F.C. Copleston
Philosopher, historian and Roman Catholic priest, Frederick Charles Copleston (1907-1994) is unusual in this course because he didn't develop his own distinctive philosophical ideas. Instead, he wrote the enormous History of Philosophy and became famous because of his debate with Bertrand Russell over the existence of God that was broadcast on BBC radio in 1948.
Copleston is a scholar in the Anthology (the BBC Radio Debate) and a key scholar for Debate Between a Critic and a Believer |
After their 1948 BBC debate, Bertrand Russell, the famous nonbeliever, described Copleston as the most gentlemanly adversary he had ever met
A Debate between a Critic & a Believer
The 1948 radio debate between Copleston and Bertrand Russell (it was actually recorded the previous year in 1947) is also part of the Edexcel Anthology. You can study the debate in detail elsewhere.
Copleston is a religious believer and argues for the existence of God. Russell is an agnostic and argues that the existence of God cannot be proved.
The Argument from Contingency
Copleston argues for the existence of God using a version of the Cosmological Argument based on contingency. In particular, Copleston adapts Aquinas' 3rd Way and Leibniz's Principle of Sufficient Reason.
Copleston's argument can be set out like this:
P1 Everything in the universe is contingent
P2 The universe is the aggregate of all the things in it
C1 Therefore the universe is contingent
P3 Contingent things require an explanation
C2 Therefore the universe requires an explanation
P4 An infinite regress of explanations is not an explanation
C3 Therefore an entity that possesses necessary existence (aseity) is needed to explain the universe
Copleston's argument can be set out like this:
P1 Everything in the universe is contingent
P2 The universe is the aggregate of all the things in it
C1 Therefore the universe is contingent
P3 Contingent things require an explanation
C2 Therefore the universe requires an explanation
P4 An infinite regress of explanations is not an explanation
C3 Therefore an entity that possesses necessary existence (aseity) is needed to explain the universe
in order to explain existence, we must come to a Being which contains within itself the reason for its own existence - F.C. Copleston
Copleston concludes that the only thing that could explain the universe would be something that existed necessarily - something that didn't require an explanation because it "contains within itself the reason for its own existence". He claims that God would be such a being and therefore God is needed to explain the universe.
Copleston rejects the idea that a Necessary Being is some sort of contradiction. He thinks the existence of God is a synthetic proposition - a statement of fact. He dismisses the idea that only analytic propositions (logical or mathematical statements) can be necessary, calling this "dogmatic" (close-minded).
Copleston argues that we are entitled to look for the real reason for the universe rather than just "partial" reasons (or 'proximate reasons' as Leibniz calls them) which only explain the immediate causes for things. Copleston thinks we should ask for the cause or explanation for EVERYTHING: an 'adequate' or 'total' explanation. He thinks only God provides this.
An adequate explanation must ultimately be a total explanation, to which nothing further can be added - F.C. Copleston
This is a deductive argument but Copleston is challenged by Bertrand Russell who brings up the Fallacy of Composition: just because the universe is composed of contingent things, it doesn't mean that the universe itself must be contingent. As a result, Copleston has to shift to making an inductive argument instead.
Copleston argues that scientific research is based on the assumption that there are rational explanations underlying everything. This makes it very likely (although not certain) that the universe also has an explanation - and therefore God probably exists.
Copleston argues that scientific research is based on the assumption that there are rational explanations underlying everything. This makes it very likely (although not certain) that the universe also has an explanation - and therefore God probably exists.
I cannot see how science could be conducted on any other assumption than that of order and intelligibility in nature - F.C. Copleston
This part of the debate ends with a stalemate. Copleston insists that the universe is something which demands an explanation and that, as scientifically-minded enquirers, we should assume that there is an explanation to be found. He insist that God is the best explanation for the universe, but Russell insists that the universe is a brute fact, saying:
I should say the universe is just there, and that's all - Bertrand Russell
Copleston later described Russell's refusal to agree with his terms and premises like this:
If one refused to sit at the chess board and make a move, one cannot, of course, be checkmated - F.C. Copleston
Copleston thinks Russell is refusing to 'play the game', but many readers feel that Russell wins this stage of the argument, even if they don't much like the way he goes about winning it,.
Religious Experience
The second part of the debate turns to inductive Cosmological Argument that he discussed in the earlier section), religious experience makes such an argument more persuasive.
religious experience . Copleston does not claim this is a proof that God exists; however he thinks it is something that makes God's existence more likely. In other words, if you are persuaded by an inductive argument for the existence of God (such as the Copleston argues for the following points:
- Religious experiences are encounters with an OBJECTIVE reality - they are not subjective experiences
- Naturalistic explanations of religious experiences do not account for the "overflow of dynamic and creative love" that religious experiences produce - Copleston gives the example of St Francis of Assisi
- The existence of God would explain these experiences and the effect they have on people
When you get ... an overflow of dynamic and creative love, the best explanation of that, it seems to me, is the actual existence of an objective cause of the experience - F.C. Copleston
The "objective cause of this experience" would be God.
Bertrand Russell has a simple and effective rejection of this sort of argument:
Bertrand Russell has a simple and effective rejection of this sort of argument:
The fact that a belief has a good moral effect upon a man is no evidence whatsoever in favour of its truth - Bertrand Russell
Copleston's response to this is complex:
- Characters in books often have a good moral effect on people (for example, as role models or inspirations), even when they don't exist in reality
- They do this because they embody real values that do exist in reality
- The mystic is like a fan of a fictional character, but the mystic is encountering the "ultimate reality" directly
- This 'ultimate reality' is the source of our moral values - it is God
Copleston's argument depends upon moral values existing objectively rather than being subjective feelings or opinions. The final part of the passage where Russell and Copleston debate this is not part of the Edexcel Anthology but is (briefly) summarised below.
The Moral Argument
This part of the debate does not feature in the Edexcel Anthology and it's not essential to study it, although it does conclude the argument that was left unfinished at the end of the section on religious experiences.
Copleston argues that objective moral values point towards the existence of God and that objective values only make sense if there is a God. He asks Russell a challenging question:
what's your justification for distinguishing between good and bad ..? - F.C. Copleston
This is a question which Russell struggles to answer clearly. Copleston turns up the temperature by using the example of a Nazi commandant at the Belsen death-camp during the Second World War. How can Russell condemn this man's behaviour while still denying that there are objective moral values?
Copleston argues that objective moral values (like religious experiences) point to the existence of God:
Copleston argues that objective moral values (like religious experiences) point to the existence of God:
the perception of values and the consciousness of moral law and obligation are best explained through the hypothesis of a transcendent ground of value and of an author of the moral law - F.C. Copleston
This "transcendent ground of value" is the 'ultimate reality' that Copleston previously claimed was encountered directly by mystics; in other words, God.
Russell makes the case that moral values are relative - he points out that in ancient history people were cannibals but we consider this morally wrong today. He proposes that moral conscience is formed by upbringing and explained by the psychology of 'conditioned reflexes' (known as CLASSICAL CONDITIONING).
Copleston concludes by pointing out that Russell is in a contradictory position: he 'explains away' conscience while at the same time trying to live his life as if moral values were real and important.
Copleston concludes by pointing out that Russell is in a contradictory position: he 'explains away' conscience while at the same time trying to live his life as if moral values were real and important.
your way of accounting for man's moral judgments leads inevitably to a contradiction between what your theory demands and your own spontaneous judgments - F.C. Copleston
Most readers feel that Russell is indeed in a weak position here: he wants to 'have his cake and eat it too' by believing that the Nazis were wicked and wrong, while insisting that values are relative so there doesn't have to be an objective moral law that might point towards the existence of God.