If indeed truth propositions and reality can only be perceived through the logical constructions of the physical world as manifest in and through experience, the existence of God seems unrealistic at best to Russell. To the atheistic philosopher the reasons to embrace the existence of God do not follow the principles of logic and do not seem to be true to human experience or inferences upon such experience. Russell tackles the theistic reasons for the existence of God in many of his books and essays, the most famous of which is his essay that was originally given as a lecture to the National Secular Society in 1927. In his work, he speaks on "the first cause argument" as well as those stemming from natural law, design, morals, and evidences from the history of Christianity.
To begin, combats the idea that theists, most notably Thomas Aquinas, firmly grasp as a logical construction that is valid based on sense experience. That is, as Russell explains, "everything that we see in this world has a cause, and as you go back in the chain of causes further and further you must come to a First Cause, and to that First Cause, you give the name God." This is a weak argument that lacks credence because it naturally begs the question, "Who caused God?" If everything has a cause, God must have a cause as well, says Russell.
But this is an insufficient way of looking at the theistic viewpoint. Frederick Copleston posed the first cause argument in more explainable terms to Lord Russell in a debate hosted by the BBC on January 28, 1948. In this debate, Russell reasserted his viewpoint that he does not find it necessary that the universe had a cause, and if there was a ground, Russell would listen to it. Copelston replied, "The series of events is either caused or its not caused. If it is caused there must obviously be a cause outside the series. If it's not caused, then it's sufficient to itself. And if it's sufficient to itself, then it is what I call, necessary. But it can't be necessary, since each member is contingent, and we've agreed that the total is no reality apart from the members. Therefore, it can't be necessary...the statement, 'the world is simply there and is inexplicable' can't beget out of logical analysis."
Ironically, Copleston seems to be more analytic than the founder of analytic philosophy.
[1]Bertrand Russell., Why I Am Not a Christian, and Other Essays on Religion and Related Subjects (Simon and Schuster, Inc.: New York, NY), 6.
[1] Frederick C. Copelston, Bertrand Russell, Frederick C. Copelston vs. Bertrand Russel. BBC Third Programme Recording (1948), part 2 [on-line]; accessed 18 November 2009; available from http://video.google.com/videosearch?sourceid=navclient&rlz=1T4SUNA_enUS219US220&q=bertrand%20russell%20atheism%20debate&um=1&ie=UTF8&sa=N&hl=en&tab=wv#sourceid=navclient&rlz=1T4SUNA_enUS219US220&q=bertrand+russell+atheism+debate&um=1&ie=UTF8&sa=N&hl=en&tab=wv&qvid=bertrand+russell+atheism+debate&vid=-570402838020470563
No comments:
Post a Comment