5.2 Work of scholars: comparison between Russell and Copelston Flashcards
Who was Bertrand Russell?
- Autocrat
- Logical positivist- only cognitive language matters
- agnostic
Takes on role of athiest in debate
Who was Frederick Copelston?
- Jesuit priest
Takes on role of theist in debate
What are the different sections and arguments of the debate?
- Definition of God
- Argument from contingency- rejects infinite regression
- Argument from contingency- fallacy of composition
- Religious experience
what is a contingent being?
A being wich depends on something for its existence
What is a necessary being?
A being which must exist, self caused
What is religious experience?
Experience of the divine
- supports POSR
- supports contingency
What are the key ideas of Richard Swinburne?
- Occam’s razor (God simplest explanation)
- a complete explanation is required
What are the key ideas of Gottfried Liebniz?
- Rejects infinite regression
- POSR
- Everthying that exists requires an explanation, that explanation is God
What is the argument for the existence of God from contingency?
- All beings are contingent, requiring another being to cause them
- This cannot continue forever, there must be a necessary being
What is the argument for the Existence of God from religious experience?
- An experience of something which is believed to come from a source external to the person who experiences it
- Therefore, this external force must exist as there has been experience of it
a posteriori
What are the strengths of the contingency argument posed by Copelston?
- meaningful talk of necessary existence
- experience of cause
- agrees with Liebniz that everything must have sufficient reason for its own existence
What are the weaknesses of the contingency argument posed by Russell?
- Rejects ‘necessary’ and ‘contingent’ beings
- Fallacy of composition
- Limited experience of the world
How does Copelston argue from contingency?
- every object in the univese is dependent- a reason external from itself
- C gave example of existence dependent on parents
- C nothing is self-contained
What does Russell believe about contingency?
- rejects existence of necessary and contingent beings
- Uses fallacy of composition- just because something has a cause does not mean the universe has a cause
“the universe does not have a mother”
What is Copelston’s agrument from religious experience?
‘a loving but unclear awareness of some object which irresistably seems to the experiencer as something transcending the self’
- Doesn’t think that RE is a good argument for God’s existence, but that God as the transcendent force in RE makes sense to Copelston (thinks its weak but argues it for the sake of the debate)
What is a way RE is proved?
mentioned in the set text
Life changes/ changes in behaviour are good evidence for RE
How does Russell criticise the argument from RE?
- Says that truth of what actually happened in RE is highly subjective
- Great works of fiction can cause life changing behaviour e.g people committing suicide over japenese literature
- RE can be from an external source, no proof the source is God
What is the verdict for the debate on contingency proving the existence of God and why?
No clear winner- reach an impasse
* Can’t agree on ‘necessary being’ having meaning
* Can’t agree if everything in the universe has a cause
* Can’t agree on why there is something rather than nothing
What is the verdict for the debate on RE proving the existence of God and why?
Russell wins- both agree argument is weak
* C thinks genuine RE is objectively caused by God. R thinks RE are too subjective
* C thinks life change is good evidence. R thinks lots of things can change your life e.g fiction
What other arguments for God’s existence does this debate mention?
Ontological
Cosmological
