MODEL AO1 ANSWER
Describe the debate on the cosmological argument between Copleston and Russell.
[33 marks]
Introduction: define terms – ‘cosmological’ and ‘the debate between C and R’
The term ‘cosmological’ comes from two Greek words, cosmos and logos. Cosmos is the
universe and logos means study. So a cosmological argument for the existence of God is an
argument that studies fundamental features of the universe in order to argue that God exists. It
is an a posteriori argument because it works from experience of these fundamental features. It
is an inductive argument because God’s existence is not contained in the evidence of
fundamental features - it is a conclusion drawn from that evidence. Copleston and Russell’s
debate on the existence of God occurred on BBC Radio in 1947. Copleston argued for the
existence of God and Russell argued against it. One part of their long argument was a debate
on the cosmological argument.
Paragraph 1: Copleston’s argument
Copleston argued from a fundamental feature of the universe. It was the fact that there are
contingent things: things that do not contain in themselves the reason for their existence.
These things need external explanations. You cannot explain a chair, for example, just by
referring to the chair. You have to refer to some other things. Copleston argued that the whole
universe is the sum total of all these things that do not contain in themselves the reason for
their own existence. If the whole universe does not contain in itself the reason for its own
existence, then it must have an external explanation. The external explanation for the whole
universe cannot be just another thing in the universe – just another one of the ‘might-nothave-beens’ (Peter Vardy). If it were, it too would need an external explanation. So the web
of explanation has to stop somewhere. It stops with something external to it. This external
being explains itself because it is the reason for its own existence. It is a necessary being and
Copleston called it God. Consequently, Copleston considered God to be a cause in esse, not
just a cause in fieri. A cause in fieri is a cause that makes the effect become what it is – for
example, a person writing a book. A cause in esse, is more than that because it is a cause that
sustains the effect as what it is – for example a candle sustaining a flame. So God is required
as a cause in esse to sustain the existence of the world. Thus, God must always continue to
exist in order to hold the world together. To summarise, Copleston argued that because all
things are contingent and require an external cause and explanation there must be an external,
non-contingent being that causes and explains all things.
Paragraph 2: Russell’s argument
How did Russell reply to this argument? He disputed the idea that there could be an opposite
of contingent things. For Russell all things were contingent, and that was the end of the
matter. He said to Copleston, ‘I should say that the universe is just there – and that is all.’
Everything is inter-dependent and philosophers should focus on what is happening within this
inter-dependent web rather than looking for a cause for the whole. Russell found the idea of a
cause for the whole ‘meaningless’. He thought that it was intelligible to talk about a cause of
particular things because they can be related to each other. However, it was meaningless to
talk about a cause for the whole because the whole cannot, by definition, be related to
anything else. If it could be related to something else, it would not be the whole. Russell used
an analogy to make his point. Just because every human being has a mother does not mean
that the whole human race has a mother. In the same way, just because every contingent being
has an external explanation does not mean that the whole universe has an external
explanation. Russell described the whole universe as a ‘brute fact’, meaning that we should
think about what we do within the universe rather than trying to give an explanation of the
whole universe. In this way, Russell argued that it is meaningless to believe in God, because it
is meaningless to look for an explanation for the whole world.
Conclusion: summary of the debate
Neither Copleston nor Russell won the debate. Copleston continued believing in God and
Russell continued not believing in God. Peter Cole suggests that the cosmological argument
can ‘bring into sharp contrast the two ways of looking at the world.’ There are two contrasting
ways of looking at the world in this debate. Copleston thought that the important thing for a
philosopher was to be able to explain everything and that real philosophical debates were
between different explanations. Russell thought that the whole idea of explaining everything
was meaningless and that philosophers should focus on more relevant, social and political,
issues. Russell thought that Copleston’s argument was unintelligible and so impossible to
defeat on its own terms. Copleston famously said that Russell was refusing to sit down at the
chess board and play the game so he could never be check-mated. Copleston believed that the
whole world must have an explanation, called God. For Russell, the whole idea that the world
should have an explanation, whatever it was called, was ridiculous. It was difficult for them to
have a debate at all, because their ways of looking at the world were so different.
9