The cosmological argument: Copleston and Russell
THE DEBATE BETWEEN COPLESTON AND RUSSELL ............................................................. 2
COPLESTON’S UNDERSTANDING OF GOD AS CAUSE OF THE WORLD.
........................... 3
COPLESTON’S COSMOLOGICAL ARGUMENT FOR THE EXISTENCE OF GOD.
.............. 4
WEAKNESSES OF COPLESTON’S ARGUMENT .......................................................................... 7
RUSSELL’S CRITICISMS OF COPLESTON’S COSMOLOGICAL ARGUMENT.
................... 8
EVALUATION OF THE DEBATE BETWEEN COPLESTON AND RUSSELL ......................... 10
1

THE DEBATE BETWEEN COPLESTON AND RUSSELL
F. C. Copleston
(1907 - 1994)
Bertand Russell
(1872-1970)
There was a debate on the Cosmological Argument between F.C. Copleston and
Bertrand Russell on BBC Radio in 1948. Both Copleston and Russell were influential philosophers and both wrote major histories of philosophy. Bertrand Russell was a leading British philosopher at that time. Among many topics, he worked on philosophy of language, attempting to define what makes language meaningful. He was an atheist. F.C. Copleston was a Christian theist and philosopher, who specialised in reviving the traditional arguments for the existence of God and attempting to show how they could be used in modern times.
The debate itself is quite heavy going. But you can read a transcript of the section which dealt with the Cosmological Argument at http://www.ditext.com/russell/debate.html
The debate in full is available from the library – either in John Hick (ed), Classic
Readings in Philosophy of Religion or on cassette from the library desk.
There is a demanding discussion of the argument in Michael Palmer, The Question of
God , pp.59-61, a more straightforward discussion in Peter Vardy, The Puzzle of God , pp.74-75 (1999 edn), and a brief and simple summary in the Cosmological Argument section of Sarah Tyler, Exam Success Guide. There is also a model AO1 answer on
Copleston and Russell’s debate on the college intranet: Philosophy and Religion pages, under Resources: Essay Skills.
1. Choose from the resources above to do some background reading on the debate
2

COPLESTON’S UNDERSTANDING OF GOD AS CAUSE OF THE WORLD.
Print off the worksheet: fill in the grid and answer the questions
3

COPLESTON’S COSMOLOGICAL ARGUMENT FOR THE EXISTENCE OF GOD.
Copleston’s Cosmological Argument was only one point in his debate with Russell. The debate was structured with Copleston presenting his arguments first and then Russell responding to it.
Copleston’s cosmological argument is an inductive argument – it has evidence, then claims and then a conclusion.
On the next page there are the pieces of a diagram of Copleston’s argument.
1.
Move and place these pieces to construct the diagram. The following page is blank, so that you can move the pieces on to it if you find that easier.
There are three hints that you can use if you are finding it difficult to move the pieces around on the screen. HINT 1 HINT 2 HINT 3
There are three hints that you can use if you are getting stuck with deciding where to put things: HINT 1 HINT 2 HINT 3
2.
Once you have constructed your diagram, check it with your lecturer and then print copies of your diagram.
3.
Annotate your print outs of the diagram at four or five places where you think the argument can be criticised.
For example:
But why should this be only one cause – God? Why can’t there be many causes?
SO: Given that all individual things need external causes, the sum total of all individual things will also need an external cause.
4.
Compare your criticisms with the list of criticisms of Copleston’s cosmological argument in the next section. How many of these criticisms did you think of? PLUS
4

AN EXTERNAL CAUSE FOR THE UNIVERSE MUST EXIST
CONCLUSION ABOUT GOD
SO: Given that all individual things need external causes, the sum total of all individual things will also need an external cause.
CLAIM ABOUT THE ORIGIN OF THE UNIVERSE
A being that always exists… A being that is external to the universe… A being that has to be there… This is what all people call God.
Things are not permanent. They might not exist. They need other things to cause them and to explain them. Things within the universe cannot hold the whole universe together in existence.
5

6

WEAKNESSES OF COPLESTON’S ARGUMENT
CRITICISM
‘There is no reason why
WEAKNESS
Copleston believed that there must be ‘sufficient reason’ everything needs to have an explanation!’ for all objects. Sufficient reason is an explanation that is completely adequate. However, it could just be that some people have a psychological need for explanations, rather than that rationality requires explanations to exist.
‘Everything could just hold everything else together!’
This is the sort of criticism that Buddhists would make.
Life could just be contingent things holding other contingent things together – in a web. This would involve believing that life is risky and quite precarious –
‘Why should there be just one explanation?’ the web might break. But maybe philosophers like
Copleston should face up to that rather than create ultimate explanations.
‘It doesn’t have to be God that holds everything together.’
Copleston believed that God is the sufficient reason for all objects and the sufficient reason for himself. Only through God can there be a full explanation. If you only want to achieve particular explanations for particular things – rather than one full explanation for everything – then you don’t need this belief in God.
‘Why does this ultimate being have to exist?’
Copleston has argued that God must exist, at least given that the world exists, by using his concept of God as cause in esse . However, this only works if we accept that the world must have a cause that sustains and explains it.
Without the need for this, there is no need for God.
You may have thought of some of the criticisms on the left side of the grid. The right hand shows how you could develop these into philosophical weaknesses in an essay.
7

RUSSELL’S CRITICISMS OF COPLESTON’S COSMOLOGICAL ARGUMENT.
Russell rejected Copleston’s terminology in order to dispute his belief that the universe must have a cause that explains it. He said that the way Copleston used the term ‘explanation’ was meaningless. And he said that the way Copleston used the term ‘cause’ was meaningless.
Listen to the cassette of some of Russell’s contributions to the debate.
Jot down anything you catch that he says about the term ‘cause’ and anything you catch that he says about the term ‘explanation’
How Russell argued that Copleston’s use of the terms ‘explanation’ and ‘cause’ was meaningless is summarised in the boxes below:
1.
Copleston’s use of the term ‘explanation’ is meaningless because Copleston applies the term to the whole world
Russell’s argument
Particular things have explanations – precisely because they can be related to other particular things
So the whole universe does not have an explanation – precisely because it cannot be related to any other things
To have a meaningful explanation, you must relate the thing you are explaining to other things. To try to explain the whole world – which, by definition, cannot be related to other things – is therefore meaningless.
Quote from Russell:
Russell says: ‘I should say that the universe just is – and that is all.’
2.
Copleston’s use of the term ‘cause’ is meaningless because Copleston applies the term to the whole world
Russell’s argument
Every individual thing may have an But that fact provides no reason why all external cause – that can be investigated individual things together should have scientifically and it might be true another external cause.
To use the term ‘cause’ meaningfully, you must apply it to individual things that you can investigate by observation and comparison. To look for an extra cause for the whole world – which cannot be observed or compared – is therefore meaningless.
Quote from Russell:
‘Just because all individual humans have mothers, that does not mean that the whole human race has a mother.’
8

In Philosophy of Religion: a Critical Introduction Clack and Clack use the image of
‘the whole bag’ to explain these arguments about the whole universe:
ARGUMENT 1:
You could everything in the bag by it with everything else in the bag. They would then all be
without another for the whole bag.
ARGUMENT 2:
Even if in the bag was caused by the same thing, that does not mean that the bag was also
by another one of that same .
Russell’s summarised his criticisms by claiming that the universe is simply ‘a brute fact’. Consequently, it is meaningless to make the distinction that Copleston makes between the whole world, which is contingent, and God, who is necessary. If it is meaningless to look for an ultimate explanation of the whole world and a single cause for the whole world, then there is no point in considering whether or not the whole world is contingent and whether there might be a necessary being. It is, as Russell put it, ‘looking for something that can’t be got.’
Russell’s criticisms put a great deal of importance on what it means for something to be meaningful. Russell basically believed that anything that was not scientific was not meaningful. He followed a school of philosophy called logical positivism. This school believed that for a statement to be meaningful it must meet one of two criteria. It must either
1.
be verifiable – be open to checking by observation and experiment
2.
be analytical – be a logical definition (eg. triangles have three sides)
Russell argued that statements about the whole world – such as ‘God caused the world’ and ‘the world has an explanation’ – are not verifiable and are not analytical.
Therefore, according to Russell they are meaningless.
QUESTIONS
1.
Fill in the gaps to complete Brian Clack’s image for Russell’s argument. You could use this image to explain Russell’s arguments in an essay. If you are not sure how to start, there is a list of words to include HERE.
2. Using the information above, summarise what Russell meant by the term meaningless. Give some examples of statements he would consider meaningful and statements he would consider meaningless. PLUS
3. Do you think there are any problems with Russell’s criticisms? How do you think
Copleston could respond?
9

EVALUATION OF THE DEBATE BETWEEN COPLESTON AND RUSSELL
QUOTATIONS FROM COPLESTON AND RUSSELL
‘If one [like Russell] does not wish to embark on the path which leads to the affirmation of transcendent being, however the latter may be described, one has to … assert that things ‘just are’ and that the existential problem … is just a pseudo-problem. And if one refuses to even sit down at the chess board one cannot of course be checkmated.’ (Copleston)
‘You [Copleston] are looking for something which can’t be got and which one ought not expect to get. … [T]he explanation of one thing is another thing, which makes the other thing dependent on yet another, and you have to grasp this sorry scheme of things entire to do what you want, and that we can’t do.’ (Russell)
QUOTATIONS FROM SCHOLARS
‘Copleston considers that we should ask for an explanation of the whole universe, while Russell maintains that we should not. … [T]he cosmological argument depends on a willingness to ask the question ‘why is the universe here?’ If one is willing to accept that the universe is just a brute fact, then the question does not get posed and the answer ‘God’ will not be required.’ (Peter Vardy)
‘The force of the cosmological form of reasoning resides in the dilemma: either there is a ‘necessary being’ or is the universe ultimately unintelligible’ (John Hick)
EVALUATION
Copleston’s argument presents God as a very strong candidate for the one cause and explanation for the whole universe. However, Copleston is less successful at explaining why there should be one cause and explanation for the whole universe. The other possibility, represented by Russell, that aspects of the world can be explained but ultimately the whole world cannot be explained, remains strong.
The Cosmological Argument highlights two distinct possibilities. EITHER God is necessary as the one cause and explanation of the universe, OR there is no one cause and explanation of the universe and so no need for God. Which possibility is correct remains an open question.
QUESTIONS:
1.
Read the quotes from Copleston and Russell (the highlighted terms are explained).
2.
Read the quotes from scholars and the evaluation.
3.
Explain a) Copleston’s attack on Russell’s approach to the argument. b) Russell’s attack on Copleston’s approach to the argument.
10

In AO2 essays you must have a clear line of argument as well of accurate information.
The text below has useful information for the question:‘To what extent was the debate between Russell and Copleston successful?’ However, there is no real argument.
Read the text to see how the debate was successful and how it was not successful.
Replace the information in the opening paragraph with a clear point of view.
Then redraft the rest of the text as an AO2 essay – cut and paste; delete and replace; add evaluative comments.
You may want to print off the original information and your AO2 essay for revision
Copleston and Russell’s argument lasted for half an hour on BBC Radio in 1948. It has become famous in Philosophy of Religion – many books include copies of it. Russell remains one of the best known atheist philosophers of the twentieth century and Copleston’s work is very important in
Christian philosophy.
Nobody won the debate. Copleston continued believing in God’s existence and Russell continued believing that God does not exist. There seem to be two very different ways of looking at the world, which are highlighted in the debate. Copleston’s view is that the universe only makes sense if it has an external explanation that is its sufficient reason. Russell’s alternative view is that the universe becomes as intelligible as it will ever be as people make connections between things within it.
Russell hardly even argued against Copleston. Sarah Tyler suggests that Russell ‘effectively withdrew from the debate.’ Russell rejected the terms that Copleston was using. Copleston argued that the universe must have an explanation and wanted to know what Russell thought the explanation was, if it was not God. But Russell rejected the whole idea that the universe must have an explanation. He concluded, ‘I should say that the universe is just there, and that is all.’ He did not see any need for a transcendent explanation, an explanation beyond all the particular things in the world. Copleston described this as refusing to sit down at the chess board so that you would never be checkmated – of course, if Russell refused to say that there was any sort of explanation his explanation could not be proved wrong.
Russell and Copleston had very different views on what philosophy is all about. Copleston thought that philosophy should be about providing an ultimate explanation for everything. So he thought that real philosophical debates were between people who offered competing explanations of the whole universe: God, the big bang, Allah, Brahman. After all, why the universe is here is a big question we all ask. Russell thought that philosophy was about understanding what was happening around you. So he thought that real philosophical debates focused on social or political issues and not on irrelevant questions about the whole universe.
There are two different ways of looking at the world. One is to see the world as caused by something beyond the world. This might be the best option because it is simple; it gives one clear cause for everything and one explanation for why everything is here. The other is to say that world is just there. This might be the best option because it is the most economical. It does not introduce an extra being beyond the world, which is not really needed for our everyday lives. Perhaps people must just choose the option they prefer.
11