WOW, that was GOOD!!

By
The first bit of the debate really annoyed me because Bertrand Russel basically pivoted with definitions and I was happy when Copleston called him out and said that Russel had to understand where he was coming from and what he was saying. Russel is a very intelligent man, yet I really feel like I was listening to a man who is driven by such an academic way of thinking, that he was not able to believe in God. He and Copleston reached an impasse, in Copleston's words, because Their differing viewpoints on whether a "necessary being" must exist. Russel's view is that the necessary being must exist and cannot not exist is a meaningless this to consider, and when Copleston pointed this out, I was confused as to what more they could say, being that it would be almost impossible to agree on much. When they went further, I started to get confused as to what Russel was trying to say. Seems like he wasn't trying to prove anything, but rather just disable Colpeston. The problem I think that separates certain thinkers when it comes to God, is that there is differing definitions of what "explainable" means. When Copleston spoke about the chocolates example and then the infinite contingent beings, I agreed that the contingent being would never build up to the necessary being, but rather the cause of all has to be transcendent. It just seems like Bertrand Russel has no interest to find a cause in anything. I think it makes sense that the conversation ended there. I feel like Copleston made a great argument against Russel in this debate. This was a lot to take in, but I really enjoyed it!



"To say that one has not found it is one thing, to say that one should not look for it, is dogmatic."

My favorite quote from Copleston.

P.S. First ;)

Comments

  1. Will BradyFebruary 1, 2018 at 5:13 PM

    The most interesting thing about the debate to me was the fact that it ever happened in the first place. If Russell doesn't believe it's even worth looking for God, why is he trying to debate someone about God's existence? If you wanted to debate with me that Tom Brady is history's greatest quarterback, I wouldn't go into that conversation and then hold a position of "I think Brady isn't the best because I've never watched football and never intend to." (No offense, Uncle Tom!)

    ReplyDelete
  2. UnknownFebruary 2, 2018 at 11:41 AM

    I agree with Will! It is hard to debate well with someone if there is no sort of coming together and at least truly listening to what your counterpart has to say. How do you ask good questions if there is no hearing what another is saying in the first place? You don't have to agree with them, but you should work towards a meeting grounds of sorts-even if that is agreeing to disagree in the end.

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

An Honest Reaction to Reading "Honest to God"

By
Originally I said in my last blog post that I liked this book, but I have sort of changed my mind. It is not that I hate it or anything, it is just weird and I don’t really agree with what John Robinson is saying most of the time. I appreciate that he is trying to write something different and new, but my problem is that some of the ideas are just a little too radical for my taste, and I disagree with him a lot. In the seventh and last chapter of the book, Robinson himself acknowledges his radicalness and writes about how he knows that this type of thought on religion is controversial. He goes on to write how all great thinkers were seen as controversial when they first started and says, “Every new religious truth comes as the destroyer of some other god”. To further prove this point, he uses the example of how Socrates was condemned as an atheist for not believing in multiple gods, and while it is true that Socrates was a great philosopher who was not seen as so when he was alive, I ...
Read more

Raphael and a man walk into Eden...

By
I'll just start off by saying Raphael is one of the three named archangels in Scripture we hear the least about, and I thoroughly enjoy just reading and seeing his name pop up. Regardless, I want to touch on Adam's recounting of his own..."birth". Take that with a grain of salt as Adam was not physically born, but rather he simply became. In truth, we should all be able to give a similar account to their first memory of consciousness and fully aware. Adam was created, but he realized he could walk, talk, and speak without first learning. Imagine being able to think clear thoughts in your native language and be a functioning individual right out of the womb. It's an incredible thought, and Adam can give a recall of this like it were yesterday...which it might have been, who knows? Aside from that, Adam could even give an account to Eve's creation. The Bible says nothing pertaining to this matter so this is where Milton does a bit of adlibbing and writes around ...
Read more

Extra blog

By
OK so, honors project! Honestly I really loved it as a whole. I said this already in the video, but I feel like I personally could've done better. I just feel like I didn't have enough time to completely process some questions and be able to give my best responses. I really enjoyed reading the O'Connor piece, which I think was everyone's favorite anyway. I love narrative stories like that, but honestly I'm glad I got to be in the Russell group. I feel like that group was the easiest to argue and answer from, honestly. As a whole, I would love to do a project like this again in later semesters. It was a lot of fun and time FLEW by.
Read more