Russell and Copleston Debate Flashcards
The debate starts off with the two agreeing on a definition of God, which is…
“a supreme personal Being - distinct from the world and Creator of the World”
What are the overall positions they take throughout this debate?
Copleston: “such a Being actually exists, and that His existence can be proved philosophically”
Russell: agnostic (the universe is a “brute fact”)
Firstly, what does the argument centre on?
Why we should accept Leibniz’s principle of sufficient reason and whether there is a reason/explanation for everything
How does Copleston link Leibniz’s sufficient reason principle and Aquinas’ third way to the idea of contingency?
Since everything in the world is contingent, in order to have a total explanation - we have to refer to a non-contingent being that doesn’t depend on anything (therefore is God) [rejects infinite regress]
For Copleston’s argument of contingency, how does he ask us to view the world?
A set of objects which do not contain within themselves the answer for their own existence (example of parents as child and depending on food).
Copleston claims that we an compare the dependency of human beings to the dependency of the universe. What does Russell argue against this?
He accuses Copleston of the fallacy of composition. To talk about the cause of the universe as a whole is meaningless.
What does this proposition mean from Copleston: “If there is a contingent being then there is a necessary being”
This is a necessary proposition as it relies on the supposition that there is a contingent being.
On the other hand, what does Russell argue against Copleston regarding necessary beings?
The word ‘necessary’ is useless unless applied to analytic statements.
Russell suggests that terms Copleston uses are brought back to the ontological argument. Why does this seem impossible for him?
For Russell, existence is not a predicate.
