On January 28, the British philosophers F.C. Copleston and Bertrand Russell squared off on BBC radio for a debate on the existence of. Abstract, This article has no associated abstract. (fix it). Keywords, No keywords specified (fix it). Categories. Bertrand Russell in 20th Century Philosophy. Here is the famous debate on the existence of God between Frederick Copleston and Bertrand Russell. The link gives you the transcript of the.
|Published (Last):||22 February 2005|
|PDF File Size:||19.76 Mb|
|ePub File Size:||8.49 Mb|
|Price:||Free* [*Free Regsitration Required]|
The infinity of the series of contingent beings, even if proved, would be irrelevant. Either God only speaks to a very small percentage coplezton mankind — which happens rusdell include yourself — or He deliberately says things are not true in talking to the consciences of savages. But surely in the case of the devils there have been people speaking mainly of visions, appearance, angels or demons and so on.
He does not assume that it will be found, and that’s a very important matter in modem physics. If you had admitted this, bdrtrand could then have discussed whether that being is personal, good, and so on. The fact that we gain our knowledge of causality empirically, from particular causes, does not rule out the possibility of asking what the cause of the series is [ … ] Russell: And that seems to me to assume an ordered and intelligible universe.
Russell however found both arguments unconvincing. As we are going to discuss the existence of God, it might perhaps be as well to come to some provisional agreement as to what we understand by the term “God. Yes, a being the essence of which bertranv to exist.
Copleston–Russell debate – Wikipedia
Back to Home Page. The moral law, for example, is always changing. Well, my position is the affirmative position that such a Being actually exists, and that His existence can be proved philosophically. Russell Debate portion on “Contingency” — note: Pinging is currently not allowed.
I mean, I think people can make mistakes cpoleston that as they can in other things. The debate between Copleston and Russel would typify the arguments presented between theists and atheists in the later half of the 20th century, with Russell’s approach often used by atheists in the late 20th century.
Well, Cipleston don’t see that differences in particular moral judgments are any conclusive argument against the universality of the moral law.
Well, to say that there isn’t any cause is not the same thing as saying that we shouldn’t look for a cause.
Well, do you rebate any moral obligation?
Bertrand Russell on YouTube. By Brian Auten on March 19, at 7: Moreover, your theory explains moral obligation away, and explaining away is not explanation.
I mean, the explanation of one thing is another thing which makes the other thing dependent on yet another, and you have to grasp this sorry scheme of things entire to do what you want, and that we can’t do. Therefore, I should dwbate, since objects or events exist, and since no object of experience contains within itself the reason of its existence, [ … ] the totality of objects must have a reason external to itself.
As for things not having a cause, the physicists assure us that russell quantum transitions in atoms have no cause. But as the premiss is contingent, the conclusion also must be contingent. Yes, I agree, some scientists — physicists — are willing to allow for indetermination within a restricted field. I should like to know whether you would accept Leibniz’s division of propositions into truths of reason and truths of fact.
Moreover, the statement that the world is simply there if in answer to a question, presupposes that the question has meaning. What do you say — shall we pass on to some other issue?
But I do not think that people have claimed to have experienced Satan in the precise way in which mystics claim to have experienced God. At one period in the development of the human race, almost everybody thought cannibalism was a duty.
Frederick Copleston and Bertrand Russell: A Debate
Would you agree — provisionally at least — to accept this statement as the meaning of the term “God”? So if you add up contingent beings to infinity, you still get contingent beings, not a Necessary Being. The term “necessary,” he argues, can only be applied to analytic propositions –propositions which are derived logically and which would be self-contradictory to deny. Bertranf March 20, Of course, a subjectivist explanation is possible in the case of certain people in whom there is little relation between the experience and life, in the case of deluded people and hallucinated people, and so on.
Yes, that’s my position. I maintain the meaninglessness of certain particular terms debtae not on any general ground, but simply because I’ve not been able to see an interpretation of those particular terms.
At any rate it is more reasonable to suppose that he had that experience if we’re willing to accept Porphyry’s account of Plontinus’ general kindness and benevolence.
The whole concept of cause is one we derive from our observation of particular things; I see no reason whatsoever to suppose that the total has any cause whatsoever. But every necessary thing has its necessity caused by another, or not. The word “necessary” I should maintain, can only be applied significantly to propositions.