Why I Am Not A Chistian

[burntgorilla]

I came across Bertrand Russell's essay/speech on the internet, and thought some here might appreciate it:

Why I Am Not A Christian (http://users.drew.edu/~jlenz/whynot.html)

I disagree with some things - I was under the impression that most people thought Jesus did exist - but I liked the way he dissected the argument that without God there would be no way of telling good from bad.

...Kant, as I say, invented a new moral argument for the existence of God, and that in varying forms was extremely popular during the nineteenth century. It has all sorts of forms. One form is to say there would be no right or wrong unless God existed. I am not for the moment concerned with whether there is a difference between right and wrong, or whether there is not: that is another question. The point I am concerned with is that, if you are quite sure there is a difference between right and wrong, then you are in this situation: Is that difference due to God's fiat or is it not? If it is due to God's fiat, then for God himself there is no difference between right and wrong, and it is no longer a significant statement to say that God is good. If you are going to say, as theologians do, that God is good, you must then say that right and wrong have some meaning which is independent of God's fiat, because God's fiats are good and not bad independently of the mere fact that he made them. If you are going to say that, you will then have to say that it is not only through God that right and wrong came into being, but that they are in their essence logically anterior to God. You could, of course, if you liked, say that there was a superior deity who gave orders to the God that made this world, or could take up the line that some of the gnostics took up -- a line which I often thought was a very plausible one -- that as a matter of fact this world that we know was made by the devil at a moment when God was not looking. There is a good deal to be said for that, and I am not concerned to refute it.
...

Russell is one of my favourite writers, I like the way that he is prepared to accept some arguments. For example, for a long time he accepted the argument of First Cause, until he later discovered a fault in it. That, in my view, is much more laudable than denying the argument even if he cannot find a fault.

[Turenne]

I have to admit to finding that book rather tedious, presumbly because much of what he argues seems like common sense nowadays and because I find someone like Hitchins, and even Dawkins, far more entertaining and charismatic writers.

[Groucho]

Even Hitchins and Dawkins got a bit boring from time to time. I found myself skimming both books.

[mataj]

I don't need pathetic excuses for not being a Christian.

[Turenne]

Even Hitchins and Dawkins got a bit boring from time to time. I found myself skimming both books.

No doubt about it.Both essentially regurgitate the very same arguments, but Hitchins does so with an undoubted lyrical flourish which is difficult not to admire. Basically he is an exceptional writer unlike Hitchins or Russell.

[Izdaari]

Russell was a smart guy, but no surprise, I can't agree with him on this one. Ayn Rand and Robert Heinlein were also atheists, and though both of them were much closer to my thinking in general, I didn't agree with them on that either.

[bowerbird]

Russell was a smart guy, but no surprise, I can't agree with him on this one. Ayn Rand and Robert Heinlein were also atheists, and though both of them were much closer to my thinking in general, I didn't agree with them on that either.

I agree that Heinlein's writings come across as athiestic but his actual beliefs he kept very private.

Glad to meet another Heinlein fan anyway;)

[Atticus]

I agree that Heinlein's writings come across as athiestic but his actual beliefs he kept very private.

Glad to meet another Heinlein fan anyway;)When I was 15, Lazarus Long was my hero. (I still think he's pretty cool.)

"Budget luxuries first." :)

[cpwill]

hmmm, firstly, i think that the better title for this thread would be "My Latest Justification For Not Being A Christian". i have found that typically people who write these bits are looking for reasons rather than explaining their actual belief system that effects them. the quickest way to tell is to punch a hole in the argument and see if that causes them to reconsider their key beliefs. if not, then that argument was not the source of their beliefs in the first place.

as for this argument, the answer is simple; the author is thinking backwards. right and wrong can easily be described as "closest to the Godly action"; that the actions beliefs and motivations of humanity are a warped reflection. we are not looking necessarily to a list of random laws God laid down, but to what God IS and how he has made US to be. hm, so i suppose you could say it is a bit of both in that regard and how they interplay we are unlikely to ever know.

and heinlein was brilliant. if i ever had to organize a government from scratch i would use his "starship troopers" model.

[burntgorilla]

So if it was "Godly" to murder, we would see murder as moral? Or rape, or incest, or whatever was "Godly"?

I also really hope you never get to make a government...

[Ethos]

and heinlein was brilliant. if i ever had to organize a government from scratch i would use his "starship troopers" model.

I suspect you lost the point of the political implications held in the book. That, or you are genuinely kidding, which is a better alternative.

Ethos

[Sgt Schultz]

I suspect you lost the point of the political implications held in the book. That, or you are genuinely kidding, which is a better alternative.

Ethos

A lot of people don't.

[lawman]

I came across Bertrand Russell's essay/speech on the internet, and thought some here might appreciate it:

I disagree with some things - I was under the impression that most people thought Jesus did exist - but I liked the way he dissected the argument that without God there would be no way of telling good from bad.
I'm a fan of Russell and of the book, but this argument is hardly original to him. In fact, it easily predates Christianity; it can be found in Plato, discussing "the gods." Russell does quite a good job of restating it, though.

[burntgorilla]

Meh, I never liked Plato. Russell writes it simply for plebs like me.

[serenity]

I have to admit to finding that book rather tedious, presumbly because much of what he argues seems like common sense nowadays and because I find someone like Hitchins, and even Dawkins, far more entertaining and charismatic writers.


Hitchens is perhaps a better writer than Russell, I'll buy that. But he's not one tenth the intellect.

[Dutch]

hmmm, firstly, i think that the better title for this thread would be "My Latest Justification For Not Being A Christian". i have found that typically people who write these bits are looking for reasons rather than explaining their actual belief system that effects them. the quickest way to tell is to punch a hole in the argument and see if that causes them to reconsider their key beliefs. if not, then that argument was not the source of their beliefs in the first place.

as for this argument, the answer is simple; the author is thinking backwards. right and wrong can easily be described as "closest to the Godly action"; that the actions beliefs and motivations of humanity are a warped reflection. we are not looking necessarily to a list of random laws God laid down, but to what God IS and how he has made US to be. hm, so i suppose you could say it is a bit of both in that regard and how they interplay we are unlikely to ever know.

and heinlein was brilliant. if i ever had to organize a government from scratch i would use his "starship troopers" model.

I really liked that book. As a child I read all the heinlein I could. I consider myself an athiest if only because I don't believe in god. I could be accused of simplified thinking on this subject.

[cpwill]

So if it was "Godly" to murder, we would see murder as moral? Or rape, or incest, or whatever was "Godly"?

murder is never Godly; however, killing can be the morally correct action.

I also really hope you never get to make a government...

most people do (or should)

[Ethos]

murder is never Godly; however, killing can be the morally correct action.


This would obviously depend on which god you believed in. Apparently your god does not condone murder. The same cannot be said for everyone's god.

And of course using your reasoning, an individual whose faith allowed that "murder is godly" would see that killing as perfectly moral. There is no fundamental difference between your god and his, which is why the implications are so disturbing.

Ethos

[Groucho]

This would obviously depend on which god you believed in. Apparently your god does not condone murder. The same cannot be said for everyone's god.

And of course using your reasoning, an individual whose faith allowed that "murder is godly" would see that killing as perfectly moral. There is no fundamental difference between your god and his, which is why the implications are so disturbing.

Ethos

Plus it depends on what part of the Bible you read. A commandment says not to murder but other parts say it is perfectly fine to do so if your child is disobedient or if someone does not observe the Sabbath.

[heel31ok]

Plus it depends on what part of the Bible you read. A commandment says not to murder but other parts say it is perfectly fine to do so if your child is disobedient or if someone does not observe the Sabbath.
those two examples are not murder so the point is missed.

[burntgorilla]

Murder is unlawful killing, is it not? Then you have the whole argument about "lawful" and whether "lawful" equates to "moral" or "righteous".

[Groucho]

those two examples are not murder so the point is missed.

Really? I must have missed the part of the Bible where a trial was held and these people were found guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Apparently, you think vigilante justice is not murder. Hope no one out there thinks that jaywalking is a capital crime and decide to pubnish you for it.

[cpwill]

This would obviously depend on which god you believed in. Apparently your god does not condone murder. The same cannot be said for everyone's god.

on the contrary; all religions condemn murder. what they differ on is what they consider to be a justifiable killing. (not murder)

[heel31ok]

Really? I must have missed the part of the Bible where a trial was held and these people were found guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Apparently, you think vigilante justice is not murder. Hope no one out there thinks that jaywalking is a capital crime and decide to pubnish you for it.
Yeah, looks like you did miss it. God being Judge has the authority to pronounce sentence and execute judgement.Vigilante does not have authority.Big difference, and authority is not dependendent on your consent or approval.
I think this is the rub.

[Demon of Light]

A commandment says not to murder but other parts say it is perfectly fine to do so if your child is disobedient or if someone does not observe the Sabbath.

However Jesus Christ, who you know, Christianity is named after, basically rebuked all Mosaic law. Jesus went with the whole, "an eye for an eye leaves the whole world blind" argument.

I think as the Bible defines right and wrong it isn't so much that right is godly and wrong is ungodly, but that right is godly and wrong is attempting to be godly or creating godliness by one's own devices. Both are trying to achieve a good end, but one does so using bad methods.

[heel31ok]

However Jesus Christ, who you know, Christianity is named after, basically rebuked all Mosaic law. Jesus went with the whole, "an eye for an eye leaves the whole world blind" argument.

I think as the Bible defines right and wrong it isn't so much that right is godly and wrong is ungodly, but that right is godly and wrong is attempting to be godly or creating godliness by one's own devices. Both are trying to achieve a good end, but one does so using bad methods.
He never rebuked the Law, ever. He rebuked the leaders who used the Law as a vehicle of personal power and control.He did not come to abolish the Law but to fulfill it. And he did fulfill each part of it. He taught their was nothing wrong with living a higher standard of the Law.He followed the whole Law.

[Demon of Light]

Actually he did rebuke the Law, particularly it's excessive punishment.

He said all that mattered was loving God and loving your neighbors, the whole idea being that everything else simply falls into place.

So a body of law is rather needless under those parameters.

[heel31ok]

Actually he did rebuke the Law, particularly it's excessive punishment.

He said all that mattered was loving God and loving your neighbors, the whole idea being that everything else simply falls into place.

So a body of law is rather needless under those parameters.Sorry, he rebuked people not the Law.The Law by definition cannot have excessive punishment. it was the people who applied the Law that were excessive.It was misuse of the Law not he Law itself.

[Demon of Light]

Sorry, he rebuked people not the Law.The Law by definition cannot have excessive punishment. it was the people who applied the Law that were excessive.It was misuse of the Law not he Law itself.

So the law that disobedient children be put to death was not excessive?

[halfamind]

I disagree with some things - I was under the impression that most people thought Jesus did exist - but I liked the way he dissected the argument that without God there would be no way of telling good from bad.



.

He may have dissected it on one level, but in this passage I don't think he really explained the mechanisms involved.

IMO, distinguishing between good and bad can be arrived at through intuitive processes whereby we determine the rightness of an action based upon our perception of how that action would affect us, personallly -- The old "golden rule" common to many religions. Now,obviously,we each process the world differently, but through the collective weight of countless people performing the same process, something of gestalt is created wheby the rightness or wrongness of an action is dependant upon this intuitive group consensus. Perhaps "consensus" is the wrong word, as it is really occuring on the conscious level, but where religion comes in is that it codifies this group morality into more concrete precepts. The designation of supreme entities as the originators of such precepts helps cement them into a culture, but is a product of social dynamics rather than the supernatural.

[heel31ok]

So the law that disobedient children be put to death was not excessive?
No it was not, excessive would be adding to a law not following the specifications of the Law.