The entries Why He Was Not A Christian and Why I Am A Christian are closely linked and ought not to be separated.
...Why was he not a Christian? If we agree with Nietzsche, it is because the last Christian, the only one, died on the cross two thousand years ago…
Why I am not a Christian was the title of the lecture delivered by Lord Bertrand Russell, the great thinker, whom I admire and respect, despite my several basic differences with him, on March 6, 1927, under the auspices of the South London Branch of the National Secular Society. In his Preface to the 1957 edition of this lecture, and in his other essays on religion, Russell goes even further than attacking Christianity: He attacks all great religions, and he does it with a flair and a conviction in the truth of his argument. I would like to examine this argument, and, perhaps surprisingly, express my general agreement with much of what Russell says, yet to conclude my examination with a short argument of my own which will become a separate entry under the counter-title: Why I am a Christian.
First, let me quote a few excerpts from that 1957 Preface:
“…There has been a rumor in recent years to the effect that I have become less opposed to religious orthodoxy than I formerly was. This rumor is totally without foundation. I think all the great religions of the world-- Buddhism, Hinduism, Christianity, Islam, and Communism-- both untrue and harmful. It is evident as a matter of logic that since they disagree, not more than one of them can be true. With very few exceptions, the religion which a man accepts, is that of the community in which he lives, which makes it obvious that the influence of the environment is what has led him to accept the religion in question. True that the Scholastics invented what professed to be logical arguments proving the existence of God, but the logic to which these arguments appealed is antiquated… Apart from logical cogency, there is something odd about the ethical valuations of those who think that an omnipotent, omniscient, and benevolent Deity… would consider Himself adequately rewarded by the final emergence of Hitler and Stalin, and the H-Bomb… The harm that is done by a religion is of two sorts. It is thought virtuous to have faith, that is to say, a conviction, which cannot be shaken by contrary evidence. The conviction that it is important to believe this or that, even if a free enquiry does not support the belief is common to almost all religions. The consequence is that the minds of the young are stunted, and filled with fanatical hostility to those who have other fanaticisms, and to those who object to all fanaticisms. The world needs open hearts and open minds, and it is not through rigid systems that these can be derived.”
My general response to all of the above is Amen! Everything Russell says here is reasonable and logical. I completely agree with his invective against fanaticism and with his historical observation that throughout the ages religions may have caused more harm than done good. However, not by reason alone does a man live. There are many evil things in the world, of which religion and the devil have no part, yet all attempts to rid us of these evils have miserably failed. Instead of fighting against the great religions, one ought to accept them as a fact of life and social culture, and see how they could be made the best possible use of. Death, by the way, is also a rather unpleasant fact of life, but what can be done about it, anyway? At least, the belief in afterlife gives life a transcendental and transcendent, ergo superior, meaning!
Russell’s assault on religion is cogent on rational grounds, but life includes rationality and irrationality in it in equal measure, and closing the eyes on the existence of the irrational is rather illogical in itself. Thus, I can see many failings-in-principle in Russell’s approach to religion, but I am enormously grateful to him for having started this lucid and reasonable discussion, thus providing an opportunity for the counterpunch on behalf of religion as a socio-immanent institution, which, without the benefit of his powerful argument, would have been tantamount to fighting windmills, on our part.
As for his ridicule of those pseudo-logical Scholastic arguments “scientifically proving” God’s existence, I have already expressed on a number of occasions, my disdain for such silly exercises, and on this subject he and I are essentially of the same mind.
In the Why I am not a Christian lecture, Bertrand Russell goes into considerable detail debunking a host of arguments proving God’s existence, and I am not going to dwell on any of this, as I have already expressed my full agreement with him on this matter.
Russell then proceeds with his brief analysis of the teachings of Christ, observing, on the one hand, that the existing capitalist practices in Great Britain and elsewhere are not in agreement with Christ’s precepts. (An obvious contradiction in terms between Capitalism and Christianity, which I have made the central focus of my section on Economics.) No disagreement here either between us. Capitalism and Christianity are indeed profoundly at odds with each other.
Next, he expresses his disapproval of Christ’s belief in Hell, and His repeated warning that the End of Days is at hand, calling one immoral and the other inaccurate. In this case, however, I look at these matters more as allegories than as literal assertions, otherwise I would have had the same difficulties with the teachings of Christ (and the whole Bible, of course!) as Russell has, but not if their figurative sense is introduced into the picture.
Finally, Russell returns to the question of religious practices, that is to the role of the Christian churches and their perversion of Christianity, including their inculcation of fanaticism and fear in the hearts and minds of the believers. Once again, my very negative view of most Christian churches as shameless manipulators and political players and polluters of religion is well-known by now and there is no disagreement either between Russell and myself on this matter.
…This discussion will now continue in my next entry Why I Am A Christian.
...Why was he not a Christian? If we agree with Nietzsche, it is because the last Christian, the only one, died on the cross two thousand years ago…
Why I am not a Christian was the title of the lecture delivered by Lord Bertrand Russell, the great thinker, whom I admire and respect, despite my several basic differences with him, on March 6, 1927, under the auspices of the South London Branch of the National Secular Society. In his Preface to the 1957 edition of this lecture, and in his other essays on religion, Russell goes even further than attacking Christianity: He attacks all great religions, and he does it with a flair and a conviction in the truth of his argument. I would like to examine this argument, and, perhaps surprisingly, express my general agreement with much of what Russell says, yet to conclude my examination with a short argument of my own which will become a separate entry under the counter-title: Why I am a Christian.
First, let me quote a few excerpts from that 1957 Preface:
“…There has been a rumor in recent years to the effect that I have become less opposed to religious orthodoxy than I formerly was. This rumor is totally without foundation. I think all the great religions of the world-- Buddhism, Hinduism, Christianity, Islam, and Communism-- both untrue and harmful. It is evident as a matter of logic that since they disagree, not more than one of them can be true. With very few exceptions, the religion which a man accepts, is that of the community in which he lives, which makes it obvious that the influence of the environment is what has led him to accept the religion in question. True that the Scholastics invented what professed to be logical arguments proving the existence of God, but the logic to which these arguments appealed is antiquated… Apart from logical cogency, there is something odd about the ethical valuations of those who think that an omnipotent, omniscient, and benevolent Deity… would consider Himself adequately rewarded by the final emergence of Hitler and Stalin, and the H-Bomb… The harm that is done by a religion is of two sorts. It is thought virtuous to have faith, that is to say, a conviction, which cannot be shaken by contrary evidence. The conviction that it is important to believe this or that, even if a free enquiry does not support the belief is common to almost all religions. The consequence is that the minds of the young are stunted, and filled with fanatical hostility to those who have other fanaticisms, and to those who object to all fanaticisms. The world needs open hearts and open minds, and it is not through rigid systems that these can be derived.”
My general response to all of the above is Amen! Everything Russell says here is reasonable and logical. I completely agree with his invective against fanaticism and with his historical observation that throughout the ages religions may have caused more harm than done good. However, not by reason alone does a man live. There are many evil things in the world, of which religion and the devil have no part, yet all attempts to rid us of these evils have miserably failed. Instead of fighting against the great religions, one ought to accept them as a fact of life and social culture, and see how they could be made the best possible use of. Death, by the way, is also a rather unpleasant fact of life, but what can be done about it, anyway? At least, the belief in afterlife gives life a transcendental and transcendent, ergo superior, meaning!
Russell’s assault on religion is cogent on rational grounds, but life includes rationality and irrationality in it in equal measure, and closing the eyes on the existence of the irrational is rather illogical in itself. Thus, I can see many failings-in-principle in Russell’s approach to religion, but I am enormously grateful to him for having started this lucid and reasonable discussion, thus providing an opportunity for the counterpunch on behalf of religion as a socio-immanent institution, which, without the benefit of his powerful argument, would have been tantamount to fighting windmills, on our part.
As for his ridicule of those pseudo-logical Scholastic arguments “scientifically proving” God’s existence, I have already expressed on a number of occasions, my disdain for such silly exercises, and on this subject he and I are essentially of the same mind.
In the Why I am not a Christian lecture, Bertrand Russell goes into considerable detail debunking a host of arguments proving God’s existence, and I am not going to dwell on any of this, as I have already expressed my full agreement with him on this matter.
Russell then proceeds with his brief analysis of the teachings of Christ, observing, on the one hand, that the existing capitalist practices in Great Britain and elsewhere are not in agreement with Christ’s precepts. (An obvious contradiction in terms between Capitalism and Christianity, which I have made the central focus of my section on Economics.) No disagreement here either between us. Capitalism and Christianity are indeed profoundly at odds with each other.
Next, he expresses his disapproval of Christ’s belief in Hell, and His repeated warning that the End of Days is at hand, calling one immoral and the other inaccurate. In this case, however, I look at these matters more as allegories than as literal assertions, otherwise I would have had the same difficulties with the teachings of Christ (and the whole Bible, of course!) as Russell has, but not if their figurative sense is introduced into the picture.
Finally, Russell returns to the question of religious practices, that is to the role of the Christian churches and their perversion of Christianity, including their inculcation of fanaticism and fear in the hearts and minds of the believers. Once again, my very negative view of most Christian churches as shameless manipulators and political players and polluters of religion is well-known by now and there is no disagreement either between Russell and myself on this matter.
…This discussion will now continue in my next entry Why I Am A Christian.
No comments:
Post a Comment