Abstract
This paper will serves as a means of providing a summary of Bertrand Russell’s “Why I am not a Christian.” It will look at the overall conclusion that he comes to with his essay as well as providing information on how he supports that conclusion.
Keywords: Bertrand Russell, “Why I am not a Christian,” conclusion
“Why I am not a Christian” by Bertrand Russell
In “Why I am not a Christian,” Bertrand Russell first takes a look at some of the different reasons behind the Catholic Church’s dogma that God may be proved by unaided reason, once he has discussed these primary reasons, which are by no means all of the reasons provided by the Catholic Church, he goes back to refute the reasons themselves, stating why he believes they are invalid.
The first reason is what is known as the First Cause Argument, maintaining that everything seen in the world has a cause, and each may be traced backwards, farther and farther back, until the first cause is found, and that cause, as stated by the Catholic Church, is God (Russell, p. 56). Russell states that there is no true validity to this argument, when it is looked at with clear and rational thought; he believes that this argument, the idea that the world had a clear and definable beginning, and that beginning was God, is a fault of poor imagination, or limited imagination and nothing more.
Use your promo and get a custom paper on
"“Why I am Not a Christian” by Bertrand Russell".
The next argument of the Catholic Church that Russell looks at is the Natural Law Argument, a belief that things work the way they do because God has designed them that way, but again, Russell refutes this point, discussing how the movement of the planets is not God’s design, but rather merely the product of gravitational forces at work. Russell believes that this argument is full of holes, some of which have been explained by science, while others are explained through the basic concept detailing the fact that if there were a God behind natural law, it would be a very whimsical one, one who picks and chooses what to play with at random, as opposed to a law in and of itself (Russell, p. 57).
The third argument that Russell addresses is the Argument from Design, taking a look at the concept that states that everything in the world is made so that we may live in the world, and if it was different, even in the slightest way, it would not be habitable (Russell, p.58), so therefore there must be the hand of a God at work. Russell refutes this one just as quickly as he did the other two, by bringing up the basic concept and idea of evolution, and natural selection. There is no design plan behind it, but the strong and the adaptable outlasting the weak, and that given the state of things currently, life will eventually die out.
The fourth argument is the Moral Arguments for Diety, which take a look into the questions of morality, and by the very existence of morality, it proves the existence of a god, because without it, there would be no right and no wrong, there would only be people who existed, no better than animals (Russell, p. 58). Russell brings up the point, much the same as Shakespeare did in Hamlet, that there is no good or bad, but thinking makes it so.
The final argument that Russell chooses to touch on is the Argument for the Remedying of Injustice, which indicates that without God there would be no justice in the world (Russell, p. 59), and any examples of justice or injustice are there because of a deity sitting on high, shaking his finger down and saying no, you did bad, you’re going in time out now. While Russell states that he understands a need for that type of security, that there will be no ill that goes unpunished, he does not believe that a desire for something to be so is enough to make it so.
Each argument for the existence of God is summarily brought up, explained, and rejected as invalid, simply by the quick application of logic, and it is for these reasons that Russell is unable to follow the Catholic dogma, for it simply just does not add up.
- Russell, B. 1927. Why I am not a christain. P. 56-59 Print.
