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):||18 April 2013|
|PDF File Size:||7.32 Mb|
|ePub File Size:||9.57 Mb|
|Price:||Free* [*Free Regsitration Required]|
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. May I interrupt for a moment here. But there’s no objective criterion outside feeling then for condemning the debatd of the Commandant of Belsen, in your view? No keywords specified fix it.
You say, I think that the universe — or my existence if you prefer, or any other existence — is unintelligible? I’ve argued two things.
You’ve got to take account of the effects of actions and russll feelings toward those effects. Well, I brought in moral obligation russelo I think that one can approach the question of God’s existence in that way.
Well, for clarity’s sake, I’ll divide the argument into distinct stages. I mean a loving, but unclear, awareness of some object which irresistibly seems to the experiencer as something transcending the self, something transcending all the normal objects of experience, something which cannot be pictured or conceptualized, but of the reality of which doubt is impossible — at least during the experience. Back to Philosophy Articles.
I should like to know whether you would accept Leibniz’s division of propositions into truths of reason and truths of fact. Because I see no reason to think there tussell any.
For that assumption I see no ground whatever. When he experiments to find out some particular truth, behind that experiment lies the assumption that the universe is not simply discontinuous.
Copleston–Russell debate – Wikipedia
If the word is meaningless, it can’t be so very handy. That is the question. But the proposition is a necessary proposition only on the supposition that there is a contingent being.
As Copleston would say: Because if God’s essence and God’s existence were not identical, then some sufficient reason for this existence would have to be found beyond God.
Frederick Copleston and Bertrand Russell: A Debate
We know that an animal, if punished habitually for a certain sort of act, after a time will refrain. However, you say, I think, that it is illegitimate to raise the question of what will explain the existence of any particular object. April 21, at 1: But what fascinates me, is that this debate seems significantly deeper than what we typically find in debates in the modern era.
Fiction Free Audio Books: Therefore, not all beings are merely rhssell, but there must exist something the existence of which is necessary.
Perhaps you would tell me if your position is that of agnosticism or of atheism. I’m berrrand that the young man reading about this person and believing him to be real loves him — which is quite easy to happen, and yet he’s loving a phantom.
It’s no longer a moral “ought.
If “behaviorism” were true, there would be no objective moral distinction between the emperor Nero and St. I don’t think he’d say so. History of Western Philosophy. No, it doesn’t, then surely you can’t say it doesn’t exist unless you have a conception of what existence is. You maintain, I think, that existing beings are simply there, and that I have no justification for raising the question of the explanation of their existence. I really don’t see how it can be conveyed to anybody in other terms than itself.
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.
Ruussell see no reason whatsoever to suppose that the total has any cause whatsoever. Therefore, the series has not a phenomenal cause but a transcendent cause. Please remember that I’m not saying that a mystic’s mediation or interpretation of his experience should be immune from discussion or criticism. And I think that is what is meant by “ought. Russell takes exception to Copleston’s use of Leibniz’s concept of a necessary being.
Frederick Copleston and Bertrand Russell: A Debate – Hellenistic Christendom
Yes, certainly if anybody saw Debtae, he would see that God must exist. Without God, there would be nothing to give existence to the chain as a whole. Isn’t it because he’s in the minority?