How Philosophers Argue: An Adversarial Collaboration on the Russell--Copleston Debate (Argumentation Library Book 41)

This volume presents a double argumentative analysis of the debate between Bertrand Russell and Frederick Copleston on the existence of God. It includes an introduction justifying the choice of text and describing the historical and philosophical background of the debate. It also provides a transcript of the debate, based in part on the original recording. The argumentative analyses occupy Parts I and II of the book. In Part I the argumentative process is analysed by means of the ideal model of critical discussion, the workhorse of pragma-dialectics. Part I shows how the two parties go through the four stages of a critical discussion. It highlights the questions raised over and beyond the presiding question of whether God exists and examines almost a hundred questions that are raised. Many are left in the air, whereas a few others give rise to sundry sub-discussions or meta-dialogues. In Part II the theoretical framework of argument dialectic is put to work: argument structures are identified by means of punctuation marks, argumentative connectors and operators, allowing to see the argumentative exchange as the collaborative construction of a macro-argument. Such a macro-argument is both a joint product of the arguers and a complex structure representing the dialectical relationships between the individual arguments combined in it. Finally, the complementarity of the two approaches is addressed. Thus the book can be described as an exercise in adversarial collaboration. Preface Acknowledgments Contents 1 Introduction 1.1 The Russell-Copleston Debate 1.2 Why This Debate 1.3 Why in This Way: A Word on Adversarial Collaboration References 2 Argumentation Theories 2.1 Argumentation as Argument: A-Theories 2.2 Argumentation as Argument Delivery and as Argument Exchange: D-Theories and E-Theories 2.3 Argumentation as Argumentative Process: P-Theories References Part I A P-Theoretical Analysis of the Debate, by Fernando Leal 3 Description of the Method Followed 3.1 Questions in Philosophical Argumentation 3.2 Disagreements in Philosophy 3.3 Philosophical Argumentation in the Ideal Model 3.4 The Russell-Copleston Debate in a Nutshell References 4 Analysis of Segment I: Start of the Debate References 5 Analysis of Segment II: Discussion of Copleston’s Metaphysical Argument References 6 Analysis of Segment III: Discussion of Copleston’s Religious Argument References 7 Analysis of Segment IV: Discussion of Copleston’s Moral Argument References 8 Analysis of Segment V: Summing-Up of the Arguments References Part II An E-Theoretical Analysis of the Debate, by Hubert Marraud 9 Argument Dialectic 9.1 Logic or the Theory of Argument 9.2 Arguer Dialectics Versus Argument Dialectics 9.3 Dialectical Rules Versus Logical Norms 9.4 The Scope of Logical Rules 9.5 Logic, Dialectic and the Macrostructure of Argument 9.6 Criticism and Evaluation References 10 Argumentation Structures and Operations 10.1 Argumentative Operations 10.2 Simple Arguments 10.3 Concatenation 10.4 Warrants and Backings 10.5 Analogous Arguments References 11 Counterarguments 11.1 Counterarguments and Reasons 11.2 Main Kinds of Counterarguments 11.3 Dismissal 11.4 Objection 11.5 Rebuttal 11.6 Refutation 11.7 Weighing 11.8 Rebuttals, Refutations and Standards of Proof 11.9 Counterargument Structures 11.10 The Order of Counterargumentation References 12 Co-Oriented Reasons and Modifiers 12.1 Co-Oriented Reasons 12.2 Conjunction and Disjunction of Arguments 12.3 Modifiers 12.4 Modified Arguments References 13 Intertwined Structures 13.1 Argumentative Structures and Dialectical Profiles 13.2 A User’s Guide of Argument Structure Diagrams Reference 14 An Argument Dialectical Analysis of the Russell-Copleston Debate 14.1 The Argument from Contingency 14.2 Religious Experience 14.3 The Moral Argument 14.4 Concluding Stage References 15 Final Cross-Examination 15.1 Comments on Part I (Hubert Marraud) 15.2 Comments on Part II (Fernando Leal) References Appendix Text of the Russell-Copleston Debate