Why I Am Not a Christian

Bertrand Russell may have been an important philosopher in the 20th century, but this work was a poor example. It seemed to me to not say very much--I refer to the piece "Why I Am Not a Christian"--and I think his refutation could have been thought out better. There are several pieces of writing that are included in item which are much better written, but again, I ran in parts that were not as well thought out as some the other parts of the same work. To state clearly and unequivocally, my take on "Why I Am Not A Christian" is that is not a very good piece of writing.

Warning – the Kindle version is not the book of essays, as advertised. The book is has 237 pages and is a collection of 15 essays. This Kindle version only has the first essay in the collection, "Why I Am Not a Christian", which is only 27 pages long. So more that 80% of the book is missing.

Completely biased without sound academic research. Neither speculations nor unfounded interpretations bring forth satisfactory results for this type of analysis. Coming from a "scientific" perspective, it is faulty.

Whatever Bertrand Russell writes is normally worth reading, whether or not you agree with it. Why I am not a Christian makes some good points. But I found it disappointing and I’m not sure Russell gets to the heart of Christianity.

I agree with Russell that the God in space idea is wrong. I suspect Russell is really criticising that idea although he doesn’t articulate it- and unfortunately it is an error taught by many churches and writers on religion.

Rather than disagreeing with what Christ really meant, he seems most critical of the corruption of his ideas by the church. Some of his arguments are weak: eg using the story of Jesus cursing the figtree as an example of the immorality of Jesus. But that’s not the point- he cursed it to show one had power over things; that thoughts are things- as evident in the startling passages that follow.

Russell likewise says Jesus thought of hell as a place sinners would go, and uses that as another example of his immorality. That exposes a very puerile understanding of Christ and his message. No, hell was not a place for sinners-anymore than heaven was a place for good doers. Christ said the kingdom of heaven is within; likewise hell is within- both are aspects of one’s own thoughts. Much better writers have said we live in a thought universe. I accept that, that is what JC really meant. That is what Troward so ably writes about.

I prefer The Edinburgh Lectures On Mental Science by Thomas Troward. A very different concept of God as a universal intelligence accessible to all, which always existed, and is within each person for the infinite cannot divide itself. By the way, it’s a work that William James said was the ablest work of philosophy he had read.

So, if something about Russell depresses you or doesn’t resonate with you, try reading Troward’s works (the Thomas Troward Collection is very inexpensive on Kindle). IMO they are much better thought out than Russell who seems to reject the Christian message largely by reason of its distortion by the Church and focussing on a few odd statements in the bible. I find Russell’s argument half baked and lacking in the deep understanding of Troward and other great thinkers. Plato said similar things to JC in his doctrine of archetypes.

Russell by contrast takes everything literally and blames Christ for the later absurdities of the church- that murdered him. It’s a bit like saying Vermeer was a Nazi sympathiser because Hitler adored his Art Of Painting. An absurd proposition. So I cannot recommend this book, as I think it’s weak and pessimistic and wrong.

Based on Russell's reputation as a brilliant philosopher, I expected to encounter some compelling arguments against Christianity. He simply failed to deliver.

One of Russell's main arguments against Christianity is that Christians aren't the superb people we say we are. Whether he's right or wrong, that doesn't address the truthfulness of Christianity. He blames Christianity for World War I because, after all, the three emperors were devout believers (were they?). But, how does this help me with the origin of the universe? He assails the church for its repressive teachings on sex. But, how does this refute the cosmological argument for the existence of God? It is cruel to preach hell and punishment, we are informed. But, does that not beg the question? It is only cruel to preach hell if hell doesn't exist. If hell does exist, it is actually kind to preach hell. The question is skipped.

I should note that Russell does directly attempt to rebut six arguments for the Christian faith (two of which I do not consider to be real arguments for Christianity). However, his efforts are hardly worth mentioning as they span a total of eight pages and are so anemic I was almost embarrassed for him (almost). What's more, in at least three of the six rebuttals, he badly misrepresents the Christian argument. For example, he nullifies the argument for a first cause thus, "If everything must have a cause, then God must have a cause." That works wonderfully if only someone were arguing that everything must have a cause. (Christian apologists maintain that everything which comes into existence must have a cause; God, being eternal, does not need a cause.) Russell botches it even worse when he insists, "There is no reason why the world could not have come into being without a cause." If you can't trust theologians and philosophers and your own experience that an effect needs a cause, ask a child.

The apostle Paul waves raw meat before atheists when he declares, "If Christ has not been raised, our preaching is useless and so is your faith" (1 Cor 15:14). But, the wolf turns up his nose. According to Paul, if it could be proved that Jesus did not rise from the dead, Christianity pops like a balloon. One would think the subject of the resurrection--essential as it is to the question of whether Christianity is true--might appear in a book written by a legendary atheist rock star and titled "Why I Am Not a Christian." Nope. Space simply didn't allow both for that and all the outright falsehoods. For example, Russell states that the Christian religion was responsible for "millions of unfortunate women burned as witches." (A few dozen, a few million- who's counting?) No less outrageous was this: "[E]very moral progress that there has been in the world has been consistently opposed by the organized churches of the world." He might as well deny the existence of church potlucks.

I will have to acknowledge that in the "Madam" chapter Russell may have offered irrefutable proof against Christianity. I wouldn't know since I didn't understand it any more than if it had been written in French. I also concede that Russell's chapter on Thomas Paine was highly entertaining. It was by far the most enjoyable chapter in the book and made me think Bertrand missed his calling as a biographer.

In summary, this is not a persuasive book. It is a rant against Christians and Christian morality and a rather sorry one at that.

Bertrand Russell was all of the above, and more. A true polymath, who lived the very full life, to the age of 97. I first read this work when I was a freshman in college, and felt it was long overdue for a re-read. It is a collection of 15 essays that mainly address religious and moral issues, which were written over more than half a century, from 1899 to the mid-1950's. Many of them were talks that he had given, back in those pre-TV days when people went to listen to speakers in person. Russell's preface for this work is dated 1957.

The first two essays, including the one that was used for the collection's title are rather scathing denunciations of organized religion in general, and Christianity in particular. Russell presents his arguments against those arguments that "prove" the existence of God. He rightly points out the contradictions involved in those who purport to be Christians, but do not follow the teachings of the Bible. Most famously, and certainly one you do not hear in the mega-churches of today, concerns the chances of a rich man getting into Heaven... that is, the equivalent of a camel passing through the eye of a needle. And, of course, there is no comma after the straightforward commandment: Thou Shall Not Kill. Russell selects a few more, for example: Mathew 16:28: "There are some standing here who will not taste death till the Son of Man will come into his Kingdom." Thus, the "second coming" was predicted for the near future, in Biblical terms. He does note the comfort some congregational members derived from noting that their Minister, who was also preaching about an eminent "second coming" later that day was planting trees.

The collection includes an excellent essay "The Fate of Thomas Paine." As Russell says: "He incurred the bitter hostility of three men not generally united: (William) Pitt, Robespierre, and (George) Washington." Further: "Paine's importance in history consists in the fact the he made the preaching of democracy democratic." Whereas Burke argued that the "Act of Settlement" following the Revolution of 1688 was good for all time, Paine took the much more common sense approach: "Paine contends that it is impossible to bind posterity, and that constitutions must be capable of revision from time to time." Paine was "connected" at the highest levels: Lafayette gave him the key to the Bastille, after it fell, to carry to George Washington, as thanks for the inspiration which, in part, was a catalyst for the French revolution. Yet his too-often common sense views inspired the enmity of the ruling authorities, and he would die, poor, and denied even a decent burial. A valuable essay that should be assigned reading in every school.

There is an essay entitled "Our Sexual Ethics," which largely anticipated the changes in our sexual morals over the last half century. This topic is covered in several other essays as well. Russell notes: "The greatest influence toward effecting monogamy is immobility in a region containing few inhabitants." And: "There is no other adult activity for which children are forbidden to prepare themselves by play, or in regard to which there is expected to be a sudden transition from absolute taboo to perfect competence." Another "common sense" advocacy, for the happiness of the partners involved, is that there should be a complete disassociation between money and sex. Like Aldous Huxley, he was predicting the ultimate demise of the family unit, with selected women chosen (and paid!) to bear children that would be raised by the state. Hum!
A judge ruled that Russell was not "suitable" for teaching at the College of City of New York, due, in part, to his "unsuitable" views. This is covered in an excellent appendix, as well as Russell's own response in an essay "Freedom and the Colleges."

I found a few of his essays pedantic, and his 1899 essay, on metaphysics, entitled: Seems madam, nay it is" sophomoric. As others have, he seems to turn atheism into its own religion, and therefore can be rather dogmatic. The only good that organized religions have accomplished? Predicting the eclipses in ancient Egypt. In "Our Sexual Ethics" he repeatedly addresses why men are jealous (if they must support the child, they want to know that it is theirs), but never considers why women can be jealous. And, concerning his legal battle to teach at the College of the City of New York, he says: "For example, I have observed with interest that, although I have criticized the Soviet Government severely ever since 1920...critics ignore all this and quote triumphantly the one or two sentences in which, in moments of hope, I have suggested the possibility of good ultimately coming out of Russia." Would I fall into that "critic" category by reminding him of the following sentence that I quoted in my review of his book, The Conquest of Happiness that he wrote in 1930? "The creation of an organization may be a work of supreme importance. So is the work of those few statesmen who have devoted their lives to producing order out of chaos, of whom Lenin is the supreme type in our day."

Russell was a very impressive man, whose social criticisms, even after a half century, I largely concur with. Still, at times, he was illogical, and did have his own "feet of clay." 4-stars for this collection of his essays.

Bertrand Russell was one of the landmark philosophers of the 20th century. In particular, he was very influential in the tradition of the Philosophy of Science. Unlike most Philosophers, Russell was also a mathematician, meaning he could go toe-to-toe with scientists with a knowledge of science unbecoming a "normal" philosopher. He was, to be sure, a great mind.

Naturally, as science held a great interest for Russell, he rejected the tenets of organized religion. These days, most scientists & philosophers have a tendency to drift towards atheism (if they're not there already) but this was less the case in the early 20th century. As such, Russell was a pioneer in this movement towards intellect and away from dogmatic religious faith.

This book can be called his apologetics for atheism. Here it is worth noting that the Greek word "apologia" (from which we get apology) mere means "statement." It could be inferred that it is a "defense" of Russell's beliefs (or lack thereof). It does NOT mean that Russell is sorry ~ for anything!! This is a well thought-out, logical monograph on why atheism is the logical destination for free-thinkers.

While Russell does gloss over rejections of the traditional "proofs" of God (1st cause, the Argument from Design, the argument for a divine arbitrator of morality), this is not the center-of-gravity of the book. Rather, what Russell spends the most time deciphering are the perils that ill gotten religious beliefs can have on the sanctity of original thought and diversity of opinions. Hence, people may be disappointed if they are expecting nothing but a book of logic-chopping insofar as polemics against the existence of a creator are concerned.

This book is actually much more relevant in this day & age than it was when it was published. In particular, Russell had prophetic warnings on the dangers of democracy. This extended passage is one which resonates in 2017:

There is perhaps a special danger in democratic abuses of power ~ namely, that being collective they are stimulated by mob hysteria. The man who has the art of arousing the witch-hunting instincts of the mob has a quite peculiar power for evil in a democracy where the habit of the exercise of power by the majority has produced that intoxication and impulse to tyranny which the exercise of authority almost invariably produces sooner or later. Against this danger the chief protection is a sound education designed to combat the tendency to irrational eruptions of collective hate. Such an education the bulk of university teachers desire to give, but their masters in the plutocracy and the hierarchy make it as difficult as possible for them to carry out this task effectively. For it is to the irrational passions of the mass that these men owe their power, and they know that they would fall if the power of rational thinking became common. Thus the interlocking power of stupidity below and love of power above paralyzes the efforts of rational men. Only through a greater measure of academic freedom than has yet been achieved in the public educational institutions of this country can this evil be averted. (pp186 & 187)

This succinctly describes the threat to democracies by demagogues such as Donald Trump who tap into the passions of the masses and prefer bullying to rational discourse. Intolerance for opposing thought is preferred to debate for Trump supporters. It is not by chance that the majority of college educated people did not vote for Trump; his becoming President shows the decay in our educational system as well as American disdain for logic. If the great Bertrand Russell were sitting right beside me as I typed these words, methinks he would be nodding his head!!

Of course, the repugnance for intellectual endeavors also serves an environment where religion tends to thrive and where Right Wing politicians like Trump are able to manipulate the religious beliefs of their followers. There is an old saying that goes something like this: "To the philosopher, all religions are equally false. To the layman, all religions are equally true. To the politician, all religions are equally USEFUL." Sadly, democracy has not been able to overcome this Achilles heel that it has. It is one reason why Nietzsche referred to democracy as "glorified nose-counting."

While atheists, agnostics and skeptics are apt to embrace this book, it will sadly be ignored and go un-read by the people who would gain the most from it: people who are open-minded Christians (which is usually a contradiction in terms to begin with!). Nevertheless, for people who are interested in defenses of atheism as well as the genuine dangers posed by organized religions, this book is a must!!

While the author proposes quality curiosities to the Christian faith, I must advise you: This book is nothing but strawman argument, after strawman argument, after strawman argument. He also attempts to appeal to your emotion, which, unfortunately, is another logical fallacy displayed in this text. I respect Bertrand as a man, but his theology and understanding of scripture IN CONTEXT is that of a teenager in middle-school. However, if you're interested in the ideas against the Christian faith from an philosophical, atheistic perspective, as I am (it's only reasonable to hear both sides), then this book has to be on your list.

Bertrand Arthur William Russell (1872-1970) was an influential British philosopher, logician, mathematician, and political activist. In 1950, he was awarded the Nobel Prize in Literature, in recognition of his many books such as A History of Western Philosophy,The Problems of Philosophy,Mysticism and Logic,Religion and Science,The Philosophy of Logical Atomism,The Analysis of Mind,Our Knowledge of the External World,Human Knowledge: Its Scope and Limits, etc.

He wrote in the Preface to this 1957 collection of essays, "There has been a rumor in recent years to the effect that I have become less opposed to religious orthodoxy than I formerly was. This rumor is totally without foundation. I think all the great religions of the world---Buddhism, Hinduism, Christianity, Islam, and Communism---both untrue and harmful... I am as firmly convinced that religions do harm as I am that they are untrue."

The title essay (given to the South London Branch of the National Secular Society in 1927, when Russell was 55) begins by defining what Russell considers a "Christian": "I do not mean by a Christian any person who tries to live decently according to his lights. I think that you must have a certain amount of definite belief before you have a right to call yourself a Christian... I think... that there are two different items which are quite essential to anybody calling himself a Christian. The first is... you must believe in God and immortality... Then... you must have some kind of belief about Christ... I think you must have at the very lowest the belief that Christ was, if not divine, at least the best and wisest of men. If you are not going to believe that much about Christ I do not think you have any right to call yourself a Christian." (Pg. 3-4) But he admits, "in the olden days it had a much more full-blooded sense. For instance, it included the belief in ... eternal hell-fire... but in this country... hell was no longer necessary to a Christian. Consequently I shall not insist that a Christian must believe in hell." (Pg. 5) So he concludes, "when I tell you why I am not a Christian I have to tell you ... why I do not believe in God and immortality; and ... why I do not think that Christ was the best and wisest of men, although I grant for him a very high degree of moral goodness." (Pg. 5)

He quickly rejects the traditional arguments for the existence of God. Then he discusses "The Character of Christ": "I now want to say a few words ... [about] whether Christ was the best and wisest of men. It is generally taken for granted that we should all agree that that was so. I do not myself. I think that there are a good many points upon which I agree with Christ a great deal more than the professing Christians do. I do not know that I could go with him all the way, but I could go with Him much further than most professing Christians can. You will remember that He said, `Resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also.' That is not a new precept or a new principle. It was used by Lao-tse and Buddha some 500 or 600 years before Christ, but it is not a principle which as a matter of fact Christians accept... There is another point which I consider excellent... `Judge not lest ye be judged.' That principle I do not think you would find was popular in the law courts of Christian countries.... Then there is one other maxim of Christ which I think has a great deal in it, but I do not find that it is very popular among some of our Christian friends. He says, `... go and sell that which thou has, and give to the poor.' That is a very excellent maxim, but, as I say, it is not much practiced. All these ... are good maxims, although they are a little difficult to live up to. I do not profess to live up to them myself; but then, after all, it is not quite the same thing as for a Christian." (Pg. 14-15)

But his strongest points are made in the section, "Defects in Christ's Teaching": "I come to certain points in which I do not believe that one can grant either the superlative wisdom or the superlative goodness of Christ as depicted in the gospels; and here I may say that one is not concerned with the historical question. Historically it is quite doubtful whether Christ ever existed at all, and if He did we do not know anything about Him, so that I am not concerned with the historical question... I am concerned with Christ as he appears in the Gospels... and there one does find some things do not seem to be very wise. For one thing, he certainly thought that his second coming would occur in clouds of glory before the death of all the people who were living at that time... He says, for instance, `Ye shall not have gone over the cities of Israel till the Son of Man be come.' [Mt 10:23] Then He says, `There are some standing here which shall not taste death till the Son of Man comes into His kingdom' [Mt 16:28]; and there are a lot of places where it is quite clear that He believed that His second coming would happen during the lifetime of many then living... and it was the basis of a good deal of His moral teaching... He thought that the second coming was going to be very soon, and that all ordinary mundane affairs did not count..." (Pg. 15-16)

He continues, "There is one very serious defect to my mind in Christ's moral character, and that is that He believed in hell. I do not myself feel that any person who is really profoundly humane can believe in everlasting punishment. Christ certainly as depicted in the Gospels did believe in everlasting punishment, and one does find repeatedly a vindictive fury against those people who would not listen to His preaching... Christ says, `The Son of Man shall send forth His angels, and they shall gather out of His kingdom all things that offend, and them which do iniquity, and shall cast them into a furnace of fire; there shall be wailing and gnashing of teeth'; and He goes on about the wailing and gnashing of teeth... it is quite manifest to the reader that there is a certain pleasure in contemplating wailing and gnashing of teeth, or else it would not occur so often... I think all this doctrine, that hell-fire is a punishment for sin, is a doctrine of cruelty..." (Pg. 17-18) He concludes, "I cannot myself feel that either in the matter of wisdom of in ... virtue Christ stands quite as high as some other people known to history. I think I should put Buddha and Socrates above Him in those respects." (Pg. 19)

He concludes by asserting that "the church... is in its major part an opponent still of progress and of improvement... because it has chosen to label as morality a certain narrow set of rules of conduct which have nothing to do with human happiness... Religion is based, I think, primarily and mainly upon fear... I think our own hearts can teach us, no longer to look around for imaginary supports, no longer to invent allies in the sky, but rather to look to our own efforts here below to make this world a fit place to live in, instead of the sort of place that the churches in all these centuries have made it." (Pg. 21-22)

Also contained in this collection is his famous 1093 essay, "The Free Man's Worship," in which he wrote: "That man is the product of causes which had no prevision of the end they were achieving; that his origin, his growth, his hopes and fears, his loves and his beliefs, are but the accidental collocations of atoms; that no fire, no heroism, no intensity of thought or feeling, can preserve an individual life beyond the grave; that all the labours of the ages, all the devotion, all the inspiration, all the noonday brightness of human genius, are destined to extinction in the vast death of the solar system, and that the whole temple of Man's achievement must inevitably be buried beneath debris of a universe in ruins---all these things, if not quite beyond dispute, are yet so nearly certain that no philosophy which rejects them can hope to stand. Only within the scaffolding of these truths, only on the firm foundation of unyielding despair, can the soul's habitation henceforth be safely built." (Pg. 107) [But note that this essay was written when he was profoundly depressed; he said in his 1956 book, Portraits from Memory, that the essay was "a work of which I do not now think well."]

The original editions of this book contained his famous radio debate with Fr. Frederick Copleston; you can obtain this debate at various places online, or in the book, The Existence of God. Editor Paul Edwards also wrote for this collection a fascinating [if infuriating] account of Russell being declared in court "unfit" to teach philosophy at the College of the City of New York---and the cancellation of this appointment thrust Russell into serious financial difficulties, for a period.

Atheists, agnostics, skeptics, freethinkers, opponents of Christianity, and like-minded persons will likely find this book one of their "All-time, Desert Island" favorite books. But many religious and spiritually-minded persons (and perhaps even some Christians) may find it intellectually-stimulating reading.

Russell falls into the classic difficulty of all atheistic defenses: the argument of nonexistence. If you are looking for a sound argument against the existence of God, you will not find it here. However, Russell does set forth several convincing arguments against the typical "proofs" for God: the ontological argument, the first cause, the natural arguement, etc. Why I am not a Christian is a formidable critique of fundamentalist Christianity. However, because of its age and Russell's presuppositions about the supremacy of Reason, post-modern readers may find many of his arguments irrelevant and generalizing.

I enjoyed this book, and deeply respect this man and his legacy, but some things must be addressed here. To base ones entire belief system, or lack thereof, on this notion of certainty, is oxymoronic. He's definitively adopted a system of belief that cancels itself out within the very first round or argumentation. In Science, there are always things that have yet to be explained, or that simply cannot be, so to say that Science is the only tool we have for measuring what is and isn't out there and therefore a part of reality, is extremely unenlightened and small minded.....perhaps a bit deliberately obtuse as well?
He arrived at a place of certainty about God, by accepting the fact that Science could not explain or define Him-Gods existence-in a way that expained every aspect of GOD....that if the idea of God was uncertain or only partially defined, than he must make that Giant leap into certainty about that which he wasn't certain. His measure was certainty, but even his belief in science required some faith-things exist unseen all around us and only some have been explained, but they were still there and a part of our reality before we acknowledged them....see what I mean about science and faith?
He also came to this conclusion due to the existence of hell and the very idea of eternal damnation....how inhumane that would truly be, which didn't jive with the all loving nature of God-God, being love incarnate-we are presented with. Rather than using his brilliant, analytical mind to define, or determine who God most likely really is for himself(or what definition of God seemed most probable to him personally)which I believe we are all meant to do, he took the words of past scholars, priests & disciples at their word, as if they were speaking dirrectly for God using His own words, without considering the obvious flaws in that approach. These were ideas and beliefs of men from vastly differing times and perspectives, with who knows what agendas, & because of this fact, just like past philosophers, their words and instructions needed to be taken in context…even the Bible! His idea of God was very limited and boxed in, which for me seemed very sad. If he had studied the Bible the way he dissected and studied past philosophical works, he would've written a much different book than this one.
I have and most likely always will, view agnostics or athiests as people of faith.....it takes a leap of faith to define the unseen forces around us as any one thing-with any amount of certainty-even if that definition is that it's simply not there.period.full stop.

Bertrand Arthur William Russell (1872-1970) was an influential British philosopher, logician, mathematician, and political activist. In 1950, he was awarded the Nobel Prize in Literature, in recognition of his many books such as A History of Western Philosophy,The Problems of Philosophy,Mysticism and Logic,Religion and Science,The Philosophy of Logical Atomism,The Analysis of Mind,Our Knowledge of the External World,Human Knowledge: Its Scope and Limits, etc.

He wrote in the Preface to this 1957 collection of essays, "There has been a rumor in recent years to the effect that I have become less opposed to religious orthodoxy than I formerly was. This rumor is totally without foundation. I think all the great religions of the world---Buddhism, Hinduism, Christianity, Islam, and Communism---both untrue and harmful... I am as firmly convinced that religions do harm as I am that they are untrue."

The title essay (given to the South London Branch of the National Secular Society in 1927, when Russell was 55) begins by defining what Russell considers a "Christian": "I do not mean by a Christian any person who tries to live decently according to his lights. I think that you must have a certain amount of definite belief before you have a right to call yourself a Christian... I think... that there are two different items which are quite essential to anybody calling himself a Christian. The first is... you must believe in God and immortality... Then... you must have some kind of belief about Christ... I think you must have at the very lowest the belief that Christ was, if not divine, at least the best and wisest of men. If you are not going to believe that much about Christ I do not think you have any right to call yourself a Christian." (Pg. 3-4) But he admits, "in the olden days it had a much more full-blooded sense. For instance, it included the belief in ... eternal hell-fire... but in this country... hell was no longer necessary to a Christian. Consequently I shall not insist that a Christian must believe in hell." (Pg. 5) So he concludes, "when I tell you why I am not a Christian I have to tell you ... why I do not believe in God and immortality; and ... why I do not think that Christ was the best and wisest of men, although I grant for him a very high degree of moral goodness." (Pg. 5)

He quickly rejects the traditional arguments for the existence of God. Then he discusses "The Character of Christ": "I now want to say a few words ... [about] whether Christ was the best and wisest of men. It is generally taken for granted that we should all agree that that was so. I do not myself. I think that there are a good many points upon which I agree with Christ a great deal more than the professing Christians do. I do not know that I could go with him all the way, but I could go with Him much further than most professing Christians can. You will remember that He said, `Resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also.' That is not a new precept or a new principle. It was used by Lao-tse and Buddha some 500 or 600 years before Christ, but it is not a principle which as a matter of fact Christians accept... There is another point which I consider excellent... `Judge not lest ye be judged.' That principle I do not think you would find was popular in the law courts of Christian countries.... Then there is one other maxim of Christ which I think has a great deal in it, but I do not find that it is very popular among some of our Christian friends. He says, `... go and sell that which thou has, and give to the poor.' That is a very excellent maxim, but, as I say, it is not much practiced. All these ... are good maxims, although they are a little difficult to live up to. I do not profess to live up to them myself; but then, after all, it is not quite the same thing as for a Christian." (Pg. 14-15)

But his strongest points are made in the section, "Defects in Christ's Teaching": "I come to certain points in which I do not believe that one can grant either the superlative wisdom or the superlative goodness of Christ as depicted in the gospels; and here I may say that one is not concerned with the historical question. Historically it is quite doubtful whether Christ ever existed at all, and if He did we do not know anything about Him, so that I am not concerned with the historical question... I am concerned with Christ as he appears in the Gospels... and there one does find some things do not seem to be very wise. For one thing, he certainly thought that his second coming would occur in clouds of glory before the death of all the people who were living at that time... He says, for instance, `Ye shall not have gone over the cities of Israel till the Son of Man be come.' [Mt 10:23] Then He says, `There are some standing here which shall not taste death till the Son of Man comes into His kingdom' [Mt 16:28]; and there are a lot of places where it is quite clear that He believed that His second coming would happen during the lifetime of many then living... and it was the basis of a good deal of His moral teaching... He thought that the second coming was going to be very soon, and that all ordinary mundane affairs did not count..." (Pg. 15-16)

He continues, "There is one very serious defect to my mind in Christ's moral character, and that is that He believed in hell. I do not myself feel that any person who is really profoundly humane can believe in everlasting punishment. Christ certainly as depicted in the Gospels did believe in everlasting punishment, and one does find repeatedly a vindictive fury against those people who would not listen to His preaching... Christ says, `The Son of Man shall send forth His angels, and they shall gather out of His kingdom all things that offend, and them which do iniquity, and shall cast them into a furnace of fire; there shall be wailing and gnashing of teeth'; and He goes on about the wailing and gnashing of teeth... it is quite manifest to the reader that there is a certain pleasure in contemplating wailing and gnashing of teeth, or else it would not occur so often... I think all this doctrine, that hell-fire is a punishment for sin, is a doctrine of cruelty..." (Pg. 17-18) He concludes, "I cannot myself feel that either in the matter of wisdom of in ... virtue Christ stands quite as high as some other people known to history. I think I should put Buddha and Socrates above Him in those respects." (Pg. 19)

He concludes by asserting that "the church... is in its major part an opponent still of progress and of improvement... because it has chosen to label as morality a certain narrow set of rules of conduct which have nothing to do with human happiness... Religion is based, I think, primarily and mainly upon fear... I think our own hearts can teach us, no longer to look around for imaginary supports, no longer to invent allies in the sky, but rather to look to our own efforts here below to make this world a fit place to live in, instead of the sort of place that the churches in all these centuries have made it." (Pg. 21-22)

Also contained in this collection is his famous 1093 essay, "The Free Man's Worship," in which he wrote: "That man is the product of causes which had no prevision of the end they were achieving; that his origin, his growth, his hopes and fears, his loves and his beliefs, are but the accidental collocations of atoms; that no fire, no heroism, no intensity of thought or feeling, can preserve an individual life beyond the grave; that all the labours of the ages, all the devotion, all the inspiration, all the noonday brightness of human genius, are destined to extinction in the vast death of the solar system, and that the whole temple of Man's achievement must inevitably be buried beneath debris of a universe in ruins---all these things, if not quite beyond dispute, are yet so nearly certain that no philosophy which rejects them can hope to stand. Only within the scaffolding of these truths, only on the firm foundation of unyielding despair, can the soul's habitation henceforth be safely built." (Pg. 107) [But note that this essay was written when he was profoundly depressed; he said in his 1956 book, Portraits from Memory, that the essay was "a work of which I do not now think well."]

The original editions of this book contained his famous radio debate with Fr. Frederick Copleston; you can obtain this debate at various places online, or in the book, The Existence of God. Editor Paul Edwards also wrote for this collection a fascinating [if infuriating] account of Russell being declared in court "unfit" to teach philosophy at the College of the City of New York---and the cancellation of this appointment thrust Russell into serious financial difficulties, for a period.

Atheists, agnostics, skeptics, freethinkers, opponents of Christianity, and like-minded persons will likely find this book one of their "All-time, Desert Island" favorite books. But many religious and spiritually-minded persons (and perhaps even some Christians) may find it intellectually-stimulating reading.

Bertrand Arthur William Russell (1872-1970) was an influential British philosopher, logician, mathematician, and political activist. In 1950, he was awarded the Nobel Prize in Literature, in recognition of his many books such as A History of Western Philosophy,The Problems of Philosophy,Mysticism and Logic,Religion and Science,The Philosophy of Logical Atomism,The Analysis of Mind,Our Knowledge of the External World,Human Knowledge: Its Scope and Limits, etc.

He wrote in the Preface to this 1957 collection of essays, "There has been a rumor in recent years to the effect that I have become less opposed to religious orthodoxy than I formerly was. This rumor is totally without foundation. I think all the great religions of the world---Buddhism, Hinduism, Christianity, Islam, and Communism---both untrue and harmful... I am as firmly convinced that religions do harm as I am that they are untrue."

The title essay (given to the South London Branch of the National Secular Society in 1927, when Russell was 55) begins by defining what Russell considers a "Christian": "I do not mean by a Christian any person who tries to live decently according to his lights. I think that you must have a certain amount of definite belief before you have a right to call yourself a Christian... I think... that there are two different items which are quite essential to anybody calling himself a Christian. The first is... you must believe in God and immortality... Then... you must have some kind of belief about Christ... I think you must have at the very lowest the belief that Christ was, if not divine, at least the best and wisest of men. If you are not going to believe that much about Christ I do not think you have any right to call yourself a Christian." (Pg. 3-4) But he admits, "in the olden days it had a much more full-blooded sense. For instance, it included the belief in ... eternal hell-fire... but in this country... hell was no longer necessary to a Christian. Consequently I shall not insist that a Christian must believe in hell." (Pg. 5) So he concludes, "when I tell you why I am not a Christian I have to tell you ... why I do not believe in God and immortality; and ... why I do not think that Christ was the best and wisest of men, although I grant for him a very high degree of moral goodness." (Pg. 5)

He quickly rejects the traditional arguments for the existence of God. Then he discusses "The Character of Christ": "I now want to say a few words ... [about] whether Christ was the best and wisest of men. It is generally taken for granted that we should all agree that that was so. I do not myself. I think that there are a good many points upon which I agree with Christ a great deal more than the professing Christians do. I do not know that I could go with him all the way, but I could go with Him much further than most professing Christians can. You will remember that He said, `Resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also.' That is not a new precept or a new principle. It was used by Lao-tse and Buddha some 500 or 600 years before Christ, but it is not a principle which as a matter of fact Christians accept... There is another point which I consider excellent... `Judge not lest ye be judged.' That principle I do not think you would find was popular in the law courts of Christian countries.... Then there is one other maxim of Christ which I think has a great deal in it, but I do not find that it is very popular among some of our Christian friends. He says, `... go and sell that which thou has, and give to the poor.' That is a very excellent maxim, but, as I say, it is not much practiced. All these ... are good maxims, although they are a little difficult to live up to. I do not profess to live up to them myself; but then, after all, it is not quite the same thing as for a Christian." (Pg. 14-15)

But his strongest points are made in the section, "Defects in Christ's Teaching": "I come to certain points in which I do not believe that one can grant either the superlative wisdom or the superlative goodness of Christ as depicted in the gospels; and here I may say that one is not concerned with the historical question. Historically it is quite doubtful whether Christ ever existed at all, and if He did we do not know anything about Him, so that I am not concerned with the historical question... I am concerned with Christ as he appears in the Gospels... and there one does find some things do not seem to be very wise. For one thing, he certainly thought that his second coming would occur in clouds of glory before the death of all the people who were living at that time... He says, for instance, `Ye shall not have gone over the cities of Israel till the Son of Man be come.' [Mt 10:23] Then He says, `There are some standing here which shall not taste death till the Son of Man comes into His kingdom' [Mt 16:28]; and there are a lot of places where it is quite clear that He believed that His second coming would happen during the lifetime of many then living... and it was the basis of a good deal of His moral teaching... He thought that the second coming was going to be very soon, and that all ordinary mundane affairs did not count..." (Pg. 15-16)

He continues, "There is one very serious defect to my mind in Christ's moral character, and that is that He believed in hell. I do not myself feel that any person who is really profoundly humane can believe in everlasting punishment. Christ certainly as depicted in the Gospels did believe in everlasting punishment, and one does find repeatedly a vindictive fury against those people who would not listen to His preaching... Christ says, `The Son of Man shall send forth His angels, and they shall gather out of His kingdom all things that offend, and them which do iniquity, and shall cast them into a furnace of fire; there shall be wailing and gnashing of teeth'; and He goes on about the wailing and gnashing of teeth... it is quite manifest to the reader that there is a certain pleasure in contemplating wailing and gnashing of teeth, or else it would not occur so often... I think all this doctrine, that hell-fire is a punishment for sin, is a doctrine of cruelty..." (Pg. 17-18) He concludes, "I cannot myself feel that either in the matter of wisdom of in ... virtue Christ stands quite as high as some other people known to history. I think I should put Buddha and Socrates above Him in those respects." (Pg. 19)

He concludes by asserting that "the church... is in its major part an opponent still of progress and of improvement... because it has chosen to label as morality a certain narrow set of rules of conduct which have nothing to do with human happiness... Religion is based, I think, primarily and mainly upon fear... I think our own hearts can teach us, no longer to look around for imaginary supports, no longer to invent allies in the sky, but rather to look to our own efforts here below to make this world a fit place to live in, instead of the sort of place that the churches in all these centuries have made it." (Pg. 21-22)

Also contained in this collection is his famous 1093 essay, "The Free Man's Worship," in which he wrote: "That man is the product of causes which had no prevision of the end they were achieving; that his origin, his growth, his hopes and fears, his loves and his beliefs, are but the accidental collocations of atoms; that no fire, no heroism, no intensity of thought or feeling, can preserve an individual life beyond the grave; that all the labours of the ages, all the devotion, all the inspiration, all the noonday brightness of human genius, are destined to extinction in the vast death of the solar system, and that the whole temple of Man's achievement must inevitably be buried beneath debris of a universe in ruins---all these things, if not quite beyond dispute, are yet so nearly certain that no philosophy which rejects them can hope to stand. Only within the scaffolding of these truths, only on the firm foundation of unyielding despair, can the soul's habitation henceforth be safely built." (Pg. 107) [But note that this essay was written when he was profoundly depressed; he said in his 1956 book, Portraits from Memory, that the essay was "a work of which I do not now think well."]

The original editions of this book contained his famous radio debate with Fr. Frederick Copleston; you can obtain this debate at various places online, or in the book, The Existence of God. Editor Paul Edwards also wrote for this collection a fascinating [if infuriating] account of Russell being declared in court "unfit" to teach philosophy at the College of the City of New York---and the cancellation of this appointment thrust Russell into serious financial difficulties, for a period.

Atheists, agnostics, skeptics, freethinkers, opponents of Christianity, and like-minded persons will likely find this book one of their "All-time, Desert Island" favorite books. But many religious and spiritually-minded persons (and perhaps even some Christians) may find it intellectually-stimulating reading.

Bertrand Arthur William Russell (1872-1970) was an influential British philosopher, logician, mathematician, and political activist. In 1950, he was awarded the Nobel Prize in Literature, in recognition of his many books such as A History of Western Philosophy,The Problems of Philosophy,Mysticism and Logic,Religion and Science,The Philosophy of Logical Atomism,The Analysis of Mind,Our Knowledge of the External World,Human Knowledge: Its Scope and Limits, etc.

He wrote in the Preface to this 1957 collection of essays, "There has been a rumor in recent years to the effect that I have become less opposed to religious orthodoxy than I formerly was. This rumor is totally without foundation. I think all the great religions of the world---Buddhism, Hinduism, Christianity, Islam, and Communism---both untrue and harmful... I am as firmly convinced that religions do harm as I am that they are untrue."

The title essay (given to the South London Branch of the National Secular Society in 1927, when Russell was 55) begins by defining what Russell considers a "Christian": "I do not mean by a Christian any person who tries to live decently according to his lights. I think that you must have a certain amount of definite belief before you have a right to call yourself a Christian... I think... that there are two different items which are quite essential to anybody calling himself a Christian. The first is... you must believe in God and immortality... Then... you must have some kind of belief about Christ... I think you must have at the very lowest the belief that Christ was, if not divine, at least the best and wisest of men. If you are not going to believe that much about Christ I do not think you have any right to call yourself a Christian." (Pg. 3-4) But he admits, "in the olden days it had a much more full-blooded sense. For instance, it included the belief in ... eternal hell-fire... but in this country... hell was no longer necessary to a Christian. Consequently I shall not insist that a Christian must believe in hell." (Pg. 5) So he concludes, "when I tell you why I am not a Christian I have to tell you ... why I do not believe in God and immortality; and ... why I do not think that Christ was the best and wisest of men, although I grant for him a very high degree of moral goodness." (Pg. 5)

He quickly rejects the traditional arguments for the existence of God. Then he discusses "The Character of Christ": "I now want to say a few words ... [about] whether Christ was the best and wisest of men. It is generally taken for granted that we should all agree that that was so. I do not myself. I think that there are a good many points upon which I agree with Christ a great deal more than the professing Christians do. I do not know that I could go with him all the way, but I could go with Him much further than most professing Christians can. You will remember that He said, `Resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also.' That is not a new precept or a new principle. It was used by Lao-tse and Buddha some 500 or 600 years before Christ, but it is not a principle which as a matter of fact Christians accept... There is another point which I consider excellent... `Judge not lest ye be judged.' That principle I do not think you would find was popular in the law courts of Christian countries.... Then there is one other maxim of Christ which I think has a great deal in it, but I do not find that it is very popular among some of our Christian friends. He says, `... go and sell that which thou has, and give to the poor.' That is a very excellent maxim, but, as I say, it is not much practiced. All these ... are good maxims, although they are a little difficult to live up to. I do not profess to live up to them myself; but then, after all, it is not quite the same thing as for a Christian." (Pg. 14-15)

But his strongest points are made in the section, "Defects in Christ's Teaching": "I come to certain points in which I do not believe that one can grant either the superlative wisdom or the superlative goodness of Christ as depicted in the gospels; and here I may say that one is not concerned with the historical question. Historically it is quite doubtful whether Christ ever existed at all, and if He did we do not know anything about Him, so that I am not concerned with the historical question... I am concerned with Christ as he appears in the Gospels... and there one does find some things do not seem to be very wise. For one thing, he certainly thought that his second coming would occur in clouds of glory before the death of all the people who were living at that time... He says, for instance, `Ye shall not have gone over the cities of Israel till the Son of Man be come.' [Mt 10:23] Then He says, `There are some standing here which shall not taste death till the Son of Man comes into His kingdom' [Mt 16:28]; and there are a lot of places where it is quite clear that He believed that His second coming would happen during the lifetime of many then living... and it was the basis of a good deal of His moral teaching... He thought that the second coming was going to be very soon, and that all ordinary mundane affairs did not count..." (Pg. 15-16)

He continues, "There is one very serious defect to my mind in Christ's moral character, and that is that He believed in hell. I do not myself feel that any person who is really profoundly humane can believe in everlasting punishment. Christ certainly as depicted in the Gospels did believe in everlasting punishment, and one does find repeatedly a vindictive fury against those people who would not listen to His preaching... Christ says, `The Son of Man shall send forth His angels, and they shall gather out of His kingdom all things that offend, and them which do iniquity, and shall cast them into a furnace of fire; there shall be wailing and gnashing of teeth'; and He goes on about the wailing and gnashing of teeth... it is quite manifest to the reader that there is a certain pleasure in contemplating wailing and gnashing of teeth, or else it would not occur so often... I think all this doctrine, that hell-fire is a punishment for sin, is a doctrine of cruelty..." (Pg. 17-18) He concludes, "I cannot myself feel that either in the matter of wisdom of in ... virtue Christ stands quite as high as some other people known to history. I think I should put Buddha and Socrates above Him in those respects." (Pg. 19)

He concludes by asserting that "the church... is in its major part an opponent still of progress and of improvement... because it has chosen to label as morality a certain narrow set of rules of conduct which have nothing to do with human happiness... Religion is based, I think, primarily and mainly upon fear... I think our own hearts can teach us, no longer to look around for imaginary supports, no longer to invent allies in the sky, but rather to look to our own efforts here below to make this world a fit place to live in, instead of the sort of place that the churches in all these centuries have made it." (Pg. 21-22)

Also contained in this collection is his famous 1093 essay, "The Free Man's Worship," in which he wrote: "That man is the product of causes which had no prevision of the end they were achieving; that his origin, his growth, his hopes and fears, his loves and his beliefs, are but the accidental collocations of atoms; that no fire, no heroism, no intensity of thought or feeling, can preserve an individual life beyond the grave; that all the labours of the ages, all the devotion, all the inspiration, all the noonday brightness of human genius, are destined to extinction in the vast death of the solar system, and that the whole temple of Man's achievement must inevitably be buried beneath debris of a universe in ruins---all these things, if not quite beyond dispute, are yet so nearly certain that no philosophy which rejects them can hope to stand. Only within the scaffolding of these truths, only on the firm foundation of unyielding despair, can the soul's habitation henceforth be safely built." (Pg. 107) [But note that this essay was written when he was profoundly depressed; he said in his 1956 book, Portraits from Memory, that the essay was "a work of which I do not now think well."]

The original editions of this book contained his famous radio debate with Fr. Frederick Copleston; you can obtain this debate at various places online, or in the book, The Existence of God. Editor Paul Edwards also wrote for this collection a fascinating [if infuriating] account of Russell being declared in court "unfit" to teach philosophy at the College of the City of New York---and the cancellation of this appointment thrust Russell into serious financial difficulties, for a period.

Atheists, agnostics, skeptics, freethinkers, opponents of Christianity, and like-minded persons will likely find this book one of their "All-time, Desert Island" favorite books. But many religious and spiritually-minded persons (and perhaps even some Christians) may find it intellectually-stimulating reading.

Bertrand Arthur William Russell (1872-1970) was an influential British philosopher, logician, mathematician, and political activist. In 1950, he was awarded the Nobel Prize in Literature, in recognition of his many books such as A History of Western Philosophy,The Problems of Philosophy,Mysticism and Logic,Religion and Science,The Philosophy of Logical Atomism,The Analysis of Mind,Our Knowledge of the External World,Human Knowledge: Its Scope and Limits, etc.

He wrote in the Preface to this 1957 collection of essays, "There has been a rumor in recent years to the effect that I have become less opposed to religious orthodoxy than I formerly was. This rumor is totally without foundation. I think all the great religions of the world---Buddhism, Hinduism, Christianity, Islam, and Communism---both untrue and harmful... I am as firmly convinced that religions do harm as I am that they are untrue."

The title essay (given to the South London Branch of the National Secular Society in 1927, when Russell was 55) begins by defining what Russell considers a "Christian": "I do not mean by a Christian any person who tries to live decently according to his lights. I think that you must have a certain amount of definite belief before you have a right to call yourself a Christian... I think... that there are two different items which are quite essential to anybody calling himself a Christian. The first is... you must believe in God and immortality... Then... you must have some kind of belief about Christ... I think you must have at the very lowest the belief that Christ was, if not divine, at least the best and wisest of men. If you are not going to believe that much about Christ I do not think you have any right to call yourself a Christian." (Pg. 3-4) But he admits, "in the olden days it had a much more full-blooded sense. For instance, it included the belief in ... eternal hell-fire... but in this country... hell was no longer necessary to a Christian. Consequently I shall not insist that a Christian must believe in hell." (Pg. 5) So he concludes, "when I tell you why I am not a Christian I have to tell you ... why I do not believe in God and immortality; and ... why I do not think that Christ was the best and wisest of men, although I grant for him a very high degree of moral goodness." (Pg. 5)

He quickly rejects the traditional arguments for the existence of God. Then he discusses "The Character of Christ": "I now want to say a few words ... [about] whether Christ was the best and wisest of men. It is generally taken for granted that we should all agree that that was so. I do not myself. I think that there are a good many points upon which I agree with Christ a great deal more than the professing Christians do. I do not know that I could go with him all the way, but I could go with Him much further than most professing Christians can. You will remember that He said, `Resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also.' That is not a new precept or a new principle. It was used by Lao-tse and Buddha some 500 or 600 years before Christ, but it is not a principle which as a matter of fact Christians accept... There is another point which I consider excellent... `Judge not lest ye be judged.' That principle I do not think you would find was popular in the law courts of Christian countries.... Then there is one other maxim of Christ which I think has a great deal in it, but I do not find that it is very popular among some of our Christian friends. He says, `... go and sell that which thou has, and give to the poor.' That is a very excellent maxim, but, as I say, it is not much practiced. All these ... are good maxims, although they are a little difficult to live up to. I do not profess to live up to them myself; but then, after all, it is not quite the same thing as for a Christian." (Pg. 14-15)

But his strongest points are made in the section, "Defects in Christ's Teaching": "I come to certain points in which I do not believe that one can grant either the superlative wisdom or the superlative goodness of Christ as depicted in the gospels; and here I may say that one is not concerned with the historical question. Historically it is quite doubtful whether Christ ever existed at all, and if He did we do not know anything about Him, so that I am not concerned with the historical question... I am concerned with Christ as he appears in the Gospels... and there one does find some things do not seem to be very wise. For one thing, he certainly thought that his second coming would occur in clouds of glory before the death of all the people who were living at that time... He says, for instance, `Ye shall not have gone over the cities of Israel till the Son of Man be come.' [Mt 10:23] Then He says, `There are some standing here which shall not taste death till the Son of Man comes into His kingdom' [Mt 16:28]; and there are a lot of places where it is quite clear that He believed that His second coming would happen during the lifetime of many then living... and it was the basis of a good deal of His moral teaching... He thought that the second coming was going to be very soon, and that all ordinary mundane affairs did not count..." (Pg. 15-16)

He continues, "There is one very serious defect to my mind in Christ's moral character, and that is that He believed in hell. I do not myself feel that any person who is really profoundly humane can believe in everlasting punishment. Christ certainly as depicted in the Gospels did believe in everlasting punishment, and one does find repeatedly a vindictive fury against those people who would not listen to His preaching... Christ says, `The Son of Man shall send forth His angels, and they shall gather out of His kingdom all things that offend, and them which do iniquity, and shall cast them into a furnace of fire; there shall be wailing and gnashing of teeth'; and He goes on about the wailing and gnashing of teeth... it is quite manifest to the reader that there is a certain pleasure in contemplating wailing and gnashing of teeth, or else it would not occur so often... I think all this doctrine, that hell-fire is a punishment for sin, is a doctrine of cruelty..." (Pg. 17-18) He concludes, "I cannot myself feel that either in the matter of wisdom of in ... virtue Christ stands quite as high as some other people known to history. I think I should put Buddha and Socrates above Him in those respects." (Pg. 19)

He concludes by asserting that "the church... is in its major part an opponent still of progress and of improvement... because it has chosen to label as morality a certain narrow set of rules of conduct which have nothing to do with human happiness... Religion is based, I think, primarily and mainly upon fear... I think our own hearts can teach us, no longer to look around for imaginary supports, no longer to invent allies in the sky, but rather to look to our own efforts here below to make this world a fit place to live in, instead of the sort of place that the churches in all these centuries have made it." (Pg. 21-22)

Also contained in this collection is his famous 1093 essay, "The Free Man's Worship," in which he wrote: "That man is the product of causes which had no prevision of the end they were achieving; that his origin, his growth, his hopes and fears, his loves and his beliefs, are but the accidental collocations of atoms; that no fire, no heroism, no intensity of thought or feeling, can preserve an individual life beyond the grave; that all the labours of the ages, all the devotion, all the inspiration, all the noonday brightness of human genius, are destined to extinction in the vast death of the solar system, and that the whole temple of Man's achievement must inevitably be buried beneath debris of a universe in ruins---all these things, if not quite beyond dispute, are yet so nearly certain that no philosophy which rejects them can hope to stand. Only within the scaffolding of these truths, only on the firm foundation of unyielding despair, can the soul's habitation henceforth be safely built." (Pg. 107) [But note that this essay was written when he was profoundly depressed; he said in his 1956 book, Portraits from Memory, that the essay was "a work of which I do not now think well."]

The original editions of this book contained his famous radio debate with Fr. Frederick Copleston; you can obtain this debate at various places online, or in the book, The Existence of God. Editor Paul Edwards also wrote for this collection a fascinating [if infuriating] account of Russell being declared in court "unfit" to teach philosophy at the College of the City of New York---and the cancellation of this appointment thrust Russell into serious financial difficulties, for a period.

Atheists, agnostics, skeptics, freethinkers, opponents of Christianity, and like-minded persons will likely find this book one of their "All-time, Desert Island" favorite books. But many religious and spiritually-minded persons (and perhaps even some Christians) may find it intellectually-stimulating reading.

I enjoyed actually reading this collection of essays. Many of the lower-rated "reviews" seem to come from individuals who obviously did NOT read the book, but chose, instead, to present polemics against their guess as to Russell's views on the subject and to write ad hominem attacks against someone who had obviously given time to thinking about this. I find that mindset particularly disturbing, as the blindness of the attacker's arguments defy reason and rationality. Many of the attackers go on to malign him for "only attacking Christianity". This too, is not true. While the obvious bent of the essays presented describe his perception of Christianity's shortfalls, he also brings Judaism, Islam and others into his arguments. The one "religion" he mentions that I found particularly intriguing and meriting further research was "Communism". He likened Christianity to Stalinistic communism. His idea that the two were incompatible because, at their roots, they were so similar really struck a chord with me. Overall an excellent read and highly recommended.
Why four instead of five stars? The "Appendix" to the book is a tedious account of the progression of the fear-mongering started by a member of the clergy as a response to Lord Russell's near-unanimous appointment as a professor of philosophy to New York City University (I think???) and following this to his being "legally" barred from teaching there. We could have done without that.

Lord Russell is considered one of the great thinkers of the 20th century and this collection of articles illustrate how profoundly his thoughts have guided the evolution of our society. He was a major opponent of religion due to his opposition to irrational thought as a mechanism for ordering society. The following quote illustrates his thoughts on the subject:

‎"It would seem, therefore, that the three human impulses embodied in religion are fear, conceit, and hatred. The purpose of religion, one may say, is to give an air of respectability to these passions, provided they run in certain channels. It is because these passions make, on the whole, for human misery that religion is a force for evil, since it permits men to indulge these passions without restraint, where but for its sanction they might, at least to a certain degree, control them."

These were not merely abstract thoughts for Russell as detailed in the appendix of the book. This section covers the appointment of him to a teaching position at City College in New York and the clerical opposition brought against him and City College in the press and the courts. He sole response was not made until after the appointment was withdrawn and it is merely a statement of the importance of debate in a democracy:

‎"I do not believe that controversy is harmful on general grounds. It is not controversy and open differences that endanger democracy. On the contrary, these are its greatest safeguards. It is an essential part of democracy that substantial groups, even majorities, should extend toleration to dissentent groups, however, small and however much their sentiments may be outraged. In democracy it is necessary that people should learn to endure having their sentiments outraged..."

It was Russell's progressive thoughts on sexuality that often provided material for the demagogues who made him the Socrates of New York. His beliefs were realistic and, in truth, reflect the evolution of the institution of marriage in Western society:

"Sex cannot dispense with an ethic, any more than business or sport or scientific research or any other branch of human activity. But it can dispense with an ethic based solely upon ancient prohibitions propounded by uneducated people in a society wholly unlike our own. In sex as in economics and politics, our ethic is still dominated by fears which modern discoveries have made irrational...There has to be consistency in life; there has to be continuous effort directed to ends that are not immediately beneficial and not at every moment attractive; there has to be consideration for others; and there should be certain standards of rectitude".

Lord Russell words reminds us how far we have come since the Victorian Era and how vigilant we must remain against the forces of irrationalism that surround us today.

Les armes, les armes, mes citoyens!

This book helped form my adult position on god, Christianity, and logic. Russell was one of the most principled and consistent thinkers of the 19th/20th century. He based his arguments and protests on logic rather than emotion. This was the first book of his that I read, and I now have read the dozen or so that grace my bookshelves. If you are looking to remain a Christian and do not want to be persuaded to veer away from belief in magical biblical beings and commands, this is probably not the book you should be reading. However, if you have an open mind and wish to be presented with reasons to discard adherence to myth and dogma, by all means, consume Russell's writings.

I like this work by Russell because he frames his morality structure from a null point. His work, especially on religion as is the focus here, is incredibly even-handed. If you compare this work to one of the more modern 'evangelical atheists' such as Dawkins, Harris, or Hitchins, what you will see is that Russell is not as antagonistic towards the received dogma that he is writing against. I don't know if this is a structure of the intellectual environment that he wrote in, or just part of Russell's own temperament and style.

However, I feel that his dissent was somehow "braver" than the more modern contrarian freethinkers because of that same intellectual environment. Russell's writing is clear and considered and thoughtful. Even if you don't agree with his positions, he writes as the most reasonable person in the room. If you are an atheist or a doubter, I would recommend this book. If you are religious, I would recommend this book even more strongly. If you don't know the counter-arguments, your faith is not as like the little children, it is childish.

This book helped form my adult position on god, Christianity, and logic. Russell was one of the most principled and consistent thinkers of the 19th/20th century. He based his arguments and protests on logic rather than emotion. This was the first book of his that I read, and I now have read the dozen or so that grace my bookshelves. If you are looking to remain a Christian and do not want to be persuaded to veer away from belief in magical biblical beings and commands, this is probably not the book you should be reading. However, if you have an open mind and wish to be presented with reasons to discard adherence to myth and dogma, by all means, consume Russell's writings.

I like this work by Russell because he frames his morality structure from a null point. His work, especially on religion as is the focus here, is incredibly even-handed. If you compare this work to one of the more modern 'evangelical atheists' such as Dawkins, Harris, or Hitchins, what you will see is that Russell is not as antagonistic towards the received dogma that he is writing against. I don't know if this is a structure of the intellectual environment that he wrote in, or just part of Russell's own temperament and style.

However, I feel that his dissent was somehow "braver" than the more modern contrarian freethinkers because of that same intellectual environment. Russell's writing is clear and considered and thoughtful. Even if you don't agree with his positions, he writes as the most reasonable person in the room. If you are an atheist or a doubter, I would recommend this book. If you are religious, I would recommend this book even more strongly. If you don't know the counter-arguments, your faith is not as like the little children, it is childish.

Had the author of known that his position on Christianity was so far ahead of his time, I imagine he may of written more upon the subject. By addressing the theist position in terms of its meta-physical, philosophical and moral conponents, Russell makes a sobering and persuasive dissection of Christianity as it was in the early part of the century.

Although the religion of the time of this writing is vastly different to contemporary Christian observance, the fundamentals have been largely retained - and this is where Russell lays his devastating blows. Though, he is not mean-spirited, not bitter or cynical, but merely rational.

His thoughts on sexuality are included and are hugely progressive, and an included essay on the life of Thomas Paine is a fascinating addition to the collection. Paine's unique life and brilliance is summarised concisely and with awe. This great thinker and writer was shamefully treated by the French and United States governments, and Paine's thoughts on G. Washington are included in their cutting wittiness.

This edition includes a detailed account of Russell's appointment and removal from a position as Professor of Philosophy from the College of the City of New York. This insane trial was enacted on what seems completely trivial by today's standards, but its implications at the time struck directly at Russell's consitutional rights. This perversion of justice is detailed as a close to this short collection of mixed-topic essays.

Thomas Paine once wrote: "I do not believe in the creed professed by the Jewish church, by the Roman church, by the Greek church, by the Turkish church, by the Protestant church, nor by any church that I know of. My own mind is my own church."

Russell's writings echo this courageous position brilliantly.

As someone who shares the same sentiment, I was curious to find out about his reasons. Also, I wanted to see his reason for labeling Communism as a religion. That's why I'm glad that he gave a reason in the preface. I liked this book's introduction. It's short, didn't irritate me to the point I wanted to skip it, and it provided examples why religions need to be done away with. (I was going to be nicer.) That said, I won't mention all of the essays. Even though I would like to, there are about 15 of them. My review might end up becoming so long that some readers would lose interest.

I felt that he made good arguments at times. In fact, I agreed with him at times. However, I don't think the fact that the geography books count of us all in should be disregarded. (I had to take a World History and Geography course in sixth grade. We did 2-3 assignments pertaining to geography. The rest of the course was WH.) Of course, it wasn't just that. I felt that the author became irrational and pretentious at times. That said, he provides a lot of possible discussion questions.

On another note, his suggestions for raising children make sense except for the ones in his The New Generation chapter. First off, the country shouldn't be considered the ideal growing environment for a child. Even though it has advantages, the truth is not everyone would be able to move there. Also, there's no definitive evidence to suggest that the city's a bad growing environment. (That said, I think the issue lies in how idleness is perceived. Idleness is seen as something to be avoided at all costs. However, being idle gives you time to think and you could come up with good ideas. Instead of viewing idleness as evil, we should learn not to act on impulse.) In addition, children should be taught to curb destructive tendencies. That'd be better than waiting they're teenagers then changing up the rules on them. That said, discipline must be administered soon afterwards and be fair. Otherwise, the child might not feel remorse.

Even though I don't agree with every point made in the appendix, I don't think that refusing to let the author teach over fear of corrupting youth is a legitimate reason. If a hypothetical student was corrupt, they'd show signs long before being taught by him. Still, I'm glad that some people at least stood up for him.

I stumbled upon this book looking for topics related to atheism. I was pleasantly impressed with the interesting thoughts Russell has on religion. His confidence is quite clear and he presents very legitimate arguments. There were a couple essays towards the middle of the collection that seemed like a chore to read. But for the most part, the writing is fantastic and there are quite a bit of notes to write down for further review. This is a book for the free thinkers. Whether or not you completely agree with Russell, one can learn a great deal from this man's perspective.

Bertrand Russell

Why I am Not a Christian, and other Essays on Religion and Related Subjects

Edited, with an Appendix on the ''Bertrand Russell Case'' by Paul Edwards

Touchstone, Paperback, 1957 (reprint).
8vo. xvii, 266 pp. Preface by Bertrand Russell, 1957 [v-vii]. Editor's Introduction by Paul Edwards, 1956 [xi-xvi]. Appendix of the ''Bertrand Russell Case'' by Paul Edwards, 1957 [pp. 207-259].

First published thus in USA by Simon and Schuster, 1957.
Reprinted by Touchstone.
First published in England by George Allen & Unwin, 1957.
[See note below.]

Contents*

Preface by Bertrand Russell [1957]
Editor's Introduction [Paul Edwards, 1956.]

Why I am not a Christian
[Lecture delivered on March 6, 1927, at Battersea Town Hall under the auspices of the South London Branch of the National Secular Society. Published as a pamphlet, 1927.]

Has Religion Made Useful Contributions to the Civilization?
[First published as a pamphlet in 1929.]

Do We Survive Death?
[First published in The Mysteries of Life and Death, 1936; anthology, various contributors.]

Seems, Madam? Nay, it is
[1899, never published before.]

On Catholic and Protestant Skeptics
[Written in 1928. First published in Life and Letters (London), 1 (Nov 1928), 468-76.]

Life in the Middle Ages
[Written in 1925. First published, The Calendar of Modern Letters (London), 1 (Mar 1925), 72-4 ]

The Fate of Thomas Paine
[Written in 1934. First published in Great Democrats, ed. A. Barratt Brown, 1934.]

Nice People
[First published in Harper's Magazine, July 1931.]

The New Generation
[Introduction to The New Generation, ed. V. F. Calverton and Samuel D. Schmalhausen, 1930; anthology, various contributors.]

Our Sexual Ethics
[First published in The American Mercury, 1936.]

Freedom and the Colleges
[First published in The American Mercury, May 1940.]

Can Religion Cure Our Troubles?
[First published in the Stockholm newspaper Dagens Nyheter, November 9 and 11, 1954.]

Religion and Morals
[Written in 1952, published in Jewish Daily Forward.]

Appendix: How Bertrand Russell was Prevented from Teaching at the College of the City of New York [Paul Edwards, 1957.]

Index

*In square brackets: additional information about sources, from the notes of Paul Edwards but with a few additions from myself.

Note on different editions.
The First British edition originally contained a fascinating debate between Bertrand Russell and Father Copleston which was broadcast on B.B.C. in 1948. It was omitted from the First American edition because the Roman Catholic authorities in USA would not allow to be printed; it was substituted with A Free Man's Worship which is not to be found in the First British Edition. The mutilated edition in the Routledge Classics series (first published in 2004) does contain the debate but for some inscrutable reasons omits not only "A Free Man's Worship", as would be expected, but "What I Believe" as well. The contents of the Touchstone reprint reviewed below are identical with these of the First American edition by Simon and Schuster.

===============================================

"Why I am not a Christian" was at the beginning just a lecture, first delivered in South London on March 6, 1927, but later it was destined to become the most legendary - famous for some, notorious for others - single piece of writing by Bertrand Russell; many people also think, wrongly, that it is the most definitive as well. The same year it was published as a pamphlet and that was the beginning of an impressive publishing history. Together with "What I Believe" (1925) and "A Free Man's Worship" (1903), "Why I am not a Christian" (1927) has been reprinted in God - should he exist - knows how many anthologies. Interestingly, most of these reprints after 1957 come from "Why I am Not a Christian, and other Essays on Religion and Related Subjects", which may well be said to be the definitive edition of this legendary lecture. It is available in numerous paperback and hardback versions, two of which are most common and easy to obtain: Routledge and Touchstone. The former is a mind-boggling mutilation job since "What I Believe" is inexplicably omitted. The Touchstone edition is certainly more complete and therefore deserves to be considered seriously.

"Why I am Not a Christian, and other Essays on Religion and Related Subjects" contains 15 pieces which range from little over one page to forty pages in length, and span a period of 55 years in time, from 1899 to 1954. These are staggering figures, but they are a great deal misleading, too. In fact, only two pieces date from Lord Russell's academic youth - the famous "A Free Man's Worship" (1903) and the totally obscure "Seems, Madam? Nay, it is" (1899) - and what were the motives of the editor behind the inclusion of these essays is completely beyond me. Certainly, they do have historical significance in view of Lord Russell's later outlook and literary style, both of which changed out of recognition, but this hardly excuses the frankly preposterous rhetoric and the little short of ridiculous content; that said, "Seems, Madam? Nay, it is" is not altogether unreadable and it does contain few interesting points about appearance, reality, metaphysics and Mr Bradley. As for the other time extreme, only two pieces date from the 1950s. The rest 11 essays were all written during Lord Russell's most productive years in the 1920s and 1930s. It is important to note that most of these pieces originally appeared as articles in magazines or newspapers and therefore are not so easily accessible in other books by Lord Russell or compilations of his writings. On the whole, despite few caveats, in terms of contents "Why I am Not a Christian, and other Essays on Religion and Related Subjects" is, I suppose, quite worthy of the list with collections of essays selected by Bertrand Russell himself. Indeed, the great philosopher's collaboration and approval were parts of the editorial work of Paul Edwards.

Paul Edwards, who is Professor of the Philosophy Department of the New York College, deserves special attention because he has done a really fine job editing the volume. Except for the two early pieces already mentioned, his selection is generally excellent and admirably combines hard-to-find rarity with valuable content. The inclusion of the last piece is somewhat surprising, for it is this one which is just over one page long; but even a single page of Russell's prose often has something insightful to offer and so is the case here. I am also surprised that Mr Edwards did not include such a masterpiece as "An Outline of Intellectual Rubbish" from "Unpopular Essays" (1950); it is not entirely concerned with religion, yes, but neither is it less so than some other pieces in the book; I guess it was not included simply because it is more or less easy to find in book form. Most of the essays have excellent prefatory notes by Mr Edwards explaining concisely the historical context and the source of the piece. I wish the editor had been a little more detailed, though. Sometimes he just states that this was first published or written in so-and-so year, without any information whether it was a press article, a pamphlet, an essay later published in a book form as well, or something else; for most of the pieces I could trace the sources and so I listed them in the contents. But whatever shortcomings the editorial work of Mr Edwards might have, they are very minor in comparisons with his merits.

By far the most important contributions of Paul Edwards are his fascinating Introduction and simply magisterial Appendix.

The Introduction is a short piece of certain historical importance. Mr Edwards justifies the publication of such book with Lord Russell's uncompromisingly anti-church attitude which is supposed to act as a kind of antidote to the vile attempts of certain fractions to undermine the secular character of USA. It is a picture of curious American dystopia that Mr Edwards paints for the reader, a picture of a country stealthily eaten by religious hypocrisy and "encroachments of ecclesiastical interests" just as a living organism might be eaten by cancer. I do not know how true that picture is, but it does make a fascinating and stimulating read.

The Appendix is longer than any of the essays - more than 50 pages - and it has to be read to be believed. It tells in great detail, sometimes too great indeed, the infamous "Bertrand Russell Case", or how in 1940 Lord Russell was judicially declared unfit to teach philosophy and mathematics in the College of the City of New York. This is probably one of the most shameful incidents in the modern history of America; it sure is the most notorious single event in Bertrand Russell's life. Mr Edwards rightly says that he had to quote extensively from some documents otherwise the reader would not believe such things really happened. Indeed, so preposterously and so viciously was Russell maligned by advocates and judges that I am completely shocked how such revolting spectacle could happen in a supposedly civilised country and in the middle of the XX century. It started with Bertrand Russell's denigration as a philosopher and finished with his conducting a nudist colony in England; his books were full of FILTH (Mr Edwards' emphasis) and constantly quoted out of the context as to give the most erroneous idea of his opinions. In a lawyer's brief his works were described as "lecherous, libidinous, lustful, venerous, erotomaniac, aphrodisiac, irreverent, narrow-minded, untruthful, and bereft of moral fibre." Truly incredible stuff, as good as any farce with strong flavour of psycho-thriller and horror elements. Posterity should be grateful to Paul Edwards for having written this Appendix.

There is also a preface by Bertrand Russell himself, and unusually long one for him at that; spreading over three pages, it is almost like an additional essay. Among many other things, in this absorbing piece Lord Russell, with his usual directness, states that those recent rumours that he had mellowed in his attitude to religious dogma are totally without foundation. He still regards all religions as both untrue and harmful. As the quintessential man of reason, he could hardly have thought otherwise.

Coming, finally, to the contents themselves, it must be stressed that the outstanding popularity of "Why I am not a Christian" is not proportional to its value. It is a very good essay, and it is admirably written of course, but it is far from Bertrand Russell at his best, especially on religious subjects. His discussion of the arguments in favour of God's existence is somewhat perfunctory and his disparagement of Christ's character none too convincing. Lord Russell has always been better when dealing more concretely with the Church and its deleterious effects upon the society and the individual. "Why I am not a Christian" still makes stirring read, despite occasional weak points. These often are great fun though, for Lord Russell's prodigious sense of humour is as charming here as always. Indeed, he sometimes adroitly uses his wit to evade more thorough discussion, like in the case of the so called "First-cause Argument":

"It is exactly of the same nature as the Hindu's view, that the world rested upon an elephant and the elephant rested upon a tortoise; and when they said, "How about the tortoise?" the Indian said, "Suppose we change the subject." The argument is really no better than that."

Perfectly charming remark, no doubt, but somewhat weak argumentation. But, then again, this argument is a bit too much rooted in semantics to be taken seriously.

The most compelling thing for me, personally, about "Why I am not a Christian" is that it gives me an extremely rare opportunity, the only one in fact, to enjoy an argument between Bertrand Russell and Somerset Maugham, both of them great writers and great men who really did make something out of their lives. It is not generally known but in his notorious memoir "Looking Back" (1962) Maugham talks quite a bit about Russell. The piece was serialised in three parts on both sides of the Atlantic but never published in book form because of the presumably vicious portrait Maugham drew of his former and already diseased wife. Due to unfortunate lack of common sense in highly restricted circles of readers, in combination with the extreme scarcity of original sources, this piece of Maugham is often grossly underestimated and misrepresented; a bunch of conceited fools preach nonsense to the mob who believes it to be a gospel truth. However that may be, the scandalous part was the second one; the third was largely dedicated to severe criticism of Why I am not a Christian. Maugham starts with the good news: he has "the greatest admiration" for Bertrand Russell who, moreover, writes "uncommonly good English"; the former is more or less stated also in "The Summing Up" (1938) and in the notes to "Traveller's Library" (1933), and the latter is no faint praise from such a master of lucidity, simplicity and euphony, as Maugham described his Trinity of writing. He then proceeds to tell us that he found Why I am not a Christian "disappointing" because Bertrand Russell is not fair to Jesus. And here the argument starts. And a truly absorbing stuff it is. Let's take the two great men one by one.

The discourse on Christ and his character is only part from Why I am not a Christian, but it is a very important part. What Bertrand Russell said, in a nutshell, is that he could agree with some things in Christ's teaching and character, but there are disturbing features as well and, ultimately, he cannot agree that Christ is an epitome of human goodness as is often claimed by Christians. Lord Russell's arguments are somewhat weird but can be stated as follows: Christ believed in his own so called "Second Coming", he believed in Hell, he put the devils into the poor Gadarene swine and he cursed a fig tree because it hadn't born fruit out of season. Of these only the sincere belief in the Everlasting Punishment seems to me to be a trifle hard to reconcile with human goodness. The stories about the swine and the fig tree simply show that Christ was a man like any other, with his own kinks of character and whims of the moment. As for the Second Coming stuff, it only shows that Christ was far from intelligent - and this is not a hindrance but, on the contrary, prerequisite to goodness.

It must be stressed that nowhere in his lecture does Bertrand Russell mention anything about any divinity of Christ; on the other hand, he does explicitly mention that he is not concerned with the difficult historical question whether Christ existed at all but is interested solely with his character as it emerges from the Gospels. These are most sensible assumptions and are naturally accepted by Maugham too. It is interesting, then, that he goes into considerable detail about the historical relevance of the Gospels: first there was the mystical collection of Jesus' sayings "Q", which nobody seems to know whether it was a written document or a kind of oral teaching; then apostle Peter and Mark used that putative source, and then Matthew and Luke made an abundant use of Mark and so on and so forth. The bottom line is that the historical significance of the Gospels is perfectly irrelevant in this case. After all, they are pretty much the only source about Jesus' life, character and teaching there is, and since they have long since been accepted by Christianity as gospel truth, what sense does it make to dwell on their historical veracity? The issue here is with Christ's persona as embodied by the Gospels as they exist, no matter how true or not. Therefore Maugham's disbelieving the stories with the swine and with the fig tree as "out of character" or as some kind of religious propaganda hardly make any sense. Nor is his argument that Jesus' belief in hellfire would be a problem only if he were divine any more convincing. Also, when Maugham states, somewhat acidly perhaps, that Bertrand Russell had taken the testimony of Jesus' disciples as a "gospel truth", I think he is unfair to the philosopher. Indeed, how could one accept the testimony of the disciples when nobody knows what part, if any, it played in the writing of the Gospels?

Quite aside from my faint surprise that Maugham should have much affection for Jesus Christ, I don't see how we can escape the judgement of the four evangelists when their sources are the only ones we have. We have no choice but to view Jesus through their eyes. Moreover, if we start to doubt the disparaging stories about Christ from the Gospels, as Maugham does, we might just as well throw a good deal of doubt over those who show Christ as a most compassionate and charitable human being, like the story with the children from Mark's gospel mentioned by Maugham. If I am allowed to continue the debate a bit further on behalf of Lord Russell, I imagine he would have said that there is no reason why we should regard in any way differently the stories which glorify Jesus that those which discredit him. On the other hand, I surmise more knowledgeable fellows can make a pretty good case that Lord Russell does take an unfair advantage of Christ by not emphasising enough his good features and harping too much on bad ones which are somewhat trivial. As for Maugham, I am inclined to think his gift for storytelling led him astray here. He has some perceptive remarks about the very plausible elaboration the disciples of Christ, as well as the evangelists later, might well have employed describing his life many years after the Crucifixion, but the whole matter ultimately boils down to the fact that all we have about Christ are the Gospels and it's a hell of a task to sieve fact from fiction in them. It also makes no sense at all.

Even though Bertrand Russell wins his debate with Somerset Maugham over "Why I am not a Christian", the book edited by Paul Edwards certainly contains superior pieces to this lecture. After all, those who accept only Jesus Christ surely are in the minority even today, much more so through the history. When discusses the harmful effects of religion in general and Christianity in particular on the human individual and society, Bertrand Russell's intellect, erudition and wit are at their most scintillating best. There are in this book several absolute masterpieces in this regard.

"What I Believe" (1925) must rank as one of the most extraordinarily powerful readings I have ever experienced - especially in mere 40 pages. It has been reprinted numerous times in anthologies and quite a few times as a pamphlet, most recently in the Routledge Classics series in 2004. Not for nothing was it reprinted three times - in 2007, 2008 and 2009 - for it is at least as superbly written as "Why I am not a Christian" but it is much greater in scope as well. It deals a lot with religion and Christianity, of course, but it touches, quite deeply considering the very limited space, on the place of man in nature, the essence of good life, love, sex, morals, society, science and quite a number of subjects besides. Its omission from the Routledge Classics Edition, despite its separate edition as a pamphlet, is unforgivable. The prose is so condensed and well-structured that it all but defies quotation. Suffice it to say that Lord Russell makes a fine case that religion is little more than just another way of satisfying man's truly eternal and omnipotent vanity.

"Has Religion Made Useful Contributions to the Civilisation?" (1929) is one of the most scathing essays by Lord Russell I have read so far. Yet, as in the case of An Outline of Intellectual Rubbish (sadly not included here, as I have already mentioned), even at his harshest writings Bertrand Russell's style is never marred by bitterness or bigotry, nor is ever applied without purpose; both, alas, are only too often encountered in the writings of his enemies. The opening lines of "Has Religion Made Useful Contributions to the Civilisation?" may serve as an excellent illustration for sarcasm à la Russell:

"My own view on religion is that of Lucretius. I regard it as a disease born of fear and as a source of untold misery to the human race. I cannot, however, deny that it has made some contributions to civilization. It helped in early days to fix the calendar, and it caused Egyptian priests to chronicle eclipses with such care that in time they became able to predict them. These two services I am prepared to acknowledge, but I do not know of any others."

The essay is quite comprehensive for its length. Bertrand Russell starts with the Christian treatment of sex, which he thinks is the worst of all and "so morbid and so unnatural that it can be understood only when taken in relation to the sickness of the civilized world at the time the Roman Empire was decaying". He then goes on to demolish Christian dogmas one after another: the existence of soul and the concept of immortality, the doctrine of free will, the idea of righteousness. It is really fascinating to observe that even at his most severe moments, when he criticizes most harshly, Bertrand Russell somehow manages to remain cool and detached; he is absolutely damning, yet he never lapses into incoherent rambling. Moreover, he states clearly and logically why Christianity is unacceptable for the man of reason and he shrewdly analyses the sources of the intolerance it always has caused. Indeed, Lord Russell goes so far as to claim that Christianity has reached an unprecedented degree of persecution, quite unknown among the many pagan beliefs of the antiquity with the exception of Judaism. Is it a coincidence that the Jews too believed exclusively in one God and regarded their religion as the only right one? Hardly. At any rate, in "Has Religion Made Useful Contributions to the Civilisation?" Bertrand Russell is not a little disturbing but he also is uncommonly convincing. Exhilarating read.

"Can Religion Cure Our Troubles?" was first published, of all places, in the Stockholm newspaper "Dagens Nyheter" in the end of 1954. Now this again is Bertrand Russell in his element. His comparison between Christianity and Communism is truly compelling. Both are dogmatic creeds much given to persecution after all; the fact that they have diverged from the teaching of Jesus Christ or Karl Marx does not in the least excuse them. Lord Russell's perspicacious remark about the current - in 1954 - state of Christianity and how one day the same may happen with Communism is rather prophetic, for it did actually anticipate the fall of Communism with well over three decades:

"Christianity, I will admit, does less harm than it used to do; but that is because it is less fervently believed. Perhaps, in time, the same change will come over Communism; and, if it does, that creed will lose much of what now makes it obnoxious."

The piece is remarkable also for at least two other things: 1) it is one of Bertrand Russell's most serious essays, though he cannot resist an occasional flashes of his incisive wit; and 2) it is a solid proof that even at 82 Bertrand Russell was still in full possession of his mental and literary powers. His main argument, in a nutshell, is that since all religions are essentially dogmatic beliefs, they hinder the progress of mankind; the only possible solution is to cultivate freethinking mentality, a spirit of scientific inquiry, to the greatest possible degree. In other words, people should believe only things that can be proven by evidence to be true; if arguments arise, they should be settled by untrammelled debate based on scientific evidence, not by passionate quarrels based on dogmas. If this is not the case, no amount of social utility would do. I wish, however, that Lord Russell had elaborated a bit more on that statement, for I don't quite agree with him here. All he says, though with his usual clarity and candour, is that he would respect a person who holds that religion should be believed because it is true, but would never accept another who knows that a certain dogma is untrue but holds it because it is useful and who regards inquiring into its truth as a waste of time. But would it really matter if a dogmatic belief is indeed false but increases significantly the happiness of the vast majority of a population who will never be able to perceive its untruthful character? It is quite another matter that Christianity never was such a belief: the second part of "Can Religion Cure Our Troubles?" is entirely dedicated to demolishing the myth that it ever was. Here Lord Russell takes as a sparring partner Professor Butterfield and his book "Christianity and History" (1950) and simply tears the poor fellow apart.

"Freedom and the Colleges" is another superb essay I particularly love. The prefatory note of Mr Edwards mentions the important detail that it was first published in May 1940, that is soon after (the mentally deficient) Justice McGeehan declared Bertrand Russell "unfit" to teach in the College of the City of New York. You may rest assured that Lord Russell does not miss the opportunity to get even with certain rarefied circles of the American society, but he invariably does so in impeccable style. At one place he quotes one highly absurd Soviet "scientific" journal from 1938 which rants how the "Soviet science" in the field of cosmogony was undermined by some "agents of Fascism" to reject the "dialectic-materialistic concept, namely, the infinity of the universe with respect to space as well as time". Lord Russell adds humorously that if we substitute "Soviet" for "American", "Fascism" for "Communism", and "dialectic materialism" for "Catholic truth", we shall obtain a document under which the enemies of academic freedom in America might almost subscribe. At one place he makes another subtle but unmistakable reference to his ostracizing from the College of the City of New York:

"Among the academic victims of German persecution in Poland there are, to my knowledge, some eminent logicians who are completely orthodox Catholics. I should do everything in my power to obtain academic positions for these men, in spite of the fact that their coreligionists do not return the compliment."

But "Freedom and the Colleges" is much more than Lord Russell's vindication. Indeed, he doesn't need one and I can only admire his almost complete silence on the subject; it was only human that he made the few related remarks I have just mentioned. But the essay goes much farther than that, arguing convincingly that academic positions should be decided on grounds of competence only in the field in question. Moreover, diversity of opinion and the ability of weighing arguments in debate should be encouraged among teachers, not subjected to censorship by the state. Lord Russell warns us that democracy may well be the best FORM of government, but such government may be led astray in its FUNCTIONS (his emphasis in both cases) as easily as any other, especially because it actually rests on the passions of a mob. Should we not be careful enough in regard to academic freedom, Bertrand Russell tells us, the progress of human society might be brought to a halt; instead, a regress to the religion wars before John Locke put the beginning of the liberal outlook will invariably occur. Whether one agrees with Lord Russell that "fanatical bigotry" had revived between the First World War and the time when these lines were penned is largely irrelevant; whether it is happening at the moment, or will soon happen, is a matter of debate, but I think we would do well to remember Lord Russell's harsh and uncompromising but thought-provoking and timeless words.

As always with great minds, Bertrand Russell at his best gives tons of food for thought, in a most provocative and pugnacious manner (in the best sense of these words), and it hardly matters if one agrees or not. Indeed, I guess a good case can be made that one profits more, or at least equally, from his disagreement with such minds than when one agrees completely with them. Lord Russell, I am sure, would have loved - he probably did - the famous words of the scientist Walter Lippmann (1889-1974): "Where all men think alike, no one thinks much." Quite true! A disagreement with Bertrand Russell is at least as stimulating an experience as an agreement with him. Moreover, certainly the best tribute one can pay to great minds and great writers is to regard them with equal amounts of admiration, critical thinking and common sense. On the other hand, it can't be denied that agreement on some crucial points is essential for making the reading pleasurable. Lord Russell scores on all fronts.

The rest of the book, eight pieces altogether, are something of a mixed bag. To begin with, they have little or nothing to do with religion and I am sometimes a little baffled what are these "related subjects" which Paul Edwards meant, though at least two of them - immortality and sexual ethics - can easily be distinguished by the very titles. That said, there is not one among them which is bad, and they all have something provocative for your intelligence to work upon. "Life in the Middle Ages" and "Do We Survive Death?" are probably the least worthy members of the company, yet the former is a wittily written tribute to the common man of the Middle Ages, together with a charming sketch of the zeitgeist, and the latter is a pretty serious discussion explaining from a scientific point of view why it is so unlikely that the human spirit, or soul, or call it what you like, should survive death. "Our Sexual Ethics" and "The New Generation" are, of course, mostly concerned with moral issues like sex, marriage, children and family. Though Lord Russell discusses all of them in much greater detail in "Marriage and Morals" (1929), these two pieces are still valuable for their concise exposition of his opinions. Occasionally they are badly dated, but for the most part they are frightfully modern. Lord Russell's remarks about jealousy will certainly be valid as long as people attract each other at all; his call for women's financial independence has long since become true; his more than sensible views on children's early education about sex and especially on sexual infidelity in marriage are not only still modern but much too advanced for many people as well. Completely different in character is On Catholic and Protestant Skeptics, an amusing but rather shrewd article about a most distinguished company of freethinkers including Voltaire, Montaigne, George Eliot, Jeremy Bentham and the Mills; it is an excellent example of Lord Russell's impressive erudition and vast knowledge of history, too. And "Nice People" is positively a riot. This is the most hilarious piece in the book and the one which most often borders on flippancy but never really ventures into it - unless read by someone with less than average intelligence of course. Those who are not so nice would surely recognise a biting social satire of both England and America, wickedly malicious but always tongue-in-cheek and certainly fantastic fun to read. But my favourite among this group of essays is "The Fate of Thomas Paine" who was "prominent in two revolutions and almost hanged for attempting to raise a third".

All in all, "Why I am Not a Christian, and other Essays on Religion and Related Subjects" is certainly uneven collection of essays: some of them may be omitted without any big loss for the reader; some of them may just as well not have been included at all. But these are few, altogether not more than five pieces, most of them among the shortest in the book. At any rate, to denigrate the whole book because of them seems to me rather unreasonable. Just like science on atomic level agrees to neglect the mass of the electrons in comparison with that of the nucleus, the strengths of this book far outweigh its weaknesses; so much so that the latter may well be said to be non-existent. Everybody who considers himself fairly reasonable and sensible human being, not entirely devoid of critical intelligence and interest in the world, really should read that book. Those who prefer to accept things on their face value and never bother much about their consequences unless they affect them personally need not waste their time with this collection of essays at all, or with books other than thrillers for that matter. Personally, I can - and I do - confer upon this book the greatest possible compliment for any book: it should NEVER be out of print.

Christianity or a belief in "God" has been doing so much harm to the world that one barely knows where to begin when discussing the issue. Of course this applies equally as well to all other religious faiths.

The magnificent intellectual Bertrand Russell more than meets the task of unmasking superstitious nonsense such as a belief in God and an afterlife in this classic work, which should be required reading for all those who wake up early each Sunday and proudly trudge off to one or another house of worship. Free-thinkers should be rejoicing that over the last few decades church attendance has been in a steady decline. That these most successful cults in world history have suffering membership rates is cause for celebration.

Russell points out that most people believe in God simply because they have been taught from infancy to do so. Moreover during troubling times a spiritual belief gives them the reassuring feeling of an older brother type of figure watching over them. It is emotional rather than scientific reasons that lead people to make this leap of faith. Often one wonders why these dutiful Christians hold "Jesus" in such high regard given some of his more sadistic views. Why I am Not a Christian is loaded with insightful quotes from Jesus demonstrating his more sadistic side such as everlasting punishment and turning family members against one another.

Russell demolishes the well worn First-cause argument by logically reducing it to the question of 'Who made God?' He points out the leap of faith involved when someone believes in God. It is clearly a question that lies outside the realm of probable knowledge where there is as much a likelihood the Easter Bunny and the Tooth Fairy exist as a God or afterlife. As the late Carl Sagan wrote: 'extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.' Russell goes on to discuss simple biological reasons for rejecting a belief in an afterlife. Since what constitutes a person is a series of experiences connected by memory, and the brain is rendered useless at death (obviously memory along with it), it is preposterous to assume a human survives death and enters a "heaven" or "hell."

During the first three centuries of the Christian era individuals were powerless to have an effect on the politico-economic environment under which they lived. Why I am Not a Christian accurately remarks that this is primarily why much of Christian doctrine is largely obsessed with making an individual perfect in an imperfect world and that the good life has little to do with external social conditions and everything to do with a warped view of inner personal piety (especially dealing with sexual matters). It should be noted that for centuries the church opposed the abolition of slavery. The only reason some contemporary Christians still do not adhere to some of their more outlandish tenets is due to the debt they owe to the generations of rationalists, humanists and free-thinkers who from the Renaissance to the present day have caused religionists to become embarrassed over some of their more ridiculous traditional beliefs. Russell mentions that cruelty in society has almost always ran in direct correlation with the amount of dogmatic religious belief. All one has to do is study the Inquisition and Puritan New England to realize the plethora of women burned as witches to come to this rather pragmatic conclusion.

Perhaps one of Christianity's most pernicious effects on the world is its war against knowledge. Because knowledge can be a force to bring about universal happiness - religion is a chief impediment to realizing this goal.

Why I am Not a Christian is an absolutely outstanding work that some day may be more widely read. It is an obvious classic for intelligent people who adhere to a scientific outlook. Hopefully as the culture of the United States slowly evolves out of what can accurately be described as almost a pre-Enlightenment society, a great thinker of Russell's stature will be given his proper due. In a nation where Pascal's Wager keeps a large amount of religious worshipers in tow, and where a substantial percentage of the population has a literal belief in the "Devil," it cannot happen soon enough.

Russell first defines what he means by a Christian: someone who believes in God, the immortality of the soul, and Jesus Christ. Then he explains why he does not believe. Step-by-step he dismisses as fallacious the arguments for the existence of God: the first cause argument, the argument from design, etc. Then he discusses whether we survive death. Then the character of Jesus, as presented in the Gospels. He agrees that Jesus was an admirable man, but not divine and not the best or wisest of men. He gives examples from the Gospels.

He believes that all religions are false and harmful. He even calls religion "a disease born of fear" and "a source of untold misery to the human race." Fear leads to cruelty, he says. "A habit of basing convictions upon evidence, and of giving them only that degree of certainty which the evidence warrants, would, if it became general, cure most of the ills from which the world is suffering."

He explains his agnostic views with his usual lucidity. Russell was not an atheist; he was just not convinced by the arguments for God. He was always wary of certainties. So this book does not resolve anything, but it will give you plenty to think about. It is not a difficult read.

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

The reader of this book who still maintains his or her Christian faith and simply laughs at the common sense written here is doing so out of fear. And in this life, it takes determination and the ability to leave the safety of our mental interior walls to transcend this fear as opposed to covering over it with religion and theism.This is not something that comes easy.There are many who need the big daddy cop in the sky for strength and courage, limited, but nevertheless, the crutch needed for support of survival. It is not all who can reduce their anxieties into objects of fear that can be transcended in courage. So not all are psychologically able to bear such non-philosophical and sound reasoning.
To quote Russell from the book,
"Religion is based, I think primarily and mainly upon fear. It is partly the terror of the unknown and partly, as I have said, the wish to feel that you have a kind of elder brother who will stand by you in all your troubles and disputes. Fear is the basis of the whole thing - fear of the mysterious, fear of defeat, fear of death. Fear is the parent of cruelty, and therefore it is no wonder if cruelty and religion have gone hand in hand. It is because fear is at the basis of those two things. In this world we can now begin a little to understand things, and a little to master them by help of science, which has forced its way step by step against the Christian religion, against the churches, and against the opposition of all the old precepts. Science can help us to get over this craven fear in which mankind has lived for so many generations. Science can teach us, and I think our own hearts can teach, no longer to invent allies in the sky, but rather to look to our own efforts here below to make this world a fit place to live in, instead of the sort of place that the churches in all these centuries have made it

After I read (and reviewed here and on the store) Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens, Sam Harris, and Daniel Dennett's recent arguments against religious belief, I wondered what their inspiration had to say. They all acknowledge his pioneering efforts to expound an rationalist's philosophy, and I wondered-- scientific advances into DNA and political shifts in fundamentalist terror aside-- how much of today's "neo-atheist" presence had been foreshadowed, if not ghosted, by Russell.

The title's a bit misleading; "Why I Don't Believe in God" fits better this 1957 collection from over five decades of essays loosely concerned with intellectual freedom as well as "theological subjects." The title essay from 1927 attacks the standard proofs for God vigorously but rather too rapidly; it was a talk given for the National Secular Society, which may account for its briskness. "Has Religion Made Useful Contributions to Civilization?" (1930) takes on Christianity's harmful "ethical perversions" regarding most powerfully its suppression of sex. This theme occurs in many of the essays, reflecting Russell's well-known, or notorious once upon a time, advocacy of an openness in moral attitudes that even today would place him far on the left. The rest of this lengthy essay asserts "the three human impulses embodied in religion are fear, conceit, and hatred." (44) Religion makes these respectable passions, "provided they run in certain channels." Compared to Dawkins & Hitchens, Russell's position remains even more provocative perhaps, in such defiance.

"What I Believe" (1925) predicts how science will continue to obliterate credulous faith in a deity or in immortality. It rises to astonishing eloquence; its rhetoric is employed perhaps too lavishly for our tastes today, but it does leap out from the other essays which prefer more professorial tones. "Even if the open windows of science at first make us shiver after the cosy indoor warmth of traditional humanising myths, in the end the fresh air brings vigor, and the great spaces have a splendor of their own." (54) Here he's close to Hitchens' humanism as praised in his closing pages, and also Dawkins, with whom Russell shares a confidence in reason that will overcome superstition and wish fulfillment.

He does wander about considerably in this essay, but many of his warnings still remain in effect for us. "Capitalists, militarists, and ecclesiastics co-operate in education, because all depend for their power upon the prevalence of emotionalism and the rarity of critical judgment." (67-8) In criticizing the power of revolutionaries who argue that salvation, secular or religious, can only result from "catastrophic change, like the conversion of St. Paul," Russell aligns Shelley's poems. He does not blame only the churches, but all who foolishly if calculatedly goad people to revolt in hopes that if the "priests or capitalists or Germans" are overthrown, "that there will be a general change of heart and we should all live happily ever after." (75-6) This nuance, often overlooked in Russell, reminds us that he saw his foes among communists as well as the corporations, and denied any "short cuts to the millennium." The good life comes only through the cultivation of compassion, commonsense, and intelligent self-control. It cannot be grasped by the impatient.

Hitchens has been criticized for his assertion that part of the disasters of 9/11 can be traced back to the fact that the fanatics were driven to their actions by their warped sexual impulses. Russell notes: "A man or woman who has been thwarted sexually is apt to be full of envy; this generally takes the form of moral condemnation of the more fortunate." (82) Such jealousy of the rich and a hatred of luxury may, Russell implies, go on to become an "envy of love" itself.

In "A Free Man's Worship," (1903) eloquence also colors his address. He denies the primacy of power placed in a God. He supports the contrary to force, the worship of goodness. Since humans are but "a helpless atom in a world that has no such knowledge" of good and evil, Russell sets up mankind as the maker of God, who rules by fear and ignorance. Earlier people misunderstood how nature itself works without hatred or joy. For moderns, the alternative awaits. "Shall our God exist and be evil, or shall he be recognized as the creation of our own conscience?" Here, the neo-atheists align with Russell. They all accept that once we understand evolution, that we should continue to refuse to be tyrannized by attributing the patterns of blameless nature to a vengeful, loving, capricious, or jealous deity or deities.

This essay reaches a tremendous climax, full of imagery that could rival Darwin, Marx, or Nietzsche in its passionate claims for a Prometheus who breaks his chains forged in centuries of submission to mental and political and clerical control. Only a brief excerpt must suffice. Russell compares our life to that lived on a narrow raft (I think of the Medusa in Gericault's terrible painting) among "the dark ocean on whose rolling waves we toss for a brief hour; from the great night without, a chill blast breaks in upon our refuge; all the loneliness of humanity amid hostile forces is concentrated upon the individual soul, which must struggle alone, with what courage it can command, against the whole weight of a universe that cares nothing for its hopes and fears." (113) Much more in this mode awaits the intrepid reader.

A treatment of Catholic vs. Protestant skeptics (1928) has its moments: the latter tend to leave their denominations behind for denial of God more easily, as they merely continue the divisions that formed in turn the Reformation's sects. The former, however, "feels himself lost without the support of the church," upon whom the believer must perforce depend totally, and in his "desperate revolt" lacks the example of earlier heretics who found an intellectual or spiritual haven safely. He goes on the contrast the "social character" of Catholicism with the "individual character" that defines a Protestant. Goethe (I think; this is not cited by Russell) opined that it's easier to be good if one's happy than to be happy if one's good. This reminds me of Russell, somehow: "Protestants like to be good and have invented theology in order to keep themselves so, whereas Catholics like to be bad and have invented theology in order to keep themselves good." (123) These sorts of apercus keep you reading past the inevitably dated references and highlight Russell's clever wit.

Other essays here turn towards other concerns, loosely related to thought dominated by a Christian vs. a freethinking perspective. A review of Eileen Power's "Medieval People" and Johan Huizinga's "The Autumn of the Middle Ages," two popular histories from around 1925, is useful; a long 1934 account of Tom Paine's fate may have resurrected his reputation for later admirers such as Hitchens himself. "Nice People" failed to sustain its satirical edge, but can be taken as a valid 1931 indication of how the proto-hippies of the Thirties might have viewed with venom that vast majority of decent suburban hypocrites to the right of the bohemian (and perhaps then as now often trust-funded, one suspects) smart set.

This attitude pervades the essays on "The New Generation" (1930) and "Our Sexual Ethics" (1936), of course. I found this prediction has come nearly to pass among many single mothers, baby mamas, and absent fathers whose families doubtless came once from far to the right of Russell's radicals: "If women are to have sexual freedom, fathers must fade out, and wives must no longer expect to be supported by their husbands." (170) Another essay relates such statements to academic freedom (as does the long appendix devoted to the denial of Russell's appointment to a teaching post at CCNY in 1941 for his allegedly godless, pro-abortion, Communist, and free-love [etc.] espousing lack of immorality). It's still timely as a reminder of the state's exercised control of what professors can teach in their classes, and can publish.

"Can Religion Cure Our Troubles?" (1954) gives the answer you'd expect. "When two men of science disagree, they do not invoke the secular arm; they wait for further evidence to decide the issue, because, as men of science, they know that neither is infallible. But when two theologians differ, since there are no criteria to which either can appeal, there is nothing for it but mutual hatred and an open or covert appeal to force." (198) Substitute "believers" for "theologians," or "armed nations basing their aggression upon their faith-based ideologies" and you have instant relevance.

In our eras of renewed crusades and a return to jihad against those deemed enemies of God, such arguments deserve consideration. If you have read Hitchens, Dawkins, Dennett, and/or Harris, then this collection of the thoughts of a man they are all indebted to will prove a valuable introduction to the types of reasoning used in today's intellectual battles with the proponents of religion. If you disagree with the neo-atheist perspective, this volume should prove as necessary to study, for here, in imperfect expression but often engaging style, can be found the foundations for the current debates between secular humanists and believers.

After 9/11, when I finally determined to clarify my own beliefs about gods and religions (I'd left them hazy for much too long) this and Ibn Warraq's Why I Am Not a Muslim were the two most useful books I found. Russell's essay isn't elaborate or long, but it covered the ground for someone like me who's lives in a basically Judeo-Christian culture. It was interesting and gratifying to see that Warraq's book (which gave me new knowledge about Islamic religion, history, and culture) was, in essence, much the same. Not that I started out thinking myself either a Judeo-Christian or Muslim, but it was interesting to get better perspective on how all the major religions offer basically the same set of rewards and pitfalls. I used to make Buddhism a benign exception to that, but not so much anymore after a glimpse of Sri Lankan history. Take Me With You When You Go Nutty to Meet You! Dr. Peanut Book #1

This work is Bertrand Russell giving a personal account of why he is not a christian. Its eloquence and wit will provide inspiration and insight into the mind of one of the 20th centuries greatest advocates of freethought. This work is not however a logical proof, and Bertrand Russell does not make any claim to the contrary. New atheists who have not yet come to realize you cannot disprove the existence of anything will be disappointed with the lack of solid arguments to refute more educated theists. Theists will revel in the apparent illogical stance that Bertrand Russell takes. Indeed, if analyzed from a logical standpoint, the entire work is rife unproved assertions and circular reasoning. But such is the nature of this work. It is a personal account. Bertrand Russell, being one of the founders of logical positivism, was a professor of logic. It would have sufficed for Bertrand Russell to merely say that he could not believe in anything that could not be proven, and proceed along that logical discourse.
But that is not the point of this work. Bertrand Russell is seeking to condemn christianity in particular due to its barbaric nature, and the evil it has wrought upon the world. It is a counter-argument to those who assert that christianity is the ideal foundation of morality becaue of the quality of the morality it preaches.

This book comprises a collection of fifteen essays, plus an appendix by the editor (Paul Edwards) discussing how Bertrand Russell was barred from teaching in the City College of New York. Actually this appendix is quite interesting, as it shows the ardent zeal of the NY city municipal leaders of the time to rescind the decision that appointed B. Russell to the Chair of Philosophy, stemmed in their religious prejudices and moral inflexibility. It also depicts how democracy, when artfully manipulated by demagogues, may turn into a tyranny of the mob. Last, but not least, Paul Edwards castigates NY mayor La Guardia for his role in the whole issue, as well as the judicial system, both at the state and federal level, for its handling of the case.
Russell was an atheist. The two tenets of Christianity he mainly objects to are belief in God and immortality. Immortality he rejects on the grounds of materialistic monism; he refutes the body-soul duality, and cannot see:
i. How the soul, which he really treats as a manifestation of certain bodily (mainly encephalic) functions, can survive bodily death
ii. How the body can be reconstructed upon the Second Coming, and re-united with the soul, since the body would have by long time disintegrated. He is a pure scientist, and cannot see as probable a metaphysical scenario (although, he admits that in scientific terms he cannot strictly disprove it).
He rejects the notion that Christ has been "the best and wisest of men", and he puts "Buddha and Socrates above Him" in the respects of virtue and wisdom. He maintains that "the churches have retarded progress", stressing the point that not only he considers religion as a falsehood, but also as detrimental to human well-being. His belief is that "the metaphysical separation of soul and body has had disastrous effects upon philosophy".
In "What I Believe", which is one of the most important essays in this book (the title betrays it) he proclaims that "Man is a part of nature, not something contrasted with nature". By this proclamation, he appears to take a naturalistic and non-existentialist view. He attributes the belief in immortality to fear of death and the tendency of men to assuage it. He emphasizes the smallness of our world compared with the universe at large, and considers it as egotistical of ours to believe that the cosmos as a whole has a purpose tailored to our needs; terming men as "parasites" dwelling on the surface of the Earth may be epitomizing his viewing. Also, in what in year 1925 (that this essay was written) was a bold pro-birth-control stand he claims that "Birth control is thought wicked by people who tolerate celibacy, because the former is a new violation of nature and the latter an ancient one".
In his next essay, entitled "Do we Survive Death?", written in 1936, he makes what amounts to a prophetic statement: "Nietzsche argued for an ethic profoundly different from Christ's, and some powerful governments have accepted its teachings. If knowledge of right and wrong is to be an argument for immortality, we must first settle whether to believe Christ or Nietzsche, and then argue that Christians are immortal, but Hitler and Mussolini are not, or vice versa. The decision will obviously be made on the battlefield, not in the study." Less than 10 years of this statement the WWII battlefields of Europe and the Pacific had decided for Christ. To bring this one step further, 55 years later the military-economic chessboard of the Cold War had decided for Christ over Marx. And what we are currently experience may be the battle for deciding between Christ and Mohammed"
All his 15 essays are a nice exposition of his rationalistic, freethinker views. The essay on Thomas Paine is pretty interesting, since it shows how, throughout the ages, those yielding power tend to persecute the people that can't help speaking the truth. He correctly points out how Catholic and Protestant upbringing typically permeate the behavior of freethinkers on a perhaps subconscious level.
He is a rationalist and speaks things as they are. He does not try to invent metaphysical worlds to allay fears, and he disdains superstition. This book is a good read, and I feel this so for deists and atheists alike. For the latter it will reinforce, and perhaps systematize, the belief that they instinctively have; for those believing in God, and the Christian one specifically, it may help them view things in a broader perspective (move away from moral absolutism to moral relativism), as well as tempt them to try regard some core theological and philosophical issues (deity, immortality, resurrection) from a different, and hopefully refreshing and enlightening, point of view.

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.

Well, clearly if you are a Christian you will indubitably not relish this work nor would I see any reason why you would want to buy it. This book is for those who do not find Christianity appealing. Russell has many arguments that are logical and rational. This book is not difficult. It is not harsh. It is not mean spirited. I have read many others that are much more denigrating. Russell stays well above the shallow and vicious. He backs his arguments with history, science and logic. He is simple and to the point. This book is old. I bought my first copy back in the late 50's. But for those non-Christians and semi-Christians who are newly starting on the road to dubiousness and other possibilities, this book is as relevant as it ever was. Common sense doesn't really change all that much.
Why I am not a Christian is only one of several essays in this book. There is another great one on the Fate of Tom Paine and there is also a concise explanation of Russell personal beliefs. I've read this book several times and I will read it again, I'm sure.

Richard Edward Noble - The Hobo Philosopher - Author of:

"Honor Thy Father and Thy Mother" A Novel

Maybe this ranks three stars, maybe four. I would call it a "flawed classic" of Atheistic thought. Bertrand Russell puts forth some powerful arguments against Christian Theism. Russell asks - is this world the best that can be made by an omniscient being through eternity? If you are a Christian, this book may irritate you, but you should read it because it is an important critique from atheism. If you are an atheist, perhaps you may be familiar with better arguments, because not every argument Russell puts forward here is a good one. Russell is overconfident in education and reason. Some of his arguments are just not completely hammered home. In spite of that, this work is thought-provoking, critical, and well-written. It has become a class of atheistic literature, and should be welcomed as standard reading in an academic setting.

What is the strongest point of this collection of brilliant (although sometimes dated) essays? "The good life is one inspired by love and guided by knowledge." Know how to improve the life of your loved ones, and do it. Beautiful.
How does Mr. Russell explain why he is not a Christian?
He does NOT try to prove that Christ did not exist... that is NOT his point. Whether Christ existed or not, Mr. Russell's point is that Christ did not possess perfect wisdom in his teachings. Therefore Mr. Russell can not believe that Christ is his savior.
Other essays deal with the perpetuation of needless suffering and cruelty by religious establishments in general, Christian or otherwise. This material is required reading for everyone.

Unquestionably, Russell has made a mark on the world through this book. It is an honest and personal appraisal of Christianity made by a well-known and respected thinker who valued peace, intellectual honesty and knowledge. It represents a time in the intellectual history of man when the Christian religion no longer had its tight grip on those willing to question it.
As a series of essays collected in one volume, the style of this book is deceptively informal, and Russell seems to rely on the reader occasionally to have some background in the subject. Consequently, the power of his arguments may elude the reader on first viewing. But when viewed with care, this book yields several of the classic objections to Christianity that have never really been overcome by its apologists.
By no means does he cover the entire debate (Michael Martin's "The Case Against Christianity," for example, is more comprehensive.) However, strictly speaking, if even a few of his objections cannot be refuted by the Church, then the point has been well made.
Mixed with some of the more powerful passages are some less powerful suggestions which may seem odd even to us today. Although provocative, they can at times seem less than convincing. One must not weigh all of Russell's writing equally in this book and should take from it what works and leave what doesn't. But on definitely should *not* "throw out the baby with the bath water" or be convinced to do so by others.
A necessary book to read for anyone trying seriously to come to grips with the real issues surrounding Christianity, and for anyone wanting to be literate in this debate. Add it to your library.

5 stars for Russell brillant arguements, 1 star for his single dimensional analysis on the topic.
Am a practising Buddhist who is very curious in the similiarties of the Teachings by Jesus Christ. Yes, there are many similarities and differences as I have discovered and is still an ongoing research topic for me. I respect and admire Russell's sophisticated and analytical mind and in this case, he have chose to focus on the differences aspects.
I fear that many non-Christians would likely to mis-use his single dimension works for their own purposes while upsetting the Christian community.
Indeed, the New Testament is consist of the Gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke and Paul. Jesus first twelve disciples were Peter, Andrew, James, John, Philip, Matthew, Nathaniel, James (son of Alphaeus), Thadeus (Judas), Simon, Thomas and Judas Iscariot (who later betrayed Jesus). Noticed that Mark, Luke and Paul are not among the first twelve disciples, not sure if Matthew is the same as Jesus 6th disciple. I have read that Paul added in additional teachings of Jesus that were not from Jesus himself? As such, to critically assess the teachings of Jesus, one need to distill what's his original Teachings from what's is being perceived by his subsequent disciples. Moreover, through transcription and translation by men, the chances of errors and inclusion of personal teachings into the original writings are there. To date, I have yet to discover a reliable source of publication(s) regarding the original teachings of Jesus and if you know of any potential source, I would very much appreciate that you could pass me the reference for that so that I can further investigate from thereon.
I've chose to focus on the similarities, ie. the compassionate and loving-kindness aspects of Teachings from Jesus Christ and from the Dharma, with an open mind.
Cheers, Rex

Yet again Bertie has managed to amaze me with the deepness of his thought, expressed in such simplistic terms. I have found it a big help, as it opens your mind to thinking without christian parameters. It is the best criticism of religion and the morals that the rewligions have left us with. I had often thought many of the things that he has written, but even so, I was tongue tied until I read this book. It has helped me express my feelings on the evils of religion. A great book as it has helped me with discussions that I've had, and if you are a christian it is just as good, because you should never have blind faith (eg believing in Tony Blair). ENJOY!

It sadly is but commonplace today that free-thinker as a general label has become an autantonym. Of course Religion is irrational, just like everything else that is important in our lives. Religion belongs to Feeling, and Feeling is orthogonal to Reason - the point where the two meet being the debate on the existence of a God-whatever-you-call-it. That someone needs to read Russell in order to find that out says enough about the reader's mind agility and, regretably, even more about that kind of author's well known intelectual merits when put to the service of self-praise. Three stars overall go to the book's undeniable worth as atheistic soap. A must read for the fan, forgettable for everyone else.

I found Russell's essays about family and social issues more enlightening than the essays he wrote on religion. He is simply "preaching to the choir" in the essays focused on religion, and, as another reviewer has mentioned, his arguments against religion, particularly Christianity, would not be pursuasive to someone who embraced the faith on his or her own. I will disagree with Russell on one point: Russell asserts that religion can do nothing for mankind. I do not believe that that is literally true. Religion has been a factor in some positive changes (outweighed by more negative changes, however) that we have seen through the years.

The reviewer who called Russell's book "atheist drivel" should read the book again. The only statement Russell makes, if I'm correct, about atheism, is that there can be no positive conclusion about God's existence either way. That is what atheism is, simply having no positive belief in a monotheistic deity. If God wanted to be believed in, would he not make his/her existence manifest?

What I found most compelling in the book is Russell's thoughts on raising children. It's no wonder they didn't allow him to teach. His ideas are progressive, and go against the grain even today. It's a shame that mankind has not progressed since the 1930s, and Russell might not even be allowed to teach in modern universities. Russell proposals that children should be told everything there is to know about sex, that we should satisfy their curiousity, and that it is more harmful to keep this information from children that it is to expose them to it. He even suggests that children should see their parents naked. I don't know about the efficacy of that claim either way. I suppose that there are arguments for and against this assertion.

In any event, this is not a book for right-wing reactionaries who want to maintain the status quo. Yes, Russell was part of the establishment and he played the game, but I don't think that same establishment would throw him in prison just for kicks.

Let's put our religious beliefs aside for a moment and simply deal with this book as a work of philosophy. Please disregard the first reviewer who gave this book only one star. As you can see from the content of their review, they present nothing which supports their attack on Russell's views. That reviewer is only seeking to defend his religion instead of objectively reviewing the book. Even if I did not agree with Bertrand Russell's views on religion, I would have to admire the simple and direct ways in which he presents and then supports his views. Please do not let one person's blind faith prevent you from reading this work and approach it with an open mind. Even if you are a devout Christian, I think you will be able to appreciate how well Russell presents and explains the mindset of someone with an opposing view. Regardless of your religious beliefs, I'm sure you will enjoy the works of one of this century's most profound philosophers.

...are bound to suffer!"
Socrates faced death sentence, and Galileo faced the wrath of the Cardinals of the holy office, because they were born in the wrong time! One feel strongly that Bertrand Arthur Russell was also a victim of poorly timing his birth, after reading his essays like `Our Sexual Ethics' or the writings about children in numerous places. For example consider the line: "Many children have bad habits which are perpetuated by punishment but will probably pass away of themselves if left unnoticed. Nevertheless, nurses, with very few exceptions, consider it right to inflict punishment, although by so doing they run the risk of causing insanity." - with the exception of the writing style, this sentence may be quite comfortable between pages of a modern book on parenting or child psychology. Most importantly, they look from a very much humanitarian point of view at fundamental problems of our society, in today's terms (you have to ignore the emotional retorts of various religious groups). However, speaking his mind fearlessly in a wrong period, continuously led Bertrand Russell into trouble!
WHY I AM NOT A CHRISTIAN is a truly great book, and the ideas are still quite valid for today. The title may offend many with strong religious convictions and so will be most of the content. However, it is very hard to argue against many of Russell's opinions. For example consider the following about sexual education: "A person is much less likely to act wisely when he is ignorant than when he is instructed,.. Every boy is interested in trains. Suppose we told him that an interest in trains is wicked... suppose we never allowed the word "train" to be mentioned in his presence and preserved an impenetrable mystery as to the means by which he is transported from one place to another. The result would not be that he would cease to be interested in trains; on the contrary, he would become more interested than ever but would have a morbid sense of sin, because this interest had been represented to him as improper... This is precisely what is done in the matter of sex; but, as sex is more interesting than trains, the results are worse."
Most of the articles of this book have strong `anti-religious' tone. Since most of the examples are drawn from Christianity, one may feel that it is an attack against Christianity. However, the reader who is patient enough to read it through before forming an opinion may find that his is just telling the truth. Most of the criticisms are equally valid for other religious cultures.

As always, Bertrand Russell is an engaging writer. His bemused, sort of tongue in cheek approach, however, sometimes seems out of place when addressing a serious issue such as the nature or existence of god. Russell essentially sets up various straw man arguments meant to make Christianity appear absurd. For example he considers the situation where an innocent young woman finds herself married to an elderly degenerate syphilitic. Russell assumes that Christianity would mandate that the young woman stay married to the man even if she were to strongly desire that she be able to leave him. I really do not think that a careful examination of the Old and New Testaments and current religious thinking and tradition would mandate that she stay with this man. Really, Russell would do better to address the more fundamental and genuine weaknesses of Christianity rather than to consider such questionable examples.

Perhaps the most useful point that I associate with this book is Russell's minimalist definition of Christianity--that one believe there is indeed a god and that Christ is the best and wisest of men.

A better book to help the reader sort out, what, if anything, an authoritarian system of knowledge (such as a religion like Christianity) has to offer is Popper's book RC Series Bundle: Conjectures and Refutations: The Growth of Scientific Knowledge (Routledge Classics)--which does not address religion explicitly--just authoritarian systems of knowledge in general. Popper's book is written at a much higher level and requires the reader to understand much about the nature and acquisition of scientific knowledge, and therefore might not be accessible as Russell's book. For those who do not find Popper too daunting, however, there is much more to be gained than by reading this particular work of Russell's.

Although some of the individual arguments in the book are not as strong as others, and more modern philosophers have made better arguments against Christianity, there is still much to recommend in this book. It's more an attack against superstitious thinking in general, and a call for people to examine their beliefs and how they affect how they live their lives. There is a great deal of charm to the way he writes, and he was certainly much kinder towards Christians than many Christians had been towards him! Some of the sections do seem dated, but one must remember how long ago this book was written to fully appreciate it. Recommended as a great start for people questioning their spirituality or philosophy -- but don't stop here.

Bertrand Russell is a genius on par with Noam Chomsky, and this collection of essays on the problems with Christian morality are essential to anyone who wants to better understand the secular viewpoint. Going as far as to say that Christianity is "the principal enemy of moral progress in the world," Russell takes on topics like birth control and the inherent misogyny of Christian theology.
The only problem I have with the book is that being a collection of essays and speeches, some of the material overlaps each other. Still, it is an intriguing read and an important philosophical text.

Another classic I've just finished rereading(6/06-1st 8/96). Fascinating to see the development of many of Bertie's ideas over the years of his long & productive life. Many are timeless among freethinkers-such as contempt for dogma of any sort-be it religious or modern secular totalitarian variants. Others appear quaint & naive-such as his notion of obviating criminality by education & redistribution of wealth. This is a direct reflection of his involvement w/British Fabian Socialism of the late 19th & early 20th centuries. Also interesting is to note Bertie's criticism of Free Will in favor of biosocial determanism which has been remorphed by behaviorists & evolutionary biologists/psychiatrists over the past 15-20 years. Pinker's recent THE BLANK SLATE is a fairly sophisticated reiteration of this. Also interesting is Bertie's uncritical elevation of Islam as historically more tolerant of dissent & heterodoxy than Christianity-a dangerous mistake only recently being addressed by more aggressive scholarship such as the work of Ibn Warraq(see my recent review of his WHY I AM NOT A MUSLIM). All told-a great book & one I would recommend highly to freethinkers & students of religious "higher criticism".