Moral Psychology and Ethical Theory. Ed. John Cooper, Copleston and Bertrand Russell. BBC Third Programme Debate: The Existence of God. In A Modern Introduction to D’Entreves, Alexander P. Natural Law. 2nd. rev. An Analysis of Sanjuanist Teaching and its Philosophical Implications for Russell, Bertrand, and Copleston, Frederick C.: , ‘A Debate on the Existence of God,’ in Sanson, Henri: b, Saint Jean de la Croix entre Bossuet et Fenelon.
|Published (Last):||18 May 2018|
|PDF File Size:||11.12 Mb|
|ePub File Size:||10.99 Mb|
|Price:||Free* [*Free Regsitration Required]|
Copleston–Russell debate – Wikipedia
First, as to the metaphysical argument: From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. Twentieth-Century Philosophy of Religion: The debate between Copleston and Russel would typify the arguments presented between theists and atheists in the later half of the 20th century, with Russell’s approach often used by atheists debatf the late 20th century.
He russel that Copleston’s argument from contingency is a fallacy, and that there are better explanations for our moral and religious experience: Russell however found both arguments unconvincing.
I don’t admit the connotations of such a term as “contingent” or the possibility of russelo in Father Copleston’s sense. The infinity of the series of contingent beings, even if proved, would be irrelevant.
The Cosmological Argument — F. You say that the series of events needs no explanation: First, that the existence of God can dwbate philosophically proved by a metaphysical argument; secondly, that it is only the existence of God that will make sense of man’s moral experience and of religious experience.
A Debate on the Existence of God: Views Read Edit View history.
Histórico debate entre Bertrand Russell y Copleston (subtitulado)
Retrieved from ” https: This page was last edited on 2 Octoberat Whether he was an agnostic or atheist is a question he had addressed before; while technically agnostic with regard to the Christian God, as with the Greek Gods, to all intents and purposes he can be considered an atheist. You can sometimes give a causal explanation of one thing as being the effect of something else, rntre that is merely referring one thing to another thing and there’s no—to my mind—explanation in Father Copleston’s sense of anything at all, nor is there any meaning in calling things “contingent” because there isn’t anything else they could be.
Copleston argued that the existence of God can be proved coplestin contingency, and thought that only the existence of God would make sense of human’s moral and religious experience: That is, of beings no one of which can account for its own existence.
He contended that Copleston’s argument from contingency is a fallacy, and that there are better explanations for our moral and religious experience:.
Russe,l Russell on YouTube. Archived from the original on 22 June I think the word “contingent” inevitably suggests the possibility of something that wouldn’t have this what you might call accidental character of just being there, and I don’t think is true except in the purely causal sense.
Copleston Debate the Existence of God, “.