5.2 Russell & Copleston

• What do Russell and Copleston agree on regarding the definition of God?

  They agree that God is a supreme being distinct from the world and creator of the world.
• What is Copleston's view on proving God's existence?

  Copleston thinks God can be proven.
• What is Russell's stance on the existence of God?

  Russell does not believe God can be proven to exist.
• Why is the question of God's existence important according to the text?

  It is extremely important for humans and their purpose.
• What does Copleston claim about morality without God?

  Copleston claims that without God there is no morality.
• How does Russell counter Copleston's claim about morality?

  Russell points to Moore’s intuitionism, which accounts for morality without God.
• What is the argument from contingency as presented by Copleston?

  • Combines Aquinas’ 3rd way with Leibniz’ principle of sufficient reason.
  • A contingent being depends on something else for its existence.
  • The reason for its existence is external to it.
• What are the premises of Copleston's argument from contingency?

  P1: There are at least some contingent beings in the world; P2: The world is the totality of those contingent beings.
• What conclusion does Copleston draw from his premises about contingent beings?

  C1: The reason for the existence of the world must be a being external to it.
• What does Copleston argue about the nature of the being that explains the world?

  Copleston argues that this being is either its own reason for existence or not.
• What is the implication of not having a being that is its own reason for existence according to Copleston?

  If not, then there is an infinite regress which can provide no explanation.
• What conclusion does Copleston reach about the explanation of the world?

  C2: The only valid explanation of the world is that it was caused by a necessary being.
• What is Russell's first counter to Copleston's argument regarding necessary beings?

  Russell argues that 'necessary' can only apply to analytic propositions, not beings.
• How does Russell define a necessary being?

  A being could only be necessary if it is self-contradictory to deny its existence.
• What does Russell imply about the existence of beings?

  Russell implies that it’s difficult to see how it could be self-contradictory to deny the existence of any being.
• What does Leibniz say about truths of reason and truths of fact?

  Leibniz said truths of reason are necessary, but truths of fact are not.
• How does Russell view propositions involving necessity?

  Russell believes propositions involving necessity have to be analytic and not truths about fact.
• What proposition does Copleston present to counter Russell's view on necessity?

  Copleston presents the proposition: "if there is a contingent being then there is a Necessary being."
• What does Copleston argue about the truth of the proposition regarding contingent beings?

  Copleston argues that knowing whether there is a contingent being requires experience, making it a matter of fact.
• How does Russell respond to the terms 'necessary' and 'contingent' when applied to beings?

  Russell claims these terms have no meaning when applied to beings.
• What does Copleston accuse Russell of regarding modern logic?

  Copleston claims Russell is part of the movement in modern logic that views metaphysical terms as meaningless.
• What is Copleston's argument against the rejection of metaphysics?

  Copleston argues that rejecting metaphysics does not show that it is actually false.
• How does Ayer's view relate to the discussion of God and metaphysics?

  Ayer would admit that calling God meaningless does not show God false.
• What does Copleston argue about modern logic's criteria for meaning?

  Copleston argues that modern logic as a sole criteria for meaning is overly-restrictive.
• What argument do Russell and Ayer make regarding metaphysical discussions?

  They argue that if you cannot show or point to what you are talking about, you are not justified in thinking you are talking about anything.
• What does Copleston say about contingent beings in relation to Russell's views?

  Copleston argues that Russell must accept that we experience contingent beings.
• How does Russell view the term 'Necessary being'?

  Russell claims he cannot find any meaning in the term 'Necessary being'.
• What does Russell say about the cause of the world?

  Russell questions how one can say 'the cause of the world' is meaningless.
• What is the fallacy of composition?

  • It is a fallacy to assume what is true of a part is true of the whole.
  • Example: Every human has a mother, but the human race does not have a mother.
• How does the fallacy of composition apply to cosmological arguments?

  It commits the fallacy to assume that because parts of the universe have a cause, the universe itself must also have a cause.
• What conclusion does Russell draw about the universe?

  Russell concludes that the universe is 'just there, and that’s all', meaning it could exist without reason or cause.
• What do Hume and Russell argue regarding the universe's cause?

  They argue it is invalid to infer that the universe has a cause based on the properties of its parts.
• How do Aquinas’ 1st and 2nd ways differ from arguments from contingency?

  Aquinas’ arguments do not explicitly claim that the universe has a cause because its parts have a cause.
• What is one response to the fallacy of composition regarding the universe?

  One response is that sometimes what is true of the parts is true of the whole, like a brick wall made of bricks.
• How does Copleston respond to the fallacy of composition in arguments from contingency?

  Copleston argues that a series of contingent things must have an external cause.
• What are the premises of Copleston's argument regarding series of contingent things?

  P1: A series is either caused or uncaused; P2: If uncaused, its existence is necessary; P3: A series of contingent things can’t be necessary.
• What conclusion does Copleston reach about a series of contingent things?

  C1: Therefore, a series of contingent things must have a cause outside the series.
• What do only a posteriori cosmological arguments commit according to the text?

  Only a posteriori cosmological arguments commit the fallacy of composition by assuming the universe has a cause.
• How might a priori cosmological arguments avoid the fallacy of composition?

  A priori arguments may claim to be derived from necessary truths rather than experience.
• What assumption do arguments from contingency make according to Russell?

  Russell argues that they assume a series must have an explanation at all.