Why I Am Not a Christian and Other Essays on Religion and Related Subjects [Paperback]

Bertrand Russell (Author), Paul Edwards (Editor)

Book Description

Publication Date: October 30, 1967

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.

Product Details

• Paperback: 266 pages
• Publisher: Touchstone; 39th Printing edition (October 30, 1967)
• Language: English
• ISBN-10: 0671203231
• ISBN-13: 978-0671203238
• Product Dimensions: 4.4 x 0.7 x 7 inches
• Shipping Weight: 8.5 ounces (View shipping rates and policies)
• Average Customer Review: 3.9 out of 5 stars  See all reviews (179 customer reviews)
• Amazon Best Sellers Rank: #31,194 in Books (See Top 100 in Books)
  • #11 in Books > Religion & Spirituality > Spirituality > Agnosticism
  • #30 in Books > Politics & Social Sciences > Philosophy > Modern

Editorial Reviews

Review

'Devastating in its use of cold logic.' - The Independent

'The most robust as well as the most witty infidel since Voltaire and he can not fail to sharpen men's sense of what is entailed both in belief and unbelief.' - The Spectator

'What makes the book valuable is life-long uncompromising intellectual honesty.' - Times Literary Supplement

--This text refers to an out of print or unavailable edition of this title.

About the Author

Bertrand Arthur William Russell, 3rd Earl Russell, Viscount Amberley, born in Wales, May 18, 1872. Educated at home and at Trinity College, Cambridge. During World War I, served four months in prison as a pacifist, where he wrote Introduction To Mathematical Philosophy. In 1910, published first volume of Principia Mathematica with Alfred Whitehead. Visited Russia and lectured on philosophy at the University of Peking in 1920. Returned to England and, with his wife, ran a progressive school for young children in Sussex from 1927-1932. Came to the United States, where he taught philosophy successively at the University of Chicago, University of California at Los Angeles, Harvard, and City College of New York. Awarded the Nobel Prize for Literature in 1950. Has been active in disarmament and anti-nuclear-testing movements while continuing to add to his large number of published books which include Philosophical Essays (1910); The ABC of Relativity (1925); A History of Western Philosophy (1946); Human Knowledge: Its Scope and Limits (1948); and The Autobiography of Bertrand Russell (1967). For a chronological list of Russell's principal works see The Basic Writings of Bertrand Russell (Simon and Schuster).

See all Editorial Reviews

Product Details

• Paperback: 266 pages
• Publisher: Touchstone; 39th Printing edition (October 30, 1967)
• Language: English
• ISBN-10: 0671203231
• ISBN-13: 978-0671203238
• Product Dimensions: 4.4 x 0.7 x 7 inches
• Shipping Weight: 8.5 ounces (View shipping rates and policies)
• Average Customer Review: 3.9 out of 5 stars  See all reviews (179 customer reviews)
• Amazon Best Sellers Rank: #31,194 in Books (See Top 100 in Books)
  • #11 in Books > Religion & Spirituality > Spirituality > Agnosticism
  • #30 in Books > Politics & Social Sciences > Philosophy > Modern

More About the Author

Bertrand Russell (1872 - 1970). Philosopher, mathematician, educational and sexual reformer, pacifist, prolific letter writer, author and columnist, Bertrand Russell was one of the most influential and widely known intellectual figures of the twentieth century. In 1950 he was awarded the Noble Prize for Literature in 1950 for his extensive contributions to world literature and for his "rationality and humanity, as a fearless champion of free speech and free thought in the West."

Most Helpful Customer Reviews

226 of 248 people found the following review helpful

5.0 out of 5 stars A great introduction May 23, 2000

By Carrie Laben

Format:Paperback

A lot of the arguments in this book could be, or have been, opposed by experienced and clever apologists. Nevertheless, this is the best book I have seen for the new, young, or lonely atheist.

Mr. Russell writes with a great deal of simplicity and gentle British good humor. He attacks beliefs (especially the belief in God's and Christ's inherent goodness and in the sexual mores of his day) rather than people, by and large, which is the mark of a truly humane person.

Unlike many modern philosophers his arguments do not require an advanced degree or even an advanced vocabulary to follow. And because the book is made up of fairly short essays on a variety of subjects rather than one long argument, it can be read at leisure without losing the thread of discussion.

Overall, I highly recommend this book for anyone with even a slight interest in the subject matter at hand.

311 of 354 people found the following review helpful

4.0 out of 5 stars Closing Arguments from Professor Russell March 17, 2003

By Molon Labe

Format:Paperback

Reading anything by Russell is like sitting in a single-person jury box while evaluating the arguments of a very bright, extremely lucid and highly opinionated attorney who tends to offer well-reasoned analysis but frequently crosses over into the realm of diatribe. As a result, it's very possible to agree with his general arguments despite dismissing some of his more extreme component statements.

Before diving into his arguments, it's important to understand the layout of this book, as the title can be a bit misleading. This compilation includes 15 essays written between 1899 and 1954 and a lengthy (25% of the entire work) appendix written by Dr. Paul Edwards on the topic of the 1940 "Bertrand Russell Case." Despite the primary title (taken from one relatively short essay), the work includes topics beyond religion such as the cruelty of the Middle Ages, the heroism of Thomas Paine and grave threat to liberal democracy entailed in declining academic freedom. That said, Russell's views on morality and religion are infused throughout the essays and provide some degree of coherence.

Russell's arguments against Christianity generally fall into the following categories: 1) there is no compelling evidence for a Creator (i.e. deism) and much less evidence to believe in theism, 2) the teachings of Jesus, while generally admirable, include many pernicious tenets, 3) Christians have routinely ignored the admirable tenets of Jesus, and 4) the net impact of Christianity has been decidedly negative for mankind.

Regarding the first, Russell is on much firmer ground in his criticisms of theism than of deism. He convincingly deals with the First Cause, Natural Law and Morality arguments for a Creator.... He is less convincing in his rebuttal of the Design argument, as he does not address its modern crux, which is that the odds of the initial conditions being such as to result in the successful evolution of Homo Sapiens are extremely remote, thereby increasing the odds of a Creator's involvement.

Regarding the second, Russell concedes a "very high degree of moral goodness" to Jesus and points in particular to his pacifism, his social consciousness and compassion for the poor & oppressed and his admonition to avoid judging others. However, he finds Jesus' wisdom to be deficient in his clear belief that the second coming would occur during the lifetime of many of his followers. More importantly, he finds his morality to be deficient in his belief in hell and his "vindictive fury" against those who did not believe his preaching. While Russell makes valid points here, he leaves the realm of reason when he say that the eternal damnation teaching "is a doctrine that put cruelty into the world and gave the world generations of cruel torture." Clearly, cruelty and sadistic torture existed well before Christianity and continues to occur among those who do not believe in Christianity.

Regarding the third, Russell, a noted pacifist who was jailed by Great Britain for refusing to serve in World War I, scornfully notes that Christians have consistently ignored Jesus' "turn the other cheek" pacifism through constant aggression and war, his "give away all your possessions to the poor" teachings through a focus on individual wealth accumulation and his urge to "judge not lest yet be judged" through an extensive criminal justice and incarceration culture. As a blanket generalization across time and groups, Russell is clearly right in these criticisms. The history of poor conduct by the Church and its believers is a long and well-known one. However, Russell seems to take his point too far when he appears to use this criticism as a component in his rationale for skepticism. The failure of Christian believers to adequately follow the teachings of Jesus is not a sufficient condition to dismiss the veracity of the core beliefs of Christianity.

Regarding the fourth, Russell sums up his collective criticism by concluding that religion "is a disease born of fear" and "a source of untold misery to the human race." Among other things, he points to the doctrine of sin and hell as a justification for intolerance, hatred and sadism, the supposed eternal truth of revealed religion as a fierce opponent to learning and intellectual progress, the sexual ethics around abstinence, pre-marital sex and birth control as responsible for our warped view of the human body and sexuality and the emphasis on the individual soul as justification for self-centered, anti-social behavior. Again, his arguments are well crafted, although his case for the latter appears to be weakest, as it is clear that many Christians have viewed good works and charity in general to be central to their faith.

Russell's prose is crisp and clear and allows the reader to easily follow his logic and arguments. His qualifications as a logician are well known and his arguments are frequently unassailable. He is courageous in espousing unpopular views and relentless in exposing superstition and folly. While there is much in this book that does not stand up to clearheaded analysis, it is highly recommended for anyone grappling with building the foundations of a personal belief system. I give it 4 stars. Read more ›

197 of 224 people found the following review helpful

5.0 out of 5 stars Honest February 10, 2001

By A Customer

Format:Paperback

This author's honesty recommends him highly. I found the same questions being brought to light by the book An Encounter with A Prophet however An Encounter with A Prophet answered the questions.

44 of 49 people found the following review helpful

5.0 out of 5 stars If you're reading this review -- Buy this book February 22, 2004

By "efoff"

Format:Paperback

Unbelievable. That is the only word for the negative reviews....If you don't want anything other than a good laugh, sort these reviews with the most negative first. Who do these people think they are, calling Bertrand Russell a "fool" and a "hack"? And do those reviewers who cite to Acts of the Apostles and Paul's letter to Romans, the Epistles to Timothy et al, do they really think that is "evidence" to refute Mr. Russell's positions?

Many years ago, during my first year in college, my humanities teaching assistant explained to our little section that there are basically two writing styles: Kant and Russell. Russell worked hard to write clearly, and consequently, readers of his works are able to chart the inconsistentcies and changes in his philosophy over time. Kant's style, on the other hand, was to write in such a manner that no one in their right mind could be certain what Kant was trying to say. As a result, everyone today still believes Kant to be brilliant. Our section was to strive to be Russell, and not Kant (The sucess of our striving was largely mixed and debatable, but that is beside the point).

Russell is a good writer--and this book adresses the subject. For me (and I am speaking only for myself here--I'm not calling anyone a fool or a pervert or trying to create a strawman. If you think I am, my e-mail address is available, so please write me--if you care. I'll edit this review), this book addresses Blaise Pacal's rationale for "faith:" If you believe in the christian god, and there is no god--you really have not lost anything. But if you do not believe in the christian god (or whatever system of beliefs is at issue), and it turns out to be "true"--why, you've lost a whole big bunch, swimming around in that lake of fire........I did have a brief discussion along these lines once with a family member. I suggested that such a "belief" sounded more like "hedging your bets" than "faith." A good deal of shouting by the family member followed my suggestion, and that was the end of the discussion.

What is a "belief"? Kierkegaard talks about the "leap of faith:" Your reason will only take you so far, and then you must accept that "belief" is contrary to "reason." If your "belief" was supported by reason, then no "faith" or "belief" would be necessary. Russell eloquently points out the harm of both simple-minded beliefs, and "beliefs" that are really disguised superstition and fear.

I enjoyed this book, and found it very helpful. I bought copies for my atheist friends--but I wouldn't bother buying the book for my christian friends (and certainly not christian family members). If you're interested in exploring these issues, buy the book. Or, if you're looking for an excuse to get angry, indignant, feel self-righteous--and have too much money in your pocket--then go ahead and buy the book. Otherwise, there are other ways to better spend your time and money............ Read more ›

27 of 30 people found the following review helpful

5.0 out of 5 stars Great title, fine collection of essays, not a manifesto October 18, 2000

By Laon

Format:Paperback

Like some of the other contributors I have a fondness for this book which arises, I suspect, almost as much from the forthrightness of its title as from its contents.

The less positive reviews of this book mainly come from two directions. The first is that some people have been disappointed to find that the book is not a comprehensive case against Christianity, and includes "irrelevant" material. That's because the book is not a manifesto: it's simply a collection of essays on different topics, not all of them about Christianity. "Why I am not a Christian" is the title essay, not the theme of a connected book. In the same way the essay "In Praise of Idleness" is the title essay of Russell's book "In Praise of Idleness", but someone who expects every essay in that entertaining collection to be about idleness will of course be disappointed.

Some of the other, stronger, comments appear to be manifestations of the odium theologicae, and unintentionally justify Russell's scepticism concerning the notion that monotheistic belief leads to tolerance, kindness, or even peace of mind.

In the title essay Russell outlines his ethical case for rejecting religion. That is, the idea of YHWH or Jehovah or "God" struck Russell as essentially a personification of all that is worst in humanity: cruel, intolerant, vengeful, violent, aggressive, an enthusiastic proponent of the slaughter of people who happen to live in other tribes or believe in a different version of YHWH, and certainly no friend of good things like intelligence, independence or beauty (or animals). Many decent Christians share Russell's ethical revulsion for the wars and persecutions brought about by Christianity and the other monotheistic religions, which continue to the present day.... But where they set them aside as simply a human perversion of Christianity, Russell sees them as a logical consequence of a belief system that says that the most important thing for human beings is to be acceptable to the Christian god, and that the Christian god finds many human beings unacceptable, especially those with a different god, or no god, or "incorrect" beliefs about the Christian god.

And that ethical finding, of revulsion for intolerant monotheism, its deity and its effects, leads naturally to the question of why YHWH and similar supernatural persons or ideas should be worshipped. And once the question is asked, the arguments advanced for that being's existence, let alone its merit, turn out to be shonky stuff indeed. Russell covers and demolishes those arguments with admirable lucidity. Here I'll indulge myself by noting an attempt in one review to paper over the contradiction Russell points out in the first cause argument (Russell was not the first to point it out, of course) by saying that a first cause doesn't need a cause because of course it is in a different category from all the other causes. The flourish with which this "category" was introduced as if it stopped a chain of logic would have amused Russell, I think, as much as the invective directed against him in some of the other reviews. While the Aristotelian who cited Hawking in refutation of Russell's atheism, on the other hand, needs to read more carefully: Hawking's is a non-theist account of the Big Bang, which explicitly requires no Beginner.

Some of the reviews note that Russell's piece is "dated". They may mean that some of the terms in which the arguments are expressed have evolved, which is true: but I would suggest that the arguments themselves have not changed much, and to the extent that Russell's language is clearer than some recent philosophical writing, it is better. They may also have meant that Russell is dated because he rejected the German metaphysics and French linguistic play that was influential in the mid and late twentieth century and fashionable until the last couple of ticks of the cultural clock. But Russell's commitment to expressing philosophical ideas and arguments in the clearest possible language, which is linked to his positivism, is looking relatively shiny right now, while the Continental irrationalists and obfuscators (Derrida, Heidegger et al) are fading with astonishing speed. I wouldn't predict a revival in Russell's most important philosophical work, which he left unfinished, but I think his pursuit of clarity will remain admired.

Some of the other essays could more reasonably be called dated. For example one reviewer declares himself outraged by Russell's views on sex, citing the sentence, "Prolonged virginity is harmful to women." Though a campaigner for women's rights, and progressive for his time, Russell was not immune to the sexism of the culture he lived in. Still, if Russell had said, "Prolonged virginity is harmful to anyone" the sentiment would still be controversial, and would hopefully still outrage that reviewer, but it would not then be dated. But there are very few writers before, say, 1980, who make regular and consistent use of non-sexist language, and in that Russell was not much ahead of his time. But even now British philosophical and scientific writers routinely use sexist language ("men" meaning "people" and so on), unlike their US or Australasian counterparts, and they have considerably less excuse than Russell.

An aspect of the book that most reviewers have overlooked is its courage, in the title essay and deciding to name the book after that essay. Russell experienced discrimination and vilification for his atheism, and atheists are still subject to various kinds of discrimination (including in employment) and vilification in most Christian countries today, while in much of the Muslim world atheists face imprisonment, torture or death. Many young atheists are led to believe, by their schools, the media and often their parents, other family and friends, that they are the only person around who questions their culture's prevailing religion. And Russell's book, so long as theocrats in Iran, the United States and elsewhere permit its presence in libraries and bookshelves, is for many people one of the first indications that they are not alone.

So I'm giving it five stars for its clarity, its courage, its historical role as a bringer of comfort and cheer to isolated young atheists, and for its entertaining writing. But before buying, people should know what to expect: this is a collection of essays, mostly written to earn a living by being entertaining and enlightening, and not a philosophical manifesto.

Cheers!

Laon Read more ›