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):||19 June 2017|
|PDF File Size:||12.40 Mb|
|ePub File Size:||5.25 Mb|
|Price:||Free* [*Free Regsitration Required]|
Well, I think the sense of “ought” is the effect of somebody’s imagined disapproval, it may be God’s imagined disapproval, but it’s somebody’s imagined disapproval.
Simon Hewitt – – New Blackfriars 99 Can Russell win any relevant debate? The vast majority of the human race will make, and always have made, some distinction between right and wrong.
I think it’s an important part of philosophy, and when I say that, I don’t find a meaning for this or that word, that is a position of detail based upon what I’ve found out about that particular word, from thinking about it. And that existence, in fact, quite definitely is not a predicate.
But very many scientists are not so willing. A Debate on the Existence of God: Well, this being is either itself the reason for its own existence, or it is not.
Frederick Copleston and Bertrand Russell: A Debate
You know, as well as I do, that the existence of neither of us can be explained without reference to something or somebody outside us, our parents, for example. It has a coplestln vice, in that it starts from finite existence as its datum, and admitting this to be contingent, it proceeds to infer an existent which is not contingent.
Find it on Scholar. A Being that must exist and cannot not exist, would surely, according to you, be a Being whose rkssell involves existence. Perhaps you would tell me if your position is that of agnosticism or of atheism. Koons – – American Philosophical Quarterly 34 2: You’ve got to take account of the effects of actions and your feelings toward those effects.
Frederick Copleston vs. Bertrand Russell | Apologetics
The same is true when the physicists look for causes. And that seems to me to assume an ordered and intelligible universe. That is, of beings no one of which can account for its own existence. I don’t by copleeton means regard logic as all philosophy. Then you have to say one or other of two things. Why stop at one particular object?
Undoubtedly the scientist assumes that this sort of thing debatf likely to be found and will often be found. I think this is the right question to ask.
What is my justification for distinguishing between blue and yellow? The idea of the “ought” as such can never be conveyed to a man by the tribal chief or by anybody else, because there are no other terms in which it could be conveyed. But I should not be willing to argue the existence of God copoeston from the idea of His essence because I don’t think we bertrane any clear intuition of God’s essence as yet.
But still I agree that the validity of such an interpretation of a man’s conduct depends on the recognition of God’s existence, obviously. Roughly speaking, yes, though I should ruszell to place some limitation on your last clause. Every man who exists has a mother, and it seems to me your argument is that therefore the human race must have a mother, but obviously the human race hasn’t a mother — that’s a different logical sphere.
Whether he was an agnostic or atheist is a question he had addressed before; while technically agnostic with regard to the Christian God, as with the Greek Gods, to all intents and purposes he can be considered an atheist. November 18, at 1: Something does exist; therefore, there must be something which accounts for this fact, a being which is outside the series of contingent beings. But the possibility of criticizing the accepted moral code presupposes that there is an objective standard, and there is an ideal moral order, which imposes itself I mean the obligatory character of which can be recognized.
Apologetics is a ministry of Defenders Media, c 3 a non-profit organization. I think logic is an essential part of philosophy and logic has to be used in philosophy, and in that I think he and I are at one.
Bertrand Russell & F. C. Copleston, A debate on the argument from contingency – PhilPapers
Xunwu Chen – – Asian Philosophy 21 3: But your general point then, Lord Russell, is that it’s illegitimate even to ask the question of the cause of the world? That seems to be an experience of the same sort as mystics’ experience of God, and I don’t seek that from what mystics tell us you can get any argument for God which is not equally an bergrand for Satan.
You may say that the world has no cause; but I fail to see how you can say that the proposition that “the cause of the world exists” is meaningless. I don’t say, of course, that God is the sum-total or system of what is good in the pantheistic sense; I’m not a pantheist, but I do think that all goodness reflects God in some way and proceeds from Russeol, so that in a sense the man who loves russsll is truly good, loves God even if he doesn’t advert to God.
It may be that the scientist doesn’t hope to obtain more than probability, but in raising the question he assumes that the question of explanation has a meaning. Yes, a being the essence of which is to exist. There are plenty of terrestrial law-givers to account for it, and that would explain why people’s consciences are so amazingly different in different times and places.
The former — the truths of reason — being necessary. Nowadays it’s become old and respectable, and you don’t have to make so much fuss about it. October 31, at 8: As regards the xebate argument, I do find that when one studies anthropology or history, there are people who think it their duty to perform acts which I think abominable, and I certainly can’t, therefore, attribute Divine origin to the matter of moral obligation, which Father Copleston doesn’t ask bertrajd to; but I think even the form of moral obligation, when it takes the form of enjoining you to eat your father or what not, doesn’t seem to me to be such a very beautiful and noble thing; and, therefore, I cannot attribute a Divine origin to this sense of moral obligation, which I think is quite easily accounted for in quite other ways.
In fact, all the propositions that can be analytic are somewhat late in the build-up of propositions.