Here is the famous debate on the existence of God between Frederick Copleston and Bertrand Russell. The link gives you the transcript of the debate. The only audio I have found is a partial MP3 from archive.org. It will give you an idea of the dialogue.
Partial MP3 Audio here.
Enjoy.
Thursday, March 19, 2009
Frederick Copleston vs. Bertrand Russell
Topics:
audio
,
Bertrand Russell
,
debate
,
Frederick Copleston
,
mp3
Blog Archive
-
▼
2009
(336)
-
▼
March
(28)
- Featured Website: Biblical Training
- Apologetics Lectures by Ronald Nash MP3 Audio
- Sunday Quote: Ravi Zacharias on Rejecting God
- Book Review: The End of Reason by Ravi Zacharias
- What Philosophers Wish Theologians Knew About Phil...
- Richard Carrier Debate: Craig's Response MP3 Audio
- Featured Website: Wintery Knight Blog
- William Lane Craig vs Shabir Ally MP3 Audio
- Sunday Quote: Ghandi on Atheism
- Richard Carrier vs William Lane Craig Debate MP3 A...
- 42 Logical Fallacies
- Frederick Copleston vs. Bertrand Russell
- Free Audiobooks Monthly
- Featured Podcast: The Frank Turek Show
- Sunday Quote: On Thinking
- Book Review: Kingdom Triangle by J. P. Moreland
- Masters of Arts in Christian Apologetics Programs
- Featured Website: Critical Thinking Web
- A Case for Life MP3 by Scott Klusendorf
- Gary Habermas's Journey of Skepticism & Doubt MP3 ...
- Why Does Anything at All Exist? MP3 by William Lan...
- Sunday Quote: Francis Bacon on Philosophy
- Book Review: A Little Primer on Humble Apologetics...
- Logical Fallacies by Michael Ramsden MP3
- The Probability of God Test
- John Lennox on "God of the Gaps"
- Two MP3 Talks on Atheism
- Persuasive Evangelism - Apologetics MP3 Audio
-
▼
March
(28)
6 comments :
Great! I've been wanting this.
Yeah, I've been waiting since 1948!!!
aDios,
Mariano
It seems to me, that Copleston won the debate.
But what fascinates me, is that this debate seems significantly deeper than what we typically find in debates in the modern era.
For Copleston to have won the debate he would have had to have carried the resolution but he failed to sufficiently account for Russell's many objections, so does not do so.
It's both deeper and more shallow, it is deeper in going to nitty-gritty (but ultimately irrelevant) details - but those details have been covered repeatedly, hundreds of times over since and no consensus has emerged that they are meaningful. The facts arrayed against the premises are vast and there are legitimate concerns over the logic as well.
You can reframe the Cosmological or Ontological arguments any which way you want but you are still just begging the question. Why? Because there is no evidence supporting the premise.
One such example is here:
http://iconoclasm2000.blogspot.com/2011/11/illogical-cosmology.html
I second Dark Star in what he writes. Basically, it is not that who speaks the most wins. It is who has the most logic and arguments who does.
Can Russell win any relevant debate? I think this is the right question to ask. He can for sure define the limits of his inquire, determine the rules of engagement in is particular philosophy. What he can not do is answer relevant questions: Who am I, were am i going, what's the meaning of life, is there a God?
He actually doesn't rebute any classic philosophical questions, he just dismisses them as non questions and, as Copleston very well states, dogmatically asserts their futility. It's just too hard to take him seriously. He transformed philosophy in a logical game to entertain bored people. Made it sadly irrelevant outside of academical circles.
Post a Comment
Thanks for taking the time to comment. By posting your comment you are agreeing to the comment policy.