Thursday, September 1, 2005

Russell: Why I am not a Christian

(Originally written September 1, 2005 in Book 2)

Why I am not a Christian
Bertrand Russell
1957

Essay 1 - Why I am not a Christian

The meaning of the term 'Christian' is too broad in today's terms. It is not defined solely as a person who attempts to live a good life. A Christian must have a certain definite belief to truly be one.

What is a Christian?

A Christian must believe in God and immortality.

A Christian must have some belief in Jesus Christ. They must believe that he is divine, or at least the "wisest and best" man ever.

Russell will explain why he doesn't believe in God and immortality. Russell will explain why he does not believe Christ was the "best and wisest" man ever. Russell admits that Christ had a very high degree of moral goodness.

A Christian does not necessarily have to believe in hell.

The Existence of God

Catholicism claims God's existence can be proven with reason.

The following five arguments are the arguments used to justify this Catholic dogmatic law.

1) First-Cause Argument: Everything we see in this world has a cause, and as you go back to the furthest point there must be a first cause.

If everything must have a cause then God must have a cause. If there is one thing without a cause it might as well be the world, not God. There is no reason to believe that the world has not always existed or that the world had any beginning.

Don't the laws of thermal dynamics refute Russell's thought?

2) The Natural Law Argument:

Natural Law argument was especially popular in the 18th century among those who were influenced by Isaac Newton's cosmology. Newton's cosmology was that God assigned the law of gravity to the planets and that is why they revolve the way they do. Moderns use Einstein's gravitational theories to explain the law of gravity.

Einstein replaced God?

The laws of nature are not actually laws at all, they are either human creations for convenience or they are statistical averages which suggest a random happening.

If God supplied the laws of nature why did he omit some? If God did issue laws at random or for his own pleasure then you find that God is not subject to the argument of natural lawmaking and the argument is invalid.

If God issued the laws of nature to create a perfect working universe why isn't it better?

The Fall and the emergence of sin?

3) The argument from Design

This argument states that everything was designed in such a way that it fits perfectly into the environment it was placed.

In reality evolution and adaptation is what makes species gel with their environment.

If God designed the world then why are there so many flaws? With millions and millions of years, omniscience, omnipotence and omnipresence couldn't have God come up with something better than a world that produced the Nazis, the KKK or the H-Bomb?

4) The Moral Argument for Deity

God's existence is proved by the existence of right and wrong.

God cannot be proved good if he created wrong.

(See my argument in "God's role in the creation of sin" to see why this is an illogical argument)

5) The Argument for the remedying of injustice

God exists to bring justice into the world. An after life must exist for this to happen because injustice exists still on earth.

A scientific argument would state that since this world is ruled by injustice and I know only this world I would assume that justice does not rule anywhere else, negating a Just God.

Intellectual arguments do not stir people to believe in God though. The main reason people believe in God is because they have been taught to do so from infancy.

People want to believe in God because they like the idea of safety and the idea of having a "big brother" to look after you.

The Character of Christ

Christ had many maxims that were good, but impossible to live up to:

1) "Resist not evil, but whoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also". This is an impossible thing to do because it goes against human nature. This is not a new principle. Lao-Tzu and Buddha proposed similar maxims 500-600 years before Christ. Christians defend this by taking it figuratively.

2) "Judge not lest ye be judged". How is a Christian to uphold a court of law if this is to be taken as a literal maxim?

3) "Give to him that asketh of thee, and from him that would borrow turn not thou away". How can people always give what is asked or lend what they have not?

4) "If thou would be perfect, go and sell that which thou has and give to the poor". How can someone survive if they sell what they have and give it away? Where is the line of Christians selling their goods for the poor?

(Rich man asks God what must I do to go to heaven. Christ shows that the man doesn't have the commitment to God because his wealth is an idol. Money is not bad unless it takes the place of God).

Defects in Christ's teachings:

Historically it is doubtful that Christ ever existed, and if he did, then we know little or nothing about him.

Christ believed that the 2nd coming would occur in his disciples' lifetimes. This was a concept embraced by early Christians as well. This was the basis for many of Christ's moral teachings.

"In that respect, clearly He was not so wise as some other people have been, and He was certainly not superlatively wise" (Russell, 17).

The Moral Problem:

One serious defect in Christ's morals was his belief in Hell. No moral or humane person can believe in everlasting punishment.

Christ was indignant to those who would not listen to Him. Compare his to Socrates' response to those who would not listen and you will see that Socrates is more noble and moral. Socrates was bland or urbane to those who did not adhere to his teachings.

Christ's condemnation of people who blaspheme the Holy Spirit shows that he has no kindness. A man with any sense of kindness in their nature would not put fears or terrors of this sort into the world as Christ did.

Christ's preaching of Hell and damnation is so prevalent and constant that he may have derived a sort of sadistic sick pleasure from it.

Christ banished the legion of demons into a herd of pigs. If he was omnipotent he had no reason to condemn those pigs to death, he could have banished the demons elsewhere.

What about when Christ destroyed the fig tree because it had no fruit? Never mind the fact it was not fig season.

Buddha and Socrates are more virtuous than Christ.

The Emotional Factor:

Religion is accepted on an emotional level.

Morals are supposedly tied up in religion and we ought not attack religion because without religion good men will turn into wicked men. Wickedness, true wickedness actually comes from fervent religion or dogmatic law, i.e. the Inquisition, the Salem Witch Hunts and the Crusades.

"The Christian religion has been and still is the principal enemy of moral progress in the world" (Russell).

How the Churches have retarded progress:

Morality is used as a disguise to inflict pain on people. The church's insistence of adhering to a strict moral code impairs people from achieving happiness because it inflicts them with unnecessary suffering, i.e. birth control.

Fear, the foundations of religion:

Religion is mostly and primarily based on fear.
-Fear of the unknown
-Fear of the mysterious
-Fear of death
-Fear of defect

Fear is the parent of cruelty, not surprising when you realize how cruel religion has been throughout history.

Science has pushed itself against Christianity and it is Science that will deliver us from the fear that religion puts in the world.

"Our hearts can teach us, no longer to look around for imaginary supports, no longer to invent allies in the sky, but to look to our own efforts here below to make this world a fit place to live in" (Russell, 22).

What we must do:

Conquer the world by intelligence.

The whole concept of God comes from ancient oriental despotisms.

People debase themselves in church by claiming to be wretched sinners.

We shouldn't lower ourselves to religion as self-respecting freemen but to make the best of the world.

"A good world needs knowledge, kindliness and courage; it does not need regretful hankering after the past or a fettering of the free intelligence by the words uttered long ago by ignorant men" (Russell).

The past is dead, trust that the future will be better because of our intelligence.

No comments:

Post a Comment