Customer Reviews

RC Series Bundle: Why I am not a Christian: and Other Essays on Religion and Related Subjects (Routledge Classics)

5 star:		(80)
4 star:		(44)
3 star:		(16)
2 star:		(12)
1 star:		(19)

 

 

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.

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.

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.

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............

Bertrand Russell has written some of the most fun and intellectually accessible essays in philosophy. This book is a collection of such essays, most having to do with religion. As his thoughts on religion changed gradually over time, this book tends to focus on his middle and later essays and, unlike some other collections which take essays from all points in his career, is quite consistent.

One thing that deserves mentioning is that the title of this book may be a bit misleading. As with most of Russell's 'popular essay' collections, the book title is simply the title of the lead-off essay. In fact, for those looking for an intro to philosophical and logical argument against god, the essay "Why I'm not a Christian" is simply one of the best that has been produced. Otherwise, only about 5/8ths of the book is devoted to the subject or god and religion. There is also an essay on academic freedom, sexual ethics, and historical figures like Thomas Paine (though not focusing on Paine's atheism so much as his rationalism). There is also an end essay written ABOUT Russell and his experience being denied a professorship because of his contreversial social views.

And what a contreversial thinker he was. He was a man dedicated to 'the life of reason' somewhat in the enlightenment tradition, science, and a liberal ethic (both socially and politically). This book gives a good sampling of all of these stances and is quite a joy to read. As I started with, Russell writes clearly, enjoyably, and has a sharp wit and humor (as the satiric essay on 'nice people' clearly illustrates).

If one is looking for a book exclusively dealing with Russell's reliigious writings, this may not be the best book. Rather, there is a book by Routledge press called "Russell on Religion" that deals exclusively with Russll's religious essays. There is minimal overlap, though, between the two books.

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

Unequivocally one of the premier philosophers of the 20th Century, Russell eloquently outlines the case against Christian dogma. While some of the chapters that deal with contemporary ethics are somewhat out of date due to their having been written in the 1920s and 30s, the vast majority of the book is as compelling today as it was several decades ago. Indeed, I believe that his argument for the persecutory nature of Christians toward others with differing belief systems is as evident today as it was in centuries past. His review of the relevant historical events which shaped Christian beliefs (as well as clearly elucidating the shaky foundation in which these beliefs have been built) are a welcome reprieve from much of the literature in this area that is so prevalent in our society. Perhaps if Russell's book, or others like it, were required reading in our nation's schools we would witness a society of free thinkers. That is, citizens which applied reason and rational argument toward the acceptance of beliefs instead of relying purely on emotions. I wish to conclude this review by stating that Russell's book did more for my understanding of Christian beliefs than did 8 arduous years in a parochial school system.

I first read Russell's book as a young student, and it certainly put into intellectual context what I believed in my heart. I should add that I was not brought up to have religious beliefs, but neither was I taught to deride spiritual teachings. Bertrand Russell became a great hero of mine-- I joined the CND in England and followed his career until his death in 1970. Recently I reread this book and was impressed by its passion and lucidity, but I couldn't help feeling that some of Russell's arguments were weak (no room to go into details) and I found myself confirmed in my own position that faith or belief and philosophy are 2 different things. I see why Russell is not a Christian from the ethical point of view, but neither he nor anyone else (unfortunately) can make any headway against belief in God because belief is not subject to the laws of logic or empirical reason. "Credo quia impossibile," Tertullian said-- "I believe BECAUSE it's impossible." We can fight Christianity on sound ethical grounds, but not on logical ones. Russell can defeat the ontological argument, but where does that get us? When he lists the evils that religion has perpetrated he is on much solider ground. Fr. Copleston, by the way (the debate between them is often printed in editions of this book), is an able debater (as many Jesuits are), an intelligent and committed opponent, but his arguments are just as facile as Russell's. In the end, though, you can't beat Russell for lucidity and conviction, so I'd recommend this book to anyone in the process of rethinking Christianity.

Bertrand Russell is a terrific writer, and the essays collected in this book represent some of his best work. As the title makes clear, most of the book is dedicated to Russell's thoughts on religion, which are somewhat less than flattering. Be aware of what you're getting into, though. If you want a thorough treatment on the rationality of religious belief in a philosophical context, you're better off with something like George H. Smith's "Atheism: The Case Against God." Russell is more concerned with the social and moral effects of religion, which is certainly no less interesting, but it's a somewhat different topic.

The Amazon review of this book mentioned that some of the essays included herein are outdated, since they deal with contemporary social and ethical concerns of the early twentieth century. That may be true, but I still found them to be very interesting reading. Reading about the social character of an age through the eyes of someone like Russell, rather than in a book of history, seems to make that part of our past all the more real. It's interesting to see what the world was like at the time, and where Russell thought it was going. Sometimes there are surprises about what's gotten better and what's gotten worse.

In addition to Russell's essays, the book includes an appendix which details the manner in which Russell was prevented from teaching philosophy at New York City College, which is also interesting reading, if rather disturbing. The number and the zealotry of those calumniators to whom the idea of a prominent atheist teaching philosophy was such anathema were simply disgusting.

If you're interested in reading the freethinker's point of view, you could do little better than Russell. He is far more engaging than most philosophers, and all of these essays are thoughtful and well worth your time.

I admit that reading a book with the title "Why I am Not a Christian" on the bus while to my right a fellow traveler studied the New Testament made me feel quite ill at ease. The title seems to suggest that the author is an argumentative dissenter - and the reader by implication too, since he seems to enjoy this kind of literature.

Then, why read a collection of essays that are for the most part over 70 years old?

Firstly, for the clear style and the straightforward logic of Russell. He does not beat about the bush: "My own view on religion is that of Lucretius [a Roman philosopher of the first century BC, author of "On the Nature of the Universe"]. I regard it as a disease born of fear and as a source of untold misery to the human race."(24). This statement sums it up nicely for Bertrand Russell; and as expected, Russell's answer to the questions in the titles of the essays "Has Religion made useful Contributions to Civilization?" (1930), "Do we survive Death?" (1936), and "Can Religion Cure our Troubles?" (1954) is a resounding NO.

Secondly, as a warning how overly optimistic we tend to be when it comes to improving human beings by scientific means. Today, some people think that humans can be genetically "improved". In the 1930s, some people - including Russell - thought "that hatred and fear can, with our present psychological knowledge and our present industrial technique, be eliminated altogether from human life."(45) Well, three quarters of a century later we still live in a time of hatred and fear.

Thirdly, for the often unusual and surprising angle from which Russell looks at the seemingly familiar. Take the Renaissance and the French writer Michel de Montaigne (1533-1592), for example. The common view is that the Renaissance was the first major step on the way to the rationalism and individualism of the Enlightenment, and Montaigne is perceived as the model of the skeptical, questioning, self-reflective intellectual of that time. Russell, however, noticed that "moderns do not always realize to what extent the Renaissance was an anti-intellectual movement. In the Middle Ages it was the custom to prove things; the Renaissance invented the habit of [merely] observing them." (120) The most perfect example for this anti-intellectual type was "Montaigne, who allowed himself also an intellectual holiday in the shape of hostility to systems and deductions."(120)

Fourthly, because Russell is a worthy heir to the tradition of optimistic materialism going back to David Hume (1711-1776), and because, at his best, he displays the common sense and simple wisdom that does not wear off with the years: "To live a good life in the fullest sense a man must have a good education, friends, love, children (if he desires them), a sufficient income to keep him from want and grave anxiety, good health, and work which is not uninteresting. All these things, in varying degrees, depend upon the community and are helped or hindered by political events. The good life must be lived in a good society and is not fully possible otherwise."(75)

Interestingly, the man who wrote these words about the good life, was judicially declared "unfit" to teach philosophy at the College of the City of New York. A 50-page appendix to the book explains how this happened and provides an interesting case study how - already in 1940 - a vocal minority of ideological extremists in the United States used its influence to push its agenda.