NOTE: Free essay sample provided on this page should be used for references or sample purposes only. The sample essay is available to anyone, so any direct quoting without mentioning the source will be considered plagiarism by schools, colleges and universities that use plagiarism detection software. To get a completely brand-new, plagiarism-free essay, please use our essay writing service.
One click instant price quote
Why I am Not a Christian Bertrand Russel Introduction World religions, and Christianity in particular, have always been issues of great dispute for people. Some of them devoted their whole lives to investigation of the validity of one or the other religion, to proving that there is or there is no God. Bertrand Russell, a British philosopher, logician and mathematician, devoted many of his works to the topic of religion. Why I Am Not A Christian was first delivered on March 6, 1927 to the National Secular Society, South London Branch, at Battersea Town Hall as a lecture and published in a form of a pamphlet that same year.
The essay concentrates on the concept of Christianity and is structured as an argumentative essay. The purpose of it is obviously not only to express the authors opinion, but also to suggest his view of dealing with an issue. In order to understand the topic of Why I Am Not A Christian, it is necessary to define all terms in the title. First of all, the phrase why I am not implies that the author will speak about himself and give his opinions, which will negate something. Secondly, a concept of Christianity Christian will be discussed. The main issues dealt in the essay, therefore is the authors attitude towards Christians and Christianity.
I consider this essay as the one, which deals with ethical and ontological questions equally. First of all, Russell criticizes, if not tries to shake, Christianity as an appropriate set of values for people to follow. According to the author, Christianity gives wrong values and morals, because they often contradict human happiness. Choice of values, morals and their origins are the issues of ethics.
Bertrand Russell was a representative of the analytic school of philosophy. It is characteristic of this school to think of metaphysics, and therefore ontology, as of a big lie. One of the subjects of those sciences is God. It is not surprising that Russell negates God, religions in general, and Christianity in particular. The essay, therefore, can be considered dealing with metaphysical questions as well. In Why I Am Not A Christian Russell briefly explains and then refutes in order the following five arguments for the existence of God: 1) the first cause argument, 2) the natural law argument, 3) the argument from design, 4) the moral argument, 5) the argument for the remedying of injustice.
The First Cause Argument The first cause argument is based on the idea that everything has a cause. So if one goes back in each cause he can think of, there must be a cause to that cause as well. The claim of Christians, and theists in general, is that if you go back far enough, eventually you must arrive at a first cause, and the only thing great enough to be that first cause is the creator, and the creator is called God. From this statement, Russell concluded that if everything must have a cause, then God must also have a cause. There should be a cause to the first cause as well. So if one says that there is no cause behind God (first cause), the argument is not valid.
Russell closes this argument by saying that the only reason that the First Cause argument has lasted so long is because of poverty of our imagination and a need to find a beginning for everything. The Natural Law Argument The natural law argument is the basic idea that God designed the laws of science. Natural laws are not like human laws, which tell people how to act. Natural laws are descriptions of how things do behave in reality. Russell points out that the basis of this argument is that the laws must necessarily have a design. The fact that the world follows these laws is the proof that there is God.
Russell suggests then, that the world continuing to fit our framework is not a sign of great design. On the contrary, he points out that if it started to break our expectations, then it would be a greater evidence of God. The Argument From Design The argument from design, as Russell describes it, is that everything in the world is made just so that we can manage to live in the world, and if the world was ever so little different, we could not manage to live in it. Russell's counter argument is based on Darwinism, which explains how leaving creatures adapted to the environment, and not how environment adapted to them. Another argument he uses is the existence of Ku Klux Klan, fascists and others who make the existence of the rest of the people almost impossible.
The Moral Argument The essence of the moral argument lies in the belief that if there were no God, there would be no right and wrong, good and bad. Russell states that he is not going to answer the question of whether there are such concepts as right and wrong, rather, he questions that those concepts came from God. As the author points out, God could not create bad things, so how did they come to the existence and how can people argue that if there were no God there would be no bad. The Argument for the Remedying of Injustice This argument suggests that there must be God in order for justice to exist in this world. God is the power that restricts and cures injustice. Russell criticizes such an argument and grounds his point with the fact that human knowledge and imagination are limited.
Personal Thoughts When I was reading Why I Am Not A Christian I was constantly catching myself on a thought that the arguments taken and then criticizes by Russell were not among the strongest arguments, which believers use to defend Christianity. Why, for example, did Russell not use Bible - a major source of Christianity, book that tells history of events, sets standards of behavior and gives morals for Christians? Instead, the author took the old Catholic Church dogmas, which were primitive and outdated. At the end I concluded, that by offering such easy responses to such old arguments, and not openly responding to the counter arguments, all Russell attempted to do was to write for the wide variety of people, and try to make them be skeptical about something they have been taught from the very early childhood. Russell, as I think, wanted his readers to form their own opinions on such important topics as the existence of God and religion.
He wanted people to break the stereotypes they were brought up in, and open their eyes and minds to other possibilities. In my opinion, Russell wrote Why I Am Not A Christian to, at least, make people say there is something wrong with that guys arguments. That would induce readers to think more objectively and rationally about these subjects. This, I suggest, was Russell's goal - not preaching Atheism, but rather preaching healthy skepticism and reasoning. He, I think, wanted people to doubt not God, but religion.
Religion, for Russell is the enemy, not God. Russell, in his essay, repeatedly was giving credit to Jesus for his very high degree of moral goodness, acknowledging him as a wise men, (although not the wisest) and calling himself to follow His principles more than some believers do. Although the author says that he is attacking all faiths and religions, he often shows a bias in attacking mainly the Christian faith. That does not, however, mean that Russell particularly disliked Christianity. I think that this can be very easily explained by the fact that he was brought up in a Christian home and lived the most part of his life in Great Britain, in a country, where the majority of people were Christians.
This religion was, therefore, the closest for Russell, the best-known one, the one around which he evolved all the time. Most of the people he knew were misguided (according to him) by the Christian faith and Russell himself knew the dogmas of Catholic Church since he was a child. It is interesting how the author first says that he does not believe in immorality and than gives Christ credit for having "a very high degree of moral goodness. " In other words, Russell suggests that there are morals and morality, but there is no immorality. If it really were that way, than having some morals would be worthless for people, and moreover, there would be no distinction between good and bad. People would not know the consequences of their behavior, therefore they would have no motivation to act in one or another way. The argument of existing of morals, but not existing of immorality sounds illogical even to a layman.
Russell, being a Nobel Prize holder, a person who had followers around the world for his findings in logic, philosophy and mathematics, could hardly propose such a statement and be serious about it. I think it confirms one more time that the primary task that Russell had, was to arouse doubts and develop critical thinking in his readers. It is also not an accident, in my opinion, that Russell finishes Why I Am Not A Christian with a section about How churches have retarded progress. By doing so, he shows the reader a consequence of following the church and its doctrines. The choice is given to the reader whether to choose believing in something very questionable and uncertain, and going forward with developments in all areas and creating a better world for their children. I agree with Russell in a point, that historically people have believed in God because it was a big part of their upbringing, because of the fear of uncertainty and because of the desire to always have somebody beside you, an older brother, somebody who could help you in any situation.
In the contemporary world, however, it is not always applicable. I would argue, that most modern people come to God, on the contrary, because they are free of fear and uncertainty even in the communities where Christianity have not been a dominant religion historically. Some of the richest and most powerful people in the world become Christians. I am not trying to speak about their reasons, I am just suggesting that after getting all they could from the usual life, they want to have something more - spiritual life, which they found in becoming Christian. Conclusion It is not surprising that Russell came up with the issue of religions and Christianity in his work. He was raised by his grand parents who were very strict Christians.
Russell knew from his own personal experience how limiting a religion could be. This, I believe, was the reason for him to write Why I Am Not A Christian. He attempted to open peoples eyes and break the old stereotypes. This essay, in my opinion, is not a demonstration of Russell's dislike of Christianity, but it is rather an act of humanism. The author was strongly convinced that religions do not give people opportunity to realize their full potential, churches retard human development and most bad things such as wars, limitation of human rights, etc. happen on religious grounds.
One might agree or disagree with what Russell talks about in his essay Why I Am Not A Christian. Nevertheless, nobody would argue that the essay does make people think about their views on Christianity, religion, choices they make. There is, probably, no greater reward for logician, philosopher and mathematician than his readers critical thinking over his works. Bibliography Bertrand Russell, Why I Am Not A Christian, Why I Am Not a Christian and Other Essays, 1957, Paul Edwards Edition web - biography of Bertrand Russell
Free research essays on topics related to: moral goodness, bertrand russell, moral argument, existence of god, good and bad
Research essay sample on Existence Of God Good And Bad
