A comparison between a critic of religion and a religious believer Flashcards
Give a background to the debate
In 1948, a radio debate was held between religious believer Francis copleston and agnostic Bertrand Russell. The debate began with the men agreeing to define god as ‘a supreme being, distinct from the world and the creator of the world.’
What is the first point on the argument from contingency?
Why should we accept the principle of sufficient reason? Copleston argues that there has to be sufficient reason for everything and as everything is the world is continent, to give it sufficient reason, we need to get back to something that is not contingent. A necessary, uncaused being which is contained outside of the world- god. Russell asks why we should accept such a being.
What is the second point on the argument from contingency?
The analogy of the dependency of individual beings to the dependency of the universe- can we compare the two as Copleston does, or is this the fallacy of composition?
What is Copleston’s argument from contingency based on?
Aquinas’ 3rd way from contingency and the principle of sufficient reason. 1. Imagine the world as a set of objects which don’t contain within them the reason for their own existence. 2. The universe is the totality of individual objects, none of which can explain themselves. 3. As no object contains the reason for its existence, there must be an external reason beyond the universe, itself uncaused. 4. This is god and he is a necessary being.
What does Copleston say about a necessary being?
“If there is a contingent being then there is a necessary being” is a necessary proposition as it relies on the supposition that there is a necessary being. We can discover through experience that contingent beings exist, so if you agree that there’s a contingent being, you must also accept a necessary being.
How does Russell respond to the idea of a necessary being and how does Copleston react?
‘Necessary’ is useless unless applied to analytic statements. Copleston responds by saying that they both know what a contingent being is, so also understand what a necessary being is. Russell may deny its existence, but must admit that he understands ‘necessary’ and ‘contingent’.
What is the argument of existence VS essence?
Copleston is accused of using terms to define god that make him into a being whose essence involves his existence, but existence is not a predicate. Copleston defends this by saying that if god’s existence and essence were not identical, we would have to find sufficient reason for god’s existence beyond god.
What is the question at the heart of the debate?
‘What is the universe’ for copleston, this is ‘the real or imagined totality of objects’ for which he is looking for the reason. Russell says that the universe is simply without explanation.
What is the universe for Copleston?
Something which can’t be explained without god, infinite regress is a fallacy as an infinite regress of contingent things is not sufficient reason for the universe.
What does Russell say about the universe?
- Russell asserts that we get our idea of cause from our observation of things, which does not give us reason to support the idea that the total has a cause. 2. He says that copleston is guilty of the fallacy of composition, just because things in the universe have causes, does not mean the universe does.
How does Copleston respond to this?
The universe can’t be necessary as it’s made from contingent things, so has a cause outside of itself- Russell points out that physicists have suggested that some atoms have no cause, it could be that the universe “just is.”
What is the debate about physicists had by the pair?
Copleston- physicists may argue in theory that some atoms have no cause, but in practice they do think that objects have causes because science is all about investigating the causes of events.
Russell- just because a physicist looks for a cause does not mean causes are everywhere and a scientist conducting an experiment does not assume that everything has a cause.
How does Copleston describe a religious experience?
‘A loving but unclear awareness of something which irresistibly seems to transcend the self.’ He says that in the cases of people like Francis of Assisi, these are best explained by the actual existence of god.
How does Russell respond to the argument from religious experience?
‘I’ve had experiences that have altered my character profoundly…those experiences were important, but did not involve the existence of anything outside of me.’
What does Russell say about Satan?
The argument Copleston uses to prove god could just have easily be used to prove Satan, Copleston asks why this would be an issue. He also points out that people don’t tend to have religious experiences of Satan.
