both parties agree with is not a neutral position.
No of course you don’t agree Matt. I didn’t expect you to. You find them useful for debates and people who use them don’t think they have to demonstrate them to be appropriate to make them valid. And naturally I think your use of this analogy is inaccurate, but it’s entertaining for those who agree with you.
Actually you’ll find discussion of analogies in logic text books and philosophical literature as well Steph, its not just in public debates and entertainment as you suggest.
actually Matt I know that but it doesn’t make them right. If I was really bothered I’d chase up references in similar literature which reject their validity.
Steph thats interesting because I have not come across any logic text which denies the validity of the sort of analogies I suggested, moreover when I was doing my PhD thesis I read widely on Judith Jarvis Thomsons famous violnist analogy. I did not come across one critic of her position who did so on the basis that analogies in ethics are invalid. Some suggested the particular analogy she gave was invalid but no one I came across said analogies were never invalid.
Fair enough, but I didn’t make it up. I owe you some references and that means a trip to the library… and I’ll do that on Tuesday. However I’ll tell you a little secret. I don’t entirely agree with this teaching that analogies are false. I agree that they prove nothing but disagree because they can be useful for illustration. But your analogy of the dinner is flawed. It does not adequately reflect reality – the compromise does not reflect non believers’ morals.
(and it’s actually the mythers that are winding me up;-) with their silly false analogies of biblical scholarship – but they’ll be responded to in a forthcoming book)