Why Bertrand Russel is not a Christian

  • Thread starter Thread starter heliumspark
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
H

heliumspark

Guest
One of his arguments is that Jesus said “There are some standing here which shall not taste death till the Son of Man comes into His kingdom”, and “Ye shall not have gone over the cities of Israel till the Son of Man be come.” He says that this is a defect in Jesus’s teaching, since he obviously still hasn’t come yet.

The speech can be read at this link:
users.drew.edu/~jlenz/whynot.html

I read the whole speech “Why I am not a Christian”, and the straw-man tactic being used by such an intelligent (albeit seriously misguided) person like Bertrand Russel is embarrasing, and it is obvious that he did not do any research to discover whether there actually were intelligent, thinking people who believe in Christianity. He assumed from the beginning that none existed.

Still, I would like to know what our most astute explanations are for the apparent misconception of the early church that Jesus would be coming again during their lifetimes. From reading the spoken words of Jesus, it is easy to see where they got this idea, and yet, Jesus would not lie or intentionally mislead His church…

What are the best refutations against this argument?
 
In the commentary on Matthew 10:23 in the Ignatius Catholic Study Bible, it says in part:
10:23 before the Son of man: Jesus promised to come again within the generation of the living apostles (16:28, 24:34). As a prelude to his Second Coming, this initial “coming” refers to his visitation of destruction upon unfaithful Jerusalem in A.D. 70, an event that destroyed his enemies and vindicated his words of judgment (24:2). See note [below] on 24:1-25:46…"

In the commentary on Matthew 24:1–25:46, it says in part:
24:1–25:46 The Olivet Discourse is Jesus’ final sermon in Matthew… His words have two shades of meaning: (1) At the literal-historical level, Jesus forewarns the disciples that Jerusalem and the Temple will be destroyed. The Holy City is about to reject Jesus as the Messiah and erect itself as a barrier to God’s New Covenant. The Temple, an architectural symbol of the Old Covenant, must be eliminated to make way for the Church, the new Temple of God (cf. 16:18; Eph 2:19-22; 1 Pet 2:4-8). Jesus uses dramatic imagery—called “apocalyptic” language—and draws heavily on the OT to forecast this coming military catastrophe. Forty years later, in A.D. 70, the prophecy was fulfilled when Roman troops marched on Jerusalem, destroying the city and Temple. (2) On a spiritual level, the Temple’s devastation foreshadows the destruction of the world itself to make way for the eternal dwelling of heaven. This will coincide with Jesus’ Second Coming and the General Judgment of all nations (Catechism of the Catholic Church, 585-86). …"

Similarly, in the commentary on Matthew 10:23 in the New Testament of The Navarre Bible, it says in part:
Jesus describes himself as “the Son of Man” (v. 23), indicating that he is the judge who, at the end of the world, will judge all mankind (cf. 25:31). The “coming” mentioned here in the Gospel is probably a reference to the destruction of Jerusalem and the temple in the year 70—events which are a sort of anticipatiod sign of the punishment which will be meted out at that the end of time to those who reject Christ and his Gospel. Anyway, the passage does state that the task of preaching the Gospel will go on until the end of time."
 
Where’s John Henry Cardinal Newman when you need him? He would have reduced Russel to a quivering blob of flesh with a few strokes of his pen.
I would love to see a series of debate letters like the ones in the book Controversies that Karl Keating edited. Those Brits really knew how to debate on a high level while, at the same time, slipping a few blows below the belt.
Great reading. I highly recommend it.
Now, when do I get my $20.00, Karl?
Just kidding.
God bless
 
40.png
Strider:
Where’s John Henry Cardinal Newman when you need him? He would have reduced Russel to a quivering blob of flesh with a few strokes of his pen.
Click to expand...
Dream on. I don’t know of any case when an intelligent agnostic has been ‘reduced to a quivering blob of flesh with a few strokes of the pen’ of any theologian or deist not matter how eminent they might be. And we are talking here not about any intelligent agnostic but the mathematician/philosopher who is one of the most eminent philosophers of the 20th century and the guy who formulated the basis of modern mathematics with Alfred North Whitehead.

Statements like ‘Where’s John Henry Cardinal Newman when you need him? He would have reduced Russel to a quivering blob of flesh with a few strokes of his pen’ demonstrate a severe lack of knowledge and understanding of Russel’s ability and place in history.

I consider myself an intelligent agnostic - not brilliant just averagely intelligent. I am very confident in holding my own against any theologian or deist philosopher on earth, no matter how eminent or devout or well read he might be. I am certain that no theologian or deist could reduce me to a ‘quivering blob of flesh’ in a ‘few strokes of his pen’ (and that includes Newman - although that test is impossible). And if that’s the case for average old me (and anyone is welcome to try to reduce me to a quivering blob), how much more so for Bertrand Russell.

Alec
evolutionpages.com
 
Alec

and anyone is welcome to try to reduce me to a quivering blob

I’d like to be the first to try.

What is your choice of weapons? Sophistry, I suppose, since you admire Russell’s sophistry so much.

Carl
 
Why pick on some poor old agnostic who has been dead for decades.

BTW Principia Mathematica by Russel and Whitehead is a classic and shows that Russel should have stuck to mathematics.
 
40.png
hecd2:
And we are talking here not about any intelligent agnostic but the mathematician/philosopher who is one of the most eminent philosophers of the 20th century and the guy who formulated the basis of modern mathematics with Alfred North Whitehead.
Click to expand...
You have over-rated Lord Russell.

Ludwig Wittgenstein, who was Russell’s intellectual superior was a serious Catholic. Russell thought Wittgenstein’s Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus was probably the greatest work of the 20th century.

If you’re arguing that Russell is right because he is eminent, then I argue that Wittgenstein was MORE right because he was MORE intelligent.

When I read Lord Russell’s History of Western Philosophy, I was intellectually disappointed with his argument against St. Thomas Aquinas’ proofs. He tried to refute St. Thomas’ assertion that an infinite regress is not possible, arguing his point by referring to infinite mathematical sequences and series. If only Lord Russell had continued to study Professor Wittgenstein, he would have learned how confused he was.

Lord Russell is well versed in math and logic, but fairly average otherwise.
 
Going back to the original assertion why Russell is not a Christian, a simple statement of his would suffice:

The universe is out there and that’s all there is.

That’s all there is = No God.

Gerry
 
Not only was Russell not a Christian, he argued fervently in “Why I Am Not a Christian” that Christianity has produced a good deal more madness and mayhem than sanity and peace. To pronounce such purple prose and to actually believe it is to reveal that one has no sense of history past or present. When I think of a good Christian I do not think of a thief, a liar, or a murderer. Russell would have us think immediately of all three.

That mean spirited people have hijacked the Christian faith and used it for their own evil purposes cannot be denied. They are doing that right now with Islam all over the world.

But atheists have done this too … need we remind the disciples of Russell of the three greatest maniacs of the twentieth century … Hitler, Stalin, and Mao … all three of them atheists committed to anihilating all religion.?
 
Since sophistry means fallacious arguementation by the ingenious application of reason, any debate between Russell, a secular humanist, and Newman a Catholic Cardinal would have been view differently depending on which side of the arguement you stand on. SInce God is the author and creator of all Wisdom (Sophia), Cardinal Newman would have the upper hand in this debate, since Russells arguement would have all come from the fallible moral relativist school of secular humanism. To make the claim that Russell could have successfully debated Newman on a moral arguement is like saying that the Pharisees could have successfully debated with Jesus (had He chosen to do so) from Scripure about His own divinity. Its a question of Newman fighting an unarmed opponent. Clever application of logic is never an adequate substitute for charitable application of God’s Wisdom.
 
40.png
Carl:
Alec: and anyone is welcome to try to reduce me to a quivering blob

Carl: I’d like to be the first to try.

What is your choice of weapons? Sophistry, I suppose, since you admire Russell’s sophistry so much.

Carl
Click to expand...
Is that it?? Is your argument merely gratuitous name-calling with no other substance?

Alec
evolutionpages.com
 
40.png
hermit:
Why pick on some poor old agnostic who has been dead for decades.

BTW Principia Mathematica by Russel and Whitehead is a classic and shows that Russel should have stuck to mathematics.
Click to expand...
Why and how does it show that? It’s Russell by the way not ‘Russel’

Alec
evolutionpages.com
 
i believe he was BEGINNING the argument, hecd, not completing his thought.

as in a duel, he was asking you which weapon you would like to use. glad you’re keeping up to speed here.
 
40.png
Origen:
You have over-rated Lord Russell.
Click to expand...
Say you, but that is your opinion entirely unsupported by any substance. By any standard Russell is one of the great philosophers and logicians of all time.
Ludwig Wittgenstein, who was Russell’s intellectual superior was a serious Catholic.
Click to expand...
Wittgenstein was Russell’s student. Wittgenstein was a great philosopher but your assertion that he was Russell’s intellectual superior is your unsupported opinion. Wittgenstein would have remained an aeronautical engineer if it wasn’t for the fact that he discovered Russell’s work and became a student of Russell’s at Cambridge. Wittgenstein’s thinking, particularly in Tractatus is a development of Russell’s work.

As for Wittgenstein being a ‘serious catholic’, there is considerable evidence that he lost what little faith he had as a teenager. What is your evidence for him being a ‘serious catholic’? The consensus is that he was neither a believing nor a practising catholic between baptism and burial.
Russell thought Wittgenstein’s Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus was probably the greatest work of the 20th century.
Click to expand...
Russell did think that Tractatus was a great work. Tractatus was built on Russll’s own logical atomism. Did you know that Wittgenstein himself abandoned the ideas in Tractatus later in his career?
If you’re arguing that Russell is right because he is eminent, then I argue that Wittgenstein was MORE right because he was MORE intelligent.
Click to expand...
Well, that’s merely another assertion without evidence to support it. And, of course, I am not arguing that Russell is right because he is eminent. That would be almost as absurd as arguing that Wittgenstein was more right because he is more intelligent (but not quite as spurious or as silly as that). My position is simply that no deist philosopher or theologian, and certainly not Cardinal Newman could reduce even an averagely intelligent agnostic to a ‘quivering blob with a few strokes of the pen’. What Wittgenstein has to do with this is anyone’s guess.
When I read Lord Russell’s History of Western Philosophy, I was intellectually disappointed with his argument against St. Thomas Aquinas’ proofs. He tried to refute St. Thomas’ assertion that an infinite regress is not possible, arguing his point by referring to infinite mathematical sequences and series. If only Lord Russell had continued to study Professor Wittgenstein, he would have learned how confused he was.
Click to expand...
YOU were disappointed with Russell! I see. Russell was confused, was he? That again is your opinion unsupported by argument or substance Perhaps you could enlighten us all by providing YOUR demolition of Russell’s philosophy and demonstrate to us all just how ‘confused’ Russell was?
Lord Russell is well versed in math and logic, but fairly average otherwise.
Click to expand...
Oh, I see. Russell was versed in maths and logic but average otherwise. Maths and logic are, of course, minor considerations in the intellectual life of mankind. You will, of course back your claims up with substantial posts containing arguments and evidence in support of Russell’s mediocrity.

Yours is the worst kind of intellectual gew-gaw - opinions about the thinking of great minds based on the tiniest possible acquaintance with the substance of their thinking - internet-fuelled opinion for the those of limited attention span on which coarse opinion can be based - ‘Wittgenstein was more intelligent than Russell’, you say, whilst not showing even tenuous understanding at the most elementary level of what these philosophers were actually saying.

Alec
evolutionpages.com
 
40.png
jeffreedy789:
i believe he was BEGINNING the argument, hecd, not completing his thought.

as in a duel, he was asking you which weapon you would like to use. glad you’re keeping up to speed here.
Click to expand...
Really? OK. Well then, the weapons are logic and evidence. I am the humble servant of anyone who wishes to attempt to reduce me to a ‘quivering blob with a few strokes of the pen’. I request that anyone wishing to engage me on this matter informs me when they start their argument as I am having trouble determining what is meant to be an argument of substance and what is not, mainly because substance is singularly lacking in all responses so far.

Alec
evolutionpages.com
 
40.png
Apologia100:
Since sophistry means fallacious arguementation by the ingenious application of reason, any debate between Russell, a secular humanist, and Newman a Catholic Cardinal would have been view differently depending on which side of the arguement you stand on. SInce God is the author and creator of all Wisdom (Sophia), Cardinal Newman would have the upper hand in this debate, since Russells arguement would have all come from the fallible moral relativist school of secular humanism. To make the claim that Russell could have successfully debated Newman on a moral arguement is like saying that the Pharisees could have successfully debated with Jesus (had He chosen to do so) from Scripure about His own divinity. Its a question of Newman fighting an unarmed opponent. Clever application of logic is never an adequate substitute for charitable application of God’s Wisdom.
Click to expand...
The fallacy in this argument is called ‘Begging the Question’ The logical fallacy ‘Begging the Question’ is using the conclusion that one desires (in the case of Apologia the existence of a personal loving God) in the premises. Russell’s agnosticism is based on the argument that one cannot logically prove the existence of God. It logically follows that one is barred from using the assumption of God’s existence as a premise or argument to prove the conclusion. Apologia, do you need help or further explanation to understand why your argument is logically void?

Alec
evolutionpages.com
 
40.png
hecd2:
Perhaps you could enlighten us all by providing YOUR demolition of Russell’s philosophy and demonstrate to us all just how ‘confused’ Russell was?
Click to expand...
I just want to be sure I understand your request. You want me to analyze in detail Lord Russell’s specific errors about St. Thomas Aquinas’ proofs in the confines of a message board?

OK, we’ve all stopped laughing.

I said Russell’s argument was unsatisfactory, which is an appropriate comment on a message board, but let me give you a hint as to the general direction of Lord Russell’s error, and you can try to figure it out yourself.

The fact that one can define a data generating mechanism that one can imagine projecting toward “infinity” tells you nothing about the physical world. That Zeno could conceive of increasingly small units does not refute the fact that indivisible quantum units exist. Similarly, that Lord Russell can conceive of an infinite chain of causes does not refute the existence of a first cause.

By the way, I’ve analyzed Wittgenstein’s private language argument in the original German, my friend, so I know a thing or two about the mysterious later philosophy you teased us about. Of course, by the time Wittgenstein was talking about the private language argument, Russell no longer understood what W was talking about and said so publicly.

If I say Wittgenstein was known to be a serious Catholic, you can’t demand that I write a thesis on the topic because that’s not appropriate on a message board. If you were truly knowledgeable on the topic of Wittgenstein, you would know that what I said is not at all controversial and should have been granted as a valid point.

I am getting old, my friend, and am growing less willing to waste time arguing with agnostics.

Good day to you, and happy agnosticizing.
 
40.png
Carl:
Not only was Russell not a Christian, he argued fervently in “Why I Am Not a Christian” that Christianity has produced a good deal more madness and mayhem than sanity and peace. To pronounce such purple prose and to actually believe it is to reveal that one has no sense of history past or present. When I think of a good Christian I do not think of a thief, a liar, or a murderer. Russell would have us think immediately of all three.

That mean spirited people have hijacked the Christian faith and used it for their own evil purposes cannot be denied. They are doing that right now with Islam all over the world.

But atheists have done this too … need we remind the disciples of Russell of the three greatest maniacs of the twentieth century … Hitler, Stalin, and Mao … all three of them atheists committed to anihilating all religion.?
Click to expand...
Well that REALLY is interesting. I am quite familiar with Bertrand Russell’s ‘Why I am not a Christian’, and interestingly, the words ‘madness’ and ‘mayhem’ do not appear. The words ‘sanity’ and ‘peace’ do not occur. Indeed, I am not aware of arguments from Russell that he is not a Christian because ‘Christianity has produced a good deal more madness and mayhem than sanity and peace’ I wonder why that is? Is this a case of false attribution? Is there the merest hint of strawman here? Let’s assume, as is certain to be the case, that Carl is honest. How did he get the mistaken impression that Russell argues using ‘purple prose’. I recommend Carl and all others on this list to actually read the material before they post as you can all be assured that I’ll have read it . It is not likely that arguments that rely on ignorance on the other side will win the day here.

What Russell argues is as follows - is that what Carl is referring to? - ‘That is the idea – that we should all be wicked if we did not hold to the Christian religion. It seems to me that the people who have held to it have been for the most part extremely wicked. You find this curious fact, that the more intense has been the religion of any period and the more profound has been the dogmatic belief, the greater has been the cruelty and the worse has been the state of affairs. In the so-called Ages of faith, when men really did believe the Christian religion in all its completeness, there was the Inquisition, with all its tortures; there were millions of unfortunate women burned as witches; and there was every kind of cruelty practiced upon all sorts of people in the name of religion.
You find as you look around the world that every single bit of progress of humane feeling, every improvement in the criminal law, every step toward the diminution of war, every step toward better treatment of the colored races, or every mitigation of slavery, every moral progress that there has been in the world, has been consistently opposed by the organized churches of the world. I say quite deliberately that the Christian religion, as organized in its churches, has been and still is the principal enemy of moral progress in the world.’

Alec
evolutionpages.com
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top