Download 06-russells-criticisms

Cosmological Argument Recap
1. On your whiteboards summarise a basic version
of the Cosmological argument.
2. Then use your phones to go to kahoot.it and join
the room:
Think carefully about what mistakes you made on the
quiz before Christmas, and what we covered to do
with the cosmological argument.
Hume’s Four Criticisms
What were the four criticisms Hume made of the cosmological argument?
1. Why God?
2. No such thing as necessary beings
3. Cause is a human construct
4. Fallacy of Composition
Hume’s Four Criticisms
Did any of these arguments have successful responses?
1. Why God?
2. No such thing as necessary beings
3. Cause is a human construct
4. Fallacy of Composition
Returning to Copleston Vs Russell
Whiteboards – Can you remember the version of the argument that
Copleston puts forward?
• Things in the universe exist contingently
• Something that exists contingently has (and
needs) an explanation of why it exists; its
existence is not inevitable
• This explanation may be provided by the
existence of some other contingent being.
But then we must explain the existence of
these other contingent beings
• To repeat this infinitely is no explanation of
why anything exists at all
• Therefore, what explains why contingent
beings exist at all can only be a noncontingent being
• A non-contingent being is one that exists
necessarily
C: This necessary being is God
Russell’s Criticisms 1
Which of Hume’s Criticisms is Russell echoing here?:
“This raises a great many points and it's not altogether easy to
know where to begin, but I think that, perhaps, in answering
your argument, the best point with which to begin is the
question of a Necessary Being. The word "necessary" I should
maintain, can only be applied significantly to propositions.
And, in fact, only to such as are analytic -- that is to say -- such
as it is self-contradictory to deny. I could only admit a
Necessary Being if there were a being whose existence it is
self-contradictory to deny.” - Russell
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hXPdpEJk
78E – 4.59
Russell’s Criticisms 1 – No Necessary Beings
Russells first criticism is one of two he
borrows from Hume:
Both Aquinas and Copleston assume that
there can be a necessary being. But Russell
disagrees, arguing that only propositions can
be necessary, not beings. Necessary truths are
ones whose opposite implies a contradiction,
but there is no being whose non-existence
implies a contradiction.
Although they may not be true, claims about
existence such as “Barry does not exist”
always make sense- they are not selfcontradictory because they are synthetic
rather than analytic (we’ll see much more on
this idea later). So even talking about the idea
of a necessary being is mistaken.
Does denying the existence of any
of these things create a
contradiction?
Russell’s Criticisms 2
Which of Hume’s Criticisms is Russell echoing here?:
“Because I see no reason to think there is any. The whole
concept of cause is one we derive from our observation of
particular things; I see no reason whatsoever to suppose that
the total has any cause whatsoever.
I can illustrate what seems to me your fallacy. Every man who
exists has a mother, and it seems to me your argument is that
therefore the human race must have a mother, but obviously
the human race hasn't a mother -- that's a different logical
sphere.” - Russell
Russell’s Criticisms 2 – Fallacy of Composition
• Russell points out that Copleston moves from talk of individual contingent
things to the group of all contingent things. Whilst individual contingent
things may need an explanation, that doesn’t mean that the group does.
• When someone wrongly attributes a property of individual items to the
group of items as a whole, this is known as the fallacy of composition. It is
simply not always true that the whole group has the same properties that
the individual parts do.
What examples have we
seen to illustrate this?
A Response to Russell
The problem is that sometimes properties of the parts do apply to the whole:
I might break this table down and look at the properties of it’s individual parts:
Brown, Wooden, Flammable etc.
As a result I would be able to say that the table as a whole is brown, wooden
and flammable and I would be right, the fallacy of composition does not apply
here.
Could we say the same of the universe? Each part is contingent and requires a
cause, so to does the whole?
Russell’s Criticisms 3 – The Unnecessary Question
Now we move on to Russell’s more unique criticisms of the argument:
Building on Hume and the fallacy of composition – Russell
criticises the idea that we are looking for a cause of the
universe as a whole at all. He argues that we derive our idea
of cause from our experience of particular things and
therefore, since we cannot experience the universe as a
whole, we cannot therefore talk about it’s cause.
“I should therefore say
that the Universe is
just there, and that’s
all.”
Russell’s Criticisms 3 – The Unnecessary Question
Now we move on to Russell’s more unique criticisms of the argument:
In arguing this, Russell is denying the very point of the
cosmological argument to start with – he doesn’t think we
need great, all encompassing answers for existence. He does
not think the universe is crying out for an explanation. Russell
does not feel the need Copleston does to answer the question
“Why is this all here?”
“I should therefore say
that the Universe is
just there, and that’s
all.”
Russell’s Criticisms 4 – Uncaused Events
A final criticism Russell offer’s is one we’ve seen before, supported by
modern science:
“I don't want to seem arrogant, but it does seem to me that I
can conceive things that you say the human mind can't
conceive. As for things not having a cause, the physicists
assure us that individual quantum transitions in atoms have
no cause.” - Russell
Russell’s Criticisms 4 – Uncaused Events
A final criticism Russell offer’s is one we’ve seen before, supported by
modern science:
• Although quantum physics was only
just being discovered at the time of
the radio debate, Russell uses the
example of quantum particles
which behave indeterminately and
appear to be uncaused.
• It is accepted by most (but not all)
scientists that some of the actions
and properties of these particles
have no cause, that they do not
have definite properties prior to
being measured.
• This is known as the Copenhagen
Interpretation.
Russell’s Criticisms 4 – Uncaused Events
What does this mean?
• If on some sub-atomic level, there
are particular events that have no
cause – is it not possible that this
could explain the start of the
universe? That our existence is
ultimately based on one of these
chance, still-contingent, uncaused
actions, rather than a necessary
God?
• If this is a genuine possibility then it
massively undermines one of the
key premises of the causal
cosmological arguments: the
certainty that everything must
have a cause.
Russell’s Four Criticisms
Use pages 287-289 in the textbook to make sure you have these criticisms recorded:
1. No necessary beings
2. Fallacy of Composition
3. The unnecessary question
4. Uncaused events
Summarising the Cosmological Argument
From the scheme:
The cosmological argument: causal and contingency arguments, including
those formulated by:
• Aquinas’ Five Ways (first three)
• Descartes
• the Kalam argument.
Issues, including those raised by:
• Hume
• Russell.
Use the textbooks page 261 onwards to fill in any gaps in your
knowledge of this topic.
Exam Style Questions
1.
What is meant by the term contingency? (2 marks)
2.
Outline Aquinas’ argument from motion (5 marks)
3.
Outline the cosmological argument one of Hume’s criticisms (9
marks)
4.
Does the cosmological argument successfully prove the existence of
God? (15 marks)
Homework
https://trcreligionandphilosophy.wordpress.com/2017/01/04/philosophy-ofreligion-homework-2/
Final Summary – Beat The Teacher
Using your notes from this topic,
can you come up with a
question I won’t be able to
answer?
Anyone who can will get some
sweets (because philosophers
are apparently not concerned
with healthy eating).
Remember, you will need to
know the answer yourself to
make sure I’ve got it right or
wrong!