Pearson Edexcel Level 3 Advanced GCE in Religious Studies – Anthology
24agree t o c all it analyt ic , t hough I don't c onsider it a t aut ologic al proposit ion. But t he
proposition is a necessary proposition only on the supposition that there is a
c ontingent being. That there is a c ontingent being ac tually existing has to be
discovered by experience, and the proposition that there is a contingent being is
c ertainly not an analytic proposition, though onc e you know, I should maintain, that
there is a contingent being, it follows of necessity that there is a Necessary Being.
Russell: The diffic ulty of this argument is that I don't admit the idea of a
Nec essary Being and I don't admit that there is any part ic ular meaning in c alling
other beings "c ontingent." These phrases don't for me have a signific anc e exc ept
wit hin a logic t hat I rejec t.
Copleston: Do you mean that you rejec t these terms bec ause they won't fit in with
what is c alled "modern logic "?
Rus sell: Well, I c an't find anything that they c ould mean. The word "nec essary," it
seems to me, is a useless word, except as applied to analytic propositions, not to
things.
Copleston: In the first plac e, what do you mean by "modern logic ?" As far as I
know, there are somewhat differing systems. In the second place, not all modern
logic ians surely would admit the meaninglessness of metaphysic s. We both know,
at any rate, one very eminent modern thinker whose knowledge of modern logic
was profound, but who c ertainly did not think that metaphysic s are meaningless or,
in part ic ular, t hat t he problem of God is meaningless. Again, even if all modern
logic ians held t hat met aphysic al t erms are meaningless, it would not follow t hat
they were right. The proposition that metaphysical terms are meaningless seems to
me to be a proposition based on an assumed philosophy.
T he dogmat ic posit ion behind it seems t o be t his: What will not go int o my mac hine
is non-exist ent , or it is meaningless; it is t he expression of emot ion. I a m s imp ly
trying to point out that anybody who says that a particular system of modern logic
is t he sole c rit erion of meaning is saying somet hing t hat is over-dogmat ic ; he is
dogmat ic ally insist ing t hat a part of philosophy is t he whole of philosophy. After all
a "c ontingent" being is a being whic h has not in itself the c omplete reason for its
existenc e. That's what I mean by a c ontingent being. You know, as well as I do,
that the existence of neither of us can be explained without reference to something
or somebody outside us, our parents, for example. A "Necessary" Being, on the
other hand means a being that must and c annot not exist. You may say that there
is no suc h Being, but you will find it hard to c onvinc e me that you do not
understand the terms I am using. If you do not understand them, then how c an
you be entitled to say that suc h a Being does not exist, if that is what you do say?
Russell: Well, there are points here that I don't propose to go into at length. I
don't maintain the meaninglessness of met aphysic s in general at all. I maint ain t he
meaninglessness of c ert ain part ic ular t erms – not on any general ground, but
simply because I've not been able to see an interpretation of those particular
terms. It's not a general dogma – it 's a part ic ular t hing. But t hose point s I will
leave out for the moment.
Well, I will say t hat what you have been saying brings us bac k, it seems t o me, t o
the Ontological Argument that there is a being whose essence involves existence,