1. INTRODUCTION Page 20
This extract is the transcript of a radio debate between Frederick Copleston (a theist) and Bertrand Russell (an agnostic).
Bertrand Russell
Frederick Copleston
This part of the extract is Copleston clarifying with Russell that, even though he is a theist and Russell is agnostic, the understand the definition of God to be ‘A supreme being – distinct from the world and the Creator of the world’.
Russell agrees with Copleston’s definition but then disagrees with his later point that morality cannot be objective or absolute without the God previously defined. They agree to discuss this point at a later date.

2. THE ARGUMENT FROM CONTINGENCY Pages 21-23
Bertrand Russell
Frederick Copleston
The universe is made up of contingent beings. Contingent beings cannot cause themselves, to avoid an infinite regress there must therefore be a necessary being who caused the existence of contingent beings. This is a form of the cosmological argument.
Copleston is keen to point out that he is not pursuing an ontological argument and trying to prove God ‘a’priori based on his essence. Instead Copleston believes that God’s existence can be proved a’posteriori from the world around us, ie religious experience.
Russell objects to the idea of a necessary being because he thinks that only things that are analytically true or are a tautology are necessary.
Russell refers to a criticism made by Kant of the ontological argument that describing something as having the predicate of necessary existence does not automatically mean that it actually exists.
Key words to look for:
Necessary, contingent, analytic

3. THE PRINCIPLE OF SUFFICIENT REASON Page 24
Frederick Copleston
Bertrand Russell
For Copleston, a necessary being like God is a sufficient reason for the universe existing. Otherwise we would have an infinite regress of causes for which there is no explanation.
Russell believes that looking for a total explanation is a waste of time because one is not going to be found.
The Principle of Sufficient Reason was devised by Leibniz who said that it was a complete explanation for something. In other words, nothing needed to be added to the explanation. Copleston believes that God is a complete explanation for the universe, as, because he is a necessary being, we don’t need to explain what created/caused God.
Key words to look for:
Sufficient reason, adequate explanation

4. THE UNIVERSE IS THE TOTALITY OF THE OBJECTS INSIDE IT Pages 24 - 28
Copleston argues that as the parts of the universe can be observed to have a cause, then the universe itself must also have a cause.
Copleston believes that we should start off by looking for an explanation for the universe and only conclude that there isn’t one if we can’t find it. He accuses Russell of doing this the wrong way and assuming that there is no cause so dismissing all attempts to find one before he has even tried.
Copleston refers to the work of French philosopher Sartre who described the world as ‘gratuitous’, in other words unnecessary. Copleston argues that science is based on the assumption of cause and effect and accuses Russell of being unscientific in his disregard of this (this is linking back to Copleston’s original idea that the universe must have a cause).
When Russell argues that there are particles in space that seemingly cause themselves, Copleston responds that this is more of a question of unidentified cause, all scientists really mean is that they haven’t been able to find one yet. He points out that scientists assume cause and effect in the order and intelligibility of nature.
Copleston thinks that Russell is wrong to assume that scientists don’t believe in cause and effect. He asserts that scientists wouldn’t even look for a cause or explanation if they did not believe that one would be found.
Frederick Copleston

5. THE UNIVERSE IS THE TOTALITY OF THE OBJECTS INSIDE IT Pages 24 - 28
Russell criticises Copleston for assuming that just because the universe is made up of contingent things, that the universe itself is therefore contingent.
Russell argues that just because things in the universe show evidence of cause and effect, there is no reason to presume an overall cause for the universe itself. This links to the Fallacy of Compostion, the idea that what is true of the parts, is not necessarily true of the whole.
Russell thinks that the universe has no cause and is just a ‘brute fact’, ie we just have to accept that it exists and not question it.
When Copleston argues that science is based on the idea of everything having a cause, Russell responds with an example from quantum physics of particles that go in and out of existence, seemingly without a cause.
He then adds that scientists hope for causes and explanations but they don’t always assume that they will find them.
Bertrand Russell
Key words to look for:
Cause, handy, gratuitous, Sartre, science, quantum transitions

6. RELIGIOUS EXPERIENCE Pages 28-30
Copleston stresses that he is talking about mystical experiences, those in which the experient is overwhelmed by feelings that they cannot explain but understand the cause of these feelings to be God.
He compares this to falling in love for two reasons. Firstly, to show how common religious experience is as many people fall in love. Secondly, to fall in love with a person or painting suggests that there is something to fall in love with – a source that is the cause of the feeling.
Although Copleston acknowledges Russell’s point about people having strong feelings for fictional characters, he believes that there is something fundamentally different between a mystical experience of God and an aesthetic experience of a fictional character.
Copleston argues that the experiences Russell is referring to when he says that experiences of God are identical to those of Satan, are mainly visions and don’t count, he believes that what makes the experiences of God different to all other experiences are the effects they have on a person’s life.
Frederick Copleston

7. RELIGIOUS EXPERIENCE Pages 28-30
Copleston tries to argue that there is a link between belief and the cause of a moral effect, ie becaue someone believes that they have seen God, it causes them to behave in a more moral way. He also asserts that living a moral life is evidence that a person is sane and truthful and therefore we should believe them when they say that they have had an experience of God.
Copleston agrees with Russell’s point that people can be inspired by fictional characters but argues that the feelings felt in a mystical experience would be completely different to this.
Copleston specifies that we don’t fall in love with any old character, there has to be a something about them to be admired. He suggests that we love the character because of the value that they represent, eg compassion etc. He argues that what we actually fall in love with is the value, and even the character is not real, the value is.
Even though Russell claims not to see the difference, Copleston argues that it is different because he believes that mystical experience is when someone has an encounter with an ultimate value without the need for role models, legends and fictional characters.
Frederick Copleston

8. RELIGIOUS EXPERIENCE Pages 28-30
Russell immediately draws attention to the private nature of religious experience. He contrasts experiencing God with seeing a clock in the room; anyone else in the room will also see the clock but they may not experience God.
Russell tries to make the point that known fictional characters can cause people to feel extreme feelings – there have been instances in Japan where young men have committed suicide as an act of devotion to a fictional character.
Russell makes the point that the feelings felt during an alleged mystical experience of God are identical to those felt by people who claim to have had experiences of the devil.
Russell does not think that an effect on a person’s life is a true reflection of whether or not they actually have had an experience of God. All effects on a person’s life can indicate is whether they believe they have experienced God.
Russell gives the example of a school boy reading about a mythological character, believing him to be real and being inspired to become a better person. Russell says that although the effect is very real, the character remains fictional.
Russell argues that religious believers are actually loving a ‘phantom’, what they are actually in love with is the idea of something and it is this that effects the way in which they live their lives.
Bertrand Russell
Key words to look for:
Experience, mystical, effects, Japan, phantom

9. 10 MARK QUESTION OVERVIEW
INTRO
Agree on a definition of God:
‘A supreme being – distinct from the world and the Creator of the world’.
Disagree that morality has no basis without God and decide to leave this to another time.
Argument from Contingency
Principle of Sufficient Reason
The Universe if the Totality of its Parts
Religious Experience
The universe is made up of contingent beings – there must therefore be a necessary one.
Believes that God can be proved a’posteriori through observation of religious experience.
God is a complete explanation for the universe, as, because he is a necessary being, we don’t need to explain what created/caused God.
As the parts of the universe can be observed to have a cause, then the universe itself must also have a cause.
We should start off by looking for an explanation for the universe and only conclude that there isn’t one if we can’t find it.
Science is based on the assumption of cause and effect and accuses Russell of being unscientific in his disregard of this.
When Russell argues that there are particles in space that seemingly cause themselves, he responds that this is more of a question of unidentified cause, all scientists really mean is that they haven’t been able to find one yet.
Russell is wrong to assume that scientists don’t believe in cause and effect. He asserts that scientists wouldn’t even look for a cause or explanation if they did not believe that one would be found.
He is talking about mystical experiences, those in which the experient is overwhelmed by feelings that they cannot explain but understand the cause of these feelings to be God.
He compares this to falling in love for two reasons to how common and that there must be source to fall in love with.
He believes that there is something fundamentally different between a mystical experience of God and an experience of a fictional character.
Argues that the experiences Russell is referring to when he says that experiences of God are identical to those of Satan, are mainly visions and don’t count, he believes that what makes the experiences of God different to all other experiences are the effects they have on a person’s life.
Argues that the moral effect on a person’s life is proof that they have experienced God.
Agrees with Russell’s point that people can be inspired by fictional characters but argues that the feelings felt in a mystical experience would be completely different to this.
Specifies that we don’t fall in love with any old character, there has to be a something about them to be admired. He argues that what we actually fall in love with is the value they represent, and even the character is not real, the value is.
There is no such thing as a necessary being – this only applies to analytical statements and tautologies.
You cannot define something as having necessary existence and automatically conclude that it then does exist.
Russell believes that looking for a total explanation is a waste of time because one is not going to be found.
Just because things in the universe show evidence of cause and effect, there is no reason to presume an overall cause for the universe itself – Fallacy of Composition.
The universe has no cause and is just a ‘brute fact’.
When Copleston argues that science is based on the idea of everything having a cause, he responds with an example from quantum physics of particles that go in and out of existence, seemingly without a cause.
He then adds that scientists hope for causes and explanations but they don’t always assume that they will find them.
He contrasts experiencing God with seeing a clock in the room; anyone else in the room will also see the clock but they may not experience God.
Known fictional characters can cause people to feel extreme feelings – Japan.
The feelings felt during an alleged mystical experience of God are identical to those of the devil.
All effects on a person’s life can indicate is whether they believe they have experienced God.
Gives the example of a school boy reading about a mythological character, believing him to be real and being inspired to become a better person. Russell says that although the effect is very real, the character remains fictional.
Argues that religious believers are actually loving a ‘phantom’, what they are actually in love with is the idea of something and it is this that effects the way in which they live their lives.
Copleston
Russell

10. HOW TO STRUCTURE A MIND MAP FOR COPLESTON AND RUSSELL
Agree and Disagree (2)
Copleston (7)
Russell (6)
INTRO
RELIGIOUS EXPERIENCE
KEY IDEAS
Copleston – the existence of the universe and religious experience prove that God exists.
Russell – neither of things prove the existence of God.
THE ARGUMENT FROM CONTINGENCY
CONTINGENCY
THE UNIVERSE IS THE TOTALITY OF ITS PARTS
Copleston (2)
Copleston (5)
Russell (2)
PRINCIPLE OF SUFFICIENT REASON
Russell (4)
Copleston (1)
Russell (1)