Slide 2:
Bertrand Russell was a famous sceptic. He rejects the Cosmological Argument
F.C. Coplestone was professor of History of Philosophy who defends the Cosmological Argument.
They famously debated the Cosmological Argument on BBC Radio in 1947. Bertrand Russell’s rejection depends on his conception of the term ‘necessary’, which he says he does not understand, as Copplestone uses it.
Copplestone argues that Russell must understand the term ‘necessary’ as it is used in the CA because he is able to discuss it and dismiss it.
Slide 3:
The great debate – Copleston & Russell, BBC Radio, 1947
Slide 4:
The Cosmological Argument KQ: How powerful is Bertrand Russell’s attack on the CA? “Cause is a kind of sufficient reason. Only contingent beings can have a cause. God is His own sufficient reason, and He is not the cause of Himself.” “I should say that the universe is just there, and that’s all.”
Slide 6:
How powerful is Russell’s critique? Powerful
Russell’s argument that terms such as ‘necessary’ are only meaningful in relation to propositions (not actually existent things) undermines the logic & coherence of the CA. Russell shows that the CA relies on the Ontological conception of God as necessary being, which is problematic.
Russell’s claim that ‘I should say that the universe is just there and that’s all’ points to the fact that we cannot make assertions about events or things that stand outside our ordinary experience with any certainty or even with confidence, and so it would not be rational to develop any beliefs based upon such claims.
Russell’s claim that not all things have a reason to exist is support by modern physics which seems to show that particles can come into and go out of existence without any cause.
Slide 7:
How powerful is Russell’s critique? Not powerful
Russell’s argument that terms such as ‘necessary’ are only meaningful in relation to logical propositions (not actually existent things) seems to suggest that logic is completely separate from reality. However, if this is the case, what is the point of logic?
Russell’s claim that ‘I should say that the universe is just there and that’s all’ seems to suggest that Russell is passive, and ‘giving up’ on the possibility of knowledge, which seems odd for a philosopher.
Just because we cannot perceive the cause of something, doesn’t mean there isn’t a cause. It just means we have limited knowledge and understanding.
Slide 8:
Homework:
Make notes and plan your answer for a timed essay next lesson:
Explain Aquinas’ version of the cosmological argument.
‘I should say that the universe is just there, and that’s all.’ Discuss.