Bertrand Russell was a renowned mathematician and philosopher. He lived from 1872-1970. I think a more appropriate title for this book should be “Why I am an Atheist.” He was raised in England and attended a religious school. It seems to be more of a reaction to the teaching he received as a child, and therefore a reaction to Christianity. Ibn Warraq used the same idea with his book titled, “Why I Am Not A Muslim,” which was a reaction to his upbringing as a Muslim.
After reading a biography of Bertrand Russell by Alan Ryan, it is quite apparent that he was intent on finding a paradigm for living that permitted a lascivious lifestyle without the guilt that being a Christian would bring. He advances all the traditional arguments against Christianity. It’s a good book to read if you want to justify why you are an atheist. It’s a better book for Christians to read, because it exposes them to what others are thinking about their faith. Several years ago we used this book in a church class as a basis for teaching apologetics. It went very well, and I look forward to teaching it again sometime in the future.
It seems to me that every belief system tends to be closed within its own system of logic and perspective. An atheist can seldom be persuaded to become a Christian, and a Christian laughs at the thought of converting to atheism. Any movement from one belief system to another requires either a life event powerful enough to break through the traditional thought patterns of that system, or a desire such as Russell had, to participate in “forbidden” activities. Many times the transition is gradual; for example, from Christianity, to apathy, to agnosticism, and then to atheism. I have a friend who went from Islam to atheism, and then to Christianity. In his case, he claims the move to Christianity was precipitated by Jesus appearing to him in a vision. I would be interested to hear in the comment section if you have had such a transition in your life; either sudden or gradual.
The real challenge of this book is that it causes the reader to ask, “Have I followed Bertrand Russell’s path of choosing a belief system because it justifies my life style, or have I subjected my life style to the truth?” I hope we are all have the courage to pursue truth.
Now you tell me, to quote Pontius Pilate, “What is truth?”
19 comments:
It's kind of like the Woody Allen quip about the atheist couple--one from a Jewish background, the other from a Christian background--who argue about which religion not to bring their child up in.
Of course, there is also the factor that Christianity is the dominant religion of the West, so rejecting it amounts to a much stronger statement than rejecting Judaism or Islam.
I haven't read this book, but I can definitely attest that Russell is a philosopher who engages us whether we agree with him or not. I have dealt with his arguments for moral relativism in this post.
Kylopod, I enjoyed your post on B Russell. Would you agree that moral relativism can lead to chaos in a culture?
In theory, yes. But very few people are true relativists. Those who identify by the term are, from what I've seen, deeply confused. It's mostly an overreaction against authoritarian models stemming from religion. Notice that I didn't use the word "relativism" in the essay itself, because I have observed that many people get distracted by that term. I framed the difference as subjectivism vs. objectivism. While neither of those terms are commonly used for this philosophical dispute, I believe them to be more accurate. Many people who call themselves relativists end up defining it as the idea that morality is relative to a particular situation. The problem is that everybody is a relativist according to that definition. Furthermore, the presumed opposite of relativism is absolutism, a word with distinctly negative connotations that reminds people of totalitarianism, which in fact has nothing to do with the idea that morals are objective. Nevertheless, despite its flaws relativism remains the commonly used term.
One book on this subject I thought was excellent was Peter Kreeft's A Refutation of Moral Relatavism: Interviews with an Absolutist. It's a surprisingly entertaining philosophy book, presented as a fictional dialogue between two characters, a fundamentalist Muslim and a black liberal reporter. (Kreeft is actually a Catholic.) There is a discussion about the book on this page. The amazon page is here.
Oops! Looks like I provided the first link twice. The amazon link is here:
http://www.amazon.com/Refutation-Moral-Relativism-Interviews-Absolutist/dp/0898707315
Thanks, the review is good; I like Kreeft. Interesting that a Catholic would use Islam as a pulpit.
My guess is he wanted to convey that the message was not exclusive to a particular religion. Many people who bash moral relativism end up favoring their own religion as the finest purveyor of moral absolutes, and that was not the point Kreeft was trying to make in this case.
There is no God, there is no Buddha, there is no Mohammed. These are myths. Just like Norse Gods and The Great Buffalo or The Great Pumpkin. Myths are part of what makes us human and all cultures have them. Disembrace the stupidity of myths and you have to really face the world. If you do that then the choices get a lot harder, but a lot smarter decision are made.
My name is Dale, I live in Denver. I left the above comment.
Hi Dale, I finally get to meet an atheist! I'm sure the choices do get harder. How do you evaluate right and wrong if truth is relative? Bertrand Russell devised a belief system that allowed him to follow his own path. I suggest you read "Mere Christianity" by C.S. Lewis. It addresses your comments.
"There is no God, there is no Buddha, there is no Mohammed. These are myths."
You're saying that Buddha and Mohammed never existed...?!
Who says there's only one truth? For u (for example) the truth is "tree". For a frenchman it's "arbre", for a Spaniard "árbol", for me "δέντρο", and so on. They are all truths, even though the concept is the same. Is it the same with religion?
Yes, but only when u become an independent observer of all religions/belief systems. Otherwise - that is, looking from within ur belief system - the structures and rituals impede you from realising that other belief systems are similarly structured. I'll say it differently: if u can recognise that ur religion is more or less the same with other religions in terms of philosophy and aims, then nothing stops u from realising that religion is something that we all need. And that's only one truth. A second truth is whether u choose to side with the first truth, or with a religion - which, in turn, will become another truth.
Now. How about a belief system that allows people to believe to a deity (or a whole set of them) but at the same time be based on the knowledge that this deity is there because the human needs it to be, and not because that's how it's always been. Or, someone said so. Or, someone wrote it down so now it's binding.
Why isn't there any religion that says "hey, look, i'm sorry, i forgot to write down the details, but it's pretty simple: u believe as much as u want to, u can pray anywhere, no need to leave money to my church, or have enormous respect for my reps since they r just humans, and basically... just don't harm other people in any way or form. Not cos u'll go to hell, but u'll get to sleep better at nights". Or... something like that.
But, I'm afraid, the problem is not the religions. The problem is their interpretation. Lots of talk about respect, but i don't see much going around.
p.s. I don't like the term "agnostic" for my case. It's too posh and doesn't describe me at all. "Ignorant" is better.
Hi, it's me again... :) Apologies for taking so much space, but it's not often i find stimulating posts.
Ehm, would u mind if I published my above comment as a post of mine with a link to ur post?
(U can delete this comment if u want)
Hi itelli
Don't mind at all. I think we need the ability to step outside of our belief system to examine what is really true, otherwise we define it to fit our own paradigm. I have to make sure I am willing to do that. I don't want to go around in circles; I want to pursue the real thing.
Okay here I go again. Thank you so much for commenting on my grandson's blog. tristans-page.blogspot.com He is such a neat kid! He does have a million questions or more. I've been answering them since the day he could talk!
As for me. I'm Native American and don't believe in much any more. I have a Great Spirit that guides me. Christianity is something I stay far away from now. I was a Bapist for years but, now with events in my life, I stay away from any doctrine or Church.
My blog is full of hate and I know that but, until things change it will remain that way!
You are welcome. I also responded to your deleted comment under "Money." Two questions; what events in your life, and what would have to change to remove the hate?
To answer you. I'm in the middle of a divorce. I have not lived with my husband for years. His family is very christian family. I am a have very strong native beliefs. Yes, I accepted Jesus as my Savior but now, seeing how the family is treating me I have doubts about Christianity. How can people claim to be such Christians but, still judge?
GMA- if I may be simplistic, remember that the standard for Christian actions is not other Christians. The only standard is Jesus. If I build a house with a crooked tape measure, then I end up with a crooked house. Don't use those who claim to be Christians as your tape measure to judge God.
What about Russell's lifestyle do you think was lascivious and that he was trying to avoid feeling guilty about?
What makes it so apparent to you that Russell constructed his "paradigm for living" in order to avoid feeling guilt about his lifestyle? What's your evidence that this is the reason he was not a Christian?
Hi James. It's been a long time since I've had any comments on this blog. The easiest part of your question is about the lasciviousness. There is no question when you read biographies of Bertrand Russell that his lifestyle fit that definition. As to why he did it, that is harder to answer. I think he was trying to avoid feeling guilty. If you look at his upbringing, it was a culture of christianity. Any attempt to leave the mores of one's birth requires justification. Since Russell rejected the teachings of christianity, his intellect required an alternative paradigm. Otherwise, his lifestyle would have dammed him to hell, and he would not have been able to live with the tremendous guilt placed on him by the culture of the day. It is much easier to make immoral choices if you declare them to not be immoral in the first place. It eliminates the conflict in your mind. That is why he was not a christian. This type of reaction to the culture around us happens with everyone. As thinking beings, we cannot help but analyze the roots and logic of our upbringing and either rejecting or accepting how we were raised. When I get to know someone, part of that process is learning about their early family values and looking at how their thinking has changed. Unfortunately, many adults are simply living a reaction to their childhood. Their identity as adults is primarily a struggle to throw off those early teachings. There is nothing wrong with rejecting the values of our parents, but we need to do it honestly. Otherwise we are living a lie.
Post a Comment