What do you think?
Rate this book
Why I am Not a Christian by Bertrand Russell
Dedicated as few men have been to the life of reason, Bertrand Russell has always been concerned with the basic questions to which religion also addresses itself -- questions about man's place in the universe and the nature of the good life, questions that involve life after death, morality, freedom, education, and sexual ethics. He brings to his treatment of these questions the same courage, scrupulous logic, and lofty wisdom for which his other work as philosopher, writer, and teacher has been famous. These qualities make the essays included in this book perhaps the most graceful and moving presentation of the freethinker's position since the days of Hume and Voltaire."I am as firmly convinced that religions do harm as I am that they are untrue," Russell declares in his Preface, and his reasoned opposition to any system or dogma which he feels may shackle man's mind runs through all the essays in this book, whether they were written as early as 1899 or as late as 1954.The book has been edited, with Lord Russell's full approval and cooperation, by Professor Paul Edwards of the Philosophy Department of New York University. In an Appendix, Professor Edwards contributes a full account of the highly controversial "Bertrand Russell Case" of 1940, in which Russell was judicially declared "unfit" to teach philosophy at the College of the City of New York.Whether the reader shares or rejects Bertrand Russell's views, he will find this book an invigorating challenge to set notions, a masterly statement of a philosophical position, and a pure joy to read.Why I am not a Christian --Has religion made useful contributions to civilization? --What I believe --Do we survive death? --Seems, madam? Nay, it is --Free man's worship --On Catholic and Protestant skeptics --Life in the Middle Ages --Fate of Thomas Paine --Nice people --New generation --Our sexual ethics --Freedom and the colleges --Can religion cure our troubles? --Religion and morals -- How Bertrand Russell was prevented from teaching at the College of the City of New York
Hardcover
First published May 1, 1957
1449 people are currently reading
39413 people want to read
About the author
Bertrand Russell
1,157 books7,217 followersBertrand Arthur William Russell, 3rd Earl Russell, OM, FRS, was a Welsh philosopher, historian, logician, mathematician, advocate for social reform, pacifist, and prominent rationalist. Although he was usually regarded as English, as he spent the majority of his life in England, he was born in Wales, where he also died.
He was awarded the Nobel Prize in Literature in 1950 "in recognition of his varied and significant writings in which he champions humanitarian ideals and freedom of thought."
He was awarded the Nobel Prize in Literature in 1950 "in recognition of his varied and significant writings in which he champions humanitarian ideals and freedom of thought."
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 929 reviews
April 13, 2018
"Why I Am Not A Christian?"
If I ask myself that question, the answer will be:
"I am not a Christian because I read the Bible, both Old and New Testament, from cover to cover, and consider it complete nonsense to believe that to be literal, figurative or symbolical truth."
"Why do I not believe Christianity is good?"
Because I read Bertrand Russell. As a young, impressionable person, I used to lament the fact that I was not given "the gift" of belief, as it seemed to come with confidence in the believer's "goodness". Who doesn't want to be good? Who doesn't want to feel sure about themselves? Who doesn't want to have a superior guideline to stick to?
Me, apparently.
As much as I wanted to believe in the religion that happened to be the predominant one in my environment, it all just seemed ridiculous. I remember sitting in a church as a 15-year-old, praying to a god I did not believe in to give me faith in him. It took me many years to get over the feeling of guilt over my "lack" or "misfortune". I felt left out by the non-existent god in a society that apparently unquestioningly accepted what didn't make sense to me. I said over and over again to believers who reprimanded me for my atheism:
"Oh, I respect your faith in Jesus, and I am truly sorry for not finding faith myself. I admire the morality of Christianity and wish I could be part of it!"
And I received condescending, pitying smiles in return.
Then I left my small town and moved to a university city, and started reading, reading, and reading. Philosophy, literary fiction, history, art history, religion, pedagogy. In the huge pile: Russell!
And finally, finally, I was able to break away from the Lutheran guilt trap that catches believers and nonbelievers alike in the social environment where it is dominant. Finally I could distance myself from the unthinking group pressure of "Christian morality". There is no such thing. Religion is not moral. Atheists are not likelier to kill or rape or steal than Christians, despite the fact that they do not feel the threat of eternal punishment. Moral behaviour is completely independent from supernatural belief. Russell helped me get the definitions straight.
Once I had read Russell, I could embrace my sense that the evil force (god, the killer of anything that opposes him) that appears in the Bible does not exist, and should not exist (it would be horrible!). I learned that I was not alone in seeing that religion is a human invention to simulate immortality - for those who are afraid to let go of their egos when they die - and to enforce patriarchal power structures - for those who can't convince people to follow them by choice and free will. It is a way for people to define themselves through exclusion and protectionism, not through individual merit.
Russell followed me when I moved into the field of education, and today, almost a century after he wrote his essay, I would like people to read out loud his words against groupthink and crimestop (newspeak for protective stupidity):
“The world that I should wish to see would be one freed from the virulence of group hostilities and capable of realizing that happiness for all is to be derived rather from co-operation than from strife. I should wish to see a world in which education aimed at mental freedom rather than imprisoning the minds of the young in rigid armor of dogma calculated to protect them through life against the shafts of impartial evidence.”
Why am I not a Christian? I don't believe in the myth. Why do I not want to be a Christian? It supports evil practices and holds people hostage in an ancient worldview. It discriminates and divides and takes advantage of weaknesses to spread power. It stimulates fear in order to control. It plays Big Brother and forces people to love him.
Recommended to the world. Reposted in support of the victims of grand scale child abuse, covered up and ignored by the Catholic Church for too long to be bearable. Reposted in support of those who suffer discrimination at the hands of "evangelical" preachers of hate and division and intolerance. Reposted in support of those who feel the grip of their churches tightening in fear of the modern world of freedom of choice.
If I ask myself that question, the answer will be:
"I am not a Christian because I read the Bible, both Old and New Testament, from cover to cover, and consider it complete nonsense to believe that to be literal, figurative or symbolical truth."
"Why do I not believe Christianity is good?"
Because I read Bertrand Russell. As a young, impressionable person, I used to lament the fact that I was not given "the gift" of belief, as it seemed to come with confidence in the believer's "goodness". Who doesn't want to be good? Who doesn't want to feel sure about themselves? Who doesn't want to have a superior guideline to stick to?
Me, apparently.
As much as I wanted to believe in the religion that happened to be the predominant one in my environment, it all just seemed ridiculous. I remember sitting in a church as a 15-year-old, praying to a god I did not believe in to give me faith in him. It took me many years to get over the feeling of guilt over my "lack" or "misfortune". I felt left out by the non-existent god in a society that apparently unquestioningly accepted what didn't make sense to me. I said over and over again to believers who reprimanded me for my atheism:
"Oh, I respect your faith in Jesus, and I am truly sorry for not finding faith myself. I admire the morality of Christianity and wish I could be part of it!"
And I received condescending, pitying smiles in return.
Then I left my small town and moved to a university city, and started reading, reading, and reading. Philosophy, literary fiction, history, art history, religion, pedagogy. In the huge pile: Russell!
And finally, finally, I was able to break away from the Lutheran guilt trap that catches believers and nonbelievers alike in the social environment where it is dominant. Finally I could distance myself from the unthinking group pressure of "Christian morality". There is no such thing. Religion is not moral. Atheists are not likelier to kill or rape or steal than Christians, despite the fact that they do not feel the threat of eternal punishment. Moral behaviour is completely independent from supernatural belief. Russell helped me get the definitions straight.
Once I had read Russell, I could embrace my sense that the evil force (god, the killer of anything that opposes him) that appears in the Bible does not exist, and should not exist (it would be horrible!). I learned that I was not alone in seeing that religion is a human invention to simulate immortality - for those who are afraid to let go of their egos when they die - and to enforce patriarchal power structures - for those who can't convince people to follow them by choice and free will. It is a way for people to define themselves through exclusion and protectionism, not through individual merit.
Russell followed me when I moved into the field of education, and today, almost a century after he wrote his essay, I would like people to read out loud his words against groupthink and crimestop (newspeak for protective stupidity):
“The world that I should wish to see would be one freed from the virulence of group hostilities and capable of realizing that happiness for all is to be derived rather from co-operation than from strife. I should wish to see a world in which education aimed at mental freedom rather than imprisoning the minds of the young in rigid armor of dogma calculated to protect them through life against the shafts of impartial evidence.”
Why am I not a Christian? I don't believe in the myth. Why do I not want to be a Christian? It supports evil practices and holds people hostage in an ancient worldview. It discriminates and divides and takes advantage of weaknesses to spread power. It stimulates fear in order to control. It plays Big Brother and forces people to love him.
Recommended to the world. Reposted in support of the victims of grand scale child abuse, covered up and ignored by the Catholic Church for too long to be bearable. Reposted in support of those who suffer discrimination at the hands of "evangelical" preachers of hate and division and intolerance. Reposted in support of those who feel the grip of their churches tightening in fear of the modern world of freedom of choice.
April 10, 2022
“Estoy convencido de que las religiones además de ser falsas son dañinas.”Estoy convencido de que lo esencial en el debate sobre la existencia de Dios son las emociones y, por tanto, todo debate es inútil.
El creyente, sea cristiano o no, tiene un sentimiento profundo de que Dios existe y ninguna razón puede a ese sentimiento, que además es consecuencia de necesidades muy humanas. El que no posee ese sentimiento precisa de razones, pruebas, y estas no existen (si bien habría que recordar que la responsabilidad de la prueba recae en aquellos que afirman la existencia de algo no en el que duda de ello. Del mismo modo se podría creer en los elfos pues nadie ha podido demostrar su inexistencia ni lo podrá hacer nunca). Por tanto, la conciliación entre ambas posturas es imposible, máxime cuando, como es el caso de Russell, se tiene a su vez un sentimiento profundo de que Dios no existe.
El de las religiones es un tema distinto. Nadie puede negar las barbaridades que se han perpetrado y se siguen perpetrando en el nombre de Dios (se podrá señalar que también la religión está en la base de muchas buenas acciones. Particularmente, tengo mis dudas acerca de si las personas que realizan esas buenas acciones no las harían de igual forma siendo no creyentes… es más, espero que sea así, esto es, que no son buenos solo porque su religión les ordena que lo sean o porque a cambio les promete una recompensa futura). Como bien dice Russell:
“En cuanto se da por supuesto que la verdad absoluta está contenida en los dichos de ciertos hombres, hay un cuerpo de expertos que interpretan lo que dice, y estos expertos infaliblemente adquieren poder, ya que tiene la clave de la verdad. Este poder lo emplearán en beneficio propio.”Creo que esto es indudable y, como hemos comprobado frecuentemente en los últimos tiempos, muy peligroso (también se podría argumetar que ese peligro es consecuencia de interpretaciones erróneas de las religiones… pero cómo debatir sobre ello, si con mucha frecuencia, quizás seimpre, las religiones niegan tal posibilidad de debate). Con excesiva facilidad se olvida que todo lo supuestamente dicho por Dios se conoce a través del hombre (y de la mujer. Aunque en menor número, creo que también hay mujeres profetas en el cristianismo), y otros hombres son los que se encargarán de interpretar eso que supuestamente ha dicho Dios (nuevamente aquí es abrumadora la mayoría masculina, siendo muy habitual además negar tal posibilidad a la mujer). También aquí se necesita la fe para considerar a esos hombres como un mero medio de transmisión de la verdadera palabra de Dios. Volvemos a un debate baldío.
Russell también apunta a otro hecho que me parece innegable. La mayoría de los creyentes, excepto los más ortodoxos y/o fanáticos, crean su propia religión en función de su conveniencia y solo una minoría sigue a rajatabla todos los preceptos... afortunadamente, bien sabemos a qué conduce una sociedad basada estrictamente en los principios religiosos, hemos tenido ejemplos en el pasado y los seguimos teniendo en el presente… Dios nos salve de tal posibilidad.
Want to read
December 21, 2019[Original review, Mar 1 2016]
_____________________
[Update, Dec 21 2019]
In the interests of balance, here's the editorial from this week's edition of Christianity Today:
Trump Should Be Removed from Office
It’s time to say what we said 20 years ago when a president’s character was revealed for what it was.
MARK GALLI DECEMBER 19, 2019
In our founding documents, Billy Graham explains that Christianity Today will help evangelical Christians interpret the news in a manner that reflects their faith. The impeachment of Donald Trump is a significant event in the story of our republic. It requires comment.
The typical CT approach is to stay above the fray and allow Christians with different political convictions to make their arguments in the public square, to encourage all to pursue justice according to their convictions and treat their political opposition as charitably as possible. We want CT to be a place that welcomes Christians from across the political spectrum, and reminds everyone that politics is not the end and purpose of our being. We take pride in the fact, for instance, that politics does not dominate our homepage.
That said, we do feel it necessary from time to time to make our own opinions on political matters clear—always, as Graham encouraged us, doing so with both conviction and love. We love and pray for our president, as we love and pray for leaders (as well as ordinary citizens) on both sides of the political aisle.
Let’s grant this to the president: The Democrats have had it out for him from day one, and therefore nearly everything they do is under a cloud of partisan suspicion. This has led many to suspect not only motives but facts in these recent impeachment hearings. And, no, Mr. Trump did not have a serious opportunity to offer his side of the story in the House hearings on impeachment.
But the facts in this instance are unambiguous: The president of the United States attempted to use his political power to coerce a foreign leader to harass and discredit one of the president’s political opponents. That is not only a violation of the Constitution; more importantly, it is profoundly immoral.
The reason many are not shocked about this is that this president has dumbed down the idea of morality in his administration. He has hired and fired a number of people who are now convicted criminals. He himself has admitted to immoral actions in business and his relationship with women, about which he remains proud. His Twitter feed alone—with its habitual string of mischaracterizations, lies, and slanders—is a near perfect example of a human being who is morally lost and confused.
Trump’s evangelical supporters have pointed to his Supreme Court nominees, his defense of religious liberty, and his stewardship of the economy, among other things, as achievements that justify their support of the president. We believe the impeachment hearings have made it absolutely clear, in a way the Mueller investigation did not, that President Trump has abused his authority for personal gain and betrayed his constitutional oath. The impeachment hearings have illuminated the president’s moral deficiencies for all to see. This damages the institution of the presidency, damages the reputation of our country, and damages both the spirit and the future of our people. None of the president’s positives can balance the moral and political danger we face under a leader of such grossly immoral character.
This concern for the character of our national leader is not new in CT. In 1998, we wrote this:
To the many evangelicals who continue to support Mr. Trump in spite of his blackened moral record, we might say this: Remember who you are and whom you serve. Consider how your justification of Mr. Trump influences your witness to your Lord and Savior. Consider what an unbelieving world will say if you continue to brush off Mr. Trump’s immoral words and behavior in the cause of political expediency. If we don’t reverse course now, will anyone take anything we say about justice and righteousness with any seriousness for decades to come? Can we say with a straight face that abortion is a great evil that cannot be tolerated and, with the same straight face, say that the bent and broken character of our nation’s leader doesn’t really matter in the end?
We have reserved judgment on Mr. Trump for years now. Some have criticized us for our reserve. But when it comes to condemning the behavior of another, patient charity must come first. So we have done our best to give evangelical Trump supporters their due, to try to understand their point of view, to see the prudential nature of so many political decisions they have made regarding Mr. Trump. To use an old cliché, it’s time to call a spade a spade, to say that no matter how many hands we win in this political poker game, we are playing with a stacked deck of gross immorality and ethical incompetence. And just when we think it’s time to push all our chips to the center of the table, that’s when the whole game will come crashing down. It will crash down on the reputation of evangelical religion and on the world’s understanding of the gospel. And it will come crashing down on a nation of men and women whose welfare is also our concern.
Mark Galli is editor in chief of Christianity Today.
_____________________
[Update, Dec 21 2019]
In the interests of balance, here's the editorial from this week's edition of Christianity Today:
Trump Should Be Removed from Office
It’s time to say what we said 20 years ago when a president’s character was revealed for what it was.
MARK GALLI DECEMBER 19, 2019
In our founding documents, Billy Graham explains that Christianity Today will help evangelical Christians interpret the news in a manner that reflects their faith. The impeachment of Donald Trump is a significant event in the story of our republic. It requires comment.
The typical CT approach is to stay above the fray and allow Christians with different political convictions to make their arguments in the public square, to encourage all to pursue justice according to their convictions and treat their political opposition as charitably as possible. We want CT to be a place that welcomes Christians from across the political spectrum, and reminds everyone that politics is not the end and purpose of our being. We take pride in the fact, for instance, that politics does not dominate our homepage.
That said, we do feel it necessary from time to time to make our own opinions on political matters clear—always, as Graham encouraged us, doing so with both conviction and love. We love and pray for our president, as we love and pray for leaders (as well as ordinary citizens) on both sides of the political aisle.
Let’s grant this to the president: The Democrats have had it out for him from day one, and therefore nearly everything they do is under a cloud of partisan suspicion. This has led many to suspect not only motives but facts in these recent impeachment hearings. And, no, Mr. Trump did not have a serious opportunity to offer his side of the story in the House hearings on impeachment.
But the facts in this instance are unambiguous: The president of the United States attempted to use his political power to coerce a foreign leader to harass and discredit one of the president’s political opponents. That is not only a violation of the Constitution; more importantly, it is profoundly immoral.
The reason many are not shocked about this is that this president has dumbed down the idea of morality in his administration. He has hired and fired a number of people who are now convicted criminals. He himself has admitted to immoral actions in business and his relationship with women, about which he remains proud. His Twitter feed alone—with its habitual string of mischaracterizations, lies, and slanders—is a near perfect example of a human being who is morally lost and confused.
Trump’s evangelical supporters have pointed to his Supreme Court nominees, his defense of religious liberty, and his stewardship of the economy, among other things, as achievements that justify their support of the president. We believe the impeachment hearings have made it absolutely clear, in a way the Mueller investigation did not, that President Trump has abused his authority for personal gain and betrayed his constitutional oath. The impeachment hearings have illuminated the president’s moral deficiencies for all to see. This damages the institution of the presidency, damages the reputation of our country, and damages both the spirit and the future of our people. None of the president’s positives can balance the moral and political danger we face under a leader of such grossly immoral character.
This concern for the character of our national leader is not new in CT. In 1998, we wrote this:
The President's failure to tell the truth—even when cornered—rips at the fabric of the nation. This is not a private affair. For above all, social intercourse is built on a presumption of trust: trust that the milk your grocer sells you is wholesome and pure; trust that the money you put in your bank can be taken out of the bank; trust that your babysitter, firefighters, clergy, and ambulance drivers will all do their best. And while politicians are notorious for breaking campaign promises, while in office they have a fundamental obligation to uphold our trust in them and to live by the law.And this:
Unsavory dealings and immoral acts by the President and those close to him have rendered this administration morally unable to lead.Unfortunately, the words that we applied to Mr. Clinton 20 years ago apply almost perfectly to our current president. Whether Mr. Trump should be removed from office by the Senate or by popular vote next election—that is a matter of prudential judgment. That he should be removed, we believe, is not a matter of partisan loyalties but loyalty to the Creator of the Ten Commandments.
To the many evangelicals who continue to support Mr. Trump in spite of his blackened moral record, we might say this: Remember who you are and whom you serve. Consider how your justification of Mr. Trump influences your witness to your Lord and Savior. Consider what an unbelieving world will say if you continue to brush off Mr. Trump’s immoral words and behavior in the cause of political expediency. If we don’t reverse course now, will anyone take anything we say about justice and righteousness with any seriousness for decades to come? Can we say with a straight face that abortion is a great evil that cannot be tolerated and, with the same straight face, say that the bent and broken character of our nation’s leader doesn’t really matter in the end?
We have reserved judgment on Mr. Trump for years now. Some have criticized us for our reserve. But when it comes to condemning the behavior of another, patient charity must come first. So we have done our best to give evangelical Trump supporters their due, to try to understand their point of view, to see the prudential nature of so many political decisions they have made regarding Mr. Trump. To use an old cliché, it’s time to call a spade a spade, to say that no matter how many hands we win in this political poker game, we are playing with a stacked deck of gross immorality and ethical incompetence. And just when we think it’s time to push all our chips to the center of the table, that’s when the whole game will come crashing down. It will crash down on the reputation of evangelical religion and on the world’s understanding of the gospel. And it will come crashing down on a nation of men and women whose welfare is also our concern.
Mark Galli is editor in chief of Christianity Today.
May 16, 2008
After reading most of the "new Atheist" books -- I read the ones by Sam Harris, Daniel Dennett, and Christopher Hitchens -- this old one by Betrand Russell is still miles better than they. To be sure, I disagree with most of what he says, but his writing is much more clear-headed and articulate than the new ones. There really aren't many new arguments the new generation of atheists bring to the table, therefore I think it is reasonably fair to use Russell's as the standard bearer for them all.
The basic thesis is that religion -- with particular emphasis on Christianity -- has caused great harm throughout civilization, and that if we could collectively only cast aside our flimsy superstitions and vain hope for eternal life, we could propel society to new heights of happiness. His whole argument rests on the premise that man is basically good, and were it not for the (at the time) universal brainwashing of innocent children with hurtful religious ideas, we could better engineer society to be more peaceful, and less worried about taboos like sex. To Russell, the main barriers to creating more common interests between communities, societies, and nations are religious in nature, and if we could somehow erode those "false" beliefs, we could all get along better and be happier in our individual lives as well.
Here are some quotes in his book which I think illustrate his main points:
- "Religion is based...primarily and mainly upon fear...fear of the mysterious, fear of defeat, fear of death. Fear is the parent of cruelty, and therefore it is no wonder....cruelty and religion go hand in hand...Science can help us to get over this craven fear." (pg 22)
- "[We should] [c]onquer the world by intelligence and not merely by being slavishly subdued by the terror that comes from it. The whole conception of God is a conception derived from the Oriental despotisms. It is a conception quite unworthy of free men." (pg 23)
- "The churches, as everyone knows, opposed the abolition of slavery as long as they dared, and with a few well-advertised exceptions they oppose at the present day every movement toward economic justice. The Pope has officially condemned Socialism." (pg 26)
- "Before [God] created the world He foresaw all the pain and misery that it would contain; He is therefore responsible for all of it." (pg 29)
- (in regards to his position on free will and personal responsibility) "When a man acts in ways that annoy us we wish to think him wicked, and we refuse to face the fact that his annoying behavior is a result of antecedent causes which, if you follow them long enough, will take you beyond the moment of his birth and therefore to events for which he cannot be held responsible by any stretch of the imagination." (pg 40)
- "It would seem, therefore, that the three human impulses embodied in religion are fear, conceit, and hatred. The purpose of religion...is to give an air of respectability to these passions..." (pg 44)
- "hatred and fear can, with our present psychological knowledge and our present industrial technique, be eliminated altogether from human life." (pg 45)
- "these emotions (fear and hatred) can now be almost wholly eliminated from human nature by educational, economic, and political reforms. These educational reforms must be the basis, since men who feel hate and fear will also admire these emotions and wish to perpetuate them, although this admiration and wish will probably be unconscious, as it is in the ordinary Christian. An education designed to eliminate fear is by no means difficult to create. It is only necessary to treat a child with kindness, to put him in an environment where initiative is possible without disastrous results, and to save him from contact with adults who have irrational terrors, whether of the dark, of mice, or of social revolution." (pg 46)
It annoys me to have him treat psychology and social sciences as if they were physical sciences, with simple laws governing all of human behavior. Perhaps his view that man has no free will leads him to think man can be entirely governed by the social forces and coercion. He fails to understand that no matter how much we may train ourselves or our children to be good and responsible, man's primal instinct is always to further his own self interest. The idea that fear and hatred can be eliminated by some scientific method is ludicrous, and besides, is it always good not to fear or hate? Were he in Nazi Germany or Stalinist Russia, would he not be outraged at the government and terrified for the safety of his family? Frankly, his vision for human utopia in THIS life is much more akin to childish wishful thinking than any religious teaching about utopias AFTER this life.
I know it may seem unfair to judge his writing in the present day when he didn't have as much historical data to draw upon to see the effect Communism and Facism has on society, but even in his time, there was much historical data to suggest that non-religious movements hoping to build such utopias ended up being some of the most evil campaigns in history. The reason why such atheists have been hiding for so long is the recent string of such godless movements, led by overtly secular leaders who were responsible for the deaths of literally hundreds of millions of their own citizens.
It seems clear that while Christianity does not have a perfect track record, overall it has had a much more positive than negative effect. Religious teachings provide effective restraints on our natural tendency to harm others and to act selfishly.
While it is true that the Church Authority may have condoned slavery for a long time, was it not Christian teachings that inspired the original abolitionists in America and England? Slavery was not unique to Christian nations, but was (and is) a pervasive institution in most human societies. Can the cause of slavery then be fairly cast at the feet of religious teachings, or would it be fair to suggest that humans in power tend to subject others as their subordinates or slaves? I think the answer is clear.
I am not trying to suggest some absurd conclusion that religious people are good and atheist people are bad. Humans are free to make decisions on their own, and many atheists choose to live honorable and admirable lives, while many Christians choose to act very poorly. However, on the whole, I do believe that Christianity has a net positive benefit on society, and were someone to wave a magic wand and make Christianity go away, the world would be in much worse shape than it already is.
The basic thesis is that religion -- with particular emphasis on Christianity -- has caused great harm throughout civilization, and that if we could collectively only cast aside our flimsy superstitions and vain hope for eternal life, we could propel society to new heights of happiness. His whole argument rests on the premise that man is basically good, and were it not for the (at the time) universal brainwashing of innocent children with hurtful religious ideas, we could better engineer society to be more peaceful, and less worried about taboos like sex. To Russell, the main barriers to creating more common interests between communities, societies, and nations are religious in nature, and if we could somehow erode those "false" beliefs, we could all get along better and be happier in our individual lives as well.
Here are some quotes in his book which I think illustrate his main points:
- "Religion is based...primarily and mainly upon fear...fear of the mysterious, fear of defeat, fear of death. Fear is the parent of cruelty, and therefore it is no wonder....cruelty and religion go hand in hand...Science can help us to get over this craven fear." (pg 22)
- "[We should] [c]onquer the world by intelligence and not merely by being slavishly subdued by the terror that comes from it. The whole conception of God is a conception derived from the Oriental despotisms. It is a conception quite unworthy of free men." (pg 23)
- "The churches, as everyone knows, opposed the abolition of slavery as long as they dared, and with a few well-advertised exceptions they oppose at the present day every movement toward economic justice. The Pope has officially condemned Socialism." (pg 26)
- "Before [God] created the world He foresaw all the pain and misery that it would contain; He is therefore responsible for all of it." (pg 29)
- (in regards to his position on free will and personal responsibility) "When a man acts in ways that annoy us we wish to think him wicked, and we refuse to face the fact that his annoying behavior is a result of antecedent causes which, if you follow them long enough, will take you beyond the moment of his birth and therefore to events for which he cannot be held responsible by any stretch of the imagination." (pg 40)
- "It would seem, therefore, that the three human impulses embodied in religion are fear, conceit, and hatred. The purpose of religion...is to give an air of respectability to these passions..." (pg 44)
- "hatred and fear can, with our present psychological knowledge and our present industrial technique, be eliminated altogether from human life." (pg 45)
- "these emotions (fear and hatred) can now be almost wholly eliminated from human nature by educational, economic, and political reforms. These educational reforms must be the basis, since men who feel hate and fear will also admire these emotions and wish to perpetuate them, although this admiration and wish will probably be unconscious, as it is in the ordinary Christian. An education designed to eliminate fear is by no means difficult to create. It is only necessary to treat a child with kindness, to put him in an environment where initiative is possible without disastrous results, and to save him from contact with adults who have irrational terrors, whether of the dark, of mice, or of social revolution." (pg 46)
It annoys me to have him treat psychology and social sciences as if they were physical sciences, with simple laws governing all of human behavior. Perhaps his view that man has no free will leads him to think man can be entirely governed by the social forces and coercion. He fails to understand that no matter how much we may train ourselves or our children to be good and responsible, man's primal instinct is always to further his own self interest. The idea that fear and hatred can be eliminated by some scientific method is ludicrous, and besides, is it always good not to fear or hate? Were he in Nazi Germany or Stalinist Russia, would he not be outraged at the government and terrified for the safety of his family? Frankly, his vision for human utopia in THIS life is much more akin to childish wishful thinking than any religious teaching about utopias AFTER this life.
I know it may seem unfair to judge his writing in the present day when he didn't have as much historical data to draw upon to see the effect Communism and Facism has on society, but even in his time, there was much historical data to suggest that non-religious movements hoping to build such utopias ended up being some of the most evil campaigns in history. The reason why such atheists have been hiding for so long is the recent string of such godless movements, led by overtly secular leaders who were responsible for the deaths of literally hundreds of millions of their own citizens.
It seems clear that while Christianity does not have a perfect track record, overall it has had a much more positive than negative effect. Religious teachings provide effective restraints on our natural tendency to harm others and to act selfishly.
While it is true that the Church Authority may have condoned slavery for a long time, was it not Christian teachings that inspired the original abolitionists in America and England? Slavery was not unique to Christian nations, but was (and is) a pervasive institution in most human societies. Can the cause of slavery then be fairly cast at the feet of religious teachings, or would it be fair to suggest that humans in power tend to subject others as their subordinates or slaves? I think the answer is clear.
I am not trying to suggest some absurd conclusion that religious people are good and atheist people are bad. Humans are free to make decisions on their own, and many atheists choose to live honorable and admirable lives, while many Christians choose to act very poorly. However, on the whole, I do believe that Christianity has a net positive benefit on society, and were someone to wave a magic wand and make Christianity go away, the world would be in much worse shape than it already is.
September 10, 2024
I first read this book in 1984. I was 20 years old, and had just newly liberated myself from the Fundamentalist cult that I had been raised and indoctrinated in. I was in intellectual flux at the time, having rejected Fundamentalism, but still hadn’t determined where I would land regarding Christianity in general. I can still remember the electric shock of picking up this book that proclaimed, in simple language, right in its title, what was still to me a taboo and heretical idea. Reading Why I Am Not a Christian did not immediately convince me to reject my first two decades of Christian indoctrination, but it opened my mind to new ways of viewing the question, and was a vital step in my journey out of Christianity and theism.
So now, nearly four decades later, I’ve revisited and am reviewing Russell’s book. As part of my process, I read through its 1 star reviews to get a sense of what its harshest critics have to say. Those critics roughly fall into three categories. First, there are the passionate believers in Christianity and theism. I’ve no need to address their objections, which are obvious. Then there are those who claim to be atheist themselves, but find Russell’s arguments to be insufficiently rigorous, lacking depth, and intellectually sloppy. Finally, there are those who sniff at the very idea of publicly addressing the issue, by Russell, by the so called New Atheist, or by anyone else. They find it simply in bad taste, unnecessary, and believe that the subject should be left alone as a matter of individual belief. I will speak to these last two objections.
Bertrand Russell was a philosopher, but was also what we once called a public intellectual — that is, someone with a sharp mind and ready tongue who uses their fame to speak on issues of public importance. Much of Russell’s best known work, including this text, falls under this second category. This work was not presented as a tightly reasoned philosophical treatise in academic language. It was a popular public speech turned essay. While it is reasonably systematic (Russell refutes, point by point, the Catholic Church’s dogma that God’s existence can be proven by unaided reason) it was never intended to be an academic deep delve into the question of theism that has been hotly debated since the days of Democritus and Epicurus. Denigrating a public lecture because it lacks the rigor of a philosophical treatise appears to me disingenuous, more likely the work of those who resent the very idea of a public intellectual more than honest criticism.
And then there are the objections to addressing this topic at all. There is a great resentment aimed at those who have the arrogance to attack theism, a strong desire that they shut up and go away. Why stir things up? They ask. Belief is a matter of private conscience, why not leave well enough alone?
But theistic faith never stays private. It always enters the public realm (where it had lived unopposed up until the Age of Enlightenment). Theistic faith remains the primary argument of those who legislate against the autonomy of the female body, who legislate about who you can love and who you can marry, and about how you can be treated if you love or marry “wrongly.” It is used as an argument for censoring what you can read, listen to, or say, what teachers may teach. In some areas and cultures (including the culture I was raised in) it controls what you can wear, what you consume, the activities that you are not allowed to participate in. Never in the history of the world has religious belief stayed a private issue, but has always been used to control the lives of others. We don’t need to quiet the voices attacking the idea behind these attempts at social domination, we need more voices raised in the endeavor.
Why I Am Not a Christian is a classic anti theist text. Is it original? Of course not. It is a simple restating of ideas that intellectuals have been contemplating for millennia. Is it without personal prejudice? That is a ridiculous standard. Who can speak or write of what they believe without it? Is it effective? Well, forty years ago it helped me find a path that I have never regretted taking, so I must answer yes.
So now, nearly four decades later, I’ve revisited and am reviewing Russell’s book. As part of my process, I read through its 1 star reviews to get a sense of what its harshest critics have to say. Those critics roughly fall into three categories. First, there are the passionate believers in Christianity and theism. I’ve no need to address their objections, which are obvious. Then there are those who claim to be atheist themselves, but find Russell’s arguments to be insufficiently rigorous, lacking depth, and intellectually sloppy. Finally, there are those who sniff at the very idea of publicly addressing the issue, by Russell, by the so called New Atheist, or by anyone else. They find it simply in bad taste, unnecessary, and believe that the subject should be left alone as a matter of individual belief. I will speak to these last two objections.
Bertrand Russell was a philosopher, but was also what we once called a public intellectual — that is, someone with a sharp mind and ready tongue who uses their fame to speak on issues of public importance. Much of Russell’s best known work, including this text, falls under this second category. This work was not presented as a tightly reasoned philosophical treatise in academic language. It was a popular public speech turned essay. While it is reasonably systematic (Russell refutes, point by point, the Catholic Church’s dogma that God’s existence can be proven by unaided reason) it was never intended to be an academic deep delve into the question of theism that has been hotly debated since the days of Democritus and Epicurus. Denigrating a public lecture because it lacks the rigor of a philosophical treatise appears to me disingenuous, more likely the work of those who resent the very idea of a public intellectual more than honest criticism.
And then there are the objections to addressing this topic at all. There is a great resentment aimed at those who have the arrogance to attack theism, a strong desire that they shut up and go away. Why stir things up? They ask. Belief is a matter of private conscience, why not leave well enough alone?
But theistic faith never stays private. It always enters the public realm (where it had lived unopposed up until the Age of Enlightenment). Theistic faith remains the primary argument of those who legislate against the autonomy of the female body, who legislate about who you can love and who you can marry, and about how you can be treated if you love or marry “wrongly.” It is used as an argument for censoring what you can read, listen to, or say, what teachers may teach. In some areas and cultures (including the culture I was raised in) it controls what you can wear, what you consume, the activities that you are not allowed to participate in. Never in the history of the world has religious belief stayed a private issue, but has always been used to control the lives of others. We don’t need to quiet the voices attacking the idea behind these attempts at social domination, we need more voices raised in the endeavor.
Why I Am Not a Christian is a classic anti theist text. Is it original? Of course not. It is a simple restating of ideas that intellectuals have been contemplating for millennia. Is it without personal prejudice? That is a ridiculous standard. Who can speak or write of what they believe without it? Is it effective? Well, forty years ago it helped me find a path that I have never regretted taking, so I must answer yes.
August 3, 2019
دوستانِ گرانقدر، برایِ آشناییِ شما عزیزانِ خردگرا، با اندیشه هایِ زنده یاد «برتراند راسل» ریویوهایِ زیادی تا کنون نوشته ام... اینبار از این کتاب، جملاتی را برایتان برگزیدم، که میدانم خواندنِ آن برایِ دوستانِ خردگرا و هوشی وار، میتواند لذت بخش باشد.... عزیزانم، برتراند راسل، نه تنها مسیحی نیست.. بلکه یک خردگرا و خداناباور است.. و در این کتاب فقط منظورش به مسیحیت نیست، بلکه تمامی ادیان را با اندیشۀ نابش میکوبد... یادِ برتراند راسل، فیلسوفِ فیلسوفهایِ تاریخ، همیشه زنده و گرامی باد
---------------------------------------------
تمامیِ آن تصوراتِ ابلهانه ای که از موجودی نامرئی به نامِ خدا وجود دارد، برگرفته از استبدادِ باستانیِ شرقی میباشد.. این تصوری است که شایستۀ یک انسانِ آزاد نیست.. وقتی میشنوید مردم را در مسجد و کلیسا برایِ این خدا و یا دین و مذهبِ موهوم، خوار و خفیف کرده و تحقیر میکنند و میگویند گناه کارانی درمانده و بدبخت هستند، اینگونه سخنها، به نظر میرسد فرودستانه و تحقیرآمیز است و شایستۀ انسانی که به خود حرمت میگذارد نیست.. کرامتِ انسانی بسیار بالاتر از دین و مذهب میباشد.. باید بپا خیزیم و بدونِ ترس این موهومات و خزعبلات را کنار گذاشته و رو در رو و رُخ به رُخ به این جهانِ بزرگ بنگریم... باید بهترینها را در جهان بنا کنیم و چنانچه آنگونه که میخواهیم و آرزو میکنیم از آب در نیامد، درهرحال بازهم بهتر از آنچیزیست که دیگران به واسطۀ ترس از دین و مذهب در طولِ سده هایِ گذشته بنا کرده اند.. یک جهانِ خوب، به دین و مذهب و خدا نیاز ندارد.. یک جهانِ خوب نیازمندِ دانش، مهربانی، انسانیت و شجاعت میباشد.. این جهانِ خوب نیازی ندارد ناله و زاری و تأسف خوردن و التماس در بارگاهِ الهی را در پی داشته باشد.. یا زنجیرهایِ بازدارنده ای که اندیشۀ آزاد را با کلامی که از نابخردانِ زمانهایی دور در گذشته بیان شده، به بند کشد
****************
آنچه جهان را نجات میدهد و انسانها را به خوشبختی میرساند، دوری از دین و مذهب و تمایل به دانش و فلسفه است.. فقط هوشِ بیشتر و عاقلانه تر میتواند دنیا و انسانها را سعادتمند و خوشبخت سازد
****************
به باورِ من، دین اساساً مقدم بر هر امری، بر ترس بنیاد گرفته است... بخشی به جهتِ ترس از ناشناخته ها و بخشی برایِ داشتنِ این احساس که نوعی برادرِ بزرگتر در کنارِ خویش داری که در مشکلات و درگیری ها و مباحثات در کنار توست.. وحشت مبنای همه چیز است... وحشت از مرموز بودن ها، وحشت از شکست، وحشت از مرگ.. دانش میتواند ما را در غلبه بر این وحشت هایِ عاجزانه که انسان، نسل در نسل با آن زندگی کرده، یاری رساند... علم میتواند به ما بیاموزد و فکر میکنم قلبِ ما میتواند یاری بخشِ ما باشد. دیگر نیازی نیست در جست و جویِ حامیانِ تخیلی برآییم.. دیگر نیازی نیست متحدانی را در آسمان خلق کنیم و به دامان موجود نامرئی همچون خدا و پیامبرانش بچسبیم... بلکه بهتر است به کوشش هایِ خویش بنگریم تا این جهان را چنان بسازیم که شایستۀ زیستن باشد نه آن نوع جهانی که کلیساها و مساجد در طول این سده ها ساخته اند
****************
مبارزۀ من برعلیهِ دین و مذهب و موهومات، همیشه ادامه داشته و خواهد داشت و هیچگاه مخالفتم با دین و مذهب، نرم نخواهد شد.. من بر این باورم که تمامی ادیان و مذاهبِ جهان، همچون مسیحیت، اسلام و یهودیت، هم برایِ انسان و انسانیت زیان بار است و هم تمامیِ این ادیان دروغین و نابخردانه میباشد.... همین یک دلیل برای ابلهانه بودن و دروغین بودنِ این ادیان، کفایت میکند که هر یک از آنها دیگری را رد میکند و مذهب و احکام و مقدسات و خدایِ خودش را بر سرِ آن یکی میکوبد.. پس مطمئن باشید که هیچکدام از این ادیانِ ساختگی و مسخره، حقیقت نداشته و از طرفِ هیچ خدایی نمیباشد.... با اندک استثنائی، هر انسانِ بیچاره ای دارایِ همان دینی است که در جامعه اش ترویج دارد .. یعنی دین و مذهبش، رابطۀ مستقیم با جامعه ای دارد که در آن پرورش یافته و زندگی کرده است.. که این موضوع نشان میدهد، نقشِ محیط، او را به سویِ پذیرشِ این خزعبلاتِ دینی، سوق داده است
****************
اطرافِ ما، سرشار از خوب و بد و خیر و شر است.. اگر به قولِ دینداران، تمامیِ اینها حکمِ خداست، پس دیگر حق و باطل و نیک و بد چه معنایی دارد؟ این دینداران و مبلغانِ دینی، مُدام تکرار میکنند که خدا خیرِ مطلق است!!! اگر بگویید خدا خیر مطلق است، آنگاه باید بگویید که خیر و شر، راست و دروغ، حق و باطل، دارایِ معنایی هستند که مستقل از حکم خداوند است، زیرا احکامِ خداوند همه خیر است، نه شر.. و خداوند پدید آورندۀ آنهاست.. این دینداران با این طرزِ تفکرِ ضعیف و متزلزل، اگر به موهومات اعتقاد دارند و اصرار دارند که موجودی به نام خدا وجود دارد که همه کاره است، بنابراین ناچارند که این را بپذیرند که یک نیرویِ آسمانیِ برتر از خدایشان وجود دارد که به خدایِ آنها دستور میدهد ... البته این را هم میتوانند قبول کنند که زمانی که خدایشان، حواسش پرت بوده، این جهان را موجودی اهریمنی به نامِ شیطان، به یکباره ساخته است ... این میتواند توجیه خوبی برای این دیندارانِ گیر کرده در دین و مذهب باشد
****************
منطق را کنار بگذاریم.. چقدر این خدایِ قادرِ متعالِ دینداران و دینکاران، موجودِ عجیب و غریبی است.. او این زمین و اقلیم را ساخت و میلیونها سال (البته نه 6000 سال) منتظر ماند که سرانجام یکسری آدمکش خلق کند و از آنجایی که قادر متعال است! با اراده اش بمب هیدروژنی و اتمی ساخته شود و به خودش پاداش دهد
****************
کشتار و شکنجه دادنِ دانشمندان و انسانهایِ بزرگ، کشتارِ کافران، شکارِ جادوگران، کشتارِ مرتدان، ساختِ سلاح هایِ کشتار جمعی و ساختِ گازهایِ سمی.. دستوراتِ دینی و حکمِ جهاد برایِ تجاوز و کشتارِ دگراندیشان و انسانهایِ بی گناه... آیا تمامیِ این موارد و ایجادِ نفرت و کینه در وجودِ انسانها، همه و همه به خواستِ موجودی به نامِ خدا بوده است؟؟ آیا تمامیِ این جنایتها، گواهی بر توانایی و درایتِ آفریدگارِ تمامیِ جهان است؟؟؟؟؟ ما خردگرایان، تمامیِ رویدادها را از قوانینِ طبیعت و نظمِ تصادفیِ اتم ها و ارادۀ موجودات میدانیم.. ولی اگر به قولِ دینداران و مذهبیون، این جهان نتیجۀ هدفی آگاهانه و ارادۀ خالقِ متعالشان باشد، آن هدف از سویِ خدایِ آنها نیست.. بلکه از سویِ موجودی اهریمنی میباشد .. این همه جنایت و کشتار، به دستورِ اهریمن بوده که به جایِ خدا، او را میپرستید... پس اگر میخواهید کمتر درد بکشید، همچون ما، به تصادفی شکل گرفتنِ هستی و تکاملِ موجودات، باور داشته باشید، که هم خردمندانه است و هم قابلِ تحمل تر و غیرِ دردناکتر
****************
مسیح به پیروانش میگوید که کودکان کم سن و سال باشند، ولی مسیح این را نمیدانست که کودکانِ کم سن و سال، محاسباتِ دیفرانسیل یا فرمولهایِ فیزیک و مباحثِ اقتصادی و روش هایِ درمانِ بیماری ها را درک نمیکنند.... مبلغانِ مذهبی و دینکاران، همیشه مخالفِ پیشرفتِ دانش بوده اند.. ولی امروزه نمیتوانند علناً این مخالفت را نشان دهند.. ولی همۀ این مبلغانِ مذهبی، آرزو دارند که انسانها به سمتِ خردگرایی و دانش کشیده نشوند.. چراکه انسانی که به سمتِ دانش کشیده شود، مغزش روشن شده و دچارِ غرور میشود، بنابراین دیگر خزعبلاتِ دینی را قبول نمیکند و زیرِ بارِ باید و نبایدها و احکامِ دینی و مذهبی نرفته و به پایه و اساسِ متزلزلِ این ادیانِ ساختگی، تردید میکند... بنابراین دینداران همیشه نسبت به پیشرفتِ دانش، احساسِ خطر میکنند
---------------------------------------------
امیدوارم این ریویو برایِ شما دوستانِ اهلِ خرد، مفید بوده باشه
«پیروز باشید و ایرانی»
---------------------------------------------
تمامیِ آن تصوراتِ ابلهانه ای که از موجودی نامرئی به نامِ خدا وجود دارد، برگرفته از استبدادِ باستانیِ شرقی میباشد.. این تصوری است که شایستۀ یک انسانِ آزاد نیست.. وقتی میشنوید مردم را در مسجد و کلیسا برایِ این خدا و یا دین و مذهبِ موهوم، خوار و خفیف کرده و تحقیر میکنند و میگویند گناه کارانی درمانده و بدبخت هستند، اینگونه سخنها، به نظر میرسد فرودستانه و تحقیرآمیز است و شایستۀ انسانی که به خود حرمت میگذارد نیست.. کرامتِ انسانی بسیار بالاتر از دین و مذهب میباشد.. باید بپا خیزیم و بدونِ ترس این موهومات و خزعبلات را کنار گذاشته و رو در رو و رُخ به رُخ به این جهانِ بزرگ بنگریم... باید بهترینها را در جهان بنا کنیم و چنانچه آنگونه که میخواهیم و آرزو میکنیم از آب در نیامد، درهرحال بازهم بهتر از آنچیزیست که دیگران به واسطۀ ترس از دین و مذهب در طولِ سده هایِ گذشته بنا کرده اند.. یک جهانِ خوب، به دین و مذهب و خدا نیاز ندارد.. یک جهانِ خوب نیازمندِ دانش، مهربانی، انسانیت و شجاعت میباشد.. این جهانِ خوب نیازی ندارد ناله و زاری و تأسف خوردن و التماس در بارگاهِ الهی را در پی داشته باشد.. یا زنجیرهایِ بازدارنده ای که اندیشۀ آزاد را با کلامی که از نابخردانِ زمانهایی دور در گذشته بیان شده، به بند کشد
****************
آنچه جهان را نجات میدهد و انسانها را به خوشبختی میرساند، دوری از دین و مذهب و تمایل به دانش و فلسفه است.. فقط هوشِ بیشتر و عاقلانه تر میتواند دنیا و انسانها را سعادتمند و خوشبخت سازد
****************
به باورِ من، دین اساساً مقدم بر هر امری، بر ترس بنیاد گرفته است... بخشی به جهتِ ترس از ناشناخته ها و بخشی برایِ داشتنِ این احساس که نوعی برادرِ بزرگتر در کنارِ خویش داری که در مشکلات و درگیری ها و مباحثات در کنار توست.. وحشت مبنای همه چیز است... وحشت از مرموز بودن ها، وحشت از شکست، وحشت از مرگ.. دانش میتواند ما را در غلبه بر این وحشت هایِ عاجزانه که انسان، نسل در نسل با آن زندگی کرده، یاری رساند... علم میتواند به ما بیاموزد و فکر میکنم قلبِ ما میتواند یاری بخشِ ما باشد. دیگر نیازی نیست در جست و جویِ حامیانِ تخیلی برآییم.. دیگر نیازی نیست متحدانی را در آسمان خلق کنیم و به دامان موجود نامرئی همچون خدا و پیامبرانش بچسبیم... بلکه بهتر است به کوشش هایِ خویش بنگریم تا این جهان را چنان بسازیم که شایستۀ زیستن باشد نه آن نوع جهانی که کلیساها و مساجد در طول این سده ها ساخته اند
****************
مبارزۀ من برعلیهِ دین و مذهب و موهومات، همیشه ادامه داشته و خواهد داشت و هیچگاه مخالفتم با دین و مذهب، نرم نخواهد شد.. من بر این باورم که تمامی ادیان و مذاهبِ جهان، همچون مسیحیت، اسلام و یهودیت، هم برایِ انسان و انسانیت زیان بار است و هم تمامیِ این ادیان دروغین و نابخردانه میباشد.... همین یک دلیل برای ابلهانه بودن و دروغین بودنِ این ادیان، کفایت میکند که هر یک از آنها دیگری را رد میکند و مذهب و احکام و مقدسات و خدایِ خودش را بر سرِ آن یکی میکوبد.. پس مطمئن باشید که هیچکدام از این ادیانِ ساختگی و مسخره، حقیقت نداشته و از طرفِ هیچ خدایی نمیباشد.... با اندک استثنائی، هر انسانِ بیچاره ای دارایِ همان دینی است که در جامعه اش ترویج دارد .. یعنی دین و مذهبش، رابطۀ مستقیم با جامعه ای دارد که در آن پرورش یافته و زندگی کرده است.. که این موضوع نشان میدهد، نقشِ محیط، او را به سویِ پذیرشِ این خزعبلاتِ دینی، سوق داده است
****************
اطرافِ ما، سرشار از خوب و بد و خیر و شر است.. اگر به قولِ دینداران، تمامیِ اینها حکمِ خداست، پس دیگر حق و باطل و نیک و بد چه معنایی دارد؟ این دینداران و مبلغانِ دینی، مُدام تکرار میکنند که خدا خیرِ مطلق است!!! اگر بگویید خدا خیر مطلق است، آنگاه باید بگویید که خیر و شر، راست و دروغ، حق و باطل، دارایِ معنایی هستند که مستقل از حکم خداوند است، زیرا احکامِ خداوند همه خیر است، نه شر.. و خداوند پدید آورندۀ آنهاست.. این دینداران با این طرزِ تفکرِ ضعیف و متزلزل، اگر به موهومات اعتقاد دارند و اصرار دارند که موجودی به نام خدا وجود دارد که همه کاره است، بنابراین ناچارند که این را بپذیرند که یک نیرویِ آسمانیِ برتر از خدایشان وجود دارد که به خدایِ آنها دستور میدهد ... البته این را هم میتوانند قبول کنند که زمانی که خدایشان، حواسش پرت بوده، این جهان را موجودی اهریمنی به نامِ شیطان، به یکباره ساخته است ... این میتواند توجیه خوبی برای این دیندارانِ گیر کرده در دین و مذهب باشد
****************
منطق را کنار بگذاریم.. چقدر این خدایِ قادرِ متعالِ دینداران و دینکاران، موجودِ عجیب و غریبی است.. او این زمین و اقلیم را ساخت و میلیونها سال (البته نه 6000 سال) منتظر ماند که سرانجام یکسری آدمکش خلق کند و از آنجایی که قادر متعال است! با اراده اش بمب هیدروژنی و اتمی ساخته شود و به خودش پاداش دهد
****************
کشتار و شکنجه دادنِ دانشمندان و انسانهایِ بزرگ، کشتارِ کافران، شکارِ جادوگران، کشتارِ مرتدان، ساختِ سلاح هایِ کشتار جمعی و ساختِ گازهایِ سمی.. دستوراتِ دینی و حکمِ جهاد برایِ تجاوز و کشتارِ دگراندیشان و انسانهایِ بی گناه... آیا تمامیِ این موارد و ایجادِ نفرت و کینه در وجودِ انسانها، همه و همه به خواستِ موجودی به نامِ خدا بوده است؟؟ آیا تمامیِ این جنایتها، گواهی بر توانایی و درایتِ آفریدگارِ تمامیِ جهان است؟؟؟؟؟ ما خردگرایان، تمامیِ رویدادها را از قوانینِ طبیعت و نظمِ تصادفیِ اتم ها و ارادۀ موجودات میدانیم.. ولی اگر به قولِ دینداران و مذهبیون، این جهان نتیجۀ هدفی آگاهانه و ارادۀ خالقِ متعالشان باشد، آن هدف از سویِ خدایِ آنها نیست.. بلکه از سویِ موجودی اهریمنی میباشد .. این همه جنایت و کشتار، به دستورِ اهریمن بوده که به جایِ خدا، او را میپرستید... پس اگر میخواهید کمتر درد بکشید، همچون ما، به تصادفی شکل گرفتنِ هستی و تکاملِ موجودات، باور داشته باشید، که هم خردمندانه است و هم قابلِ تحمل تر و غیرِ دردناکتر
****************
مسیح به پیروانش میگوید که کودکان کم سن و سال باشند، ولی مسیح این را نمیدانست که کودکانِ کم سن و سال، محاسباتِ دیفرانسیل یا فرمولهایِ فیزیک و مباحثِ اقتصادی و روش هایِ درمانِ بیماری ها را درک نمیکنند.... مبلغانِ مذهبی و دینکاران، همیشه مخالفِ پیشرفتِ دانش بوده اند.. ولی امروزه نمیتوانند علناً این مخالفت را نشان دهند.. ولی همۀ این مبلغانِ مذهبی، آرزو دارند که انسانها به سمتِ خردگرایی و دانش کشیده نشوند.. چراکه انسانی که به سمتِ دانش کشیده شود، مغزش روشن شده و دچارِ غرور میشود، بنابراین دیگر خزعبلاتِ دینی را قبول نمیکند و زیرِ بارِ باید و نبایدها و احکامِ دینی و مذهبی نرفته و به پایه و اساسِ متزلزلِ این ادیانِ ساختگی، تردید میکند... بنابراین دینداران همیشه نسبت به پیشرفتِ دانش، احساسِ خطر میکنند
---------------------------------------------
امیدوارم این ریویو برایِ شما دوستانِ اهلِ خرد، مفید بوده باشه
«پیروز باشید و ایرانی»
January 27, 2018
You just have to read this. Even if you are a Christian, you should read about every point of view, to form or change (or not) your own. Russell explains complicated things which such clarity, a little of humor... It doesn't get tedious, at all.
Take "The argument of design", for instance.
Funny. You could then talk about free will and that is acceptable; we could discuss it until we reach the point of uncomfortable silence because we both know we are not going to change our minds, and then we'll have a cup of coffee, a piece of pie and never leave the safe "weather conversation" zone, again. Or, at least, for a couple of days. Because, if I am one of the products on which design in the universe is based... That is something only my mom would say.
Anyway, my point is, he is that clear. His thoughts are written with the wit and simplicity of great philosophers. The moral and emotional questions are a key ingredient in this brilliant essay that tries to explain "a religion based primarily and mainly upon fear". You can like it or not, but it is still a memorable work.
Jun 12, 14
* Also on my blog.
Take "The argument of design", for instance.
I really cannot believe it. Do you think that, if you were granted omnipotence and omniscience and millions of years in which to perfect your world, you could produce nothing better than the Ku Klux Klan, the Fascisti, and Mr. Winston Churchill? Really I am not much impressed with the people who say: "Look at me: I am such a splendid product that there must have been design in the universe."
Therefore, although it is of course a gloomy view to suppose that life will die out -- at least I suppose we may say so, although sometimes when I contemplate the things that people do with their lives I think it is almost a consolation -- it is not such as to render life miserable.
Funny. You could then talk about free will and that is acceptable; we could discuss it until we reach the point of uncomfortable silence because we both know we are not going to change our minds, and then we'll have a cup of coffee, a piece of pie and never leave the safe "weather conversation" zone, again. Or, at least, for a couple of days. Because, if I am one of the products on which design in the universe is based... That is something only my mom would say.
Anyway, my point is, he is that clear. His thoughts are written with the wit and simplicity of great philosophers. The moral and emotional questions are a key ingredient in this brilliant essay that tries to explain "a religion based primarily and mainly upon fear". You can like it or not, but it is still a memorable work.
Jun 12, 14
* Also on my blog.
August 22, 2024
These lectures contain all of Bertrand Russell's sharp yet light-hearted wit, which shows the independence of mind of a definitive rationalist philosopher.
June 20, 2007
By the time I read this book, I was already not a Christian, but it was still hard for me to read. It was kinda like accidentally figuring out a magician's trick. You knew he wasn't *really* doing magic, but seeing how he did it somehow made the world less fun.
That said, this is a great book. It's not without bite, but it's also not bitter. Having been a big fan of Russell's epistemological books, I was impressed that this book displayed the same clarity of thought and communication. His logical proofs against God were a great review for me (I'd heard those in different forms for many years) and the section about religion and its benefit or lack thereof to humankind was something I hadn't considered to that depth. I think this is a must-read.
That said, this is a great book. It's not without bite, but it's also not bitter. Having been a big fan of Russell's epistemological books, I was impressed that this book displayed the same clarity of thought and communication. His logical proofs against God were a great review for me (I'd heard those in different forms for many years) and the section about religion and its benefit or lack thereof to humankind was something I hadn't considered to that depth. I think this is a must-read.
September 6, 2015
چرا مسیحی نیستم نقد راسل بر مذهب است. راسل در ابتدا میکوشد با تکیه بر منطق و قوای عقلی دلایلی در رد وجود علت العلل مطرح کند و سپس بحث را به مذهب میکشاند. او روش اخلاقی کانت را در تایید وجود این علت، مردود میشمارد و با تبیین فلسفه عقلانی خود، زندگی خوب را زندگی ای میداند که از عشق سرچشمه گرفته و با دانش رهبری شود. راسل رستگاری دینی را ناشی از فردیت میداند و معتقد است که فردیت نمیتواند راهی به سعادت پیدا کند. او در اثبات این مدعا، جمهوریت افلاطون را گواه خردمندانه ای برای زندگی سیاسی و رد فردیت بر میشمارد. در انتها، راسل انسان والا را شخصی میداند که حقیقت را توسعه میدهد و بنابراین علمای مذهبی را از این جرگه خارج می کند.
July 8, 2009
I probably would have liked this book a lot more if I had read it when I was younger, but now I find Russell's critique of religion profoundly disappointing. For a logician and philosopher of his caliber, his proofs--on the reasons why the basis of religious belief is existential terror, for example--are unconvincing and sometimes shockingly sloppy. They tend to rely on a straw-man caricatures that he sets up and knocks down, rather than actually engaging with the roots of faith or the complexities of metaphysics. Moreover, his critique of social mores is superficial, his proposed solutions naive at best, and his grasp of history so insultingly bad that he actually blames the outbreak of World War I on Christianity (p. 203). I expected more from such a legendary intellectual figure.
September 18, 2021
حدود 50 صفحه از کتاب رو خوندم که متوجه شدم مطالب کتاب برام تازگی نداره
برتراند راسل مثل تمام فیلسوف های دیگه خیلی محافظه کارانه مطالبش رو عنوان میکنه و از انتقاد جدی پرهیز میکنه
قبل از این، کتاب پندار خدا از داوکینز رو خونده بودم و حمله به دین اونجا خیلی جدیتر صورت میگیره
ولی با این حال این از ارزش کتاب کم نمیکنه چون در دوره ای نوشته شده که صحبت کردن راجب دین ممکن بود به قیمت از دست دادن شغل، جایگاه یا حتی جون آدم تموم بشه
اگر بخواین کتاب هایی که در انتقاد به دین نوشته شدن و از حداقل توهین و تمسخر برخوردارن رو بخونید
پیشنهادم کتاب دنیل دنت به نام شکستن طلسم (دین به عنوان پدیده ای طبیعی) هستش
برتراند راسل مثل تمام فیلسوف های دیگه خیلی محافظه کارانه مطالبش رو عنوان میکنه و از انتقاد جدی پرهیز میکنه
قبل از این، کتاب پندار خدا از داوکینز رو خونده بودم و حمله به دین اونجا خیلی جدیتر صورت میگیره
ولی با این حال این از ارزش کتاب کم نمیکنه چون در دوره ای نوشته شده که صحبت کردن راجب دین ممکن بود به قیمت از دست دادن شغل، جایگاه یا حتی جون آدم تموم بشه
اگر بخواین کتاب هایی که در انتقاد به دین نوشته شدن و از حداقل توهین و تمسخر برخوردارن رو بخونید
پیشنهادم کتاب دنیل دنت به نام شکستن طلسم (دین به عنوان پدیده ای طبیعی) هستش
June 26, 2007
I love these essays! Russell never argues that faith is impossible, but makes it clear why he doesn't have it. (I cannot believe in a god who, given an infinite universe and millions of years in which to perfect it, can come up with nothing better than the nazis and the KKK) - paraphrase
September 19, 2018
من أفضل ما قرأت فيما يخص الفلسفةالفكرية تجاه الدين المسيحي خاصة والأديان الأخرى عامة , فكر بيرتناد رسل يفصل المنطق ببساطة,لا يضاهيها الا سرده المنظم ...كتاب رائع
Read
December 14, 2022Location - Earth , year 2214, Paris - Sydney highway. Christianity has recently become mandatory by law.
Humming song, in a crummy truck - ".... I feel prettyy, oh, so prettyy, I feel pretty and witty and gayyyyyy... "
Sigh..
- Please, Max, don't start again !
- Shut the fuck up, Bertrand, I'm trying to calm down, I have to save the world today, I'm nervous.
- You're not nervous, Max, you're mad. And slow down, there are cops everywhere here.
Yikes ! one has already caught up with us...
( a police officer in front of the truck door ) :
- Good Christian licence, sir !
- You mean driving licence, officer ?
- No, sir, your Good Christian licence , please.
- What the fuck...I'm on the Candid Camera, isn't ?
- No, sir, do you have it or not ?
- No, sir, but I'm a good Christian, believe me.
- Any proof, sir ?
- Ughhh.....I have nine children, officer. It's enough ?
- That doesn't mean you're a good Christian, sir. That means you're just mad, Mr. ...Max.
Another proof ?
- Aaah, I'm God's messenger, sir. My friend Bertrand can prove it.
- Who is God, sir ?
- Oh, my...You're asking me for a Christian license but you don't know who God is....
- I'm a cop, sir, but I don't know all the people.
- Listen, officer.... God is your Boss, you know....
- You're mad, Mr.Max. My boss is Mr. Robo.
- I think you're not a good Christian, officer..
- Why, sir ?
- Ask Bertrand, he's a specialist.
- Why, Mr. Bertrand ?
- I explained this in a book, my friend. Buy the book.
- I don't read books, sir.
- It's ok, officer, you'II survive.
Humming song, in a crummy truck - ".... I feel prettyy, oh, so prettyy, I feel pretty and witty and gayyyyyy... "
Sigh..
- Please, Max, don't start again !
- Shut the fuck up, Bertrand, I'm trying to calm down, I have to save the world today, I'm nervous.
- You're not nervous, Max, you're mad. And slow down, there are cops everywhere here.
Yikes ! one has already caught up with us...
( a police officer in front of the truck door ) :
- Good Christian licence, sir !
- You mean driving licence, officer ?
- No, sir, your Good Christian licence , please.
- What the fuck...I'm on the Candid Camera, isn't ?
- No, sir, do you have it or not ?
- No, sir, but I'm a good Christian, believe me.
- Any proof, sir ?
- Ughhh.....I have nine children, officer. It's enough ?
- That doesn't mean you're a good Christian, sir. That means you're just mad, Mr. ...Max.
Another proof ?
- Aaah, I'm God's messenger, sir. My friend Bertrand can prove it.
- Who is God, sir ?
- Oh, my...You're asking me for a Christian license but you don't know who God is....
- I'm a cop, sir, but I don't know all the people.
- Listen, officer.... God is your Boss, you know....
- You're mad, Mr.Max. My boss is Mr. Robo.
- I think you're not a good Christian, officer..
- Why, sir ?
- Ask Bertrand, he's a specialist.
- Why, Mr. Bertrand ?
- I explained this in a book, my friend. Buy the book.
- I don't read books, sir.
- It's ok, officer, you'II survive.
May 21, 2019
"One of the works of literature for which [Russell] was awarded the Nobel Prize is a widely read essay first delivered as a lecture in 1927 entitled, 'Why I Am Not a Christian.' ...I haven't forgotten it yet, and I have promised myself that I never will. ...If you were to read his essay, and in the interest of open-mindedness I would urge you to do so, you would find that Bertrand Russell, who is one of the world's foremost logicians as well as a philosopher and mathematician, undoes with logic that is beyond dispute the first-cause arguement, the natural law arguement, the arguement from design, the moral arguements for a diety, and the arguement for the remedying of injustice." ~Philip Roth, Indignation
It is of some importance to note that this is a collection of essays spanning, in my edition, some 267 pages. The title piece, 'Why I Am Not a Christian,' is just 20 pages, leaving roughly 92.5% of the volume for other engrossing bits such as 'Life in the Middle Ages,' 'The Fate of Thomas Paine,' and 'Our Sexual Ethics.' All of which I found fascinating!
Russell's assertions on religion and related topics aren't necessarily earth shattering, at least not anymore. I think that only goes to show what an enormous influence he has had on modern secularism and free thought. You can hear his words, rephrased and reiterated, in the works of Christopher Hitchens, Jerry Coyne, and Victor Stenger (just to name a few).
"The attitude that one ought to believe a proposition, independently of the question whether there is evidence in its favor, is an attitude which produces hostility to evidence and causes us to close our minds to every fact that does not suit our prejudices." ~B.R.
Speaking for myself, I made my break with religious dogma years before I had ever heard of Bertrand Russell, so it should come as no surprise to anyone who knows me that I find his wisdom and scrupulous logic life-affirming. His reputation for brilliant and intelligent 'heresy' is justly deserved and his work is as relevant now as it was when it was written almost a century ago. In fact, in this era of American oligarchy and the increasing politicalization of faith, it is possible that Russell is more relevant now than ever.
"One is often told that it is a very wrong thing to attack religion, because religion makes men virtuous. So I am told; I have not noticed it." ~B.R.
It is of some importance to note that this is a collection of essays spanning, in my edition, some 267 pages. The title piece, 'Why I Am Not a Christian,' is just 20 pages, leaving roughly 92.5% of the volume for other engrossing bits such as 'Life in the Middle Ages,' 'The Fate of Thomas Paine,' and 'Our Sexual Ethics.' All of which I found fascinating!
Russell's assertions on religion and related topics aren't necessarily earth shattering, at least not anymore. I think that only goes to show what an enormous influence he has had on modern secularism and free thought. You can hear his words, rephrased and reiterated, in the works of Christopher Hitchens, Jerry Coyne, and Victor Stenger (just to name a few).
"The attitude that one ought to believe a proposition, independently of the question whether there is evidence in its favor, is an attitude which produces hostility to evidence and causes us to close our minds to every fact that does not suit our prejudices." ~B.R.
Speaking for myself, I made my break with religious dogma years before I had ever heard of Bertrand Russell, so it should come as no surprise to anyone who knows me that I find his wisdom and scrupulous logic life-affirming. His reputation for brilliant and intelligent 'heresy' is justly deserved and his work is as relevant now as it was when it was written almost a century ago. In fact, in this era of American oligarchy and the increasing politicalization of faith, it is possible that Russell is more relevant now than ever.
"One is often told that it is a very wrong thing to attack religion, because religion makes men virtuous. So I am told; I have not noticed it." ~B.R.
Read
November 4, 2018I think I had admittedly underrated Russell until reading this. A wonderful example of forward thinking, and his influence can be clearly recognised in the works of contemporary thinkers (particularly Sam Harris' views of morality and Christopher Hitchens' linkage of Stalinism and state religiosity). Definitely worth reading.
June 4, 2017
This book contains a collection of essays, on the complex nature of religion. Being brought up in a religious background, I was taught many aspects about Catholicism as a child, and almost into my teenage years, and it was only then that I began to start questioning it, and my so-called beliefs. I realised I didn't actually believe any of it. I have considered myself an Atheist, for many years.
Russell explains to us how well organised religion and Christianity is terribly destructive and also highly irrational, in many ways. His writing I found to be complex, but at the same time, compelling.
Here are a couple of my favourite quotes from the book;
"Science can teach us, and I think our own hearts can teach us, no longer to look around for imaginary supports, no longer to invent allies in the sky, but rather to look to our own efforts here below to make this world a fit place to live in, instead of the sort of place that the churches in all these centuries have made it."
And this;
"I can respect the men who argue that religion is true and therefore ought to be believed, but I can only feel profound moral reprobation for those who say that religion ought to be believed because it is useful, and that to ask whether it is true is a waste of time."
What is truly admirable, is that Russell had the audacity, to publish these quotes, during the time of the early twentieth century, when people were far more traditional than they are now.
Russell explains to us how well organised religion and Christianity is terribly destructive and also highly irrational, in many ways. His writing I found to be complex, but at the same time, compelling.
Here are a couple of my favourite quotes from the book;
"Science can teach us, and I think our own hearts can teach us, no longer to look around for imaginary supports, no longer to invent allies in the sky, but rather to look to our own efforts here below to make this world a fit place to live in, instead of the sort of place that the churches in all these centuries have made it."
And this;
"I can respect the men who argue that religion is true and therefore ought to be believed, but I can only feel profound moral reprobation for those who say that religion ought to be believed because it is useful, and that to ask whether it is true is a waste of time."
What is truly admirable, is that Russell had the audacity, to publish these quotes, during the time of the early twentieth century, when people were far more traditional than they are now.
December 14, 2019
عقل گرایی و خردگرایی در مقابل مذهب
مشکل اصلی راسل با مسیحیت نیست بلکه با تمام ادیان و مذاهب آسمانیست
از نظر راسل دین دشمن عقل است چون انسان دیندار بدون چون و چرا و تفکر ، گفته های دین و مذهب را میپذیرد
جامعه آرمانی جامعه ای است که آزادی بیان سرلوحه آن باشد. دنیایی که بی طرفانه جوانان را در پیله سخت اعتقادات دینی محبوس نکرده باشد. این دنیا نیازمند تفکرات ترقی خواهانه است. تفکراتی که متحیر و جزم اندیش نباشد.
کتاب شامل سخنرانی ها و مقاله ها و یک مناظره با کشیش کاپلستون درباره وجود خدا با راسل است
کتاب بازگو کننده نظرات راسل درباره دین بین جنگ جهانی و اول دوم است ، بزرگترین اشتباه از نظر راسل بازگشتن غرب به سوی مسحیت است.
مشکل اصلی راسل با مسیحیت نیست بلکه با تمام ادیان و مذاهب آسمانیست
از نظر راسل دین دشمن عقل است چون انسان دیندار بدون چون و چرا و تفکر ، گفته های دین و مذهب را میپذیرد
جامعه آرمانی جامعه ای است که آزادی بیان سرلوحه آن باشد. دنیایی که بی طرفانه جوانان را در پیله سخت اعتقادات دینی محبوس نکرده باشد. این دنیا نیازمند تفکرات ترقی خواهانه است. تفکراتی که متحیر و جزم اندیش نباشد.
کتاب شامل سخنرانی ها و مقاله ها و یک مناظره با کشیش کاپلستون درباره وجود خدا با راسل است
کتاب بازگو کننده نظرات راسل درباره دین بین جنگ جهانی و اول دوم است ، بزرگترین اشتباه از نظر راسل بازگشتن غرب به سوی مسحیت است.
September 26, 2008
WHY I AM NOT A CHRISTIAN...- Ex
Russell, Bertrand
Dedicated as few men have been to the life of reason, Bertrand Russell has always been concerned with the basic questions to which religion also addresses itself -- questions about man's place in the universe and the nature of the good life, questions that involve life after death, morality, freedom, education, and sexual ethics. He brings to his treatment of these questions the same courage, scrupulous logic, and lofty wisdom for which his other work as philosopher, writer, and teacher has been famous. These qualities make the essays included in this book perhaps the most graceful and moving presentation of the freethinker's position since the days of Hume and Voltaire.
"I am as firmly convinced that religions do harm as I am that they are untrue," Russell declares in his Preface, and his reasoned opposition to any system or dogma which he feels may shackle man's mind runs through all the essays in this book, whether they were written as early as 1899 or as late as 1954.
I read this in 1982 during a year-long period of self-questioning and evaluation of my faith and beliefs. This, among other books, was one which made me realize that I could have a strong faith without being constrained by the boundaries of, and historic crimes committed in the name of, religion. "My God is the one who exists apart from all of men's agendas..." from "The Lace Reader" by Brunonia Barry, 2006.
Russell, Bertrand
Dedicated as few men have been to the life of reason, Bertrand Russell has always been concerned with the basic questions to which religion also addresses itself -- questions about man's place in the universe and the nature of the good life, questions that involve life after death, morality, freedom, education, and sexual ethics. He brings to his treatment of these questions the same courage, scrupulous logic, and lofty wisdom for which his other work as philosopher, writer, and teacher has been famous. These qualities make the essays included in this book perhaps the most graceful and moving presentation of the freethinker's position since the days of Hume and Voltaire.
"I am as firmly convinced that religions do harm as I am that they are untrue," Russell declares in his Preface, and his reasoned opposition to any system or dogma which he feels may shackle man's mind runs through all the essays in this book, whether they were written as early as 1899 or as late as 1954.
I read this in 1982 during a year-long period of self-questioning and evaluation of my faith and beliefs. This, among other books, was one which made me realize that I could have a strong faith without being constrained by the boundaries of, and historic crimes committed in the name of, religion. "My God is the one who exists apart from all of men's agendas..." from "The Lace Reader" by Brunonia Barry, 2006.
July 5, 2012
Russell first defines what he means by a Christian: someone who believes in God, the immortality of the soul, and Jesus Christ. Then he explains why he does not believe. Step by step he dismisses as fallacious the arguments for the existence of God: the first cause argument, the argument from design, etc. Then he discusses whether we survive death. Then the character of Jesus, as presented in the Gospels. He agrees that Jesus was an admirable man, but not divine and not the best or wisest of men. He gives examples from the Gospels.
He believes that all religions are false and harmful. He even calls religion “a disease born of fear” and “a source of untold misery to the human race.” Fear leads to cruelty, he says. “A habit of basing convictions upon evidence, and of giving them only that degree of certainty which the evidence warrants, would, if it became general, cure most of the ills from which the world is suffering.”
He explains his agnostic views with his usual lucidity. Russell was not an atheist; he was just not convinced by the arguments for God. He was always wary of certainties. So this book does not resolve anything, but it will give you something to think about. It is really nothing more than the application of rationality to religious beliefs. Not a difficult read.
He believes that all religions are false and harmful. He even calls religion “a disease born of fear” and “a source of untold misery to the human race.” Fear leads to cruelty, he says. “A habit of basing convictions upon evidence, and of giving them only that degree of certainty which the evidence warrants, would, if it became general, cure most of the ills from which the world is suffering.”
He explains his agnostic views with his usual lucidity. Russell was not an atheist; he was just not convinced by the arguments for God. He was always wary of certainties. So this book does not resolve anything, but it will give you something to think about. It is really nothing more than the application of rationality to religious beliefs. Not a difficult read.
December 8, 2017
Θαυμάζω απεριόριστα την καθαρότητα του μυαλού και το προοδευτικό πνεύμα του Russel στην αρχή του 20ού αιώνα. Ευτυχώς δεν πρόλαβε να δει την απόλυτη διάψευση των ελπίδων του για την επικράτηση του ορθολογισμού, την ανάπτυξη του ατομικού πνεύματος μέσω της στέρεης παιδείας που θα βασίζεται στην επιστημονική τεκμηρίωση αντί για το δόγμα, την παγκόσμια ειρήνη και ευημερία που ονειρευόταν μέσω του περιορισμού του φόβου ως κινήτρου για τις ανθρώπινες πράξεις και τις πολιτικές μεθοδεύσεις.
February 29, 2024
Russell's "Why I Am Not A Christian" is probably the most widely known of this collection of essays. Russell's perspective on religion and dogmas is as important today as ever. His observations of religion and the religious in society are insightful and relevant still today. Unfortunately.
For instance in "What I Believe" he states: "The defenders of traditional morality are seldom people with warm hearts...One is tempted to think that they value morals as affording a legitimate outlet for their desire to inflict pain; the sinner is fair game and, therefore, away with tolerance!" I think a lot of today's readers will find the situation has not changed a bit since Russell wrote that in 1925.
I'd recommend this to any and all freethinkers, religious believers who are not afraid of reason, and anyone interested in resisting the rise of White Christian Nationalism in the US.
For instance in "What I Believe" he states: "The defenders of traditional morality are seldom people with warm hearts...One is tempted to think that they value morals as affording a legitimate outlet for their desire to inflict pain; the sinner is fair game and, therefore, away with tolerance!" I think a lot of today's readers will find the situation has not changed a bit since Russell wrote that in 1925.
I'd recommend this to any and all freethinkers, religious believers who are not afraid of reason, and anyone interested in resisting the rise of White Christian Nationalism in the US.
January 27, 2020
If I were to describe this book/essay in a single word, it would be 'dishonest'. A more fitting title would be 'Why I Am an Atheist'. Only 'Not a Christian' has greater shock value, generating instant PR that hypes the book and promotes sales. So maybe Bert knew what he was doing after all.
Here's the deal: Burt doesn't believe in a Creator, a Supreme Being, or a Higher Power greater than himself. And he singles out Christianity to make his point. Why? Why not Judaism, or Islam, or Buddhism? Or Confucianism, Zoroastrianism, Voodooism, Frisbeetarianism, or any of a thousand other belief systems that profess a belief in a world beyond? Unfortunately for us, if Bert's belief that there's no afterlife proves true, we'll never be able to ask him, not in this world or the next.
I suppose in all fairness I should cite some examples from Bert's babblings, only what would be the point? It's nothing you haven't heard in a million other atheist rants. The church did bad things. Yes, and so have a lot of non-church goers. The belief in a Creator makes no sense. And I supposed the idea it all came about by random circumstance does? I had a bad experience once. Who hasn't?
I remember once getting ill after eating a Big Mac. It didn't make me turn vegan; it just made me stop going to that particular franchise location. But Bert would have you throw out the baby with the bath water. That's logic? That's a philosophy? Reject everything because one aspect of it is unsatisfactory?
Look, I've had bad experiences with churches also. Three times I quit going. Twice I came back; the third time I didn't. But I still believe in God as my Heavenly Father. What I rejected was those guys who pretended to speak in His Name.
Bert's 'philosophy' boils down to this: Reject God and believe Me instead. That's quite some ego, Burt. Only I wish you had something a little stronger than that to offer. I'm always willing to listen, but you'll need a better argument than this to convince me.
Here's the deal: Burt doesn't believe in a Creator, a Supreme Being, or a Higher Power greater than himself. And he singles out Christianity to make his point. Why? Why not Judaism, or Islam, or Buddhism? Or Confucianism, Zoroastrianism, Voodooism, Frisbeetarianism, or any of a thousand other belief systems that profess a belief in a world beyond? Unfortunately for us, if Bert's belief that there's no afterlife proves true, we'll never be able to ask him, not in this world or the next.
I suppose in all fairness I should cite some examples from Bert's babblings, only what would be the point? It's nothing you haven't heard in a million other atheist rants. The church did bad things. Yes, and so have a lot of non-church goers. The belief in a Creator makes no sense. And I supposed the idea it all came about by random circumstance does? I had a bad experience once. Who hasn't?
I remember once getting ill after eating a Big Mac. It didn't make me turn vegan; it just made me stop going to that particular franchise location. But Bert would have you throw out the baby with the bath water. That's logic? That's a philosophy? Reject everything because one aspect of it is unsatisfactory?
Look, I've had bad experiences with churches also. Three times I quit going. Twice I came back; the third time I didn't. But I still believe in God as my Heavenly Father. What I rejected was those guys who pretended to speak in His Name.
Bert's 'philosophy' boils down to this: Reject God and believe Me instead. That's quite some ego, Burt. Only I wish you had something a little stronger than that to offer. I'm always willing to listen, but you'll need a better argument than this to convince me.
September 4, 2020
Ah well... I don't know about this. I must say I expected more, and would have needed more for this to be an intellectually satisfying exchange (between my thoughts and Bertrand's). I have thought about the subject of religion for a long time, and I am fascinated by the fact that it exists. What does religion deliver to a believer? What is the epistemological quality of religion, and if there cannot be one (which is what I would argue), why can believers "not see that"? Equally, why can I, as a secular person, not see what believers see? Can there be common ground on which both, believers and non-believers, both stand and have a rational exchange?
Bertrand's main essay in this anthology did not answer any of these questions. Granted, he goes into these a little bit, but remains so superficial in his treatment of each that I did not come away thinking I learnt something. Some of his arguments are directed against a dogmatic and encrusted canonisation of religious messages, and as such criticise the church, but not religion.
So in the end, I felt more than underwhelmed, and quite disappointed. Perhaps I am myself to blame, after all he delivered the central piece in this anthology as a speech, and a speech may not be an appropriate vehicle to carry in-depth thought. So yes - I am to blame. I shouldn't have expected a penetrating treatment of the subject. And yet, I did. And that's why my rating is rather low. Just saying this in my defence.
Bertrand's main essay in this anthology did not answer any of these questions. Granted, he goes into these a little bit, but remains so superficial in his treatment of each that I did not come away thinking I learnt something. Some of his arguments are directed against a dogmatic and encrusted canonisation of religious messages, and as such criticise the church, but not religion.
So in the end, I felt more than underwhelmed, and quite disappointed. Perhaps I am myself to blame, after all he delivered the central piece in this anthology as a speech, and a speech may not be an appropriate vehicle to carry in-depth thought. So yes - I am to blame. I shouldn't have expected a penetrating treatment of the subject. And yet, I did. And that's why my rating is rather low. Just saying this in my defence.
January 24, 2016
خیلی منطقی دلیل آورده بود
June 7, 2016
عالی بود... این کتاب مجموعه ای از مقالات و سخنرانی های راسل هست که از چندین فصل تشکیل شده و هر فصل به موضوع خاصی اختصاص داده شده.... فصل سیزدهم این کتاب متن یک مناظره بین راسل و پدر کاپلستون هست که واقعا برام جالب بود مخصوصا قسمت بحث اخلاقی مناظره...
از متن کتاب:
وقتی که شما در کلیسا میشنوید که مردم خود را تحقیر نموده می گویند مردمی بدبخت و گناه کارند واز این قبیل ، به نظر میرسد مقام ارجمند بشریت را تخفیف داده و خوار شمرده اند. بایستی علیه چنین مطالبی ایستادگی کنیم و چهره دنیا را بی پرده و روشن ببینیم. باید از انجام اعمال نیک در این دنیا کوتاهی نکنیم و چانچه اعمالمان آن طور که میخواهیم و هدف داریم پیشرفت نداشته باشد ، به هر حال بایستی بهتر از آن باشد که گذشتگان در اعصار گذشته نشان داده اند... دنیای خوب نیازمند به علم ، مهربانی،شجاعت بوده و نیاز به حسرت به گذشته نداشته و همچنین نیازی به زنجیر کشیدن هوش و استعداد مردم که با تبلیغات جمعی نادان در گذشته ی دور انجام میشده ندارند.
دنیا محتاج به امید به آینده است نه نظاره به گذشته ی مرده و فنا شده ، آینده ای که مطمئنا هوش و استعداد ما میتواند آن را تحت تاثیر قرار دهد....
از متن کتاب:
وقتی که شما در کلیسا میشنوید که مردم خود را تحقیر نموده می گویند مردمی بدبخت و گناه کارند واز این قبیل ، به نظر میرسد مقام ارجمند بشریت را تخفیف داده و خوار شمرده اند. بایستی علیه چنین مطالبی ایستادگی کنیم و چهره دنیا را بی پرده و روشن ببینیم. باید از انجام اعمال نیک در این دنیا کوتاهی نکنیم و چانچه اعمالمان آن طور که میخواهیم و هدف داریم پیشرفت نداشته باشد ، به هر حال بایستی بهتر از آن باشد که گذشتگان در اعصار گذشته نشان داده اند... دنیای خوب نیازمند به علم ، مهربانی،شجاعت بوده و نیاز به حسرت به گذشته نداشته و همچنین نیازی به زنجیر کشیدن هوش و استعداد مردم که با تبلیغات جمعی نادان در گذشته ی دور انجام میشده ندارند.
دنیا محتاج به امید به آینده است نه نظاره به گذشته ی مرده و فنا شده ، آینده ای که مطمئنا هوش و استعداد ما میتواند آن را تحت تاثیر قرار دهد....
July 6, 2016
خیلی عالی بود و فکر میکنم بسیاری از بیانات ارزشمند برتراند راسل نه تنها ایرادها و اشتباهات دین مسیحیت رو نشان میده بلکه منظور ایراد تمام ادیان هستش
خیلی خوب و منطقی شرح داده بود و لذت بردم
خیلی خوب و منطقی شرح داده بود و لذت بردم
April 4, 2017
الكتاب دسم ورائع من حيث الاراء ، بليد من حيث الترجمة ، كمية الرخامة في اسلوب المترجم لا توصف وهذا سبب انقاصي النجمة الخامسة منه ، الكتاب مجموعة مقالات لراسل مكتوبة بين عام 1920 - 1940 مع بعض المحاضرات التي القاها والتي من اشهرها لماذا انا لست مسيحياً ؟ يوضح من خلال انتقال الفصول رأيه المستند الى خبرات ودراسات اجراها مع اشخاص من مستواه الفكري والاجتماعي ويوضح لنا الفرق بين المجتمع الديني والمجتمع المدني والقوانين والثواب والعقاب ومابعد الموت والذي يؤمن به . قد يكون لدى بعض القراء الذين طعنوا بسمعة هذا الكتاب لديهم تحسس من شخصية المؤلف فهو ملحد والنظرة العامة للالحاد انه شخص عديم الشرف والقيم وفاقد للمنظمومة الاخلاقية ولكن راسل كسر هذا التابو والصورة في كتابه هذا ويوضح بعض المفاهيم الحديثة والمناسبة للفرد والمجتمعات .
June 28, 2024
A collection of essays and writings, the most recent essay being written in 1952, quite dense and laborious to get through, took me 6 months. Got alot out of it however, found it very interesting, noting the first and last 20 pages especially! Would only recommend to people who are particularly interested in the philosophy of atheism as Russel is a pillar in that field, found him to be very outspoken and unabashedly honest.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 929 reviews