The most intellectual argument that the professors at Hogwarts ever had.

This wasn't a debate.  They never once got off topic or interrupted and shouted over each other.

Amazingly, my wife and I discussed this very issue, of contingency, at Breakfast the other morning. I, for my part, took a position similar to Russell's that Contingency is not a entity or relevant line of thought while she, siding with Copleston supported Contingency as a prime and central tenant of existence...we bought the sofa.

The part of the debate that moved me the most was when both sides ended peacefully after understanding each other's perspectives, without resorting to sophistry, fallacies, or personal attacks. I despise debate competitions and debaters, but I admire these two individuals.

A truly enjoyable debate and a good example for everyone on YouTube that disagrees  with one another.

I do maintain that the opening narration by Eric Idle is surely among the best of the voice work he’s done.

"  Bertrand Russell somewhere has joked, “If I calculate all my sins, sins that I have committed and sins that I have not committed, only brooded over — if even they are included — the hardest judge can’t send me to jail for more than four years. And Christianity sends you to hell forever.” Bertrand Russell has written a book, Why I am not a Christian; this is one of his arguments. It is a beautiful argument because the whole thing seems to be ridiculous.

Bertrand Russell, one of the geniuses of our times, tried hard to get rid of the Christian mind, not because it was Christian, but simply because it was given to him by others. He wanted his own fresh outlook about things. He did not want to see things from somebody else’s glasses; he wanted to come in contact with reality immediately, and directly. He wanted his own mind.

Bertrand Russell has made a statement that if there were no death, there would be no religion. There is some truth in it. I will not agree totally, because religion is a vast continent. It is not only death, it is also the search for bliss, it is also the search for truth, it is also the search for the meaning of life; it is many more things. But certainly Bertrand Russell is right: if there were no death, very few, very rare people would be interested in religion. Death is the great incentive.

Your mind is not your mind — this is something basic to be remembered. Your mind is an implantation of the society in which you have accidentally been born.

If you were born in a Christian home, but immediately transferred to a Mohammedan family and brought up by the Mohammedans, you would not have the same mind; you would have a totally different mind that you cannot conceive of.

So it was not a question of being against the Christian mind; if he had been a Hindu he would have done the same, if he had been a Mohammedan he would have done the same, if he had been a communist he would have done the same.

Bertrand Russell tried hard and wrote a book, WHY I AM NOT A CHRISTIAN. But in a letter to a friend he wrote, “Although I have written the book, although I do not believe that I am a Christian, I have dropped that mind, still, deep down… One day I asked myself, `Who is the greatest man in history?’ Rationally I know it is Gautam Buddha, but I could not put Gautam Buddha above Jesus Christ. “That day I felt that all my efforts have been futile. I am still a Christian. I know rationally that Jesus Christ stands no comparison with Gautam Buddha — but it is only rational. Emotionally, sentimentally I cannot put Gautam Buddha above Jesus Christ. Jesus Christ remains in my unconscious, still affecting my attitudes, my approaches, my behavior. The world thinks I am no longer a Christian, but I know… It seems difficult to get rid of this mind! They have cultivated it with such acumen, with such craftsmanship.”"

The only problem with this video is that it is too short.

Does anyone else find the conclusion of this arguement amusing? It was one big circle that lead to nothing, yet managed to produce what could be an endless debate. Wonderful.

Well I’m glad this has been cleared up…

This was refreshing &  fantastic in the aspect of having a civil & respectful debate/challenge/disagreement. They've acknowledged one another's pts & challenged one another's pts & attacked the position not the person & when they hit an impasse they moved on..its too bad moat debates/discussions can't be this way today where folks emote, get offended, project & converse intellectually dishonest..

I love this debate.

Appreciate Capturing Christianity turning me onto this debate. It was the only one I hadn't seen before and probably my favorite of his list. The brevity and wit both these men demonstrate in this debate is inspiring. While I am biased towards Russell's side due to my atheism there is little doubt that Copleston is right there with him going jab for jab with every argument.

Wow I recently found out about Copleston’s 11 volume History of Philosophy series, it wasn’t cheap but I bought them (but haven’t gotten to it yet, I’m saving it for 1300 rainy days lol).     So apparently back when he wrote them it was only meant to be for Catholic students, however it unexpectedly became a huge hit with secular and religious people alike.

Very civil, totally unlike an equivalent debate today far more verbal sophistication on display here and I cannot say that I fully understood all arguments or references made, of course this is down to my own shortfalls.

I am left with a better agreement with Copleston even if I do not believe in a god and also hold that Russell’s Celestial teapot holds philosophically sound that we cannot know what we do not know and neither prove nor disprove what we can not find either because we are looking in the wrong place or because it doesn't exist.

While Russell spoke of not finding gold, I can certainly say that this debate delivered it.

record-breaking utterances of the word "proposition" from 5:12 to 6:12

Some play-by-play:

Coplestone grounds his opening argument in the philosophy of Lebnitz.

Russell asks Copleston whether he accepts Lebnitz's distinction between truths of reason and truths of fact.

Copleston rejects that distinction on the grounds that for Lebnitz all truths are truths of reason. In my opinion, its possible to accept the distinction without accepting Lebnitz's radical thesis.

Russell restates the distinction in his own words. He also asserts that most analytic knowledge depend on empirical knowledge.

Copleston bites and makes the baffling assertion that "if there is a contingent being, then their is a necessary" is analytic. It is baffling because it is not at all obvious that it would entail a contradition to deny, "if there is a contingent being, then their is a necessary being".

Russell likely saw the problem with Copleston's argument. However, he shift the topic onto the question whether 'necessary being' is a meaningful expression within the logic he accepts. The logic he accepts is the one that he invented, which means he is on home turf. The downside is that it might seems idiosyncratic and give Copleston room to argue. On the whole, its was a blunder.

Copleston goes on the attack. He reiterates some of his argument and winds up making it out that Russell denies God's existence without understanding what God means.

Russell accuses Copleston of making the ontological argument. The ontological argument is an analytic argument. Yet nothing analytic can be predictated of a proper name and 'God' is a proper name, so "Gods essence involves existence" is not an analytic proposition. Copleston set out not to make the ontological argument.

Copleston ignores Russell's challenge. He presses the question of Russell's understanding.

Russell clairifies his meaning. Necessary existent is valid. But 'God exists' is meaningless. No existencial statement is analytic.

Thank you

This was a very civilized debate between 2 philosophers.  Of course it is a never ending debate and cannot be resolved by science and reason.  At the end of the day, it becomes identity politics.  In these postmodern times, self-ID has been accepted as a legitimate form of self-expression.  If a male can identify as a female, then a theist can identify as an atheist and vice versa.   Bertram Russell “identified” as an agnostic in the debate, but said he would “identify” as an atheist to the ordinary man.  This bypasses the truth and falsity issue.  By the same token, I can “identify” as a theist, without having to argue the case.  This identity is “who I am”.  Jordan Peterson taught me this approach.  When badgered by his critics who wanted him to declare whether or not he believes in the Christian God, he would neither confirm or deny.  He put it this way: “I act as if God exists”.   Then he goes on to talk about the deep existential, psychological & moral truth he finds in the Bible, upon which Western civilization has drawn its enduring strength & weaknesses for thousands of years.

huh didnt expect russell to sound like that