I’m going to attempt to blog this discussion between Dr. Dallas Willard and Dr. Richard Rorty from Stanford University tonight. The debate is part of the [Veritas Forum](http://veritas.org/Stanford/).
The subject is Authority.
Dr. Willard defines Authority as “A capacity to initiate and direct activites”. He says that it is very important in life, but is often seriously abused. He says that authority, experience, and reason each cause disaster when given supremacy.
Authority can be used to help people, or can force, penalize, or punish people. Or some combination of both.
OED is an authority on the English language. It can help you, but it can’t punish you.
Authority can be natural, arising spontaneously, or constituted, from negotiations.
Authority can be identifiable, or it can be anonymous. Identifiable – pope, Bible, Buddah, etc… Anonymous – “the church,” “research”.
Authority is unavoidable.
Authority on life in general is what concerns us most. Authority in specific fields is not really a problem.
Two main currents of authoritative teaching in our lives, in our culture.
1. Tradition arising out of the Bible and focused on the teachings and person of Jesus.
2. The research tradition. Focused on the sciences and instituted mainly in universities and the professionals around and in them.
The research tradition has almost nothing authoritative to say about the larger questions human beings have a genuine philosophical interest.
1. What is reality?
2. Who is well off?
3. Who is a really good person?
4. How do you get to be a really good person?
The question of reality is fundamental. The other three questions depend on the answer to this one. The research tradition has found no generally convincing way of dealing with this question. There is no such thing as a “Science” that is composed of all the fields of science in the composite. This is an anonymous authority. There have been attempts to dismiss these questions, but these really answer the questions while adding a rider that, “We won’t talk about this.”
He notes that philosophers must be evaluated by what they claim, not what they claim about what they claim.
Moving on to the tradition of Jesus Christ.
“the greatest and most incisive critic of the church has been Jesus himself”
Jesus gives answers to these four questions:
1. Reality exists as God and his kingdom – a spiritual reality in which people can participate. The kingdom is not the church.
2. Anyone alive in the kingdom of God is well off.
3. A person permeated with agape love is a good person.
4. You become a good person by following Jesus.
You cannot be a follower of Jesus and be resistant to truth. The only way authority can be held safely is to have an open spirit of discussion. Laughing someone off or scorn from higher-ups is not an argument. The only way to have safety with authority is to question.
Now Prof. Rorty is coming to the podium
He says that until the 7th or 8th century it was clear that authority consisted of kings and priest. He says that today we believe that if something has resulted from discussion and resulted in consensus then it is legitimate authority.
Questions of authority get problematic when they are not of facts, but are of moralistic principles.
Quotes Pope Benedict XVI saying that there is a dictatorship of relativity. Puts him in opposition to an ‘enlightenment’ view of authority that says all authority is the result of free discussion and consensus.
According to Rorty’s enlightenment tradition, there is no “intrinsic moral evil”. So his question is, should religious people hold their religious belief private, or should they bring it into political discussion. He talks of the “Jeffersonian compromise” that says that anyone can worship however they want, as long as they keep it at home.
The moral question is not what makes us good, but what makes us happy.
How do you choose between the view that there are intrinsic moral evils, and the view that it should only be a matter of human desires. He says the disagreement is too deep for philosophy, but is rather a question of historical knowledge.
Adopting the enlightenment view that authority comes out of free consensus is not an argument for atheism, but is an argument for anti-clericism. You can respect the beliefs of your neighbor, but can desire that they keep their beliefs outside of the sphere of government.
He says that we have found that democracy is a better way to run society, and quotes Willard in saying that, “Jesus would want us to follow the better way.” He proposes that the Jeffersonian compromise is a strengthening of Christianity.
Discussion Time
Rorty starts by asking Willard why the nature of reality has something to do with who is a good person and what you are to do with yourself.
Willard answers that if you do the wrong thing, then you suffer as a result. There are consequences as a result of all of our decisions. He defines reality as that which you run into when you are wrong.
Willard says he is not concerned by the Jeffersonian compromise, but asks how you know how to do it. He asks Rorty, what leads us to believe the debate will lead to something better. What gives us hope in open debate?
Rorty responds that some people look at history and say that the church is our only hope, and some say that we only progressed after church got out of the way.
Opening questions to the audience.
Question to Willard: Where does government fit into the four questions that he asks.
Answer: Government has to act. They have to make decisions based on some authority. They act in time, and this leads some to believe we need authorities to govern decisions, because there is not endless time to discuss. He states that open discussion is great, but that it is painfully absent from most actual discussions.
Question to Rorty: On what basis to you distinguish happiness from goodness?
Answer: He defines goodness in terms of happiness. Rorty said that he was referring to people who impose their definitions of goodness onto others, regardless of happiness.
Question to Willard: How do you chop out some traditions, but not others? What about other religions and secular traditions?
Answer: He discusses that he thinks that the research tradition is derived from philosophy, and that philosophers hide behind the skirts of the sciences. He goes on to acknowledge that there are many other traditions, and that we need to consider them. He works around to addressing the question of keeping religion in the private domain. He says that we should be able to vote for whatever the reason. And points out that things like the “brainless” popular media ends up coloring the discussions. Recommends the book by John Dewey “The Public and It’s Problems” and says that Dewey has no idea how to actually conduct a conversation in society.
Question to Rorty: You want to limit participation in public debate by some based on religion. Why should someone not participate based on strong convictions?
Answer: repeats appeal to history.
Question to Willard: How do you apply teachings of Jesus to social/political questions, specifically gay marriage?
Answer: Teachings of Jesus, through individuals, should be a part of the discussion. They are some of the brightest examples of how to live. Claims that the church at large does not represent the teachings of Jesus. Says that we are in the midst of a “non-discipleship society.” A Christian needs to implement the teachings of Jesus in their own life. The last thing we need to do is to force our views down others’ throats. The business of Christians is to love people.
Question to Rorty: Doesn’t excluding one metaphysical system privilege another metaphysical system?
Answer: Claims that we choose metaphysics based on politics, not vice-versa. Goes on to say that as we focus on happiness, we start to forget metaphysics.
Question to Willard: Do the consequences of some of choice depend on what others believe, and how is reality altered by human beliefs and commitments.
Answer: Human beliefs are a part of reality. But no belief is made true by simply believing it. Says to try it, and if that doesn’t work, start a committee, then get a grant, then start a political party. Two million frenchmen can be wrong. Says that belief is very important, but comes into play by how belief instructs actions.
Question to Rorty: How did you choose to raise your children? Children need an authority, but you claim that we create authority by deciding coming to consensus. But children need authority… So how did you choose how to raise your kids?
Answer: Raising secular liberal kids is much like raising fundamentalist Christian kids. You beat ability to have democratic discourse into them. Just a different end product.
end of discussion.
