All posts by Wintery Knight

https://winteryknight.com/

Opening speeches from the Flannagan-Bradley debate on morality

Details of the debate.

Raymond Bradley and Matthew Flannagan will debate the topic “Is God the Source of Morality? Is it rational to ground right and wrong in commands issued by God?”

Bradley is an Emeritus Professor of Philosophy with areas of specialty in Philosophical Logic, Metaphysics, Logical Atomism; he has previously debated William Lane Craig, Edward Blaiklock and many other Christian scholars and describes himself as an older generation “new atheist”.

Matthew FlannaganFlannagan is an Auckland based Philosopher and Theologian with areas of specialty in Philosophy of Religion, Ethics and Theology; he has previously debated Bill Cooke, Zoe During and, of course, writes for this blog.

Matt posted both opening speeches on the MandM blog.

Opening speech by Ray Bradley.

Excerpt:

I’m going to indict God on four categories of charges. Each category has scores, if not hundreds or thousands of instances. If God is guilty of even one of these instances, that alone would be grounds for his conviction. Drawing upon evidence provided by God himself in his so-called Holy Scriptures, I hold that he’s guilty of them all.

  • Crimes against Humanity
  • War Crimes
  • Licensing Moral Mayhem and Murder
  • Crimes of Torture

Matt went second and responded to this argument.

Opening speech by Matthew Flannagan.

Matt defends a divine command theory of morality and he has 3 responses to Ray:

  • The theist can deny that the Biblical record of what God did is infallible
  • God’s moral duties are for humans, they are not necessarily binding on God
  • Ray misinterprets the meaning and applicability of the Bible stories he cites

I recommend reading the two opening speeches now so you’re ready for when the full video comes out. Brian Auten of Apologetics 315 tells me that he has asked for the video and it should be posted soon. I will link to the video when it comes out.

Flannagan is awesome and you need to start to get familiar with him even though he is in New Zealand. He’s basically the William Lane Craig of New Zealand, and probably that whole area of the world. I don’t know any Australian scholars who are as capable as Matt. I must mention though that I do disagree with him on annihilationism, the view he articulates in this debate.

UPDATE: The audio has now been posted. (H/T Jason from Thinking Matters NZ)

Further study

And here is a blog post on Ray Bradley written by another New Zealander, theistic philosopher Glenn Peoples. Glenn’s post is short and to the point – he excerpts the main argument from a post by Bradley against the moral argument and shows why it has no force.

And you can read more about William Lane Craig’s debate with Ray Bradley on Hell, too.

Friday night funny: Brad Stine talks about political correctness

Christian comedian Brad Stine is not pleased with people who get offended.

Oversensitive witches

Animal rights activists

Chopsticks and multiculturalism

And he’s conservative, too.

Poll shows that Canadians are uninformed about abortion law

Unborn baby scheming about CCBR

Story from Life News. (H/T Mary)

Excerpt:

A new poll of Canadians finds they are very uninformed about abortion law in Canada and are unaware that abortions are allowed throughout pregnancy for any reason. That’s the finding from an online survey of 1,022 Canadian adult conducted by the Angus-Reid polling firm.

The survey found just 21 percent of Canadians know a woman can request an abortion at any time during her pregnancy, with no restrictions whatsoever.

Conversely, 41 percent of Canadians are under the impression abortions are only available to women during the first three months of pregnancy.

[…]A majority of Canadians (55%) think women under the age of 18 should require consent from their parents or legal guardians to get an abortion while just 32 percent disagree.

Also, half of respondents (50%) believe women should be given enough access to information about different options such as counseling and adoption before having an abortion while 31 percent disagree.

And a large majority, 79 percent, would support provincial legislation requiring health workers give information about alternatives to abortion to pregnant women.

Abortion and health care have been a huge topic for debate in the United States and 44 percent of Canadians believe abortions should be funded under the taxpayer-financed health care system. Another 39 percent say abortion funding should be limited to emergency cases.

Although most Canadians (55%) think there is no point in re-opening the debate on abortion in the country, three-in-ten respondents (30%) believe it is time to re-open the discussion.

The pro-lifers in Canada (CCBR) have their work cut out for them to inform people about the law, and I think there is room for the federal Conservative Party and the Alberta Wild Rose Alliance to introduce some common sense regulation on abortion – like requiring health workers to provide information about alternatives.