This is primarily for
@cjab, though of course anyone can participate. I will start by summarizing the main points Russell raises in his well-known short essay
Why I am not a Christian. The full text can be read
here or
here. It should be noted that this was originally delivered as a speech to a general audience, and is accordingly often humorous in tone and not as philosophically rigorous or technical as a written article might be.
What is a Christian?
Russell begins by defining terms, and concludes that three things are
minimally necessary for qualifying as a Christian: Belief in God and immortality, and that Jesus was at least the best and wisest of all men. These therefore will be the targets of his criticism..
Seems like he's stretching here.
The Existence of God
While acknowledging that the list is not complete, Russell considers 5 classical arguments for God.
Classical....
Meaning dated, no longer carrying the weight they did/could have in earlier, more naive times.
The first is The First Cause Argument which he argues cannot have any validity on account of begging the question of what caused God. He says "There is no reason why the world could not have come into being without a cause; nor, on the other hand, is there any reason why it should not have always existed. There is no reason to suppose that the world had a beginning at all."
Keeping in mind that he's been dead for almost 42 years now.... and the views of the cosmos are a lot more advanced now, but still quite limited, I don't see this carrying much value anymore.
Especially since the James Webb Space Telescope is due to be launched in two months. And then another month later, it'll reach it's new home.
He next considers The Natural Law Argument, which is the idea that God is revealed by the regularity of nature. Russell notes that the simple laws of Newton have been replaced by the less intuitive theories of Einstein and the statistical averages of QM, less suggestive of design vs chance, and then explains the difference between prescriptive human laws and descriptive natural laws, where only the former imply a law-giver. He also points out that God's choice of laws would be either arbitrary or subject to laws independent of God.
The existence of law is evidence that laws have a cause.
What makes murder, murder?
Why is adultery, adultery?
Why is theft, theft?
What defines them as being wrong?
Why aren't they right?
The third argument considered is The Argument from Design, and Russell argues that evolution has largely undercut this by showing how organisms have adapted to fit their environment rather than having the environment tailored to fit them. He also observes that this world is far from the perfection unlimited omniscient design could be expected to produce, especially given that the solar system and the universe itself will eventually tend towards conditions making life impossible.
This just tells me that as long as you have an imagination, you can imagine whatever causes you want.
Why not farting fairies, and magical leprechauns as the cause?
Fourth is the category of Moral Arguments for Deity, which Russell attributes primarily to Kant and rebuts with Euthyphro's Dilemma, arguing that either God's moral dictates are arbitrary meaning God cannot be non-trivially 'good', or God is himself subject to morality and therefore not the source of it.
Fits the description given by Paul in Romans 1.
They change the incorruptible God with the corruptible ideas of men.
The final considered argument is what he calls The Argument for the Remedying of Injustice, which is the idea that justice requires an afterlife where the injustices of our known world can be redressed. Russell rebuts this by saying it is as illogical as seeing rotten apples at the top of a crate and assuming there must be lots of good ones underneath to redress the balance.
He also observes that these arguments are rarely what actually motivates belief in God, which is more often due to childhood indoctrination and the desire for there to be someone powerful looking out for us.
I see a lot of his imposing his own ideas and beliefs on YHVH, instead of simply using what the bible says.
The Character of Christ
Russell points out that few Christians take Christ's maxims seriously, such as turning the other cheek, which predates Christ anyway; his injunction against judgement, which hardly any Christian follows; and his command to give away one's belongings to the poor. These points Russell commends as good, if hard to live up to, before moving on to those teachings from Christ which he cannot agree with.
The quantity or lack of quantity of people who actually follow Jesus isn't a very good way to judge the character of Jesus.
Especially when he said that very few people would follow him.
Especially when Jesus said that there are people who refuse to come to the light that their deeds may be shown that they are done in God.
Defects in Christ's Teaching
Russell observes that we cannot know that Christ as depicted in the Gospels ever really existed, but argues that if he did then he cannot be considered the best and wisest of all men.
Not by the ungodly.
The first reason given is that Christ appeared to believe, quite wrongly, that his second coming was imminent and would occur within the lifetimes of those he addressed.
A curious excuse.
Jesus was quite clear about the timing of his second coming.
In Matthew, he says that he doesn't know when his return will be, only the Father knows.
In Acts 1, he reiterates the point, stating-- it's not for us to know the timing of things kept in the Father's hands.
The Moral Problem
A more significant failing in Christ's teachings is his belief in hell (Matt 23:33, Matt 12:32, Matt 13:41-42), and Russell compares his indignation towards doubters unfavorably with the calmer attitude of Socrates. He says "I think all this doctrine, that hell fire is a punishment for sin, is a doctrine of cruelty" and one which has caused a lot of unnecessary suffering.
Oh... well then. I suppose if Socrates didn't like the idea of eternal judgment on sin, why would you?
I find that a pretty piss poor justification for having a moral problem with Jesus.
As well as a really bad comprehension of why Jesus came, and what he achieved for people.
Let's see if I can summarize what I'm seeing about Russell's view here.
Jesus said that unless we turn to YHVH from our sin and place our trust in Jesus we will go to hell when we die. Gee... I don't like this idea. Hell sucks, no matter whose description given is used. So, I'd rather go to hell so I don't have to deal with the cause of my going to hell. In spite of the fact that Jesus said he's authorized to save us from hell, and make me an adopted child of God, and will spend eternity in paradise with him.
Naw! That'd make too much sense, so hell it is!
