Bertrand Russell II

Bertrand Russell critique of Christianity Why I Am Not a Christian begins by first defining a Christian as a, “person who believes in God, immortality and also believes that Christ is the most divine, best and wisest of all men.” Russell believes that the world has changed since the time of St. Augustine and St. Thomas Aquinas. Russell utilizes a series of different arguments to explain how the Christian religion does more harm than good to its followers. Russell begins by disclaiming the first cause argument which states that everything in the world has a cause, in order for there to be a cause there has to be a first causer which is considered to be God. (i.e., man could not have created himself, there must have been a creator; that creator is where God exist). Russell accepted this argument until he reached adulthood and red John Stuarts Mill’s autobiography and approached the sentence “My father taught me that the question who made me cannot be answered, since it immediately suggests the further question who made God”? After reading this Russell realizes that if everything requires a cause then God also must have a cause. So who is the creator of God? Russell proceeds by then trying to disclaim the next rational argument of The Natural-law Argument. This rational argument suggests that everything happens in an orderly way directed by God. The uniform ways that nature behaves that are unexplained are things God did according to the law. Russell rejects this argument by attesting that nature does not happen in a specific way and these natural laws are nothing but a descriptions on how things work. How can one say that God told things to work a certain way when natural law gives descriptions? And if God is subjected to this law then God is not the first ultimate law maker.
Russell next directs his thoughts to the Intelligent Design theories for God. The argument from Design puts forward the idea that everything is designed so perfectly that is must have been designed by God. This argument comes from the Thomistic argument for governance of the world. In this Argument Aquinas contends that the world must be directed by God because it works so well. He says even things that don’t have intelligence act in a way where the constant result works well for them. Russell disagrees with this argument, stating that how is it possible that an all powerful benevolent being could have created a world with so much evil.
Following his Intelligent Design critiques Russell examines the argument from morality for the existence of God. The Moral Argument for Deity proposes the question of how would a person know what is considered right and wrong if there were no God. God is the reason that humans know what is right and wrong. Russell believes that if God determines what’s right and wrong for humans, then for God there is no right and wrong because God is not subjected to the rules he makes. If God is not subjected to laws he could change what is considered right and wrong at any time. Succeeding this this argument from morality Russell renounces the argument for justice.
The Argument for the Remedying of Injustice claims that although in most cases there is no justice in the world because the innocent suffer and the evil prosper however there has to a God for justice to be established in the afterlife. Russell refutes this argument by claiming that why would someone assume that there’s a life beyond this world when this life is so unjust. How can a person change their way of thinking there a better world beyond this unjust world when the world they life in is so terrible. Russell goes on to disclaim this argument by suggesting that most people believe in God because they were taught to believe and God and want a security that makes them feel safe. In addition to this explanation Russell offers his next refute. In the character of Christ. Russell believes that there are good points in God teachings however he does not believe God was the best wisest of men. A lot of Christians don’t live by the command to turn the other cheek. There are that or judges who judge people all the time in spite that God said “judge not lest ye be judged. How can a person claim to be a Christian and believe in god teachings and not practice them? Russell believes that there are many Defects in Christ’s teaching. Russell uses the Gospel narrative to explain some things that do not seem wise. In the gospel Christ believed the second coming was going to happen soon and it has not. How could Christ made a mistake if he is the wisest of men. Christ believed in everlasting punishment how could Christ be humane if he believes someone should be punished forever but teaches people to turn the other cheek .furthermore, Russell believes that there is a serious problem in Christ moral character. The Moral Problem refers to the gospel and states that Christ gets very angry with people who would not listen to his preaching’s. If he was the best of wisest of men why couldn’t he be different? Russell compares Christ to Socrates who was not angry when people did not listen to him. Russell next transitions to emotional factor for God. The Emotional Factor argues that without religion people would be wicked however there is religion and people are still wicked. Russell believes that organized religion promotes as much evil as it has well. Russell states that “every time society tries to make our world more humane the organized churches have been opposed to it”. Russell believes that the Christian religion is the "primary enemy of moral progress in the world." He believes the churches have retarded progress by causing unnecessary suffering with morality. The church label morality to set guidelines for behavior but that have nothing to do with human happiness. Russell believes that fear is the foundation of religion. ." Fear leads to religion and cruelty. So it is no chance that the two correspond regularly. Russell states God is derived from ancient oriental despotisms and is highly unworthy of free men. Remember this when you hear people in church debasing themselves as horrible, unworthy sinners. He suggest that there needs to be change we need to make the best of the world, Accept the beauty and the ugliness of our world and make this a world with knowledge, kindness and courage. Bertrand Russell article “Do We Survive Death?” states “Philosophers used to think that there were definite substances, the soul and the body, that each lasted on from day to day, that a soul, once created, continued to exist throughout all future time, whereas a body ceased temporarily from death till the resurrection of the body”. Russell rejects that the argument that bodies persist. He believes that the body is always changing because of the process of nutriment and wastage. He demonstrates his claims by comparing body to an atom. An atom constantly changes but looks the same, so therefore the body cannot remain the same.