Site Loader

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.

Author: Doukree Mazukree
Country: Bhutan
Language: English (Spanish)
Genre: Music
Published (Last): 14 April 2010
Pages: 174
PDF File Size: 20.33 Mb
ePub File Size: 18.31 Mb
ISBN: 858-9-39625-719-9
Downloads: 95692
Price: Free* [*Free Regsitration Required]
Uploader: Tygorisar

But I see no reason to believe that there does not exist some state of the Universe in the past which is itself necessarily existent. In his Summa TheologicaDdebate writes:. Francis of Assisi, when coplseton get an experience that results in an overflow of dynamic and creative love, the best explanation of that it seems to me is the actual existence of an objective cause of the experience. To say that a Necessary Being is a being that must exist and cannot not exist has for me a definite meaning.

The facts arrayed against the premises are vast and there are legitimate concerns over the logic as well. There isn’t any world distinct from the objects which form it, any more than the human race is something apart from the members. Mariano March 20, This final reason for things is called God. Therefore, the series has not a phenomenal cause but a transcendent cause. I should reply to that line of argument that the whole argument from our own mental states to something outside us, is a very tricky affair.

Therefore, the series has not a phenomenal cause but a transcendent cause.

Yes, a being the essence of which is to exist. When he experiments to find out some particular truth, behind that experiment lies the assumption that the universe is not simply discontinuous. To find out more, including how to control cookies, see here: But those points I will leave out for the moment.


January 28, at 3: First of all, I should say, we know that there are at least some beings in the world which do not contain in themselves the reason for their existence.

Personally, I think that your way of accounting for man’s moral judgments leads inevitably to a contradiction between what your theory demands and your own spontaneous judgments.

Therefore, I should say, since objects or events exist, and since no object of experience contains within itself the reason of its existence, this reason, the totality of objects, must have a reason external to itself. This page was last edited on 2 Octoberat The face that they can all see it tends to make them think that it’s not an hallucination: A Being that must exist and cannot not exist, would surely, according to you, be a Being whose essence involves existence.

You think that good and evil have reference simply to feeling? Therefore, not all beings are merely possible, but there must exist something the existence of which is necessary.

Well, I wonder now whether that isn’t simply a temporary inference. Would you agree with me that the problem of God is a problem of great importance?

Copleston–Russell debate

I should rule out the visual appearances, because I think they can be explained apart from the existence of the object which is supposed to be seen. On January 28, the British philosophers F. As we are going to discuss the existence ruwsell God, it might perhaps be as well to come to some provisional agreement as to what we understand by the term “God.

Elements of the cosmological argument go back at least as far as Plato and Aristotle, who held that the universe required a “prime mover” outside of itself. But your general point then, Lord Russell, is that it’s illegitimate even to ask the question of the cause of the world?


Well, I think he does assume or is bound to assume it tacitly in practice. It’s no longer a moral “ought.

Frederick Copleston and Bertrand Russell: A Debate

Degate, I don’t think there’s any meaning in it at all. And then one argues, the essence and existence must be identical. I remember Julian Huxley in some lecture saying that religious experience, or mystical experience, is as much a real experience as falling in love or appreciating poetry and art.

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 copleeton of which can be recognized.

Well, it seems to me that the scientist does make some such assumption. Well, you see, I’m not suggesting that God actually dictates moral precepts to the conscience. It’s a relatively first cause. The experiment may be a bad one, it may lead to no result, or not to the result that he wants, but that at any rate there is the possibility, through experiment, of finding out the truth that he assumes.

Copleston–Russell debate – Wikipedia

Suppose I am about to make a flame with a match. Bertrand Russell and F. Archive All posts by coplestonn. 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.

Undoubtedly the scientist assumes that this sort of thing is likely to be found and will often be found.