Russell-Copleston Debate on God's Existence (1948) 

The part of the debate that moved me the most was when both sides ended peacefully after understanding each other's perspectives, without resorting to sophistry, fallacies, or personal attacks. I despise debate competitions and debaters, but I admire these two individuals.

I felt persuaded by Copelston's line of argument after the first watch, but after rewatching I realized he's actually not addressing Russel's point at all. Russel said the elements of a set having a particular property (all humans having a mother, for example) is not proof of the set having that property (the human race having a property), and Copelston's reply affirmed the opposite, "and if it (the whole) is sufficient to itself, it is what I call necessary. But it can't be necessary, since each member is contingent". Why does each member being contingent entail the set's contingency? It seems like a fallacy to me.

This wasn't a debate. They never once got off topic or interrupted and shouted over each other.

Basically; R: Everything between the parentheses is all that is because that is all that is between the parentheses. C: The parentheses imply something else outside of them. Both: Welp, we’re at an impass. Have a great day.

Amazingly, my wife and I discussed this very issue, of contingency, at Breakfast the other morning. I, for my part, took a position similar to Russell's that Contingency is not a entity or relevant line of thought while she, siding with Copleston supported Contingency as a prime and central tenant of existence...we bought the sofa.

The most intellectual argument that the professors at Hogwarts ever had.

A truly enjoyable debate and a good example for everyone on RU-vid that disagrees with one another.

" Bertrand Russell somewhere has joked, “If I calculate all my sins, sins that I have committed and sins that I have not committed, only brooded over - if even they are included - the hardest judge can’t send me to jail for more than four years. And Christianity sends you to hell forever.” Bertrand Russell has written a book, Why I am not a Christian; this is one of his arguments. It is a beautiful argument because the whole thing seems to be ridiculous. Bertrand Russell, one of the geniuses of our times, tried hard to get rid of the Christian mind, not because it was Christian, but simply because it was given to him by others. He wanted his own fresh outlook about things. He did not want to see things from somebody else’s glasses; he wanted to come in contact with reality immediately, and directly. He wanted his own mind. Bertrand Russell has made a statement that if there were no death, there would be no religion. There is some truth in it. I will not agree totally, because religion is a vast continent. It is not only death, it is also the search for bliss, it is also the search for truth, it is also the search for the meaning of life; it is many more things. But certainly Bertrand Russell is right: if there were no death, very few, very rare people would be interested in religion. Death is the great incentive. Your mind is not your mind - this is something basic to be remembered. Your mind is an implantation of the society in which you have accidentally been born. If you were born in a Christian home, but immediately transferred to a Mohammedan family and brought up by the Mohammedans, you would not have the same mind; you would have a totally different mind that you cannot conceive of. So it was not a question of being against the Christian mind; if he had been a Hindu he would have done the same, if he had been a Mohammedan he would have done the same, if he had been a communist he would have done the same. Bertrand Russell tried hard and wrote a book, WHY I AM NOT A CHRISTIAN. But in a letter to a friend he wrote, “Although I have written the book, although I do not believe that I am a Christian, I have dropped that mind, still, deep down… One day I asked myself, `Who is the greatest man in history?’ Rationally I know it is Gautam Buddha, but I could not put Gautam Buddha above Jesus Christ. “That day I felt that all my efforts have been futile. I am still a Christian. I know rationally that Jesus Christ stands no comparison with Gautam Buddha - but it is only rational. Emotionally, sentimentally I cannot put Gautam Buddha above Jesus Christ. Jesus Christ remains in my unconscious, still affecting my attitudes, my approaches, my behavior. The world thinks I am no longer a Christian, but I know… It seems difficult to get rid of this mind! They have cultivated it with such acumen, with such craftsmanship.”"

Well I’m glad this has been cleared up…

I do maintain that the opening narration by Eric Idle is surely among the best of the voice work he’s done.

Very civil, totally unlike an equivalent debate today far more verbal sophistication on display here and I cannot say that I fully understood all arguments or references made, of course this is down to my own shortfalls. I am left with a better agreement with Copleston even if I do not believe in a god and also hold that Russell’s Celestial teapot holds philosophically sound that we cannot know what we do not know and neither prove nor disprove what we can not find either because we are looking in the wrong place or because it doesn't exist. While Russell spoke of not finding gold, I can certainly say that this debate delivered it.

Does anyone else find the conclusion of this arguement amusing? It was one big circle that lead to nothing, yet managed to produce what could be an endless debate. Wonderful.

The only problem with this video is that it is too short.

Lawrence Krauss needs to take some debating tips from Bertrand Russell.

This was refreshing & fantastic in the aspect of having a civil & respectful debate/challenge/disagreement. They've acknowledged one another's pts & challenged one another's pts & attacked the position not the person & when they hit an impasse they moved on..its too bad moat debates/discussions can't be this way today where folks emote, get offended, project & converse intellectually dishonest..

What is the cause of the world ? The question implies that there are things "outside" the world. If we define the world as everything that exists, then there is no outside. I think this explains why Russell does not accept that the world has a cause.

Russell brings a now-discredited cosmology and a very contentious and now-discredited philosophy of language to the debate.

huh didnt expect russell to sound like that

Russell’s philosophy was really nonsensical and his books are very badly written.

Sounds like a debate between two AI's lol

Wow I recently found out about Copleston’s 11 volume History of Philosophy series, it wasn’t cheap but I bought them (but haven’t gotten to it yet, I’m saving it for 1300 rainy days lol). So apparently back when he wrote them it was only meant to be for Catholic students, however it unexpectedly became a huge hit with secular and religious people alike.

record-breaking utterances of the word "proposition" from 5:12 to 6:12

This kind of “ argument from contingency “ is originally from Ibn Sina , I disagree with it . This theists insist on some old philosophical argument which has been proven to have some logical issues .

I love this debate.

Asking "why is there something rather than nothing?" is the same as asking "why is existence existent?“ But the proposition "existence exists" is an analytical truth by virtue of the identity between the subject and predicate. So it seems to me that the answer to the question is “simply because all things are identical to themselves”.

Appreciate Capturing Christianity turning me onto this debate. It was the only one I hadn't seen before and probably my favorite of his list. The brevity and wit both these men demonstrate in this debate is inspiring. While I am biased towards Russell's side due to my atheism there is little doubt that Copleston is right there with him going jab for jab with every argument.

It's like steampunk robots arguing

Most boring episode of Monty Python ever. .

Like all discussions about the existence of god, they ultimately do nowhere, as their final phrases indicate. At least, there appears to be some kind of mutual respect in how to behave towards each other during the course of their discussion.

How did Copleston miss the following proof: Proof of God's Existence: (1) The word 'true' entails a cognitive presence; (2) The laws of the universe were true before they were discovered by corporeal life; therefore... (3) The laws of the universe were true before corporeal life existed, identifying the existence of a non-corporeal entity that knew the laws were true.

How could the non demonstrable nature of nothingness not be demonstrative of the necessity for the existance of one eternal being?

You cant define god into existence.

the welsh boy-o won through in this debate

Theist now agrue outside of reality which is where god has been pushed to

Mmmm, indeed. Quite right.

The philosophical concept of "contingency" presupposes the idea of "necessity." The conclusion is taken for granted in the premise.

10 points to Gryffindor

I wish I could find the rest of this debate. Doesn't seem to be anywhere on the internet. Also Ayer's debate with Copleston.

It's just the same old guy arguing with himself 😁😁😁

The most polite debate in british history

This was a very civilized debate between 2 philosophers. Of course it is a never ending debate and cannot be resolved by science and reason. At the end of the day, it becomes identity politics. In these postmodern times, self-ID has been accepted as a legitimate form of self-expression. If a male can identify as a female, then a theist can identify as an atheist and vice versa. Bertram Russell “identified” as an agnostic in the debate, but said he would “identify” as an atheist to the ordinary man. This bypasses the truth and falsity issue. By the same token, I can “identify” as a theist, without having to argue the case. This identity is “who I am”. Jordan Peterson taught me this approach. When badgered by his critics who wanted him to declare whether or not he believes in the Christian God, he would neither confirm or deny. He put it this way: “I act as if God exists”. Then he goes on to talk about the deep existential, psychological & moral truth he finds in the Bible, upon which Western civilization has drawn its enduring strength & weaknesses for thousands of years.

I think Copleston is conflating "being" (i.e. a thing that exists) with "personal being" (i.e. a being with thoughts and feelings and the ability to act consciously). The necessary "being" upon which all of us are contingent could just as well be something non-personal, such as the universe, the big bang, etc. And that regress has been at least as ably addressed by modern physics as the regress of a God has been by religious philosophers (i.e. "because it has to be that way").

What's the point of debating something that is incomprehensible to most people.

How can someone like Russell deny that it is necessary for Bertrand Russell to be human? Could Bertrand Russell "become" a dog and still be Bertrand Russell? Certainly, the statement "Bertrand Russell is a human" is necessarily true if it is true at all, but under most interpretations of "analytic" it won't turn out to be an analytical statement, even though a necessary statement. Maybe a good reason to deny that all necessary statements are analytical statements? There are necessary truths about individuals and we can refer to them both by logical proper names as by definite descriptions. Modality does not always establish referentially opaque contexts. I have great respect for Russell, but the stuff which he did for radio stations was generally speaking .... not his best.

Copleston (2:28): there are at least some beings in the world which do not contain in themselves the reason for their existence. For example, I depend on my parents, and now on the air, and on food, and so on. Now, secondly, the world is simply the real or imagined totality or aggregate of individual objects, none of which contain in themselves alone the reason for their existence. My parents didn't create the matter that makes me up, they reorganized it. Does he mean 'current organization of matter' when he says 'object'? It seems from physics that matter (energy, quantum field) cannot be created or destroyed, it just is. The thing that has a beginning is a specific organization of these fundamental things. So 'reason of existence' is more accurately 'reason of transitioning from one state of matter to another', isn't it? Russell: (7:50) I think a subject named can never be significantly said to exist but only a subject described. And that existence, in fact, quite definitely is not a predicate.... (8:43) Well, certainly the question "Does the cause of the world exist?" is a question that has meaning. But if you say "Yes, God is the cause of the world" you're using God as a proper name; then "God exists" will not be a statement that has meaning; that is the position that I'm maintaining. Because, therefore, it will follow that it cannot be an analytic proposition ever to say that this or that exists. For example, suppose you take as your subject "the existent round-square," it would look like an analytic proposition that "the existent round- square exists," but it doesn't exist. Is his contention that 'being' consists of the property 'existent'? So to say 'contingent being' would be equal to 'something that exists that could possibly not exist'. Which would be incoherent because in the case it didn't exists it couldn't be 'something that exists'. So a being (something that exists) can only exist, it can never 'possibly not exist'. Is this the crux of his argument?

Copleston understands the issue of rendering God an a priori concept, but his justification not to do so seems ad-hoc. He doesn't really spell it out, but it seems to me he thinks that one can know God through experiencing the world (that's his supposed a posteriori), which is clearly a claim rooted in Paul's letters (Romans 1:18-20). A claim that is ultimately circular. _One can see the creator by looking at creation._ I see a naturor by looking at nature. And I define naturor to mean non-agent, non-sentient cause. That would be equally circular, and equally analytic. But Russell is right. The reasoning natural theology seeks to do has barely anything to do with experiencing nature. It is ultimately nothing but analytical reasoning.

I like to give analogy. A living cell, plant or animal, has the ability to produce a copy of it. All factories created by human beings are able to produce something, but can a factory produce a factory without the help of a living cell (or a human being). Say a computer virus, it can produce a copy of itself but it is a code that reside inside some device produced by humans. So far self replicating things do not exist outside the living cells. If human beings are able to produce such a thing, then it is proof that no god exist. As long as it is not possible we can assume that some specialty outside the science exists inside a living cell. That cannot be explained by logic or science!

Great job and saying so many words, yet said nothing of value.

Very, very disappointing that the argument from Russell's opposition is based on conflating the empirical with the rational. Dead on arrival.

such polite digression!

Seems to me a great many words that basically say nothing.

Over the years I have listened to many examples proving God’s existence. Some are just nonsense, some just playing with words and some make assumptions or leaps in supposedly rational thinking. None do the impossible ie that God exists.

Clerics automatically assume that this argument from contingency or from primary reason or whatever Thomas Aquinas pointed out proves the existence of that one specific God, that their structure represents. But why? Why can't it be Ra or Brahma or Huitzilopochtli?

The honest answer is I don't know I can't prove anything but I have seen NOTHING that would make me bet on god being real

Way too complex. Just read ALLAN KARDEC the question number 4. There you have a simple, logical and axiomatic answer to the God´s existence.

Precursor to Russell’s brand of analytical philosophy getting BTFO in the late 20th century.

Where can I go to have a conversation like this in our modern world?!?

So it basically ends it with, well if you don't think it's worth discussing then why are we discussing it?

its like a chipmunk vs a hamster

Gotta love the Jesuits 🧐

What interests me most is the high intellectual plane on which Fr. Coppleston, and many other famous Jesuit scholars, existed. Today my clergy are rather marked by intense stupidity, beginning with the one currently occupying the Vatican.

Debate, while engrossingly interesting, I have come to realise, is utterly useless; except for promoting the existence of two opposing ideas. It would be far better; for everybody interested, to read; or listen to, an expositional treatise for each opposing view, to obtain a more substantial understanding of each view.

Why should there be a reason to exist at all? We are formed from exploding stars.

In basic terms, first you have to show a god exists before you can posit a god exists. Bad arguments exist, but they do not help toward understanding. A necessary being is meaningless unless you can show that a necessary being exists, show that it is indeed necessary and was not merely inserted into the argument. To say that a god is necessary is just inserting the god into existence. Making things up into existence is what humans do in fictional works. Asserting that a god is necessary or the cause of all matter must be demonstrated and not just asserted. Making stuff up is a human endeavor and some think they are better at it than others.

Russel sounds a bit like Yoda

This is not fun. Copleston pushes one illogical point after the other without allowing a real debate over one point. How is Russell supposed to answer to that ? Coplestone = First master of wordsalats. Yet Russell answers as smartly as possible in that situation.

What a cordial way of debating a contentious subject!

Does God allow Evil or can God do nothing about it? If evil were eliminated and only good amongst humanity in a world of peace then we may take the view of we dont need a God and therefore God will be forgotten.

God exist or not is indeed a futile argumentation.

With all of these types of debates, too much wordy eriodite chit chat and no facts or proof of either side. God is dead and Man is God.

Coplestone make a brilliant effort to outline a beautiful and comprehensively intelligible argument to which rustle only utters : "It's not logical" Well....it's not for Him! That's why you either experience God or you don't. Too much wit clouds one's judgment.

Whatever happened to part 2 and 3, anyone knows?

Bertrand took a fat L here

theres not much logic behind 'if we exist because of cause and effect, then there must be a *being* that is an inciting event', why does he suppose that the inciting event need to have happened by a living thing, theres nothing to suggest an experience or will behind the big bang other than his personification of it

I can’t even pretend to understand a word of what they are taking about. However even with my limited intellect I can imagine they must have had a supply of some good sh#t and a truck load of biscuits to be able to keep up those accents during the debate without giggling or bursting into laughter.

Russell was my boy, but he had his lunch handed to him by Copleston 🤦‍♂️A bit of Schopenhauer would settle this, I believe … ultimately, everything is representation, and the PSR doesn’t apply outside the representation (Kant’s inconceivable thing-in-itself)

I wonder what Copleston thought about cosmology in the light of quantum physics, where causation is generally speaking not required?

I have not understood anything.

Complete nonsense circular logic plus language gone on holiday

Doctor Angelicus lived in the Middle Ages. Dr. Copleston didn't have such an excuse.

Is big bang singularity seen as part or as totality? And if it is both at the same time, then how it can be that for the talking here that there is a cause for a part and not a cause for a totality?

Bertrand Russell sounds like he's mocking someone's way of speaking.

This sort of arguments from monkeys is pointless!

It is just like the earth is not spinning a thousands and thousands of miles per hour because if it indeed spunning you will seen those swirling motion of the stars not even focusing neatly and clearly satisfied the vision of the face of the moon! God is a Spirit John 4. 24 And that the world is stablished that it can not be moved Psalms 93. 1

Taoism suggests that existence comes out of nothingness, today's science confirms that matter comes out of empty space due to quantum effect, so this debate is totally irrelevant.

You missed out a bit where Russell says, “You see that John Merrick? That’s your girlfriend that is. That’s like…your girlfriend.”

I’m a Christian, but yes a necessary proposition must be analytic. It is daft to try to prove gods existence. Russell was one of the few universal geniuses of the 20th century, and the 19th! Not a believer but 50 years in heaven.

They know now...for sure!

In trying to be central authority, political government blasphemy demonstrates God's existence

Should inter finite(s) 'causation'' be extrapolated to any of that of the non finite/finite?

Dolphins swimming in the bay in Alaska. Snow covered alps in Italy. Russia continues military campaign in Ukraine. Congo polluted by toxicity from cobalt mining.

Copleston wins as Russell cops out. “The universe having a cause is not a meaningful statement?” This is just, “My bias against God won’t allow me to believe in God.” I’m sure God cleared this up for him when he died.

There is no answer. We are on an endless search for a language that will describe reality . No such language exists.

Lol. Copleston owned him!

I wish the Christian’s in this debate knew the Bible- Jesus said that miracles prove his existence. And although you don’t see “Christians” performing these miracles- there are plenty out there who walk in the power of God as Christian’s are called to- and to this day people testify of being raised from the dead, radical healing experiences directly clearly related to God, and much more

If you understand what they were saying you’d know copleston wiped the floor with him

Here we go with the Un-Moved Mover argument again. They finally say Fk it. Let’s agree to disagree.

So where is this White Anglo God?

I give that round to Copleston

Their voices plus the quality of the recording distorts their voices into cartoon characters.