Fr. Frederick C. Copleston vs Bertrand Russell – Part 1
BBC Radio Third Programme Recording January 28, 1948. BBC Recording number T7324W. This is an excerpt from the full broadcast from cassette tape A303/5 Open University Course, Problems of Philosophy Units 7-8. Older than 50 years, out of UK/BBC copyright.
Pardon the hissy audio. It was recorded 51 years ago after all. I tried to clean it up but I found that the voices were clearer without any filters. Meh.
This is an excerpt from the famous BBC Radio debate between Father Frederick C. Copleston and Bertrand Russell. In this section, they discuss Leibniz’s Argument from Contingency, which is a form of the Cosmological Argument. It differs from other Cosmological arguments (e.g. Kalam) in that it is consistent with an eternal universe, as it doesn’t appeal to first causes, but rather the principle of sufficient reason. It can be summarized in this way:
(1) Everything that exists contingently has a reason for its existence.
(2) The universe exists contingently.
Therefore:
(3) The universe has a reason for its existence.
(4) If the universe has a reason for its existence then that reason is God.
Therefore:
(5) God exists.
For a transcript of the debate (including other topics discussed), follow this link:
http://evans-experientialism.freewebspace.com/copleston.htm
You can download the audio here:
http://www.archive.org/details/DebateOnTheExistenceOfGodBertrandRussellV.Fr.FrederickCopleston
Don’t forget to comment, rate and subscribe.
Duration : 0:9:20
[youtube -BWFpBTqSN0]
They are arguing …
They are arguing over one key idea: If God exists, did he create himself? If he did then that is a sufficient reason for everything else. If God did not create himself, then there is probably an infinity of causes, but it’s not necessarily so. In either case, these ideas cannot be tested in the field or in a laboratory. So, they are, and must remain speculative ideas for us, without any final proof one way or the other. Either Russell or Copleston would be a formidable opponent in any debate!!
Copleston is …
Copleston is amazing. His History of Philosophy is a labor of love and perseverance–I’m so thankful we have it!
Russell, however, obviously won the debate.
Having listened to …
Having listened to this, I find my self thinking that Bertrand Russell is something of a genius… thanks for uploading.
The universe around …
The universe around us is the cause of an infinite regression of causes. Once again Copleston hits the brick wall where he cannot come to address Russell’s argument on the grounds of his committed faith.
However the protracted debate over the religious terminology of ‘contingency’ and ‘necessity’ seem to litter the debate with allegations of ‘wordplay’. The crooks of the argument, is simply that God cannot be empirically proven, therefore – in support of Russell – remains synthetic.
Copleston’s …
Copleston’s arguments, while more polished than todays believers, is still lacking in substance. All these vague references to a being who has in itself its own reason for existence solves nothing. It is just a better package for the same bullshit Ken Hovind spews forth today. It is also amazing that they pretend to be logical, yet go on to make the jump from their ill formed conclusions to a belief in a specific anthropomorphized deity. Nice try at countering infinite regression though, lol.
You’re welcome. And …
You’re welcome. And good luck!
this is perfect as …
this is perfect as im doing my AS RE exam tomorrow..thanks for uploading
… Exactly! * …
… Exactly! *points*
the universe, with …
the universe, with its sentience, is a necessary thing. because nothing cannot exist.
Keep guessing.
Keep guessing.
Rated from 1 to 5 …
Rated from 1 to 5 stars, how well did I fare? Or do you think that by replying to this comment, you will somehow concede to my interpretation of your ending remark?
Keep trying.
Keep trying.
Your last reply …
Your last reply rephrased:
“I have no rebuttal to your demand for evidence to the veracity of my claim, so instead, I will now immediately end the conversation, in an effort to maintain my compartmentalized and dissonate mind; and in the process move the attention away from my own disingenuous ways, by way projection.”
So, how did you like my interpretation?
This debate seemed …
This debate seemed to be a conversation about semantics; they didn’t seem to directly address the existence of a god as much as they were discussing the definitions of the words used to postulate his existence.
I’m unfortunately at a layman’s level when it comes to this sort of thing so I didn’t get much out of it.
Oh awesome I’ve …
Oh awesome I’ve been looking for a recording of this for a long time! Thanks.
the reason for an …
the reason for an existence must be another existence!? how was it observed in our experience?! we see one event after another but never one existence “causing” the existence of the other!!
He explained it: …
He explained it: all beings are contingent and contingent beings cannot be a cause of themselves. In order for contingent beings to exist a necessary being is a logical must.
Merry Christmas, …
Merry Christmas, Timmy!
Oh my god!!!! Thank …
Oh my god!!!! Thank you:)
Yes. It is the …
Yes. It is the first entry in the Related Video section, and I put an annotation in Part 1 at around the 9 minute mark with a link to Part 2. Alternatively, you could go to my channel and view my uploads list.
is there a part 2?
is there a part 2?
@ mendoncacorreia – …
@ mendoncacorreia – I don’t want to hurt your feelings. If you really think what I’m saying is not true than fine. I think it is true and I can prove it FROM your words.
If it isn’t then denounce endless suffering for the evil that it is. Denounce it and prove me wrong.
@PostITnoteGUY: – I …
@PostITnoteGUY: – I don’t admit from you or anyone else the preposterous accusation that I’m threatening people with the possibility of sufferings.
The wild conjectures you have been drawing from my own words denounce you as a deeply dishonest person.
For that reason, I’m going to put an end to this dialogue right away. I’m in ‘YouTube’ to entertain and enlighten myself – not to be bored by liars like you.
@mend – Your …
@mend – Your doctrines are as irrelevant to me as the doctrines of the other thousands of religions or 33 thousand denominations of Christianity. Unless that is you can show that there’s any truth to them what so ever.
The point IS that you threaten people with the possibility of suffering if they don’t share your beliefs and you not only refuse to condemn this evil but you defend it as just. You KNOW the concept of endless suffering is evil.
BTW I received my education in a Catholic school.
@PostITnoteGUY: – …
@PostITnoteGUY: – Judging for your last comments, you simply don’t know what you are talking about.
For your information, to say that non-believers in good faith are condemned to is against – I repeat: against!… – long and well established Catholic Doctrine.
I strongly advise you to ackowledge the basics – at least, the basics!… – of this Doctrine before you venture on further criticisms about it.