PHIL-1301

  • Uncategorized

Coplestonvs. Russell Debate

Coplestonvs. Russell Debate

Readingthe debate, I cannot help but recognize the importance of thediscussion of the educative sector. An interesting factor to note isthat both sides had developed a solid argument. In the cosmologicalargument, it is identified as the term that is provided to threekinds of arguments that are given by Aquinas which was among thefirst three methods that Aquinas used to prove the existence of God.In this case, I will base the explanation on Copleston argument sinceit is the argument that according to my opinion was more compelling.

Copleston`sdebate provided a valid argument in the process that he was using thecause and effect analysis to provide the contingency argument. Thus,in this argument, Copleston noted that everything that was present inthe world was either caused by something or by someone. Thus, therewas a pressure origin from everything that was existent. Moreover, toexplain the point he also noted that the existence of things andsomeone cannot be caused by the individual or the item to exist. Thereason why it cannot cause itself to exist is that they are bound andmade up of the contingencies themselves (Roy, 2014).

Thusthis creates the reserve argument brought about by Copleston. Acounter argument that was made by Russell was a weak argument.Russell attempted to counter the contingency argument by stating thatthe questioning of cause is not a logical mechanism. Furthermore, inthe counterargument, there was no cause since there is no portray ofknowledge quest existence and meaning. The argument is weak and notcompelling as compared to Copleston debate.

Theresponse that Copleston gave is a counterargument on religiousexperience stated by Russell. The argument that Russell gave out wasthat he likened the experiences of human beings to the feelings thatGOD had mechanisms to influence characters in people. However,Copleston countered the argument by providing examples. Aninteresting example that Copleston used was asking the relationshipthat a man has when he falls in love with a phantom and how itdepicts the religious experience and GOD`s feeling (Roy, 2014). Inthis experience, Copleston suggests that the falling in lovedescribes the real value that the man perceives as an idea that isobjectively valid. Thus, the example and explanation support thecontingency argument brought about by Copleston that the existencegoes beyond the individual being.

Lastly,the upholding of the moral argument is another mechanism that makesthe case by Copleston to be interesting and important. According toCopleston, the presence of moral values promoted the ability ofindividuals to distinguish between rights and also wrong in thesociety. Thus, the moral argument and ethics helps in theestablishment of a transcendent ground and also promotes theestablishment of moral law. Morality shows the existence of God as itis what the God wanted human beings to have and respect each otherwhile on earth. However, there is a counter-argument brought about byRussell who states that there is no moral code. The argument is notcompelling as there is no solid explanation on why there is no moralcode of conduct. Furthermore, there is a contradiction in thisscenario as earlier Russell had agreed to have a morality of judgingbetween what is right and wrong.

Responses

Studentone notes that there was a challenge in settling for the bestargument and that appropriate reading of the debate was vital in theselection of the side. The presentation of ideas to supportCopleston’s argument was adequate and logical by the student numberone. The case by the student was educative and easy to read andunderstand.

Thesecond student in the response chose to use a point form method toexplain how convincing Copleston’s argument was when it came toexplaining the existence of God. The student highlighted the mostimportant points and provided an explanation of the points making iteasy for the reader to understand the response. Moreover, thelanguage in the response was professional and educative. I enjoyedreading the response as it had clear points of discussions.

Reference

Roy,J. (2014). TheGod of Philosophy: An Introduction to Philosophy of Religion.Routledge

Close Menu