《为什么我不是基督教徒》"上帝存在争辩：为何我不是基督教徒"

In 1948, the BBC broadcasted a debate between Bertrand Russell and F.C. Copleston on the existence of God. Lord Russell, a famous logician and philosopher, took an agnostic stance, while Father Copleston, a Jesuit priest and professor, argued for the existence of God. One concept proposed by Father Copleston was "a necessary being", which I found interesting to discuss.

In the following essay, I will first explain Russell and Coplestons speeches separately, and then analyze both to give my own understanding of this concept.

1. "God must exist" VS. "God existing has no meaning"

First, lets hear how Father Copleston explained the concept of "a necessary being". He defined it as a being that must exist and cannot not exist. According to him, there are objects or events in the world that do not contain within themselves the reason for their existence. Therefore, the totality of objects must have a reason external to itself. To explain existence, we must come to a being that contains within itself the reason for its own existence, a being that cannot not exist. In Fathers logic, this necessary being is named "God". In short, Father Copleston argued that the existence of the world is proof of Gods existence.

Russell responded to this argument by stating that he doesnt admit the idea of a necessary being or that there are causes everywhere. He acknowledged that the question "does the cause of the world exist" has meaning. However, if you say "yes, God is the cause of the world", using God as a proper name, then the statement "God exists" will not have meaning. Russell used the example of the egg and the chicken to explain his idea. He stated that tracing back to the origin of the egg or chicken would have meaning, but if you simply put an end to the question by saying there is a supreme phoenix that laid the first egg, the phases would be meaningless. This illustrated the distinction between an agnostic and an atheist. The former acknowledges the struggle of looking for God but believes it to be fruitless, while the latter denies the existence of God altogether.

2. My comment on both sides as a materialist

Unsurprisingly, there was no conclusive outcome to this particular topic of the debate as both sides were entrenched in their established thoughts and regarded the others arguments as either meaningless or incomprehensible. However, their debate sparked a few thoughts in me.

Firstly, I would like to comment on Father Coplestons speech. As a firm believer in dialectical materialism, I find his deduction rather shallow. Russells rebuttal does have a point - just because human logic suggests that there should be a "God", it doesnt mean there has to be one. Additionally, why cant there be multiple sources, each independent from the other? In that sense, the concept of "God" would be a totality of causes and completely objective. This is similar to the theory of evolution, which claims that life has multiple ancestors.

Meanwhile, as I also believe in the idea of knowability, I cant bring myself to agree with Russells agnostic view, though it is self-consistent. Russell seemed to suggest that the world simply exists and is inexplicable, at least within the realm of human perception and cognition. However, human scientists have proven many times that they are capable of detecting laws of nature that were previously unknown. Therefore, even if there were any irregularities that dont conform to established laws, scientists would surely discover them. This is why I find agnosticism rather pessimistic about human wisdom.

3. Conclusion: The essence of religion

In Father Coplestons view, a necessary being must exist; otherwise, it would contradict the law of causation. Russell doubted if the law of causation could be applied to explaining celestial beings in the first place. I believe they both have their right and wrong. Before I end this essay, I would like to propose another question: If humans were to finally prove the existence of God, the cause of the universe and the ultimate source, would we worship Him simply because He created us? I see no point in worshiping "the Big Bang" or the "Mother Ocean" anyway. Furthermore, I believe the nature of religion is still a man-made product, an anthropological phenomenon, aimed at meeting certain demands of the human spiritual world. In my opinion, whether God exists or not has no actual effect on our material life.