Nicholas ([info]nhw) wrote,
@ 2008-07-05 17:12:00
Previous Entry  Add to memories!  Tell a Friend!  Next Entry
Entry tags:bookblog 2008, nobel laureates, religion

July Books 3) Why I am not a Christian
3) Why I am not a Christian, and other essays on religion and related subjects, by Bertrand Russell

Although I knew from the title that I probably wouldn't agree with a lot of this, I found it a very enjoyable read. It includes essays of varying lengths (the shortest is less than two pages, the longest 27), on the existence of God and ethical questions in general. On the more general questions, Russell is definitely a liberal, opposed to forced conformity and social hypocrisy, and his views are pretty close to mine. I particularly enjoyed a couple of historical pieces - a review of two books on medieval history and a sketch of the life of Thomas Paine.

On the existence of God, the most interesting of several pieces is a transcript of a radio debate between Russell and a Jesuit, where Russell clearly wins the argument about logical proofs, doesn't make as convincing a case on ethics, and has no answer to the question of religious experience. (The Jesuit misses a chance to push Russell on what I have always seen as the weakest point of his side of the argument, that science and logic are not in fact able to explain the whole of human experience; and the anti-God response tends to be to pretend that things which don't fall into the domain of science and logic don't need to be explained, which is then a tautology.)

I still prefer Russell's approach to that of, say, Richard Dawkins, because Russell seems to me to have a better grip of the problem: he quite rightly attacks dogmatic beliefs, be they Christian or Communist, held tyrannously by anyone, and advocates free thinking and debate; and one of his arguments against religion, in particular Christianity, is that it usually fosters and leads to this sort of tyranny. My own view is that it is a categorical error to blame this pattern of human behaviour, which is found and has been found among rulers of all religious backgrounds and of none, on religion per se. (There are also plenty of examples of states with a strong religious consciousness which none the less practice or practiced pluralism, but Russell discounts them as not being religious enough, which by his lights they aren't.)

The book finishes with a long (40 pages) description by the editor, Paul Edwards, of an incident where Russell was barred from taking up a professorship at the City College of New York as a result of an outrageous court judgement, combined with political machinations by (ultimately) Mayor LaGuardia. It is a depressing story, and illustrates that the American system is not always all that it is cracked up to be; but this is perhaps less newsworthy in 2008 than it was in 1940.



(Post a new comment)

anti-God
(Anonymous)
2008-07-05 05:12 pm UTC (link)
A less tautological anti-God response is that the God hypothesis doesn't really "explain" anything either without a breathtaking degree of question-begging. Personally I'm not taking sides either way, but I guess that won't be good enough come Judgment Day.

MiGrant

(Reply to this)


[info]wwhyte
2008-07-05 08:29 pm UTC (link)
My own view is that it is a categorical error to blame this pattern of human behaviour, which is found and has been found among rulers of all religious backgrounds and of none, on religion per se.

I think this is absolutely right. And let's not forget that rulers don't have a monopoly on bad behaviour, and that common people equally behave well or badly in ways that seem to have little to do with whether and what religion they follow. Religion is a way people choose to bring meaning to their lives, and as with other loves (like nation, politics, sport or simply another person) it can be constructive or destructive.

For me, the reason why I'm not a Christian is simply that I don't see any reason to think Buddhism, Islam, Shintoism and the rest are false and Christianity's true. It's one thing to go from a religious experience to thinking there's a being who loves us. It's another to think that that being is the one described by Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. As MiGrant said, religion isn't really a good explanation for religious experience.

(Reply to this)


[info]rfmcdpei
2008-07-06 04:18 pm UTC (link)
I've tended to act on the assumption that religion is just another sort of ideology, ideologies requiring a bit of uncritical acceptance that (I think) I haven't been able to provide. (Of course Marxist-Leninism vs. Trotskyism doesn't have the character of a religious feud, really!)

(Reply to this)


[info]phalaena
2008-07-13 11:05 am UTC (link)
This post comes as fresh air to me. As an agnostic, I'm sick of atheist proselitism just as I'm sick of any proselitism - be it religious, or ideological.
Thanks for writing about it.

(Reply to this)


Create an Account
Forgot your login?
Login w/ OpenID
English • Español • Deutsch • Русский…