User Reviews
Rating: really liked it
"Why I Am Not A Christian?"
If I ask myself that question, the answer will be:
"I am not a Christian because I read the Bible, both Old and New Testament, from cover to cover, and consider it complete nonsense to believe that to be literal, figurative or symbolical truth."
"Why do I not believe Christianity is good?"
Because I read Bertrand Russell. As a young, impressionable person, I used to lament the fact that I was not given "the gift" of belief, as it seemed to come with confidence in the believer's "goodness". Who doesn't want to be good? Who doesn't want to feel sure about themselves? Who doesn't want to have a superior guideline to stick to?
Me, apparently.
As much as I wanted to believe in the religion that happened to be the predominant one in my environment, it all just seemed ridiculous. I remember sitting in a church as a 15-year-old, praying to a god I did not believe in to give me faith in him. It took me many years to get over the feeling of guilt over my "lack" or "misfortune". I felt left out by the non-existent god in a society that apparently unquestioningly accepted what didn't make sense to me. I said over and over again to believers who reprimanded me for my atheism:
"Oh, I respect your faith in Jesus, and I am truly sorry for not finding faith myself. I admire the morality of Christianity and wish I could be part of it!"
And I received condescending, pitying smiles in return.
Then I left my small town and moved to a university city, and started reading, reading, and reading. Philosophy, literary fiction, history, art history, religion, pedagogy. In the huge pile: Russell!
And finally, finally, I was able to break away from the Lutheran guilt trap that catches believers and nonbelievers alike in the social environment where it is dominant. Finally I could distance myself from the unthinking group pressure of "Christian morality". There is no such thing. Religion is not moral. Atheists are not likelier to kill or rape or steal than Christians, despite the fact that they do not feel the threat of eternal punishment. Moral behaviour is completely independent from supernatural belief. Russell helped me get the definitions straight.
Once I had read Russell, I could embrace my sense that the evil force (god, the killer of anything that opposes him) that appears in the Bible does not exist, and should not exist (it would be horrible!). I learned that I was not alone in seeing that religion is a human invention to simulate immortality - for those who are afraid to let go of their egos when they die - and to enforce patriarchal power structures - for those who can't convince people to follow them by choice and free will. It is a way for people to define themselves through exclusion and protectionism, not through individual merit.
Russell followed me when I moved into the field of education, and today, almost a century after he wrote his essay, I would like people to read out loud his words against groupthink and crimestop (newspeak for protective stupidity):
“The world that I should wish to see would be one freed from the virulence of group hostilities and capable of realizing that happiness for all is to be derived rather from co-operation than from strife. I should wish to see a world in which education aimed at mental freedom rather than imprisoning the minds of the young in rigid armor of dogma calculated to protect them through life against the shafts of impartial evidence.”
Why am I not a Christian? I don't believe in the myth. Why do I not want to be a Christian? It supports evil practices and holds people hostage in an ancient worldview. It discriminates and divides and takes advantage of weaknesses to spread power. It stimulates fear in order to control. It plays Big Brother and forces people to love him.
Recommended to the world. Reposted in support of the victims of grand scale child abuse, covered up and ignored by the Catholic Church for too long to be bearable. Reposted in support of those who suffer discrimination at the hands of "evangelical" preachers of hate and division and intolerance. Reposted in support of those who feel the grip of their churches tightening in fear of the modern world of freedom of choice.
Rating: really liked it
Why I Am Not a Christian and Other Essays on Religion and Related Subjects, Bertrand RussellWhy I Am Not a Christian is an essay by the British philosopher Bertrand Russell. Originally a talk given 6 March 1927 at Battersea Town Hall, under the auspices of the South London Branch of the National Secular Society, it was published that year as a pamphlet and has been republished several times in English and in translation.
تاریخ نخستین خوانش: روز شانردهم ماه آوریل سال1975میلادی
عنوان: چرا مسیحی نیستم؛ نویسنده: برتراند راسل؛ مترجم: روح الله عباسی؛ تهران، روز، سال1347 ؛ در108ص؛ موضوع متن سخنرانیهای و نوشتارهای نویسندگان بریتانیا - سده20م
عنوان: چرا مسیحی نیستم: مقالاتی چند راجع بمذهب و موضوعات مربوط به آن؛ نویسنده: برتراند راسل ؛ مترجم س.الف. س. طاهری؛ در268ص؛
عنوان: چرا مسیحی نیستم؛ نویسنده: برتراند راسل؛ مترجم: عبدالعلی دستغیب؛ تهران، فرهنگ، سال1351؛ در311ص؛
چرا مسیحی نیستم، متن یک سخنرانی است که «برتراند راسل» در روز ششم ماه مارس سال1927میلادی در انجمن ملی غیرمذهبیان، در شمال «لندن» ایراد کرده، که سپس به صورت جزوه ای، در همان سال چاپ شده است؛ این سخنرانی، به همراه مقالات دیگر در پیرامون مذهب منتشر شده، و در سال1351هجری خورشیدی، با ترجمهٔ جناب «عبدالعلی دستغیب» توسط انتشارات فرهنگ در ایران منتشر شده است؛ «راسل» با تحلیل آنچه که به معنای اصطلاح مسیحی است، آغاز میکنند، و توضیح میدهند، که چرا ایشان به «جاودانگی خدا» باور ندارند، و به همین دلیل است که او فکر نمیکند که «مسیح»، بهترین و عاقلترین مرد، به عنوان الگو، برای مسیحیان باشد؛ او استدلالهای گوناگونی برای وجود خدا را در نظر میگیرد، و به مفاهیم مربوط به الهیات مسیحی میپردازد؛ ایشان نظریه های «داروین» را مورد حمایت خویش قرار میدهند؛ «راسل» همچنین از وجود تاریخی عیسی مسیح شکایت میکنند و به اخلاق درباره ی دین میپردازند، که، به نظر ایشان، عمدتاً مبتنی بر ترس است
تاریخ بهنگام رسانی 08/12/1399هجری خورشیدی؛ 05/10/1400هجری خورشیدی؛ ا. شربیانی
Rating: really liked it
[Original review, Mar 1 2016]
_____________________
[Update, Dec 21 2019]In the interests of balance, here's the editorial from this week's edition of
Christianity Today:
Trump Should Be Removed from OfficeIt’s time to say what we said 20 years ago when a president’s character was revealed for what it was.
MARK GALLI DECEMBER 19, 2019
In our founding documents, Billy Graham explains that
Christianity Today will help evangelical Christians interpret the news in a manner that reflects their faith. The impeachment of Donald Trump is a significant event in the story of our republic. It requires comment.
The typical CT approach is to stay above the fray and allow Christians with different political convictions to make their arguments in the public square, to encourage all to pursue justice according to their convictions and treat their political opposition as charitably as possible. We want CT to be a place that welcomes Christians from across the political spectrum, and reminds everyone that politics is not the end and purpose of our being. We take pride in the fact, for instance, that politics does not dominate our homepage.
That said, we do feel it necessary from time to time to make our own opinions on political matters clear—always, as Graham encouraged us, doing so with both conviction and love. We love and pray for our president, as we love and pray for leaders (as well as ordinary citizens) on both sides of the political aisle.
Let’s grant this to the president: The Democrats have had it out for him from day one, and therefore nearly everything they do is under a cloud of partisan suspicion. This has led many to suspect not only motives but facts in these recent impeachment hearings. And, no, Mr. Trump did not have a serious opportunity to offer his side of the story in the House hearings on impeachment.
But the facts in this instance are unambiguous: The president of the United States attempted to use his political power to coerce a foreign leader to harass and discredit one of the president’s political opponents. That is not only a violation of the Constitution; more importantly, it is profoundly immoral.
The reason many are not shocked about this is that this president has dumbed down the idea of morality in his administration. He has hired and fired a number of people who are now convicted criminals. He himself has admitted to immoral actions in business and his relationship with women, about which he remains proud. His Twitter feed alone—with its habitual string of mischaracterizations, lies, and slanders—is a near perfect example of a human being who is morally lost and confused.
Trump’s evangelical supporters have pointed to his Supreme Court nominees, his defense of religious liberty, and his stewardship of the economy, among other things, as achievements that justify their support of the president. We believe the impeachment hearings have made it absolutely clear, in a way the Mueller investigation did not, that President Trump has abused his authority for personal gain and betrayed his constitutional oath. The impeachment hearings have illuminated the president’s moral deficiencies for all to see. This damages the institution of the presidency, damages the reputation of our country, and damages both the spirit and the future of our people. None of the president’s positives can balance the moral and political danger we face under a leader of such grossly immoral character.
This concern for the character of our national leader is not new in CT. In 1998, we wrote this:
The President's failure to tell the truth—even when cornered—rips at the fabric of the nation. This is not a private affair. For above all, social intercourse is built on a presumption of trust: trust that the milk your grocer sells you is wholesome and pure; trust that the money you put in your bank can be taken out of the bank; trust that your babysitter, firefighters, clergy, and ambulance drivers will all do their best. And while politicians are notorious for breaking campaign promises, while in office they have a fundamental obligation to uphold our trust in them and to live by the law.
And this:
Unsavory dealings and immoral acts by the President and those close to him have rendered this administration morally unable to lead.
Unfortunately, the words that we applied to Mr. Clinton 20 years ago apply almost perfectly to our current president. Whether Mr. Trump should be removed from office by the Senate or by popular vote next election—that is a matter of prudential judgment. That he should be removed, we believe, is not a matter of partisan loyalties but loyalty to the Creator of the Ten Commandments.
To the many evangelicals who continue to support Mr. Trump in spite of his blackened moral record, we might say this: Remember who you are and whom you serve. Consider how your justification of Mr. Trump influences your witness to your Lord and Savior. Consider what an unbelieving world will say if you continue to brush off Mr. Trump’s immoral words and behavior in the cause of political expediency. If we don’t reverse course now, will anyone take anything we say about justice and righteousness with any seriousness for decades to come? Can we say with a straight face that abortion is a great evil that cannot be tolerated and, with the same straight face, say that the bent and broken character of our nation’s leader doesn’t really matter in the end?
We have reserved judgment on Mr. Trump for years now. Some have criticized us for our reserve. But when it comes to condemning the behavior of another, patient charity must come first. So we have done our best to give evangelical Trump supporters their due, to try to understand their point of view, to see the prudential nature of so many political decisions they have made regarding Mr. Trump. To use an old cliché, it’s time to call a spade a spade, to say that no matter how many hands we win in this political poker game, we are playing with a stacked deck of gross immorality and ethical incompetence. And just when we think it’s time to push all our chips to the center of the table, that’s when the whole game will come crashing down. It will crash down on the reputation of evangelical religion and on the world’s understanding of the gospel. And it will come crashing down on a nation of men and women whose welfare is also our concern.
Mark Galli is editor in chief of Christianity Today.
Rating: really liked it
You just have to read this. Even if you are a Christian, you should read about every point of view, to form or change (or not) your own. Russell explains complicated things which such clarity, a little of humor... It doesn't get tedious, at all.
Take "The argument of design", for instance.
I really cannot believe it. Do you think that, if you were granted omnipotence and omniscience and millions of years in which to perfect your world, you could produce nothing better than the Ku Klux Klan, the Fascisti, and Mr. Winston Churchill? Really I am not much impressed with the people who say: "Look at me: I am such a splendid product that there must have been design in the universe."
Therefore, although it is of course a gloomy view to suppose that life will die out -- at least I suppose we may say so, although sometimes when I contemplate the things that people do with their lives I think it is almost a consolation -- it is not such as to render life miserable.
Funny. You could then talk about free will and that is acceptable; we could discuss it until we reach the point of uncomfortable silence because we both know we are not going to change our minds, and then we'll have a cup of coffee, a piece of pie and never leave the safe "weather conversation" zone, again. Or, at least, for a couple of days. Because, if I am one of the products on which design in the universe is based... That is something only my mom would say.
Anyway, my point is, he is that clear. His thoughts are written with the wit and simplicity of great philosophers. The moral and emotional questions are a key ingredient in this brilliant essay that tries to explain "a religion based primarily and mainly upon fear". You can like it or not, but it is still a memorable work.
Jun 12, 14
* Also on my blog.
Rating: really liked it
After reading most of the "new Atheist" books -- I read the ones by Sam Harris, Daniel Dennett, and Christopher Hitchens -- this old one by Betrand Russell is still miles better than they. To be sure, I disagree with most of what he says, but his writing is much more clear-headed and articulate than the new ones. There really aren't many new arguments the new generation of atheists bring to the table, therefore I think it is reasonably fair to use Russell's as the standard bearer for them all.
The basic thesis is that religion -- with particular emphasis on Christianity -- has caused great harm throughout civilization, and that if we could collectively only cast aside our flimsy superstitions and vain hope for eternal life, we could propel society to new heights of happiness. His whole argument rests on the premise that man is basically good, and were it not for the (at the time) universal brainwashing of innocent children with hurtful religious ideas, we could better engineer society to be more peaceful, and less worried about taboos like sex. To Russell, the main barriers to creating more common interests between communities, societies, and nations are religious in nature, and if we could somehow erode those "false" beliefs, we could all get along better and be happier in our individual lives as well.
Here are some quotes in his book which I think illustrate his main points:
- "Religion is based...primarily and mainly upon fear...fear of the mysterious, fear of defeat, fear of death. Fear is the parent of cruelty, and therefore it is no wonder....cruelty and religion go hand in hand...Science can help us to get over this craven fear." (pg 22)
- "[We should] [c]onquer the world by intelligence and not merely by being slavishly subdued by the terror that comes from it. The whole conception of God is a conception derived from the Oriental despotisms. It is a conception quite unworthy of free men." (pg 23)
- "The churches, as everyone knows, opposed the abolition of slavery as long as they dared, and with a few well-advertised exceptions they oppose at the present day every movement toward economic justice. The Pope has officially condemned Socialism." (pg 26)
- "Before [God] created the world He foresaw all the pain and misery that it would contain; He is therefore responsible for all of it." (pg 29)
- (in regards to his position on free will and personal responsibility) "When a man acts in ways that annoy us we wish to think him wicked, and we refuse to face the fact that his annoying behavior is a result of antecedent causes which, if you follow them long enough, will take you beyond the moment of his birth and therefore to events for which he cannot be held responsible by any stretch of the imagination." (pg 40)
- "It would seem, therefore, that the three human impulses embodied in religion are fear, conceit, and hatred. The purpose of religion...is to give an air of respectability to these passions..." (pg 44)
- "hatred and fear can, with our present psychological knowledge and our present industrial technique, be eliminated altogether from human life." (pg 45)
- "these emotions (fear and hatred) can now be almost wholly eliminated from human nature by educational, economic, and political reforms. These educational reforms must be the basis, since men who feel hate and fear will also admire these emotions and wish to perpetuate them, although this admiration and wish will probably be unconscious, as it is in the ordinary Christian. An education designed to eliminate fear is by no means difficult to create. It is only necessary to treat a child with kindness, to put him in an environment where initiative is possible without disastrous results, and to save him from contact with adults who have irrational terrors, whether of the dark, of mice, or of social revolution." (pg 46)
It annoys me to have him treat psychology and social sciences as if they were physical sciences, with simple laws governing all of human behavior. Perhaps his view that man has no free will leads him to think man can be entirely governed by the social forces and coercion. He fails to understand that no matter how much we may train ourselves or our children to be good and responsible, man's primal instinct is always to further his own self interest. The idea that fear and hatred can be eliminated by some scientific method is ludicrous, and besides, is it always good not to fear or hate? Were he in Nazi Germany or Stalinist Russia, would he not be outraged at the government and terrified for the safety of his family? Frankly, his vision for human utopia in THIS life is much more akin to childish wishful thinking than any religious teaching about utopias AFTER this life.
I know it may seem unfair to judge his writing in the present day when he didn't have as much historical data to draw upon to see the effect Communism and Facism has on society, but even in his time, there was much historical data to suggest that non-religious movements hoping to build such utopias ended up being some of the most evil campaigns in history. The reason why such atheists have been hiding for so long is the recent string of such godless movements, led by overtly secular leaders who were responsible for the deaths of literally hundreds of millions of their own citizens.
It seems clear that while Christianity does not have a perfect track record, overall it has had a much more positive than negative effect. Religious teachings provide effective restraints on our natural tendency to harm others and to act selfishly.
While it is true that the Church Authority may have condoned slavery for a long time, was it not Christian teachings that inspired the original abolitionists in America and England? Slavery was not unique to Christian nations, but was (and is) a pervasive institution in most human societies. Can the cause of slavery then be fairly cast at the feet of religious teachings, or would it be fair to suggest that humans in power tend to subject others as their subordinates or slaves? I think the answer is clear.
I am not trying to suggest some absurd conclusion that religious people are good and atheist people are bad. Humans are free to make decisions on their own, and many atheists choose to live honorable and admirable lives, while many Christians choose to act very poorly. However, on the whole, I do believe that Christianity has a net positive benefit on society, and were someone to wave a magic wand and make Christianity go away, the world would be in much worse shape than it already is.
Rating: really liked it
By the time I read this book, I was already not a Christian, but it was still hard for me to read. It was kinda like accidentally figuring out a magician's trick. You knew he wasn't *really* doing magic, but seeing how he did it somehow made the world less fun.
That said, this is a great book. It's not without bite, but it's also not bitter. Having been a big fan of Russell's epistemological books, I was impressed that this book displayed the same clarity of thought and communication. His logical proofs against God were a great review for me (I'd heard those in different forms for many years) and the section about religion and its benefit or lack thereof to humankind was something I hadn't considered to that depth. I think this is a must-read.
Rating: really liked it
I love these essays! Russell never argues that faith is impossible, but makes it clear why he doesn't have it. (I cannot believe in a god who, given an infinite universe and millions of years in which to perfect it, can come up with nothing better than the nazis and the KKK) - paraphrase
Rating: really liked it
I probably would have liked this book a lot more if I had read it when I was younger, but now I find Russell's critique of religion profoundly disappointing. For a logician and philosopher of his caliber, his proofs--on the reasons why the basis of religious belief is existential terror, for example--are unconvincing and sometimes shockingly sloppy. They tend to rely on a straw-man caricatures that he sets up and knocks down, rather than actually engaging with the roots of faith or the complexities of metaphysics. Moreover, his critique of social mores is superficial, his proposed solutions naive at best, and his grasp of history so insultingly bad that he actually blames the outbreak of World War I on Christianity (p. 203). I expected more from such a legendary intellectual figure.
Rating: really liked it
"One of the works of literature for which [Russell] was awarded the Nobel Prize is a widely read essay first delivered as a lecture in 1927 entitled, 'Why I Am Not a Christian.' ...I haven't forgotten it yet, and I have promised myself that I never will. ...If you were to read his essay, and in the interest of open-mindedness I would urge you to do so, you would find that Bertrand Russell, who is one of the world's foremost logicians as well as a philosopher and mathematician, undoes with logic that is beyond dispute the first-cause arguement, the natural law arguement, the arguement from design, the moral arguements for a diety, and the arguement for the remedying of injustice." ~Philip Roth, Indignation
It is of some importance to note that this is a collection of essays spanning, in my edition, some 267 pages. The title piece, 'Why I Am Not a Christian,' is just 20 pages, leaving roughly 92.5% of the volume for other engrossing bits such as 'Life in the Middle Ages,' 'The Fate of Thomas Paine,' and 'Our Sexual Ethics.' All of which I found fascinating!
Russell's assertions on religion and related topics aren't necessarily earth shattering, at least not anymore. I think that only goes to show what an enormous influence he has had on modern secularism and free thought. You can hear his words, rephrased and reiterated, in the works of Christopher Hitchens, Jerry Coyne, and Victor Stenger (just to name a few).
"The attitude that one ought to believe a proposition, independently of the question whether there is evidence in its favor, is an attitude which produces hostility to evidence and causes us to close our minds to every fact that does not suit our prejudices." ~B.R.
Speaking for myself, I made my break with religious dogma years before I had ever heard of Bertrand Russell, so it should come as no surprise to anyone who knows me that I find his wisdom and scrupulous logic life-affirming. His reputation for brilliant and intelligent 'heresy' is justly deserved and his work is as relevant now as it was when it was written almost a century ago. In fact, in this era of American oligarchy and the increasing politicalization of faith, it is possible that Russell is more relevant now than ever.
"One is often told that it is a very wrong thing to attack religion, because religion makes men virtuous. So I am told; I have not noticed it." ~B.R.
Rating: really liked it
Location - Earth , year 2214, Paris - Sydney highway. Christianity has recently become mandatory by law.
Humming song, in a crummy truck - ".... I feel prettyy, oh, so prettyy, I feel pretty and witty and gayyyyyy... "
Sigh..
- Please, Max, don't start again !
- Shut the fuck up, Bertrand, I'm trying to calm down, I have to save the world today, I'm nervous.
- You're not nervous, Max, you're mad. And slow down, there are cops everywhere here.
Yikes ! one has already caught up with us...
( a police officer in front of the truck door ) :
- Good Christian licence, sir !
- You mean driving licence, officer ?
- No, sir, your Good Christian licence , please.
- What the fuck...I'm on the Candid Camera, isn't ?
- No, sir, do you have it or not ?
- No, sir, but I'm a good Christian, believe me.
- Any proof, sir ?
- Ughhh.....I have nine children, officer. It's enough ?
- That doesn't mean you're a good Christian, sir. That means you're just mad, Mr. ...Max.
Another proof ?
- Aaah, I'm God's messenger, sir. My friend Bertrand can prove it.
- Who is God, sir ?
- Oh, my...You're asking me for a Christian license but you don't know who God is....
- I'm a cop, sir, but I don't know all the people.
- Listen, officer.... God is your Boss, you know....
- You're mad, Mr.Max. My boss is Mr. Robo.
- I think you're not a good Christian, officer..
- Why, sir ?
- Ask Bertrand, he's a specialist.
- Why, Mr. Bertrand ?
- I explained this in a book, my friend. Buy the book.
- I don't read books, sir.
- It's ok, officer, you'II survive.
Rating: really liked it
I think I had admittedly underrated Russell until reading this. A wonderful example of forward thinking, and his influence can be clearly recognised in the works of contemporary thinkers (particularly Sam Harris' views of morality and Christopher Hitchens' linkage of Stalinism and state religiosity). Definitely worth reading.
Rating: really liked it
WHY I AM NOT A CHRISTIAN...- Ex
Russell, Bertrand
Dedicated as few men have been to the life of reason, Bertrand Russell has always been concerned with the basic questions to which religion also addresses itself -- questions about man's place in the universe and the nature of the good life, questions that involve life after death, morality, freedom, education, and sexual ethics. He brings to his treatment of these questions the same courage, scrupulous logic, and lofty wisdom for which his other work as philosopher, writer, and teacher has been famous. These qualities make the essays included in this book perhaps the most graceful and moving presentation of the freethinker's position since the days of Hume and Voltaire.
"I am as firmly convinced that religions do harm as I am that they are untrue," Russell declares in his Preface, and his reasoned opposition to any system or dogma which he feels may shackle man's mind runs through all the essays in this book, whether they were written as early as 1899 or as late as 1954.
I read this in 1982 during a year-long period of self-questioning and evaluation of my faith and beliefs. This, among other books, was one which made me realize that I could have a strong faith without being constrained by the boundaries of, and historic crimes committed in the name of, religion. "My God is the one who exists apart from all of men's agendas..." from "The Lace Reader" by Brunonia Barry, 2006.
Rating: really liked it
This book contains a collection of essays, on the complex nature of religion. Being brought up in a religious background, I was taught many aspects about Catholicism as a child, and almost into my teenage years, and it was only then that I began to start questioning it, and my so-called beliefs. I realised I didn't actually believe any of it. I have considered myself an Atheist, for many years.
Russell explains to us how well organised religion and Christianity is terribly destructive and also highly irrational, in many ways. His writing I found to be complex, but at the same time, compelling.
Here are a couple of my favourite quotes from the book;
"Science can teach us, and I think our own hearts can teach us, no longer to look around for imaginary supports, no longer to invent allies in the sky, but rather to look to our own efforts here below to make this world a fit place to live in, instead of the sort of place that the churches in all these centuries have made it."
And this;
"I can respect the men who argue that religion is true and therefore ought to be believed, but I can only feel profound moral reprobation for those who say that religion ought to be believed because it is useful, and that to ask whether it is true is a waste of time."
What is truly admirable, is that Russell had the audacity, to publish these quotes, during the time of the early twentieth century, when people were far more traditional than they are now.
Rating: really liked it
Russell first defines what he means by a Christian: someone who believes in God, the immortality of the soul, and Jesus Christ. Then he explains why he does not believe. Step by step he dismisses as fallacious the arguments for the existence of God: the first cause argument, the argument from design, etc. Then he discusses whether we survive death. Then the character of Jesus, as presented in the Gospels. He agrees that Jesus was an admirable man, but not divine and not the best or wisest of men. He gives examples from the Gospels.
He believes that all religions are false and harmful. He even calls religion “a disease born of fear” and “a source of untold misery to the human race.” Fear leads to cruelty, he says. “A habit of basing convictions upon evidence, and of giving them only that degree of certainty which the evidence warrants, would, if it became general, cure most of the ills from which the world is suffering.”
He explains his agnostic views with his usual lucidity. Russell was not an atheist; he was just not convinced by the arguments for God. He was always wary of certainties. So this book does not resolve anything, but it will give you something to think about. It is really nothing more than the application of rationality to religious beliefs. Not a difficult read.
Rating: really liked it
Ah well... I don't know about this. I must say I expected more, and would have needed more for this to be an intellectually satisfying exchange (between my thoughts and Bertrand's). I have thought about the subject of religion for a long time, and I am fascinated by the fact that it exists. What does religion deliver to a believer? What is the epistemological quality of religion, and if there cannot be one (which is what I would argue), why can believers "not see that"? Equally, why can I, as a secular person, not see what believers see? Can there be common ground on which both, believers and non-believers, both stand and have a rational exchange?
Bertrand's main essay in this anthology did not answer any of these questions. Granted, he goes into these a little bit, but remains so superficial in his treatment of each that I did not come away thinking I learnt something. Some of his arguments are directed against a dogmatic and encrusted canonisation of religious messages, and as such criticise the church, but not religion.
So in the end, I felt more than underwhelmed, and quite disappointed. Perhaps I am myself to blame, after all he delivered the central piece in this anthology as a speech, and a speech may not be an appropriate vehicle to carry in-depth thought. So yes - I am to blame. I shouldn't have expected a penetrating treatment of the subject. And yet, I did. And that's why my rating is rather low. Just saying this in my defence.
