Bertrand Russell
Why I Am Not a Christian
This is a brief critique of Russell’s book, Why I Am Not a Christian. It is not a consideration of the over-arching theme of the book, largely because the book is a series of essays and is not presented as a single argument. My approach will be to interact with statements made by Russell in the book. Hopefully the statements are representative, providing a sense of his thought tendencies.
Jesus’ Immanent Return
Russell thought Jesus taught that his return would be immanent. He believed Jesus was wrong about this and that his error caused harm to the church. He cites as evidence for his opinion, Matthew 10. 23: I say to you, you will not have gone through all the towns of Israel before the Son of Man comes.” There is much debate about Jesus’ meaning in this passage, though it seems unlikely it was a remark about his Second Coming. A much more likely interpretation is that, since Jesus was sending his disciples on short missionary excursions, the reference was to a rendezvous after the mission. In fairness to Russell, various Christians (mostly of the cultish sort) have held strong notions about the times and places of Jesus’ return. But he might have turned a few pages to Matthew chapter 24, the whole of which addresses Christ’s return. Verse 3: The disciples came to him privately, saying, “Tell us, when will these things be, and what will be the sign of your coming and of the close of the age?” Included in his extensive answer were these words, “Concerning that day and hour no one knows, not even the angels of heaven, or the Son, but the Father only.” Russell’s discontent with Jesus in this matter is due only to him not doing his homework.
Hell, the Moral Problem
Russell finds it intolerable that Jesus believed in hell as a place of everlasting torment. But his frustration is due to misreading the Bible. The everlasting or unquenchable fire it describes does exactly what one would expect when a human being is thrown into it—it burns the human up. There is clearly a judgment aspect to Christianity. But this is not very different from what good atheists expect from their impersonal universe. They think that when we die, that’s the end. The difference is that Jesus offers abundant, everlasting life to those who trust in him. So, atheists offer zero, while Christianity offers escape from zero. His moral objection is simply misplaced.
Sweeping Generalizations
Russell is a master of sweeping generalizations. Generalizations serve a purpose by being difficult to refute. But take, for example, his statement, “…there were millions of unfortunate women burnt as witches,” [by Church authorities]. As inappropriate as these killings were, Russell seems unaware that human brutality has been the rule of human history. Were there millions of witches burned? The greatest period of witch hunting was a 300-year period from 1450 to 1750, in which an estimated 45,000 witches (10-15% men) were executed, mostly by hanging. That works out to 150 per year. Compare that to homicides in America of over 21,000 per year. Or consider that there are approximately 73,000,000 abortions in the world each year. It is believed the atheistic Bolshevik Revolution killed 10,000,000 Russians. Thank Lenin he saved those people from the oppression of the Russian Orthodox Church.
“You find as you look around the world that every single bit of progress in humane feeling, every improvement in the criminal law, every step towards the diminution of war, every step towards better treatment of the coloured races, or every mitigation of slavery, every moral progress that there has been in the world, has been consistently opposed by the organized Churches of the world.”
Russell, for all his knowledge, cherry-picks history to suit his biases. Is he unaware the the early Church routinely rescued “exposed” (children left to die), a common practice in the polytheistic Roman Empire? Is he not aware that the hospitals of Europe were established by Christians? Is he not aware that the universities of Europe were established by Christians? As an Englishman, is he not aware that it was the Christian, William Wilberforce, who campaigned for decades in Parliament until Britain finally agreed to make the slave trade illegal? Is he not aware that the U.S., even though it brought some 400,000 slaves to work its land, was the only country that fought a war, losing some 600,000 of its men, in order to end slavery? Is he not aware that it was the Quakers and other Christians who pushed hardest against the practice of slavery? Christianity has not solved the problems of the world, partly because Christians are imperfect people and have done many horrible things, and partly because Christians have never been the only people in the societies where they live. But if you look at the world, look at where Christian culture has been adopted and look where it hasn’t. What countries are people leaving? Where are they going?
Fear
Russell believes that Christianity is built on people’s fears. Well, sure, people are afraid, and they have many good reasons to be afraid. His answer? Science. Science will take away our reasons for fear. Seriously? Science has created increasingly efficient ways to kill people every year since the days of Cain. It gave us the atomic bomb. That surely makes me feel safe. It created computers and the internet. Well, that’s all good and convenient, but how has that worked out in terms of social media and the algorithms that promote outrage and insult? How has that benefitted social tranquility? Or what about internet security? Is there anyone who hasn’t been scammed or nearly scammed by internet thieves? Are there threats looming over societal infrastructures, due to internet and computer dependency? And what about our grand medical advances? In recent years life expectancy has actually dropped in the U.S. One thing is sure: medical costs are continuously taking up greater portions of our earnings. People are beginning to choose euthanasia rather than facing impoverished old age. And is science delivering us from death? No. It’s answer to death is: “It’s fine.” Except almost no one believes death is fine. And those who do believe it are just plain stupid.
Christianity does offer hope, and it does offer remedies for all our fears. Even if you don’t believe in Christianity or Jesus, it is pure meanness to scoff at anyone for desiring to have hope. But if Christianity is real, it really does provide the remedy for fear. Christianity is not about fear. It is about the end of fear.
What the World Needs
Here is Russell’s remedy for society: “We ought to make the best we can of the world. A good world need knowledge, kindliness, and courage. It needs a fearless outlook and a free intelligence. It needs hope for the future.”
But his suggestion raises a few questions. The first one is, what makes him think the world needs the things he is suggesting? I’m not arguing for any alternative list; I am asking, why are any of his suggestions any better than a list that suggests the absolute opposite? Why shouldn’t we make the worst of the world? And what does “best” mean? Why is knowledge better than ignorance? Why is kindness better than cruelty…or apathy? Why should we be courageous rather than cowardly? What would drive us to want to be courageous? There simply is no self-evident social structure.
His promotion of hope strikes me as a most ridiculous idea. An atheist cannot have hope. After a few years on earth there is nothing. He embraces hopelessness and calls on others to be filled with hope. He formulates a moral system that is based on nothing. Why would anyone buy into a moral system that is based on nothing?
As Little Children
“Christ tells us to become as little children, but little children cannot understand differential calculus, or the principles of currency, or the modern methods of combatting disease. To acquire such knowledge is no part of our duty, according to the Church.”
Russell seems particularly block-headed in this comment. When Christ told us to become like little children he was referring to the qualities we all admire in children: innocence (to a degree), joy & energy, and, most of all, trust in the adults in their lives. He was certainly not suggesting that we should avoid learning or that we should avoid maturing, or that we should avoid the responsibilities of adulthood. This is the Christ who, at twelve years old, was astonishing the religious leaders in Jerusalem with his biblical knowledge and with his questions. As for science and learning, there is no culture on earth that has come close to the progress of the West, primarily through Jewish and Christian scholars and scientists.
The Problem of Pain
“The world in which we live can be understood as a result of muddle and accident; but if it is the outcome of deliberate purpose, the purpose must have been that of a fiend. For my part, I find accident a less painful and more plausible hypothesis.”
This argument from Russell is kind-of a classic, and quite common among people who find it difficult to accept the pain and suffering in the world. (Which means pretty much everyone.) Things are bad, so God can’t be good. Things are bad, but I don’t feel so bad about it if the cause is an apathetic universe. The problem with this perspective is that a mindless universe will never mind whether a person is miserable. Such a perspective “resolves” in fatalistic despair. There can be no comfort in it.
More importantly, there seems to be a lack of imagination that a good God might be using difficulty, even horrible circumstances to bring about something of great good. In fact, it should not require much imagination, at all, since this is thematic to Christianity. Through discipline comes achievement. Christians are refined by fire. Christ redeemed the world through his sacrificial death. Out of defeat, victory. There is great hope in this, whereas, what Russell has to offer is…nothing.
Moral Code
“The question of whether a code is good or bad is the same as the question whether or not it promotes human happiness.” I think we all can agree that happiness is a good thing. We all like to be happy. But happiness as a guide? That’s quite another matter. Let’s consider short-term happiness first. It can make people very happy to fall madly in love and, in a rhapsodic trance, engage in the delights of love-making. Of course, we know that the intoxication of love often devolves over time into bitter hatred. And there are negative repercussions to rapturous surrender. There may be deep psychological injury when “true love” turns out to be exploitation. There may be the repercussions of sexually transmitted disease. There may be the repercussion of an unwanted pregnancy. The initial poor choice may lead to the far worse choice of abortion. Maybe jumping off a high bridge brings short-term happiness. Maybe what makes a person happy is emptying the bullets of an assault rifle into a marketplace crowd.
People pursue happiness in many ways. Many feel they will gain happiness through academic degrees and high-paying jobs. Many feel happiness comes through the attainment of power. Many feel happiness comes through the accumulation of wealth. Many feel happiness comes through public adoration. Many feel happiness comes through obtaining lots of nice stuff. Many feel happiness comes through world travel. Many feel happiness comes through achieving security. Many people take pleasure in using other people. In short, those who pursue happiness the most are the most shallow of all people. They are the ones who make everyone else unhappy.
The pursuit of happiness does not result in moral behavior. It does not even result in happiness. Russell’s moral code is followed by many already, and the evidences are clear that it is a failed plan.
We Feel What is Good and Bad
In a conversation with Father F.C. Copleston, Copleston asked Russell how he distinguishes good from bad. “By my feelings,” was Russell’s reply.
Let me say first that feelings are not a means by which we perceive. Our feelings are representations of what we think. Russell’s response to Copleston was fundamentally a dodge.
What Russell must mean is that he determines good and bad by his presuppositions. This is modern man. He judges the universe, past and present, based on his own opinions. This is a half truth. We must function by our own opinions, but this is not the same as claiming to be the arbiter of truth. We must be self-aware enough to know that, as individuals, we are weak; subject to error; no matter how smart, limited by how much we can learn; and, worst of all, subject to self-deception. If we want to understand good and evil, we must look to a reliable authorities outside ourselves. This is a fundamental of Christianity: it is trust in a Being who has proved himself to be a reliable source of wisdom.
Kindness and Creeds
“The important virtues are kindness and intelligence. Intelligence is impeded by any creed, no matter what; and kindness is inhibited by the belief in sin and punishment.”
Apparently Russell would find it perfectly acceptable for me to shoot him in the head with a high-tech and effective weapon, on the basis that his removal from the planet would provide great relieve to the rest of its inhabitants. Just to be sure I’ve remained within the boundaries of his worldview, I would subsequently mourn his death.
******************
The comments above are related to his book. Out of curiosity, I consulted the internet to find some of his famous quotes. Here is a small selection:
“I would never die for my beliefs because I might be wrong.” The problem with this is that we all die for our beliefs. We spend our earthly lives based on our beliefs, and then the consequences of eternity follow, greatly impacted by whether our beliefs have been correct or false.
“Life is nothing but a competition to be the criminal rather than the victim.” This is a strangely cynical and Darwinian thought. To the strong go the spoils. And, yet, it remains a statement of self-condemnation. Russell is thoroughly moralistic, even as he consistently condemns the existence of creeds. (The condemnation of creeds is, itself, a creed.) He, like most scientific materialists, wants the right to moral indignation while also retaining the right to absolute personal freedom. His worldview, then, is consistently self-contradictory.
“The fundamental cause of the trouble is that in the modern world the stupid are cocksure while the intelligent are full of doubt.” And so he comments with a certainty that undermines his own point. To be sure, it is stupid to be cocksure, and it is intelligent to be full of doubt, but the stupid are as inclined to be full of doubt as the intelligent, and the intelligent are as likely to be cocksure as the stupid. The really dangerous people, though, are the intelligent ones who are cocksure.
It is not clear to me why Russell became famous. He is intelligent, certainly, and has managed to absorb a grand swath of human historical factoids (or facsimiles of factoids). He is a capable writer, and he is quite bold in presenting unpopular ideas. I suppose this answers my own question. But he pretends he has addressed the great puzzles of life when he has not. He is a dissectologist who, instead of exercising patience, uses an exacto knife to change the shapes of the puzzle pieces. Eventually he manages to lay out all the pieces in the required space, but his result is a kaleidoscope of colors and gaps. While the result is mildly interesting, it is representative of nothing.
Recent Comments