The Copleston,
Russell Debate
Copleston’s Cosmological
argument (1948 BBC radio
debate)
Copleston Vs. Russell
• Think of this debate as a game of chess.
• Both philosophers are trying to use their intellect to
‘win’ the argument.
• Copleston’s argument is based on a combination of
Aquinas’ 3rd way and Leibniz’s principle of sufficient
reason.
• The argument is about trying to establish dependency
in the universe.
• Russell wants to drag Copleston into an ontological
debate.
Jargon Busting
• These individual are 2 very proficient
philosophers. Some of their terminology can
appear scary at first. Once you break the ideas
down it is much easier to understand.
• The next slides are designed to be read side by
side with the Copleston/Russell debate.
• The key principle is to break down the jargon to
give you a clearer understanding of what on
earth these two talking about!
Jargon Busting
• Russell’s agnosticism – Russell is (in practise) an
atheist but because he cannot PROVE the nonexistence of God he submits to being an agnostic so
as not to lose early ground on Copleston (C: …would
you say that the non-existence of God can be proved?
R: No, I should not say that: my position is agnostic.).
• Russell has argued previously that because we cannot
disprove the existence of God that we cannot truly be
an atheist, BUT he states that in practise we can be
an atheist (he cites the example of a teapot in orbit of
the earth that is beyond our senses – we cannot prove
or disprove the existence of such a teapot but in
practise we are all teapot atheists!)
• Leibniz’s argument from contingency
(principle of sufficient reason) – What is
meant by contingency is the following – objects
that do not contain within themselves the
reason for their own existence. This means
that they are ‘created’ or ‘caused’ by something
other than themselves (as well as passing out
of existence at some various point in time –
depending on the object)
• Principle of sufficient reason – Copleston
uses this to mean a total explanation, to which
nothing further can be added. In the context of
the debate Russell and Copleston talk about
the lighting of a match against a box
Different spheres of logic
• Much of the Copleston/Russell debate centres around
the issue of two different types of logic.
• Analytical deductive reasoning (a priori) & Synthetic
inductive reasoning (a posteriori).
• Russell is accused of being too dogmatic in what he
accepts as being meaningful because he is solely
concerned with analytical deductive (a priori)
reasoning.
• The point that Russell is trying to make is that you
cannot jump from one try of reasoning to another type
ie: begin in a posteriori reasoning then cross over into
a priori reasoning (a point raised by Kant some 100
years plus earlier – that is to say ‘existence is not a
predicate – a predicate being a quality or
characteristic that something can possess).
Kant on analytical and synthetic
knowledge
A priori – Analytic
propositions
There are certain definitions
that a ‘thing’ must fulfil to be a
cow…
A posteriori – Synthetic
propositions
There are other things that can
be said about specific cows…
It must be a mammal
It may be an Aberdeen Angus
cow
It must be female
It may be brown or black
It must have udders
It may have a scar from an
injury it sustained
It must chew the cud
It may or may not exist
These two sets of statements demonstrate what Kant (and Russell) mean(s) by
the differences between analytic propositions and synthetic propositions
• Necessary Proposition – A necessary proposition (Russell
claims) is an analytic deductive proposition that can only be
made of statements that exist in a priori reasoning.
• A bachelor is an unmarried man. It is NECESSARILY TRUE
that the bachelor is both a MAN and UNMARRIED (because
that is what the definition of a bachelor is!)
• Russell argues that the term ‘necessary’ has no real meaning
outside of analytical deductive (a priori) reasoning. Implying
that Copleston is cloaking his a posteriori synthetic inductive
argument in an ontological sense (ie: crossing into a priori
analytic deductive reasoning in order to establish that ‘God’ is
necessary to provide the sufficient reason for the totality of
contingent things – that means provide the reason for why
things are here that cannot explain their own existence.
• Copleston is states that he is not suggesting that he means
‘necessary being’ in an analytical sense, BUT that if anybody
were to experience God (a posteriori), God’s essence would be
self-evident and therefore it would be obvious (a posteriori) that
God was an existence necessary being.
Tautology
• A repetition of the same meaning in different
words; needless repetition of an idea in different
words or phrases; a representation of anything
as the cause, condition, or consequence of
itself, as in the following lines:
The dawn is overcast, the morning lowers,
And heavily in clouds brings on the day. Addison.
• Russell on brute fact – Although Russell does
not use the phrase ‘brute fact’ he is suggesting
that the whole universe itself lack meaning. He
states ‘I should say that the universe is just
there, and that’s all.’
• He means that there is no objective meaning
to the universe NOT that it is unintelligible
(because clearly it is to a certain extent), but
that it does not make sense to ask the same
question of the universe as we can do with
contingent objects that go towards making up
the universe.
• The nature of scientific enquiry – Copleston
challenges Russell’s notion that the universe is
without meaning after Russell cites the example
of modern (quantum) physics.
• Copleston suggests that by very virtue of the
fact that scientific investigation assumes that
there is a particular truth to be ‘discovered’ that
this must mean that the universe is NOT devoid
of meaning.
Key point: If Copleston can
establish that the universe is
meaningful then the notion
of sufficient reason makes a
very strong case for the
existence of a necessary
being behind this meaning…
One cannot be checkmated if
you refuse to sit at the table
• Russell suggests that they are going to have to
agree to disagree over the issue of the
meaningfulness or meaninglessness of the
universe.
• Afterwards Copleston stated that there was no
way that he could have won the argument
because Russell refused to deal with the central
claim that the universe has meaning (through
the disagreement over their different uses of
logic).