5.2 Russel and 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 believes that God can be proven to exist.
• How does Russell view the question of God's existence?

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

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

  Copleston claims that without God, there is no morality.
• What does Russell point to as an alternative to God for accounting for morality?

  Russell points to Moore’s intuitionism as accounting 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 is a contingent being?

  A contingent being is one which could either exist or not exist as it depends on something else for its existence.
• What is the first premise (P1) of Copleston's argument from contingency?

  P1 states that there are at least some contingent beings in the world.
• What does P2 of Copleston's argument assert?

  P2 asserts that the world is just the totality of those contingent beings.
• What conclusion (C1) does Copleston draw from P1 and P2?

  C1 concludes that the reason for the existence of the world must be a being external to it.
• What does P3 of Copleston's argument state?

  P3 states that this being either is its own reason for its existence, or not.
• What does P4 of Copleston's argument imply?

  P4 implies that if the being is not its own reason for existence, then there is an infinite regress which can provide no explanation.
• What is the conclusion (C2) of Copleston's argument?

  C2 concludes that the only valid explanation of the world is that it was caused by a being which is its own reason for existence, i.e., 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 illustrate his point about necessary beings?

  He gives the example that a bachelor is an unmarried man, which is true by definition.
• What does Russell imply about the self-contradictory nature of denying a being's existence?

  Russell implies that it is 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.
• What is Copleston's response to Russell's view on Leibniz's arguments?

  Copleston responds that he rejects Leibniz’s views on necessity but accepts his argument regarding the idea of sufficient reason.
• What does Russell argue about propositions involving necessity?

  Russell argues that propositions involving necessity have to be analytic and therefore not truths about fact.
• What proposition does Copleston present regarding contingent beings?

  Copleston presents the proposition: "if there is a contingent being then there is a Necessary being."
• What does Russell claim about the terms 'necessary' and 'contingent' when applied to beings?

  Russell claims that these terms have no meaning when applied to beings.
• 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, not just definition.
• How does Copleston view Russell's stance on metaphysical terms?

  Copleston views Russell as part of a movement to view metaphysical terms as meaningless, which he argues is an invalid rejection of metaphysics.
• 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 Russell claim about the term 'Necessary being'?

  Russell claims that he cannot understand the term 'Necessary being' and does not reject metaphysics as totally meaningless.
• What does Copleston say about contingent beings in relation to Russell's views?

  Copleston argues that Russell must accept that we experience contingent beings, as both depend on their parents.
• What does Russell propose regarding the ontological argument?

  Russell proposes that the debate comes to the ontological argument and the idea that there is a being whose essence includes existence.
• What critique does Russell draw from Kant regarding existence?

  Russell draws on Kant’s critique that existence is not a predicate and is a matter of fact, not definition.
• How does Copleston challenge Russell's view on the cause of the world?

  Copleston challenges Russell by asking how he can say 'the cause of the world' is meaningless.
• How do cosmological arguments relate to the fallacy of composition?

  Cosmological arguments point out that parts of the universe have a cause, but it commits the fallacy of composition to assume the universe itself has a cause.
• What is the fallacy of composition?

  • It is a fallacy to assume what is true of a thing’s parts must be true of the whole.
  • Properties of parts may not apply to the whole.
  • Example: Every human has a mother, but the human race does not necessarily have a mother.
• What do Hume and Russell argue regarding the universe's cause?

  They argue that it is invalid to argue from the parts of the universe having a cause to the universe itself having one.
• 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.
• How do Aquinas’ 1st and 2nd ways differ from arguments from contingency?

  Aquinas’ 1st and 2nd ways do not explicitly claim that the universe has a cause because its parts have a cause.
• Why do cosmological arguments from contingency face challenges?

  They assume that the universe as a whole is contingent, which if false, means we don’t need God to explain its existence.