Marvin Joshua Chan

INTFILO

Autodidactic Essay 2: Why I Am Not a Christian

Bertrand Russell in his lecture, “Why I am not a Christian” proposes arguments about

Christianity. Mainly competing the two reasons needed to be called a Christian, first is the belief in God

and immortality, second is the belief in Christ as holy or the wisest of men. Bertrand Russell sees that

Religion is based primarily on fear; that Christians believe in God because they need someone to

comfort them and stand by them in their troubles and disputes. And he wanted that we stand up and

look fair and square at the world, religion is a product of the past and we should use our intelligence and

conquer the world. He presents these arguments and answers the question why he is not a Christian.

It is said that everything has a cause and further there should be a first cause which you give the

name God, but Russell argues that God must also have a cause and even so there is no reason to

suppose that the world had a beginning at all. The idea that things should have a beginning is due to the

poverty of our imagination. But I think his argument is not strong enough to refute that the world could

have a beginning because it can also be said that the idea of an afterlife or existence of a higher being is

due to the poverty of our imagination.

There is a natural law argument in which everything in this world has a natural law that

everyone follows. Russell dispute that there is confusion between human law and natural law, natural

law is not created but it is merely a description of how things do in fact behave. He then said that if God

issues the laws then if there were a reason for the laws which God gave, then God himself was subject

to the law then God is not the ultimate lawgiver. But if natural laws are indeed made by men as a

description of how things behave and not made by God then it is not a threat to God’s existence, also if

the “God” which Russell describe as not the ultimate lawgiver then the ultimate lawgiver is which the

Christian call God.

The argument from design is saying that everything in the world is made just so that we can

manage to live in the world, and if the world was a little different, we could not manage to live in it.

Russell contradicts this argument using adaptation, that living creatures grew suitable to the world and

not that the world is made suitable to us. This suggests that there may be no creator because of our

ability to evolve, but I can say that the mere fact that living creatures is allowed to exist is an evident of

intelligent design. The conditions should be set by someone because just a slight change in the

conditions this world has, we can’t exist.

The argument for the remedying of injustice say that God is required to bring justice into this

world, that there is heaven and hell. Russell says that if there is injustice here the odds are that there is

injustice elsewhere also. His earlier argument refutes this; the idea that there is no place of perfect

justice is because of the poverty of the mind. The odds are there is also injustice anywhere but there is

also the possibility that there may be a place with perfect justice.

Russell explains that there is something wrong with the character of Christ, there are defects in

Christ’s teaching and there are moral problems in His words. Many of the teachings of Christ are taught

long before He became man, uttered by wise men like Lao-tse and Buddha and today even Christians

don’t live up to the word of God, it is very difficult to live up to and the society is turning away from it.

Russell also says that a person with proper degree of kindness would not put fears and terrors of the

sort in this world. He is pertaining to eternal punishment he has fury to those who don’t listen to Him. I

might agree to him that some teachings I do not consider wise but I also admit that I can’t understand

the Bible well; I am distracted by the thought that God is violent to some.

Russell thinks that the real reason why people accept religion is because on emotional grounds.

One is often told that it is very wrong thing to attack religion because religion makes men virtuous. The

idea that we should all be wicked if we don’t believe in religion but the people who hold on to the

religion was the ones that are wicked because they are the one who kills and opposes the moral

progress in the world. He also says that the church has a retarded progress and it inflicts people

undeserved and unnecessary sufferings. Pain in primarily based in fear, the terror of the unknown and

wanting to have a bigger brother who consoles and stand by you for your troubles and pains, this is also

the reason why cruelty and religion come hand in hand because fear is the basis of both. I completely

agree with him in this idea, I myself started being a Christian because my family is a Christian. I never did

oppose the religion or question it and if I did sometimes, I am disturbed by the idea that we cannot

question the faith. I also seek strength and refuge to Christianity but I believe that emotion is a big part

of the religion and it cannot be separated. But I still believe in God and religion because I think I am

feeling his presence in our society, I believe that Christianity cannot be proven or argued with logical

ideas alone because the idea of Christianity today is becoming subjective and different people have

different explanations about His existence, just like having connection with Him. People come to God

because of the belief in miracles and when it happens they start to believe in Him. I think Christianity

organizes the society and bring order to things, the church is the problem not he community of

Christians. Logical arguments alone couldn’t prove or disprove the existence of God.