1948年罗素与神父的辩论：上帝是否必然存在

In 1948, the BBC broadcasted a debate between Bertrand Russell and F.C. Copleston concerning the existence of God. Lord Russell, as one of the most famous logicians and philosophers in the 20thcentury, took the position in the debate of an agnostic, while Father Copleston, a Jesuit priest and a professor of the history of philosophy in the University of London, was the position of a believer, who held that the existence of God can be proved. There was one particular concept proposed by Father Copleston called “a necessary being”, which I found interesting to discuss about.

In the following essay, I shall first give my explanation of Russell and Copleston’s speech respectively, and then I will analyze both and give my own understanding about this concept.

1, “God must exist” VS. “God existing has no meaning”

First, let’s hear how Father Copleston explained the concept of “a necessary being”.

“A necessary being means a being that must and cannot not exist. We know that there are at least some beings in the world which do not contain in themselves the reason for their existence. Therefore, I should say since objects or events exist, and since no objects of experience contains within itself the reason of its existence, this reason, the totality of objects must have a reason external to itself. So, in order to explain existence, we must come to a being which contains within itself the reason for its own existence, that is to say, which cannot not exist.”

And that “necessary being” in Father’s logic, obviously, is named “God”. Complex as his speech was, the deduction he demonstrated was rather straightforward. I would like to resort to the age-old question of “which exists first, egg or chicken?” to explain his idea.

In Father’s eyes, there must be some kind of primordial source that produced the first chicken or egg. After that, the chicken lays eggs or the egg hatches into chickens, and the endless repetition begins. This primal source, which doesn’t need other things to create, and totally external to all the other beings in the world, is the necessary being, or “God”. In short, based on the logic that because there is an egg now, there must have been a chicken that lay it, the world existing is the very proof that God necessarily exists.

Russell responded to this argument by the following:

“I don’t admit the idea of a necessary being, and I also don’t admit that there are causes everywhere. Certainly, the question “does the cause of the world exist” is a question that has meaning. But if you say: “yes, God is the cause of the world, where you are using God as a proper name, then “God exists” will not be a statement that has meaning.”

Using the “egg/chicken question” again, Russell here means: a chick must come from an egg, and the practice of trying to trace back to its origin (egg first or chicken first) has meaning. But if you directly put an end to that quest by saying “there is a supreme phoenix that laid the first egg”, the phases would be meaningless because nobody can guarantee that there really exists an answer, or an end to that question. This statement clearly shows the distinction between an agnostic and an atheist. The former doesn’t deny the struggle of looking for God, just thinking it must be fruitless; while the latter believes there is no such ultimate being as God at all.

2, My comment on both sides as a materialist

Unsurprisingly, there was not any actual outcome concerning this particular topic of the debate, because both sides were immersed in their own established thoughts and regarded the other’s arguments either meaningless or incomprehensible. However, their debate did sparkle a few thoughts in me.

First of all, I would like to comment on Father Copleston’s speech. As a person who firmly believes in dialectical materialism, I find Father Copleston’s deduction rather shallow. Russell’s rebuttal does have a point: just because human logic proves that there should be a “God”, it doesn’t mean there has to be one. Besides, why can’t there be multiple sources, each keeps independent from the other? In that sense, the concept of “God” would be a totality of causes and completely objective, which I might dare to say is very similar to the theory of evolution, since modern evolution theory also claims that life has multiple ancestors (before Cambrian, there might existed more than one primitive multicellular organism).

Meanwhile, as I also believe in knowability, I can’t bring myself to agree with Russell’s agnostic view, though it is perfectly self-consistent. Russell seemed to be suggesting that the world is simply there and it is inexplicable, at least within the realm of human perception and cognition. But as far as I can see, human scientists have proved many times that they were capable of detecting laws of nature which people had no idea before. Therefore, even if there were indeed any irregularity that doesn’t conform to the established laws, scientists would surely discover it as soon as they can, and that is why I deem agnosticism rather pessimistic about human wisdom.

3, Conclusion: the essence of religion

“A necessary being” in Father Copleston’s eyes must exist; otherwise, it would contradict with the law of causation, while Russell doubted if the law of causation could be used at explaining celestial beings in the first place. They both have their right and wrong. I shall venture to propose another question before I end this essay: if human did finally prove the existence of God, the cause of universe and the ultimate source, are we going to worship Him just because He created us? I see no point in worshipping “the Big Bang” or the “Mother Ocean” anyway. Furthermore, I believe the nature of religion is still a manmade product, an anthropological phenomenon, aimed to meet certain demands of human’s spiritual world, because in my eyes, God existing or not has no actual effect on our material life.