Why I Am Not a Christian

I haven’t Gotten or Read The Book Yet! But He Was A Great Man With A Wonderful Mind, So I’m Looking Forward To This Book!

Why I Am Not a Christian by Bertrand Russell“Why I Am Not a Christian” is a very representative book of essays of the great British philosopher and man of many talents, Bertrand Russell (1872 - 1970). This book includes the following essays: 1. Why I AM Not A Christian, 2. Am I An Atheist Or An Agnostic?, 3. My Religious Reminiscences, 4. A Free Man’s Worship, 5. Religion and Metaphysics, 6. Has Religion Made Useful Contributions to Civilization?, 7. How I Came by My Creed; Or, What I Believe, and 8. Why I Am a Rationalist.Positives:1. Well-written collection of essays despite the fact that these essays were written decades ago.2. The lucid thoughts of the great British philosopher Bertrand Russell.3. Eight essays that cover a wide-range of Russell’s lifetime.4. Destroys the first-cause argument. “If everything must have a cause, then God must have a cause. If there can be anything without a cause, it may just as well be the world as God, so that there cannot be any validity in that argument.”5. A look at the argument from design. “You all know the argument from design: 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.”6. Gives reasons on why people believe in “God”.7. The main reason to doubt Christ’s moral character. “There is one very serious defect to my mind in Christ's moral character, and that is that He believed in hell. I do not myself feel that any person who is really profoundly humane can believe in everlasting punishment.”8. Religion and fear. “Religion is based, I think, primarily and mainly upon fear. It is partly the terror of the unknown and partly, as I have said, the wish to feel that you have a kind of elder brother who will stand by you in all your troubles and disputes.”9. Defender of science as the best tool to find out the truths of our world. “To my mind the essential thing is that one should base one's arguments upon the kind of grounds that are accepted in science, and one should not regard anything that one accepts as quite certain, but only as probable in a greater or a less degree. Not to be absolutely certain is, I think, one of the essential things in rationality.”10. He provides insights into his evolution from a believer to an atheist. : During the four following years I rejected, successively, free will, immortality, and belief in God, and believed that I suffered much pain in the process, though when it was completed I found myself far happier than I had been while I remained in doubt.”11. A look at the contributions of religion to society. “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.”12. The objection to religion. “The intellectual objection is that there is no reason to suppose any religion true; the moral objection is that religious precepts date from a time when men were more cruel than they are and therefore tend to perpetuate inhumanities which the moral conscience of the age would otherwise outgrow.”13. Find out the three human impulses embodied in religion.14. Explains the desires of religion to be in control. “Men desire to be in control because they are afraid that the control of others will be used unjustly to their detriment.”15. Eye-opening factoid. “I expect you know that in America men are still sent to prison for Atheism, not only in Fundamentalist States, but even in States of the East, and altogether there is in that part of the world an enormous need of propaganda on these matters.”Negatives:1. The book wasn’t professionally edited for the Kindle.2. There are much better and sophisticated arguments today but in Russell’s defense he inspired a lot of the great thinkers of today.In summary, this is a wonderful and cogent introduction to atheism. The great British philosopher Bertrand Russell passed away in 1970 and I would urge readers to view some of talks online. The essays are uneven; some are much better than others. Philosophy has evolved a lot since the times of Russell and there are much better and sophisticated arguments made today but the book is still a worthwhile read. I recommend it.Further suggestions: “How to Defend the Christian Faith” and “The Christian Delusion” by John Loftus, “God: The Failed Hypothesis” by Victor Stenger, “Natural Atheism” and “Atheism Advanced” by David Eller, “Soul Fallacy” by Julien Musolino, “Free Will? By Jonathan M.S. Pearce, “A Manual for Creating Atheists” by Peter Boghosian, “God Is Not Great” by Christopher Hitchens, “The Believing Brain” by Michael Shermer, “Faith vs. Fact” and “Why Evolution Is True” by Jerry A. Coyne, “Nonbeliever Nation” by David Niose, “Trusting Doubt” by Valerie Tarico, “Nailed” by David Fitzgerald, “Think” by Guy P. Harrison, and “The Science of Miracles” by Joe Nickell.

I really like Russell on numerous grounds, such as his ethical/social/political views. He is well known for his anti-religious views.In his essay "Why I am Not a Christian," he presents his case convincingly and his prose is notoriously simple and a pleasure to read without him going into abstract thought as most philosophers do. But the thing I care less for, is the fact that when he argues his case against existence of God, he is so flippant and spends little time over why he believes such n such. Maybe the essay should be taken more as his personal credo and I am wrong to critize him for that, but he comes off to sure of his beliefs. He states why its not so, and then moves on as if he as adequately dismissed the argument.He is in fact that direct ancestor of Dawkins and Hitchens for good reason - Russell is in a long lineage of atheists who come off as bombastic, a la Volaitre, etc. There is probably a certain need for a bombastic attitude to jolt the general public into thinking a new way. But unlike Hitchens, who goes over board, Russell keeps him composure and seems likely to be able to find middle ground with rational theists. The dogma that atheists fight against, is the same dogma that they are building around themselves, and thus the circle is complete. Atheists are in the formation of becoming the fundamentalists, so sure of their position, so sure of their dogma. What makes them so different from a run of the mill evangelical?? And why do atheists fear admitting their own militant wing?? Is it hard to accept that ideology breeds militancy? Look to history, when the Christians rooted out paganism, they did it by intimidation, by persecution, just as paganism used the same methods in trying to kill Christianity. Is it so far fetched that the same methods will be used against the last pockets of religious believers to push their agenda? Rationality/Reason is in the eyes of the winner, not in the eyes of objective truth. One person's Reason is another person's Absurdity. The line is between Reason and Absurdity is razor thin.

I love this book! And I love Russel's style: witty, polished, elegant yet absolutely savage. He confronts religion leaving it no escape.

Lenguaje cloaro y accesible a todo público.

I enjoyed reading this book although I disagree with many of the views expressed. Opposing views of others are interesting when given with their reasons.Bertrand Russell's arguments from science have largely been discredited because science has constantly evolved and he is using ideas we no longer believe. This must always be the state of science at any time; it is what we have proved thus far.His references to the Bible are often taken out of context, eg he suggests that all Christians are directed to sell all their possessions and give them to the poor but this was directed to one person for whom possessions were an idol that prevented him prioritising God. There are many such examples.His references to the interpretation of the Bible are based on the beliefs of the Catholic church, often in those areas where Protestants would differ.Some things he says are just plain silly, for example that Christians disapprove of sex; most think God invented sex.On rationalism, he cannot empirically prove that we should only believe something we can empirically prove; therefore he cannot empirically prove his philosophy. His 'strong rationalism' is not objective and he illustrates this by citing the origin of many of his points of view in his own background and experiences.

I loved reading this. Having spent much time in discussion with many of the 'new' atheists, it was great to discover that there are arguments are not new at all. There is nothing that Dawkins says that Russell did not say (and say it better). What comes across though is how dated some of his arguments are - for example that the universe is eternal (this was pre-big bang) and his laissez faire attitude to women and sex - arguing that virgins should not be allowed to be teachers! Well written, clever but ultimately falls far short of a realistic challenge to Christianity. In response to this book Solas CPC (of which I am director) commissioned a number of people to write 'Why I am not an Atheist'. Feel free to get it to get the other side. My own contribution is an answer to Russell.

First time I've read any of Russell's work and I wish I had have known more of his work when I was a teenager - his explanation of the problems with religion is pure joy to read.I am still amazed that any intelligent, primary educated person has anything to do with religion at all and Russell was of that view decades ago. When I hear people saying "thank God ..." for this that and the other I tend to think they have some kind of mental affliction - especially politicians and (bless them) Americans.This book is a really great read and allows some level headed thinking about what it is to be human, or at least just an animal existing on Earth - splendid!