0 Comment

Historico debate;La existencia de Dios Russell VS Copleston:ESPAÑOL en 2D. Sobre la santificacion de la memoria. Find this Pin and more on La Fe. Materia y racionalidad: sobre la existencia de la Idea de Pérez Bertrand Russell y F. C. Copleston: “Debate sobre la existencia de Dios”. Existencia e identidad: especificación frente a descripción de un dominio.A. Arrieta Bertrand Russell y F. C. Copleston: “Debate sobre la existencia de Dios “.

Author: Feshicage Goltizil
Country: Maldives
Language: English (Spanish)
Genre: Politics
Published (Last): 27 October 2014
Pages: 129
PDF File Size: 14.84 Mb
ePub File Size: 12.78 Mb
ISBN: 412-4-15770-224-6
Downloads: 24741
Price: Free* [*Free Regsitration Required]
Uploader: Mirr

But that’s my point. Eliana Borges Russel – – Russelo Inquietude 3 1: You can sometimes give a causal explanation of one thing as being the effect of something else, but that is merely referring one thing to another thing and there’s no — to my mind — explanation dis Father Copleston’s sense of anything at all, nor is there any meaning in calling things “contingent” because there isn’t anything else they could be. Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University’s proxy server Configure custom proxy use this if your affiliation does not provide a proxy.

Well, I should have to answer at considerable length to answer that. That’s what I should say about that, but I should like to say a few words about Father Copleston’s accusation that I regard logic as all philosophy — that is by no means the case.

About: Frederick Copleston

You think that good and evil have reference simply to feeling? Surely that’s a first cause within a certain selected field. Those experiences were important, but they did not involve the existence of something outside me, and I don’t think that if I’d thought they did, the fact that they had a wholesome effect would have been any evidence that I was right.

Bertrand Russell y F. Science Logic and Mathematics. Yes, certainly if anybody saw God, he would see that God must exist. The same is true when the physicists look for causes. And the effect of that experience is, I should say, borne out, or I mean the validity of th experience is borne out in the records of the life of Plotinus.

I think we have reached an impasse because our ideas of philosophy are radically different; it seems to me that what I call a part of philosophy, that you call the whole, insofar at least as philosophy is rational. The human being’s ideas of the content of the moral law depends entirely to a large extent on education and environment, and a man has to use his reason in assessing the validity of the actual moral ideas of his social group.


I haven’t committed suicide, I’m glad to say, but I have been strongly influenced in the taking of two important steps ds my life by two biographies. Roughly speaking, yes, though I should have coplesotn place some limitation on your last clause.

Edit this record Mark as duplicate Export citation Find it on Scholar Request removal from index Translate to english Revision history.

Russell Debate portion on “Contingency” — note: No more than there is for the color-blind person who’s in exactly the same state. Well, perhaps it’s time I summed up my position. That sounds well but isn’t in fact correct.

So it all turns on this question of sufficient reason, and I must say you haven’t defined “sufficient reason” in a way that I can understand — what do you mean by sufficient reason? Well, certainly the question “Does the cause of the world exist? Please remember that I’m not saying that a mystic’s mediation or interpretation of his experience should be immune from discussion or criticism.

But surely in the case of the devils there have been people speaking mainly of visions, appearance, angels or demons and so on. Monthly downloads Sorry, there are not enough data points to plot this chart. And the mystic, if his vision is veridical, may be said to know that there are devils. I don’t think he’d say so. In any case, if the total has no cause, then to my way of thinking it must be its own cause, which seems to me impossible.

You may say that the world has no existencka but I fail to see how you can say that the proposition that “the cause of the world exists” is meaningless. But a man has a consciousness of obligation and of moral values. Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University’s proxy server Configure custom proxy use this if your affiliation does not provide a proxy.

Fr. Copleston vs. Bertrand Russell: The Famous BBC Radio Debate on the Existence of God

You maintain, I think, that existing beings are simply there, and that I have no justification for raising the question of the explanation of their existence. Either God only speaks to a very small percentage of mankind — which happens to include yourself — or He deliberately says things are not true in talking to the consciences of savages.


Well, let’s take the behavior of the Commandant of Belsen. Yes, I should add we don’t know the essence a priori. Lorenzo Vicente Burgoa – – Ciencia Tomista I don’t want rusaell seem arrogant, but it does seem to me that I can conceive things that you say the human mind can’t conceive.

But still I agree that the validity of such an interpretation of a man’s conduct depends on the recognition of God’s existence, obviously. Well, I dois agree with that. But in any case I am using the character of the life as evidence in favor of the mystic’s veracity and sanity rather than as a proof of the truth of his beliefs. But I sobe see any reason to say that — I mean we all know about conditioned reflexes. Do you mean that you reject these terms because they won’t fit in with what is called “modern logic”?

Sign in to use this feature. Yes, but if he were in the majority, we shouldn’t say that.

Debate Sobre La Existencia De Dios

Copleston Jesuit Catholic priest versus Bertrand Russell agnostic philosopher, picture right Listen to the original Fr. I maintain the meaninglessness of certain particular terms — not on any general ground, but simply because I’ve not been able diios see an interpretation of those particular terms.

Suppose I give a brief statement on the fopleston argument and that then we go on to discuss it? But the form of it, what Kant calls the categorical imperative, the “ought,” I really don’t see how that can possibly be conveyed to anybody by nurse or parent because there aren’t any possible terms, so far as I can see, with which it can be explained.