The Debate: The Problem with This Philosopher

By
"Why shouldn't one raise the question of the cause of the existence of all particular objects?"
"Because I see no reason to think there is any."
Is that all Russell has to say? This agnostic attitude of "I'm going to straight-out refuse to even look at a reason why God might exist on the grounds that I just don't want to" really kills a debate. Can this even be called a debate, or just Copleston trying to convince Russell to spend some time considering the question? Russell admits at the end that he refuses to even ask whether God exists; you can't have a debate where one party won't even address the underlying question. 

I must say, Russell can't be making his predecessors in philosophy proud with this attitude. A stubborn refusal to ask a question seems highly contrary to the very nature of philosophy. How can you search for truth unless you first admit that there is a truth which must be found? How can you consider the question if you say there is no question at all? I would almost be tempted to say that Russell is afraid to ask the question of God because he knows it will produce more questions which he can't answer. Philosophy isn't about making sure you only have easy questions along the lines of "Does that table exist?" 

P.S. I commented on Zelda and Ethan's posts.

Comments

  1. Ty GoramFebruary 2, 2018 at 1:51 PM

    I agree. He continues to move around the questions asked of him because of how badly it all seems to contradict.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Michael TurnerFebruary 3, 2018 at 2:39 PM

    As I mentioned in my post, his argument becomes null and void by his presupposition that there is nothing necessary. The same goes for the evolutionary debate. "Nothing begets something." These ways of thinking are their own contradiction.

    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