For one, Russell claims to have “discovered all the arguments for the existence of God failed by the time I was 19.” That should give one pause. But, more to the point, he fundamentally misunderstood the law of causality, since he thought that it was “every cause must have another cause.” This leads to Hegelian/Heraclitus notions of “becoming” rather than the traditional Aristotlean/Thomistics notions of “being.” This is why Russell thought that the proofs appealed to ad infinitum or absurdity, when in fact they necessitate a first principle.
This is true. It seems like atheists keep on repeating the same fallacy over and over again. I wouldn’t mind if it was something difficult to grasp; but its not difficult at all.
I don’t take that essay too seriously, as I do not take very much of Russell in general seriously. However, on occasion he was a brilliant philosopher. I think his childhood produced various neuroses that he never overcame. The novelist, D. H. Lawrence, who knew him fairly well, found him to be a very cold fish indeed. He was even the model for the central character in one of Lawrence’s short stories, “The Blind Man.”