We take on Bertrand Russell and The Principle of Sufficient Reason!

We try to show that Bertrand Russell submits the pricinciple of sufficient reason as an article of faith accidentally in an argument.

Includes part of a January 28, 1948 debate between Russell and Frederick Copleston.

Credit: http://www.youtube.com/user/riversonthemoon

Copyright rational: Short copyright clip used under the "fair use" provisions for criticism / critique.

Category:

Entertainment

Tags:

• philosophy
• atheism
• bertrand
• russell

[Nitelurker1]

ratings disabled lol

[atheismisreligion]

@Nitelurker1 "ratings disabled" Sadly I cannot providing a rating system for Bertrand "nuke 'em all" Russel

[henryporter101]

I enjoyed reading the argument below.I first read this debate twenty three years ago:I could never have envisaged that I'd one day watch a video like this.For my part,I agree with Russell.Like any theist,Copleston is forced to believe in a first cause,so he has a lot of work to do.All Russell has to do is reject the idea:it's much easier to be an Atheist.

[atheismisreligion]

@langengro con't therefor Copleston is correct that if you want to go out and see the current state of the universe you have to look at it. Russel is wrong in rejecting this because there will continue be cause-and-effect relationships, however the complete history of them is lost. However with the billiard balls, we can infer logically that some history did exist, and may have existed always. In other words, I give an example where PSR holds, and Russel rejects it.

[atheismisreligion]

@langengro Firstly, I would like to present evidence that Russel was immoral and unthinking: He called for the nuclear annihilation of Moscow before they obtained the bomb. Now, with that out of the way, I would like say that Copleston is arguing that a necessary proposition is a contingent one. I'm sure he has a particular context, but the billiard balls works for me. In that context, the past history of the balls is lost in the ambiguity (and randomness) of the collisions.

[atheismisreligion]

@langengro Hm, I was all set to pounce on the 'so you read a definition' thing and you've undone it. I spent the evening yesterday wondering why no one starts by utilizing intellectual honesty here. I no longer have conclusive proof that you are as unintelligent as the usual folks who debate me. In which case, before you go, I would like to mention that in addition to reading the dictionary, I am well read on western philosophical topics.

[langengro]

@atheismisreligion

You are quite right, and I've made a mistake. If I had honestly wanted to help you appreciate those vital points about modesty, intellectual care, and respect for others, then first of all I should have tried to treat you respectfully myself. Sorry for my failure. It really seems that I won't be able to help here.

[atheismisreligion]

@langengro Wow, you're an idiot.

[langengro]

@atheismisreligion

I'm aware that you looked up a couple of words in a dictionary. Unfortunately, this is insufficient when the discussion is about a subject matter that one knows little or nothing about. The very fact that you created this video with the obvious intention of ridiculing Russell and Copleston shows that you prefer looking down on THEM to admitting your own ignorance. I don't know how old you are, but this is an attitude that won't bring you anywhere. But I repeat myself.

[langengro]

@atheismisreligion

Okay, sorry.

So then why don't you make it simple? Repeat Copleston's argument in your own words, and then give me your reply to it.