‘Thy hand Great Dullness lets the curtain fall
And Universal Darkness covers all’

I haven’t got answers and Jeannie didn’t get an apology. Although you did say you were ‘sorry’ that she felt the way she did and that your comments could have been clearer. You say also, that along with others, the fault is with her. She has misunderstood you. Further that should she wish to explore this vitally important and highly technical point, she should consult another website! Great advice for someone who has just told you that she ……well read her comment again. As Jeannie points out, ‘clarity’ was never the problem: hubris was.

Now let’s have a careful look at the analogy you used in response to my question about Russell. Analogy as we know rarely works well but I really can’t understand why you chose this one. It seems to illustrate my point rather than the one you make. (Though I’m not quite sure what your point is. Is it the Job story of incoprehensibility? If so, then like Job, Russell is certainly not culpable)

Let me try to explain why I think your analogy is badly chosen.

If I believe I am safe to cross the road and I have taken some steps to ensure that indeed it does seem safe for me to cross, (looking both ways, taking due care, not running – otherwise I have no basis for my belief), then indeed I may cross the road. This seems reasonably close to Russell’s position. Actually even if I am preoccupied, or dreaming or depressed (..oops!) it doesn’t alter the argument. Morality simply isn’t involved. I think you must agree that Russell’s judgement was made after a great deal of careful thought. As far as we know Russell seems to have been a just, compassionate and loving person. Certainly people who knew him testify to that and ironically the only immorality would have been in his pretending to believe.

If whilst crossing the road, the bus runs into me, it seems that I might have been wrong. I might have made a mistake. Whatever has happened I am not MORALLY culpable. There is nothing MORAL about crossing the road. Neither, by analogy, is Russell MORALLY culpable. This is why, weak that it is, your analogy helps my argument not yours. We would never say people knocked down by a bus DESERVED it would we? We just couldn’t say that somehow they had been ethically or morally wrong. Well most people wouldn’t, even if the person concerned was intending to get hurt or worse. Much less would we go on to punish them or think it right that other people should.

The real weakness of the analogy is that it allows for other reasons for the accident. These could be the state of the bus (eg brake failure) or the state of the road, blind bends, faulty streetlighting, weather conditions, parked cars or obstructions causing poor visibility. It could be the fault of a deranged driver! None of these has anything to do with me. I’m just the one who has been hit. (I’m warming to this analogy. In fact I’m beginning to like it a lot!)

Generally analogies aren’t used very well, though I know they are much-loved, are over-used and over-stretched (as I have just illustrated.) Preachers of all persuasions seem do it all the time. They are best avoided!!

Looking forward to the answers for paper 1

‘feeling and intellectual thought are processed by our brain’. Are you quite sure of this!! How did the philosophy of mind manage so long without this little gem? (Initially you said feelings rested on rationality: now you seem to be saying they are the same thing – ‘both rational!)

I said NOTHING about a soul! I’ve said several times the Cartesian split is unhelpful even though it figures large in historical and contemporary Christianity. (Ironically in evangelical Christianity in particular!)

STILL NOT A SINGLE ANSWER!

‘You are talking about “our values” I am talking about “values” ‘
Where DO you get them from? (I mean these sorts of statement not ‘values’) How has the philosophy of ethics managed without this distinction for so long?

I understand ‘justice’ to be one of ‘our’ values. I assume it is a value that you (and I) would attach to God. Now of course the ability to ‘arrive’ at a ‘just’ outcome is hampered by all sorts of things and is almost always imperfect. But this has nothing to do with the value, qua value! This is almost pure Platonism. Good enough for St Augustine, Murdoch and Tillich but not for Mark Barnes!

You saved the best one for last!

Please tell me how you can separate ‘What is right and wrong?’ from ‘How do I decide what is right and wrong?’ Now this really is a gem! Do you still think morals can be codified? Please answer this if nothing else.

Any answers at all will be welcome. Still haven’t had one about Russell. I wonder where you think he is now? You don’t do you?

(1) As far as we are able to tell, every ‘feeling’ and ‘intellectual thought’ is processed by our brain. In that sense feelings and thoughts are both entirely rational. Even admitting a soul into the equation does not change things, as body/mind/soul we are sufficiently ‘integrated’ for them to be inseparable in life.

(2) You are talking about ‘our values’. I am talking about ‘values’. Those are two entirely different conversations. I am asking “what is right and wrong”. You are asking “how do I decide what is right and wrong”. IF God defines by his character what is ‘immoral’ and ‘moral’, then what I feel about morality is frankly irrelevant. I might feel safe crossing the road, but that won’t help me if a number 29 bus runs into me.