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):||24 June 2005|
|PDF File Size:||3.30 Mb|
|ePub File Size:||18.45 Mb|
|Price:||Free* [*Free Regsitration Required]|
We’re hoping to rely on our loyal readers rather than erratic ads.
But surely in the case of the devils there have been people speaking mainly of visions, appearance, angels or demons and so on. Apologetics is a ministry of Defenders Media, c 3 a non-profit organization.
Well, perhaps I might say a word about religious experience, and then we can go on to moral experience. The statement that there isn’t any cause should come, if it comes at all, at the end of the inquiry, not the beginning. In the first place, what do you mean by “modern logic? Russell Debate portion on “Contingency” — note: In his essay ” The Principles of Nature and Grace, Based on Reason,” Leibniz asserts that nothing can exist without a sufficient reason, including the Universe.
And, in fact, only to such as are analytic, that is to say such as it is self-contradictory to deny. I do not believe that adoration of this Force is required.
Made it sadly irrelevant outside of rusell circles. Twentieth-Century Philosophy of Religion: Back to Home Page. The idea of the “ought” as such can never be copkeston to a man by the tribal chief or by anybody else, because there are no other terms in which it could betrrand conveyed.
Classifying Contingency in the Social Sciences: If you are going to call every necessary proposition an analytic proposition, then — in order to copleeton a dispute in terminology — I would agree to call it analytic, though I don’t consider it a tautological proposition. If the word is meaningless, it can’t be so very handy. However, I must say I see little resemblance between the real influence of those books on me and the mystic experience proper, so far, that is, as an outsider can obtain an idea of that experience.
Therefore, we cannot but admit the existence of some being having berrtrand itself its own necessity, and not receiving it from another, but rather causing in others their necessity.
But in another sense he’s loving what he perceives to be a value. History of Western Philosophy. 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. If you add up chocolates you get chocolates after all and not a sheep.
Copleston–Russell debate – Wikipedia
If you had admitted this, we could then have discussed whether that being is personal, good, and so on. The experiment may be a bad one, it may lead to no result, or not to the result that he wants, but that at any rate there is the possibility, through experiment, of finding out the truth that he assumes.
Copleston was a Jesuit priest who believed in God. One such example is here: Well, my point is that what we call the world is intrinsically unintelligible, apart from the existence of God. At any rate it is more reasonable to suppose that he had that experience if we’re willing to accept Porphyry’s account of Plontinus’ general kindness and benevolence.
But, to my mind, a “necessary proposition” has got to be analytic. That appears to you as undesirable and evil and to me too. You would then be influenced by an object that you’d loved, but it wouldn’t be an existing object.
June 3, at And since in any case you won’t get more than probability that’s good enough. Yes, in one sense the man’s loving a phantom — perfectly true. Undoubtedly ruesell scientist assumes that this sort of thing is likely to be found and will often be found.
On the actual point discussed, whether there is or is not a Necessary Being, I find myself, I think in agreement with the great majority of dussell philosophers. Yes, I quite see the distinction.