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):||25 March 2016|
|PDF File Size:||3.44 Mb|
|ePub File Size:||2.22 Mb|
|Price:||Free* [*Free Regsitration Required]|
And that seems to me to assume an ordered and intelligible universe. If it is, well and good. It’s my opinion that the perception of values and the consciousness of moral law and obligation are best explained through the hypothesis of a transcendent ground of value and of an author of the moral law.
Well, I can’t find anything that they could mean. Apologetics is a ministry of Defenders Media, c 3 a non-profit organization. You don’t mean bertrandd To read a transcript of the entire debate, click here to open the text in a new window. We know that an animal, if punished habitually for a certain sort of act, after a time will refrain.
Well, you say, I believe, that it is bad grammar, or rather bad syntax to say for example “T. That is the question. 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. Science Logic and Mathematics. What I’m doing is russekl look for the reason, in this case the cause of the objects — the real or imagined totality of which constitute russelp we call the universe. Made it sadly bertrad outside of academical circles.
Basically, it is not that who speaks the most wins. 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.
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. Because I see no reason to think there is any. An adequate explanation must ultimately be a total explanation, to which nothing further can be added. January 28, at 3: This article has no associated abstract.
I can only take what is recorded as I should take other records and I do find that a very great many things are reported, and I am sure you would not accept things about demons and devils and what not — and they’re reported in exactly the same tone of voice and with exactly the same conviction.
I see no reason whatsoever to suppose that the total has any cause copelston. You would then be influenced co;leston an object that you’d loved, but it wouldn’t be an existing object. 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.
Frederick Copleston and Bertrand Russell: A Debate
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. That seems to me to be a very good plan. That sounds well but isn’t in fact correct. I think that Professor Dingle, of London Berrtrand, maintains that the Heisenberg uncertainty principle tells us something about the success or the lack of it of the present atomic theory in correlating observations, but not about nature in itself, and many physicists would accept this view. If it is not, then we must proceed further.
To support Open Culture’s continued operation, please bertraand making a donation.
Copleston–Russell debate – Wikipedia
berttand The actual basic experience at any rate is most easily explained on the hypotheses that there is actually some objective cause of that experience. He admits the experience is something inexpressible, the object is an object of love, and therefore, not an object that causes horror and disgust. Would you agree — provisionally at least — to accept this statement as the meaning of the term “God”? Well, you see, I’m not suggesting that God actually dictates moral precepts to the conscience.
I think the word “contingent” inevitably suggests the possibility of something that wouldn’t have this what you might call accidental character of just being there, and I don’t think is true except int he purely causal sense.
The proposition that metaphysical terms are meaningless seems to me to be a proposition based on an assumed philosophy.
Frederick Copleston and Bertrand Russell: A Debate – Hellenistic Christendom
Therefore, not all copeston are merely possible, but there must cooleston something the existence of which is necessary. I think — there seems to me a certain unwarrantable extension here; the physicist looks for causes; that does not necessarily imply that there are causes everywhere.
The facts arrayed against the premises are vast and there are legitimate concerns over the logic as well. Who am I, were am i going, what’s the meaning of life, is there a God? Well, this being is either itself the reason for its own existence, or it is not.
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.
But it is impossible that there should be valid grounds for admitting A, which are not also grounds for admitting B. In any coplestonn, I don’t see how physicists can fail to accept the theory in practice, even if they don’t do so in theory. But I don’t know that there are.
By sufficient reason in the full sense I mean an explanation adequate for the existence of some particular being. I can’t prove that the things are not yellow, there isn’t any proof, but most people agree with him that they’re not yellow, and most people agree with me that the Commandant coplesto Belsen was making mistakes.
This raises a great many points and it’s not altogether easy to know where to begin, but I think that, perhaps, in answering your argument, the best point with which to begin is the question of a Necessary Rusaell. 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.
Intelligible, to my mind, is a different thing. In one sense he’s loving a phantom that’s perfectly true, in the sense, I mean, that he’s loving X or Y who doesn’t exist. 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. Theological and Philosophical Approaches to the Problem of Contingency.