Supervenient naturalism is an ontological doctrine; it says nothing at all about the best ways to regulate inquiry though it does say that, if you want to hit on the truth, then you should not postulate supernatural objects and properties.
I am not for the moment concerned with whether there is a difference between right and wrong, or whether there is not: They are statistical averages such as would emerge from the laws of chance; and that makes this whole business of natural law much less impressive than it formerly was.
Quite apart from that, which represents the momentary state of science that may change tomorrow, the whole idea that natural laws imply a law-giver is due to a confusion between natural and human laws.
Nowadays it is not quite that. That is only an example. It was used by Lao-Tze and Buddha some five or six hundred years before Christ, but it is not a principle which as a matter of fact Christians accept.
Reposted in support of those who feel the grip of their churches tightening in fear of the modern world of freedom of choice. I think that you must have a certain amount of definite belief before you have a right to call yourself a Christian. It needs a fearless outlook and a free intelligence.
That argument, I suppose, does not carry very much weight nowadays, because, in the first place, cause is not quite what it used to be. Christ certainly as depicted in the Gospels did believe in everlasting punishment, and one does find repeatedly a vindictive fury against those people who would not listen to His preaching—an attitude which is not uncommon with preachers, but which does somewhat detract from superlative excellence.
Some countries banned the book, including South Africa. In that respect clearly He was not so wise as some other people have been, and he was certainly not superlatively wise. Because life makes no sense to me apart from Christ.
However, I hope it will at least serve to indicate the directions in which further discussion would proceed.
In the so-called ages of faith, when men really did believe the Christian religion in all its completeness, there was the Inquisition, with all its tortures; there were millions of unfortunate women burned as witches; and there was every kind of cruelty practiced upon all sorts of people in the name of religion.
While this claim hardly cuts against the claim that the Christian God exists--since the Christian God is continuous with the God of the Old Testament, and it is hardly contentious that the God of the Old Testament is less than morally perfect--it is equally clear that this claim does cut against the views of many contemporary Christian philosophers of religion.
Furthermore, according to Russell, the other important motives for belief in God are fear of the unknown including, in particular, fear of deathand a desire for safety including, especially, a desire for a big brother who will look after your interests and guarantee the satisfaction of your most deeply held wants.
I read an enormous amount, and then produced extensive notes for each of the twenty-six lectures that I gave. If there is anything contingent in the world, then there is brute--i. Finally, Russell makes the inflammatory claim that organized Christianity "has been, and still is, the principal enemy of moral progress in the world" If you looked at the matter from a scientific point of view, you would say: In particular, it is highly plausible that if there were a perfect being, it would simply be unable to create a universe in which there are departures from moral perfection.
The Natural Law is a law that actually causes us to behave a certain way. In the part of this universe that we know there is great injustice, and often the good suffer, and often the wicked prosper, and one hardly knows which of those is the more annoying; but if you are going to have justice in the universe as a whole you have to suppose a future life to redress the balance of life here on earth.
You find this curious fact, that the more intense has been the religion of any period and the more profound has been the dogmatic belief, the greater has been the cruelty and the worse has been the state of affairs.
The Christian story is deeply embedded in the soundtrack of human history and art. More generally, there are obvious differences between the views that I take on questions of values--including, in particular, ethical and moral values--and the typical kinds of views on questions of values that are endorsed by Christians.
The geography books count us all in, but that is a purely geographical sense, which I suppose we can ignore. Apart from identifying failings in some theistic arguments, Russell also makes some observations about the true wellsprings of belief in God.
There is, as we all know, a law that if you throw dice you will get double sixes only about once in thirty-six times, and we do not regard that as evidence that the fall of the dice is regulated by design; on the contrary, if the double sixes came every time we should think that there was design.
They were at first hard, intellectual arguments embodying certain quite definite fallacies. In particular, I would insist that none of the religions that have a place in recent human history have supernatural origins; and I would insist that there have been no miraculous events that provide support for particular religious beliefs.
It is not a pleasant fact, but the churches compel one to mention facts that are not pleasant. Nobody really worries much about what is going to happen millions of years hence.Why I Am Not a Christian and Other Essays on Religion and Related Subjects [Bertrand Russell, Paul Edwards] on killarney10mile.com *FREE* shipping on qualifying offers.
“Devastating in its use of cold logic, ” (The Independent), the classic essay collection that expresses the freethinker’s views to religion and challenges set notions in today’s.
The English logician and philosopher Bertrand Russell was convinced that the religions of the world are not merely untrue, but that they do grievous harm to people. That conviction is very much in evidence in his speech, "Why I Am Not a Christian," read here in its complete form by the British.
As with every other time I have read Russell, I found Why I Am Not a Christian: And Other Essays on Religion and Related Subjects very pleasurable to read. Russell's clear and organized style of writing is somewhat of a rarity in philosophical writing.4/5. Bertrand Russell’s essay Why I Am Not a Christian is a popular touch-point for the community of Atheist writers and thinkers.
It is a source of quotations as well as offering a comforting substantiation of their shared beliefs. Why Bertrand Russell Was Not A Christian by Rev. Ralph Allan Smith.
Table of Contents Preface 2 Introduction 3 thought it worthwhile to provide a Christian critique of Russell’s essay “Why I Am Not a Christian,” even though it is based upon a speech given in Some time after writing the first draft of this essay, while searching.
Why I Am Not a Christian () * By Bertrand Russell The Lecture that is here reproduced was delivered at the Battersea Town Hall on Sunday March 6,under the auspices of the South London Branch of the National Secular Society.Download