What do you think?
Rate this book
Russell on Religion: Selections from the Writings of Bertrand Russell
Russell on Religion presents a comprehensive and accessible selection of Bertrand Russell's writing on religion and related topics from the turn of the century to the end of his life. The influence of religion pervades almost all Bertrand Russell's writings from his mathematical treatises to his early fiction. Russell contends with religion as a philosopher, as a historian, as a social critic and as a private individual. The papers in this volume are arranged chronologically for optimum coherence of the development of Russell's thinking and are divided into five main sections:
* Personal statements
* Religion and Philosophy
* Religion and Science
* Religion and Morality
* Religion and History.
Students at all levels will find this a valuable insight into Russell's thought on religion.
* Personal statements
* Religion and Philosophy
* Religion and Science
* Religion and Morality
* Religion and History.
Students at all levels will find this a valuable insight into Russell's thought on religion.
270 pages, Kindle Edition
First published February 1, 1986
37 people are currently reading
1174 people want to read
About the author
Bertrand Russell
1,303 books7,373 followersBertrand Arthur William Russell, 3rd Earl Russell, OM, FRS, was a Welsh philosopher, historian, logician, mathematician, advocate for social reform, pacifist, and prominent rationalist. Although he was usually regarded as English, as he spent the majority of his life in England, he was born in Wales, where he also died.
He was awarded the Nobel Prize in Literature in 1950 "in recognition of his varied and significant writings in which he champions humanitarian ideals and freedom of thought."
He was awarded the Nobel Prize in Literature in 1950 "in recognition of his varied and significant writings in which he champions humanitarian ideals and freedom of thought."
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 22 of 22 reviews
March 16, 2011
Fantastic book from a fantastic free thinker! I also thought it was an easy read for a philosophy text. One of my favorite passages from the book (it is long but well worth it):
"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 the 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 us, no longer to look round 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.
Well said Bertrand!
"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 the 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 us, no longer to look round 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.
Well said Bertrand!
July 22, 2011
Dont judge a book by its title..
tajuk memang gempak tapi buku ni langsung tak menggugah. keseluruhan buku ni cuma menghentam agama kristian dan dalil yg diutarakan penulis ni ternyata basi dan tak mengkagumkan langsung.
Kalau aku buat list 100000 manusia paling genius di dunia.. bertrand russell takkan masuk dalam list aku, sebab dia akan aku masukkan ke dalam satu kelompok lagi iaitu 'top 5 list penjaja teori hafalan' . Russell lebih kepada tukang komen yang berpaut pada fikiran orang lain, dan kalau ada komentar yang benar-benar kritis pun, cumalah yg dipetik dari kata-kata voltaire dan mill.
Tajuk buku juga langsung tak ada kaitan dengan kandungan. Russell tak percaya tuhan tapi dia suka membaca buku tentang agama-agama lain yg ada di dunia. Dari agama pagan sampai agama samawi.
Russell bukanlah agnostik terulung, dia menolak wujudnya tuhan kerana kisah2 dari injil yang tak sesuai dengan logik akalnya.
Dalam melihat situasi ini secara reverse, dia sebenarnya adalah seorang yang mahu hidup di dalam dunia yg disukainya , bukan sebuah dunia yang disediakan untuknya.
Dalam erti kata lainnya, sekiranya buku das kapital tak sesuai logik seorang penguasaha kilang, adakah itu bermakna Karl marx tak pernah wujud di dunia ?
Selain itu, russell juga jenis mempercayai sains bulat-bulat. walaupun peringkat sains yang masih bersandar pada teori semata-mata. Dia mempercayai darwin dan komunis yg disifatkannya ilmiah. sedangkan itu bukan tanda intelektual. Kita tahu zaman newton, penganut sains percaya wujudnya tarikan dari dalam bumi yg dipanggil graviti sehingga datang Einstein dengan teori relativitinya memadamkan habis teori newton tersebut. Malah sejak zaman greek lagi, pengetahuan sains sering berubah2. Menyangkal adam dengan teori monyet yang mungkin akan dipadamkan oleh ahli sains akan datang bukanlah sesuatu kongkrit.
Russell bukanlah seorang pemandu bas, tetapi dia cuma salah seorang 'penumpang' yang berkongsi bas dengan ahli teologi dan para athiest. Yang kepercayaan mereka selalunya ditentukan oleh orang2 lain.
tajuk memang gempak tapi buku ni langsung tak menggugah. keseluruhan buku ni cuma menghentam agama kristian dan dalil yg diutarakan penulis ni ternyata basi dan tak mengkagumkan langsung.
Kalau aku buat list 100000 manusia paling genius di dunia.. bertrand russell takkan masuk dalam list aku, sebab dia akan aku masukkan ke dalam satu kelompok lagi iaitu 'top 5 list penjaja teori hafalan' . Russell lebih kepada tukang komen yang berpaut pada fikiran orang lain, dan kalau ada komentar yang benar-benar kritis pun, cumalah yg dipetik dari kata-kata voltaire dan mill.
Tajuk buku juga langsung tak ada kaitan dengan kandungan. Russell tak percaya tuhan tapi dia suka membaca buku tentang agama-agama lain yg ada di dunia. Dari agama pagan sampai agama samawi.
Russell bukanlah agnostik terulung, dia menolak wujudnya tuhan kerana kisah2 dari injil yang tak sesuai dengan logik akalnya.
Dalam melihat situasi ini secara reverse, dia sebenarnya adalah seorang yang mahu hidup di dalam dunia yg disukainya , bukan sebuah dunia yang disediakan untuknya.
Dalam erti kata lainnya, sekiranya buku das kapital tak sesuai logik seorang penguasaha kilang, adakah itu bermakna Karl marx tak pernah wujud di dunia ?
Selain itu, russell juga jenis mempercayai sains bulat-bulat. walaupun peringkat sains yang masih bersandar pada teori semata-mata. Dia mempercayai darwin dan komunis yg disifatkannya ilmiah. sedangkan itu bukan tanda intelektual. Kita tahu zaman newton, penganut sains percaya wujudnya tarikan dari dalam bumi yg dipanggil graviti sehingga datang Einstein dengan teori relativitinya memadamkan habis teori newton tersebut. Malah sejak zaman greek lagi, pengetahuan sains sering berubah2. Menyangkal adam dengan teori monyet yang mungkin akan dipadamkan oleh ahli sains akan datang bukanlah sesuatu kongkrit.
Russell bukanlah seorang pemandu bas, tetapi dia cuma salah seorang 'penumpang' yang berkongsi bas dengan ahli teologi dan para athiest. Yang kepercayaan mereka selalunya ditentukan oleh orang2 lain.
June 8, 2017
I enjoy reading Bertrand Russell because his philosophy reinforces my own beliefs. Many of his articulations help to clarify my own thoughts. He was truly a brilliant man.
June 7, 2024
AN EXCELLENT SELECTION OF RUSSELL’S WRITINGS ON RELIGION
The editors wrote in the Introduction to this 1999 collection, “This selection of Bertrand Russell’s writings on religion and related topics has been made to provide the reader with an overview of the development of his thinking about religion from the turn of the century to the end of his life… The writings in this volume are mostly concerned with Russell’s views of religion rather than his own personal religion or his philosophy of life. The distinction might be a clear one, but it does not give us distinct sets of writings, since Russell often writes as a critic of religion and expounds his own personal religion at the same time.” (Pg. 18)
In Russell’s essay, ‘My mental development,’ he states, “Mr. [Edgar] Brightman maintains that, in some sense, I believe in God… I cannot agree. The fact that I feel a NEED for something more than human is no evidence that the need can be satisfied, any more than hunger is evidence that I shall get food. I do not see how any emotion of mine can be evidence of something outside of me. If it is said that certain parts of human minds are divine, that may be allowed… but it does not mean that there is a God in the sense in which Christians hitherto have believed in Him. In arguments to God from religious experience there seems to be an unexpressed premise to the effect that what seems to us our deepest experiences cannot be deceptive, but must have all the significance they seem to have. For such a premise there seems to me to be no good ground, if ‘significance’ means ‘proving the existence of this or that.’ In the realm of value, I admit the significance of religious experience.” (Pg. 29)
Of course, Russell’s early essay, ‘The Free Man’s Worship’ is included, such as his passionate statement, “That Man is the product of causes which had no provision of the end they were achieving; that his origin, his hopes and fears… are but the outcome of accidental collocations of atoms; that… no intensity of thought and feeling, can preserve an individual life beyond the grave… that the whole temple of Man’s achievement must inevitably be buried beneath the debris of a universe in ruins---all these things… are yet so nearly certain that no philosophy which rejects them can hope to stand…. Only … on the firm foundation of unyielding despair, can the soul’s habitation henceforth be safely built…” (Pg. 32) “Brief and powerless is Man’s life; on him and all his race the slow sure doom falls pitiless and dark… for Man… it remains only to cherish… the lofty thoughts that ennoble his little day… to sustain alone… the world that his own ideals have fashioned despite the trampling march of unconscious power.” (Pg. 38)
The following sections in this famous essay are much less often quoted: “Although the necessity of renunciation is evidence of the existence of evil, yet Christianity, in preaching it, has shown a wisdom exceeding that of the Promethean philosophy of rebellion. It must be admitted that, of the things we desire, some, though they prove impossible, are yet real goods... The belief that what must be renounced is bad, though sometimes false, is far less often false than untamed passion supposes; and the creed of religion, by providing a reason for proving that it is never false, has been the means of purifying our hopes by the discovery of many austere truths.” (Pg. 35) “To abandon the struggle for private happiness, to expel all eagerness of temporary desire, to burn with passion for eternal things---this is emancipation, and this is the free man’s worship.” (Pg. 37)
In the first volume of his Autobiography, he wrote, “the sense of the solitude of each human soul suddenly overwhelmed me... my emotional life had been calm and superficial: I had forgotten all the deeper issues… Suddenly the ground seemed to give way beneath me, and I found myself in quite another region. Within five minutes I went through reflections such as the following: the loneliness of the human soul is unendurable; nothing can penetrate it except the highest intensity of the sort of love that religious teachers have preached; whatever does not spring from this motive is harmful, or at best useless… At the end of those five minutes, I had become a completely different person. For a time, a sort of mystic illumination possessed me… The mystic insight which I then imagined myself to possess has largely faded… But something of what I thought I saw in that moment has remained always with me, causing… a certain emotional tone in all my human relations.” (Pg. 39-40)
In his ‘What is an Agnostic?’ essay, he noted, “The question whether people survive death is one as to which evidence is possible. Psychical research and spiritualism are thought by many to supply such evidence. An agnostic, as such, does not take a view about survival unless he thinks that there is evidence one way or the other. For my part, I do not think that there is any good reason to believe that we survive death, but I am open to the conviction if adequate evidence should appear.” (Pg. 45) He adds, “I do no understand where this ‘beauty’ and ‘harmony’ are supposed to be found. Throughout the animal kingdom, animals ruthlessly prey upon each other. Most of them are cruelly killed by other animals or slowly die of hunger. For my part, I am unable to see any very great beauty or harmony in the tapeworm.” (Pg. 46)
In ‘The Essence of Religion,’ he suggests, “It is this experience of sudden wisdom which is the source of that is essential in religion. Mysticism interprets this experience as a contact with a deeper, truer, more unified world than that of our common beliefs… All the evils of our daily world … vanish from the sight of those who see the splendor beyond. But in this interpretation mysticism diminishes the value of the experience upon which it is based… It is not in some other world that that beauty and that peace are to be found; it is in this actual everyday world, in the midst of action and the business of life… The evils and the smallnesses are not illusions, but the universal soul finds within itself a love to which imperfections are no barrier, and thus unifies the world by the unity of its own contemplation.” (Pg. 59-60) He adds, “The essence of religion, then, lies in the subordination of the finite part of our life to the infinite part… There are three kinds of union: union in thought, union in feeling, union in will. Union in thought is knowledge, union in feeling is love, union in will is service.” (Pg. 68)
In ‘The Existence and Nature of God,’ he argues, “I should say in conclusion that it is possible that there may be an omnipotent God. He would have had to create evil without any temptation for creating evil. He must be infinitely weak, an absolute fiend. That God is possible… I don’t say an omnipotent God can fail to have that bad character. There may be an non-omnipotent God who is slowly, hesitatingly, and rather uncertainly guiding the universe towards something a little better than what we have now; or perhaps to something worse. How can we know? We can only know His major purposes from what we see in the world… I can think the good things are inevitable, the bad things put there on purpose. I don’t think either is very plausible.” (Pg. 101)
In ‘Mysticism and Logic,’ he states, “The first and most direct outcome of the moment of illumination is belief in the possibility of a way of knowledge which may be called revelation or insight or intuition… Closely connected with this belief is the conception of a Reality behind the world of appearance and utterly different from it… The second characteristic of mysticism is its belief in unity, and its refusal to admit opposition anywhere… A third mark of almost all mystical metaphysics is the denial of the reality of Time…. The last of the doctrines of mysticism … is its belief that all evil is mere appearance, an illusion produced by the divisions and oppositions of the analytical intellect. Mysticism does not maintain that such things as cruelty, for example, are good, but it denies that they are real.” (Pg. 115)
In ‘Has Religion Made Useful Contributions to Civilization?’ he asserts, “My own view on religion is that … I regard it as a disease born of fear and as a course of untold misery to the human race. I cannot, however, deny that it has made SOME contributions to civilization. It helped in the 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.” (Pg. 169) Later, he adds, religion prevents our children from having a rational education; religion prevents us from removing the fundamental causes of war; religion prevents us from teaching the ethic of scientific cooperation in please of the old fierce doctrines of sin and punishment. It is possible that mankind is on the threshold of a golden age; but, if so, it will be necessary first to slay the dragon that guards the door, and this dragon is religion.” (Pg. 185)
Readers hoping for a collection consisting only of Russell’s sarcastic pronouncements about religion may be disappointed in this book; but those wanting a more ‘complete’ perspective on his views will find this book very illuminating.
The editors wrote in the Introduction to this 1999 collection, “This selection of Bertrand Russell’s writings on religion and related topics has been made to provide the reader with an overview of the development of his thinking about religion from the turn of the century to the end of his life… The writings in this volume are mostly concerned with Russell’s views of religion rather than his own personal religion or his philosophy of life. The distinction might be a clear one, but it does not give us distinct sets of writings, since Russell often writes as a critic of religion and expounds his own personal religion at the same time.” (Pg. 18)
In Russell’s essay, ‘My mental development,’ he states, “Mr. [Edgar] Brightman maintains that, in some sense, I believe in God… I cannot agree. The fact that I feel a NEED for something more than human is no evidence that the need can be satisfied, any more than hunger is evidence that I shall get food. I do not see how any emotion of mine can be evidence of something outside of me. If it is said that certain parts of human minds are divine, that may be allowed… but it does not mean that there is a God in the sense in which Christians hitherto have believed in Him. In arguments to God from religious experience there seems to be an unexpressed premise to the effect that what seems to us our deepest experiences cannot be deceptive, but must have all the significance they seem to have. For such a premise there seems to me to be no good ground, if ‘significance’ means ‘proving the existence of this or that.’ In the realm of value, I admit the significance of religious experience.” (Pg. 29)
Of course, Russell’s early essay, ‘The Free Man’s Worship’ is included, such as his passionate statement, “That Man is the product of causes which had no provision of the end they were achieving; that his origin, his hopes and fears… are but the outcome of accidental collocations of atoms; that… no intensity of thought and feeling, can preserve an individual life beyond the grave… that the whole temple of Man’s achievement must inevitably be buried beneath the debris of a universe in ruins---all these things… are yet so nearly certain that no philosophy which rejects them can hope to stand…. Only … on the firm foundation of unyielding despair, can the soul’s habitation henceforth be safely built…” (Pg. 32) “Brief and powerless is Man’s life; on him and all his race the slow sure doom falls pitiless and dark… for Man… it remains only to cherish… the lofty thoughts that ennoble his little day… to sustain alone… the world that his own ideals have fashioned despite the trampling march of unconscious power.” (Pg. 38)
The following sections in this famous essay are much less often quoted: “Although the necessity of renunciation is evidence of the existence of evil, yet Christianity, in preaching it, has shown a wisdom exceeding that of the Promethean philosophy of rebellion. It must be admitted that, of the things we desire, some, though they prove impossible, are yet real goods... The belief that what must be renounced is bad, though sometimes false, is far less often false than untamed passion supposes; and the creed of religion, by providing a reason for proving that it is never false, has been the means of purifying our hopes by the discovery of many austere truths.” (Pg. 35) “To abandon the struggle for private happiness, to expel all eagerness of temporary desire, to burn with passion for eternal things---this is emancipation, and this is the free man’s worship.” (Pg. 37)
In the first volume of his Autobiography, he wrote, “the sense of the solitude of each human soul suddenly overwhelmed me... my emotional life had been calm and superficial: I had forgotten all the deeper issues… Suddenly the ground seemed to give way beneath me, and I found myself in quite another region. Within five minutes I went through reflections such as the following: the loneliness of the human soul is unendurable; nothing can penetrate it except the highest intensity of the sort of love that religious teachers have preached; whatever does not spring from this motive is harmful, or at best useless… At the end of those five minutes, I had become a completely different person. For a time, a sort of mystic illumination possessed me… The mystic insight which I then imagined myself to possess has largely faded… But something of what I thought I saw in that moment has remained always with me, causing… a certain emotional tone in all my human relations.” (Pg. 39-40)
In his ‘What is an Agnostic?’ essay, he noted, “The question whether people survive death is one as to which evidence is possible. Psychical research and spiritualism are thought by many to supply such evidence. An agnostic, as such, does not take a view about survival unless he thinks that there is evidence one way or the other. For my part, I do not think that there is any good reason to believe that we survive death, but I am open to the conviction if adequate evidence should appear.” (Pg. 45) He adds, “I do no understand where this ‘beauty’ and ‘harmony’ are supposed to be found. Throughout the animal kingdom, animals ruthlessly prey upon each other. Most of them are cruelly killed by other animals or slowly die of hunger. For my part, I am unable to see any very great beauty or harmony in the tapeworm.” (Pg. 46)
In ‘The Essence of Religion,’ he suggests, “It is this experience of sudden wisdom which is the source of that is essential in religion. Mysticism interprets this experience as a contact with a deeper, truer, more unified world than that of our common beliefs… All the evils of our daily world … vanish from the sight of those who see the splendor beyond. But in this interpretation mysticism diminishes the value of the experience upon which it is based… It is not in some other world that that beauty and that peace are to be found; it is in this actual everyday world, in the midst of action and the business of life… The evils and the smallnesses are not illusions, but the universal soul finds within itself a love to which imperfections are no barrier, and thus unifies the world by the unity of its own contemplation.” (Pg. 59-60) He adds, “The essence of religion, then, lies in the subordination of the finite part of our life to the infinite part… There are three kinds of union: union in thought, union in feeling, union in will. Union in thought is knowledge, union in feeling is love, union in will is service.” (Pg. 68)
In ‘The Existence and Nature of God,’ he argues, “I should say in conclusion that it is possible that there may be an omnipotent God. He would have had to create evil without any temptation for creating evil. He must be infinitely weak, an absolute fiend. That God is possible… I don’t say an omnipotent God can fail to have that bad character. There may be an non-omnipotent God who is slowly, hesitatingly, and rather uncertainly guiding the universe towards something a little better than what we have now; or perhaps to something worse. How can we know? We can only know His major purposes from what we see in the world… I can think the good things are inevitable, the bad things put there on purpose. I don’t think either is very plausible.” (Pg. 101)
In ‘Mysticism and Logic,’ he states, “The first and most direct outcome of the moment of illumination is belief in the possibility of a way of knowledge which may be called revelation or insight or intuition… Closely connected with this belief is the conception of a Reality behind the world of appearance and utterly different from it… The second characteristic of mysticism is its belief in unity, and its refusal to admit opposition anywhere… A third mark of almost all mystical metaphysics is the denial of the reality of Time…. The last of the doctrines of mysticism … is its belief that all evil is mere appearance, an illusion produced by the divisions and oppositions of the analytical intellect. Mysticism does not maintain that such things as cruelty, for example, are good, but it denies that they are real.” (Pg. 115)
In ‘Has Religion Made Useful Contributions to Civilization?’ he asserts, “My own view on religion is that … I regard it as a disease born of fear and as a course of untold misery to the human race. I cannot, however, deny that it has made SOME contributions to civilization. It helped in the 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.” (Pg. 169) Later, he adds, religion prevents our children from having a rational education; religion prevents us from removing the fundamental causes of war; religion prevents us from teaching the ethic of scientific cooperation in please of the old fierce doctrines of sin and punishment. It is possible that mankind is on the threshold of a golden age; but, if so, it will be necessary first to slay the dragon that guards the door, and this dragon is religion.” (Pg. 185)
Readers hoping for a collection consisting only of Russell’s sarcastic pronouncements about religion may be disappointed in this book; but those wanting a more ‘complete’ perspective on his views will find this book very illuminating.
June 12, 2025
On God and Religion by Bertrand Russell – you can find another review on Bertrand Russell and his thoughts on religion on my blog, where the best beano is https://realinibarzoi.blogspot.com/20...
Bertrand Russell was one of the greatest philosophers and he wrote Why I Am Not A Christian https://realinibarzoi.blogspot.com/20... which is pretty self-explanatory, his views On God and Religion were…let us say negative, and at this stage, I am in his camp
Nevertheless, I am advancing in age and look for transcendence, perhaps a way to accede to heaven, and make belief that there is one, open to a redemption, conversion, so use the arguments in favor to try and transgress, migrate from one camp to the other and believe say CS Lewis over Betrand Russell or Nathaniel Branden
Crucial would be the notion of ‘free will’, when critics (or is it blasphemers?) blame the Almighty for the pain, suffering, disabilities, war and all the tragedies, there is the retort that God could not make a machine, you would not want to live in a world where everything is programmed, and humans can sin or avoid it
‘What kind of love is it that has to be asked before it’ll give, asked nicely too, so you’re supposed to go down on your bended knees to plead for whatever it is? Art thou troubled? Yes. And what’s God’s answer to that? Not, in which case I’ve clearly fallen down on the job, but, Right, you just follow the laid-down procedure and I might consider doing something or other about it one day’ this severe criticism comes from The Blood of The Lamb
Moving from one camp to the other, Karen Armstrong https://realinibarzoi.blogspot.com/20... is acclaimed as the best expert on religion, and she explains in her marvelous books that in the holy texts we have allegories, and it seems to be it is a question of interpretation
The inquisition used terror, torture because they got the message wrong, just like the jihadists of this age take a word from the Koran and say they need to kill the infidel and the apostates, when in fact, Muhammad, the prophet of Allah, insisted on a war with self, in order to better, respect the precepts and so on
We have the issue of how religion will evolve, or on the contrary, become something else, like in Brave New World – a review will be posted in the next few days, insha’Allah on the Aldous Huxley magnum opera – where Ford has replaced God, or maybe we have the scenario of The Night Sessions by Ken Macleod
https://realinibarzoi.blogspot.com/20... in this Science Fiction novel -one of the 1,000 that Everyone Must Read – robots, for which we would use AI today, have some lectures or Night Sessions, and they are converted to some extent, only the consequences are dramatic
in fact, the better word could be catastrophic, in that they take the message and say that the future is for them, God had given humans the chance and they just destroyed, look at what happened, so it is now time for the robots, this is over simplifying, but you get the picture, that is, if you are not an AI machine just reading all there is
another major critic of religion is my favorite author, Kingsley Amis, who writes: there are some situations where mere help isn’t much of a help. What about ugly girls or blind people or deformed people or people with the wrong taste in sex that no amount of trying will ever take away? When that kind of thing comes along God’s answer is not, Whoops, here I go slipping up again, but, get into the groveling position and thank me for giving you such a spiffing chance to be brave, and if I feel like it, I might give you a hand. By helping you to be brave, nothing more constructive or troublesome or serious than that. So please don’t tell me how nice God is, what with him always answering our prayers and all. He can’t exist without being a shit, and I wouldn’t dream of saying flatly he doesn’t exist, just that the world and everything in it are indistinguishable from a world et cetera in which he doesn’t exist.’ This is from You Can’t Have Both https://realinibarzoi.blogspot.com/20... and the writer was asked about God, and he retorted ‘it is not that I do not believe in him, it is more that I hate him’
Now for my standard closing of the note with a question, and invitation – maybe you have a good idea on how we could make more than a million dollars with this https://realinibarzoi.blogspot.com/20... – as it is, this is a unique technique, which we could promote, sell, open the Oscars show with or something and then make lots of money together, if you have the how, I have the product, I just do not know how to get the befits from it, other than the exercise per se
There is also the small matter of working for AT&T – this huge company asked me to be its Representative for Romania and Bulgaria, on the Calling Card side, which meant sailing into the Black Sea wo meet the US Navy ships, travelling to Sofia, a lot of activity, using my mother’s two bedrooms flat as office and warehouse, all for the grand total of $250, raised after a lot of persuasion to the staggering $400…with retirement ahead, there are no benefits, nothing…it is a longer story, but if you can help get the mastodont to pay some dues, or have an idea how it can happen, let me know
As for my role in the Revolution that killed Ceausescu, a smaller Mao, there it is http://realini.blogspot.com/2022/03/r...
Some favorite quotes from To The Hermitage and other works
‘Fiction is infinitely preferable to real life...As long as you avoid the books of Kafka or Beckett, the everlasting plot of fiction has fewer futile experiences than the careless plot of reality...Fiction's people are fuller, deeper, cleverer, more moving than those in real life…Its actions are more intricate, illuminating, noble, profound…There are many more dramas, climaxes, romantic fulfillment, twists, turns, gratified resolutions…Unlike reality, all of this you can experience without leaving the house or even getting out of bed…What's more, books are a form of intelligent human greatness, as stories are a higher order of sense…As random life is to destiny, so stories are to great authors, who provided us with some of the highest pleasures and the most wonderful mystifications we can find…Few stories are greater than Anna Karenina, that wise epic by an often foolish author…’
Bertrand Russell was one of the greatest philosophers and he wrote Why I Am Not A Christian https://realinibarzoi.blogspot.com/20... which is pretty self-explanatory, his views On God and Religion were…let us say negative, and at this stage, I am in his camp
Nevertheless, I am advancing in age and look for transcendence, perhaps a way to accede to heaven, and make belief that there is one, open to a redemption, conversion, so use the arguments in favor to try and transgress, migrate from one camp to the other and believe say CS Lewis over Betrand Russell or Nathaniel Branden
Crucial would be the notion of ‘free will’, when critics (or is it blasphemers?) blame the Almighty for the pain, suffering, disabilities, war and all the tragedies, there is the retort that God could not make a machine, you would not want to live in a world where everything is programmed, and humans can sin or avoid it
‘What kind of love is it that has to be asked before it’ll give, asked nicely too, so you’re supposed to go down on your bended knees to plead for whatever it is? Art thou troubled? Yes. And what’s God’s answer to that? Not, in which case I’ve clearly fallen down on the job, but, Right, you just follow the laid-down procedure and I might consider doing something or other about it one day’ this severe criticism comes from The Blood of The Lamb
Moving from one camp to the other, Karen Armstrong https://realinibarzoi.blogspot.com/20... is acclaimed as the best expert on religion, and she explains in her marvelous books that in the holy texts we have allegories, and it seems to be it is a question of interpretation
The inquisition used terror, torture because they got the message wrong, just like the jihadists of this age take a word from the Koran and say they need to kill the infidel and the apostates, when in fact, Muhammad, the prophet of Allah, insisted on a war with self, in order to better, respect the precepts and so on
We have the issue of how religion will evolve, or on the contrary, become something else, like in Brave New World – a review will be posted in the next few days, insha’Allah on the Aldous Huxley magnum opera – where Ford has replaced God, or maybe we have the scenario of The Night Sessions by Ken Macleod
https://realinibarzoi.blogspot.com/20... in this Science Fiction novel -one of the 1,000 that Everyone Must Read – robots, for which we would use AI today, have some lectures or Night Sessions, and they are converted to some extent, only the consequences are dramatic
in fact, the better word could be catastrophic, in that they take the message and say that the future is for them, God had given humans the chance and they just destroyed, look at what happened, so it is now time for the robots, this is over simplifying, but you get the picture, that is, if you are not an AI machine just reading all there is
another major critic of religion is my favorite author, Kingsley Amis, who writes: there are some situations where mere help isn’t much of a help. What about ugly girls or blind people or deformed people or people with the wrong taste in sex that no amount of trying will ever take away? When that kind of thing comes along God’s answer is not, Whoops, here I go slipping up again, but, get into the groveling position and thank me for giving you such a spiffing chance to be brave, and if I feel like it, I might give you a hand. By helping you to be brave, nothing more constructive or troublesome or serious than that. So please don’t tell me how nice God is, what with him always answering our prayers and all. He can’t exist without being a shit, and I wouldn’t dream of saying flatly he doesn’t exist, just that the world and everything in it are indistinguishable from a world et cetera in which he doesn’t exist.’ This is from You Can’t Have Both https://realinibarzoi.blogspot.com/20... and the writer was asked about God, and he retorted ‘it is not that I do not believe in him, it is more that I hate him’
Now for my standard closing of the note with a question, and invitation – maybe you have a good idea on how we could make more than a million dollars with this https://realinibarzoi.blogspot.com/20... – as it is, this is a unique technique, which we could promote, sell, open the Oscars show with or something and then make lots of money together, if you have the how, I have the product, I just do not know how to get the befits from it, other than the exercise per se
There is also the small matter of working for AT&T – this huge company asked me to be its Representative for Romania and Bulgaria, on the Calling Card side, which meant sailing into the Black Sea wo meet the US Navy ships, travelling to Sofia, a lot of activity, using my mother’s two bedrooms flat as office and warehouse, all for the grand total of $250, raised after a lot of persuasion to the staggering $400…with retirement ahead, there are no benefits, nothing…it is a longer story, but if you can help get the mastodont to pay some dues, or have an idea how it can happen, let me know
As for my role in the Revolution that killed Ceausescu, a smaller Mao, there it is http://realini.blogspot.com/2022/03/r...
Some favorite quotes from To The Hermitage and other works
‘Fiction is infinitely preferable to real life...As long as you avoid the books of Kafka or Beckett, the everlasting plot of fiction has fewer futile experiences than the careless plot of reality...Fiction's people are fuller, deeper, cleverer, more moving than those in real life…Its actions are more intricate, illuminating, noble, profound…There are many more dramas, climaxes, romantic fulfillment, twists, turns, gratified resolutions…Unlike reality, all of this you can experience without leaving the house or even getting out of bed…What's more, books are a form of intelligent human greatness, as stories are a higher order of sense…As random life is to destiny, so stories are to great authors, who provided us with some of the highest pleasures and the most wonderful mystifications we can find…Few stories are greater than Anna Karenina, that wise epic by an often foolish author…’
August 9, 2015
Quite simply, Bertrand Russell makes sense. Not surprisingly, Russell was not mentioned at all in seminary. I only knew of Russell as Alfred North Whitehead's collaborator on Principia Mathmatica; he was spoken of in hushed tones as a philosophical gadfly and misfit. This collection of essays ranging from the 1920s to the 1950s is a wonderful introduction to Russell's philosophy. Russell writes is a clear language avoiding unnecessary jargon (with the possible exception of "The Essence of Religion") and he pulls no punches; nothing and no one escapes his critical eye. Some may find Russell too optimistic and a bit naïve, but then he remained hopeful after two world wars and in the midst of the Cold War. It's time to reevaluate Russell's contributions to philosophy and the resurgence in atheistic discourse.
April 28, 2018
"And do you think? That unto such as you,
A maggot-minded, fanatic crew,
God gave the secret, and denied it me?
Well, well, what matters it?
Believe that, too."
- Omar Al Khayam to the Israelites
Great arguments. The burden of proof lies on the believer, on the ones that made the assumption.
A maggot-minded, fanatic crew,
God gave the secret, and denied it me?
Well, well, what matters it?
Believe that, too."
- Omar Al Khayam to the Israelites
Great arguments. The burden of proof lies on the believer, on the ones that made the assumption.
May 12, 2018
I don't agree with everything Russell wrote on the subject of religion. I do have immense respect for his willingness to express controversial views during an era much less tolerant than our own. For that alone I give the book five stars.
February 23, 2020
A mathematically formulated agnosticism! Thoroughly thought out & eloquently derived!
March 5, 2024
There is a marvelous anecdote from the occasion of Russell’s 90th birthday, that best serves to summarize his attitude toward God and religion. A London lady sat next to him at this party, and over the soup she suggested to him that he was not only the world’s most famous atheist but, by this time, very probably the world’s oldest atheist. “What will you do, Bertie, if it turns out you’re wrong?” she asked. “I mean, what if — uh — when the time comes, you should meet Him? What will you say?” Russell was delighted with the question. His bright, birdlike eyes grew even brighter as he contemplated this possible future dialogue, and then he pointed a finger upward and cried, “Why, I should say, ‘God, you gave us insufficient evidence.’” [Preface]
Russell belongs to that company of freethinkers who wrote incessantly about religion. Religion is the subject of one of his earliest writings, the secret diary that he started to keep when he was just 16. It is the theme of well-known essays such as ‘The Free Man’s Worship’, and figures prominently in the mature treatises on sociology and politics.
Even some of his treatises on mathematics and philosophy of science contain speculations about the reality of a spiritual realm independent of the senses. Religion is protuberant in the unpublished fiction that he wrote early in the 20th century as well as the fiction that he published at a great old age.
Throughout much of his life Russell contended with religion as philosopher, as historian, as social critic and as private individual. In one of his memoirs he declared that he overcame religion when he was an adolescent during a struggle recorded in his secret diary when ‘I rejected successively, free will, immortality and belief in God’. But the record of a lifetime of writing suggests that the struggle continued for many years, and on several fronts.
What are the nuggets to be picked up from this book? The following:
1) Russell calls himself an agnostic. In other words he neither believes nor disbelieves in the existence of God. Such an attitude was natural in a man who had a scientific outlook on life and who called himself a Rationalist. In one of his most celebrated essays, which finds place in this volume, called "Why I am not a Christian", he examined the main arguments which are thought to prove the existence of God, and showed them all to be false.
2) Likewise Russell did not believe in any of the dogmas of traditional religion and was firmly opposed to every kind of religious orthodoxy. Thus he was a "free thinker" in religion.
3) In another essay, "Free Thought and Official Propaganda", he writes: "I am myself a dissenter from all known religions, and I hope that every kind of religious belief will die out. I do not believe that, on the balance, religious belief has been a force for good."
4) Russell admits that, in certain times and places, religion has had some good effects but says that on the whole religion has been a force for evil. He points out the evils of holding rigid and dogmatic opinions in the sphere of religion as well as that of politics.
5) A doctrinaire approach to religion, he says, is always accompanied with intolerance and persecution. "If only men could be brought into a tentatively agnostic frame of mind about these matters, nine- tenths of the evils of the modern world would be cured."
6) In the sphere of religion, as in all other spheres, Russell preaches not the "will to believe" but the "will to doubt" or "the wish to find out".
7) Russell did not recognize the divinity of Jesus Christ. He did not even agree that Christ, as depicted in the Scripture, was a supremely good man. Christ's Sermon on the Mount is undoubtedly a noble utterance, but Christ was guilty of a vindictive attitude towards his opponents.
It is noteworthy too that it is the more intolerant aspects of Christ's teaching that have had by far the greater influence on the practices of the organized Christian churches. Christianity, says Russell, has been distinguished from other religions by its greater readiness for persecution.
A brilliant tome.
Russell belongs to that company of freethinkers who wrote incessantly about religion. Religion is the subject of one of his earliest writings, the secret diary that he started to keep when he was just 16. It is the theme of well-known essays such as ‘The Free Man’s Worship’, and figures prominently in the mature treatises on sociology and politics.
Even some of his treatises on mathematics and philosophy of science contain speculations about the reality of a spiritual realm independent of the senses. Religion is protuberant in the unpublished fiction that he wrote early in the 20th century as well as the fiction that he published at a great old age.
Throughout much of his life Russell contended with religion as philosopher, as historian, as social critic and as private individual. In one of his memoirs he declared that he overcame religion when he was an adolescent during a struggle recorded in his secret diary when ‘I rejected successively, free will, immortality and belief in God’. But the record of a lifetime of writing suggests that the struggle continued for many years, and on several fronts.
What are the nuggets to be picked up from this book? The following:
1) Russell calls himself an agnostic. In other words he neither believes nor disbelieves in the existence of God. Such an attitude was natural in a man who had a scientific outlook on life and who called himself a Rationalist. In one of his most celebrated essays, which finds place in this volume, called "Why I am not a Christian", he examined the main arguments which are thought to prove the existence of God, and showed them all to be false.
2) Likewise Russell did not believe in any of the dogmas of traditional religion and was firmly opposed to every kind of religious orthodoxy. Thus he was a "free thinker" in religion.
3) In another essay, "Free Thought and Official Propaganda", he writes: "I am myself a dissenter from all known religions, and I hope that every kind of religious belief will die out. I do not believe that, on the balance, religious belief has been a force for good."
4) Russell admits that, in certain times and places, religion has had some good effects but says that on the whole religion has been a force for evil. He points out the evils of holding rigid and dogmatic opinions in the sphere of religion as well as that of politics.
5) A doctrinaire approach to religion, he says, is always accompanied with intolerance and persecution. "If only men could be brought into a tentatively agnostic frame of mind about these matters, nine- tenths of the evils of the modern world would be cured."
6) In the sphere of religion, as in all other spheres, Russell preaches not the "will to believe" but the "will to doubt" or "the wish to find out".
7) Russell did not recognize the divinity of Jesus Christ. He did not even agree that Christ, as depicted in the Scripture, was a supremely good man. Christ's Sermon on the Mount is undoubtedly a noble utterance, but Christ was guilty of a vindictive attitude towards his opponents.
It is noteworthy too that it is the more intolerant aspects of Christ's teaching that have had by far the greater influence on the practices of the organized Christian churches. Christianity, says Russell, has been distinguished from other religions by its greater readiness for persecution.
A brilliant tome.
February 8, 2023
XXXXXX
A THEOLOGIAN'S NIGHTMARE
XXXXX
This book consists of twenty-one essays by philosopher (among other things) Bertrand Russell (1872 to 1970) that were written between 1912 and 1961. They were compiled and edited by Al Seckel, a member of the Bertrand Russell Society and one who has lectured extensively on Russell's life and work.
According to Seckel,
"the purpose of this collection is to bring together in one...volume some of Russell's most well thought-out essays on [organized] religion."
Some topics discussed are agnosticism, atheism, rationalism, churches, God, soul, free-thought, sin, and faith. Russell examines these and other topics with "rational skepticism" which is "withholding judgement where the evidence is not sufficient, or, even more so, when there is contrary evidence."
This collection of essays definitely captures the scope and depth of Russell's thinking on religion. His logic and reasoning are impeccable. I now undestand why he was called "the world's most famous atheist."
This book is divided into five parts. Here are the titles of my favorite essays from each part:
I. (6 essays)
(1) Why I am not a Christian.
(2) The faith of the rationalist. (No supernatural reasons are needed to make humans kind.)
II. (5 essays)
(1) A debate on the exisence of God. (Between Russell and the Father of the Church.)
III. (2 essays)
(1) Science and religion.
IV. (6 essays)
(1) An outline of intellectual rubbish.
(2) The value of free thought. (How to be a truth-seeker and break the chains of mental slavery.)
(3) Ideas that have harmed mankind [and womankind].
(4) ideas that have helped mankind [and womankind].
V. (2 essays)
(1) The theologian's nightmare.
Before the first essay begins, there is a brief biography of Bertrand Russell (later Lord Russell) by Seckel. It is quite thorough as evidenced by the more than 55 footnotes at its end.
Finally, the only problem I had with this book for the essays was with regard to referencing. All essays are either not referenced or inadequately referenced. I know that Russell in his other works extensively referenced. Thus, I am not sure if Seckel edited out references to save space and assumed that the reader would believe everything Russell said due to his reputation. On a subject like this, I think references should have been kept in.
In conclusion, this is a fascinating collection of essays by one of the most prolific and brilliant thinkers and writers of the twentieth century. Now I understand why Russell won the 1950 Nobel Prize in literature!!
XXXXX
(1986; acknowledgements; biography of Bertrand Russell; 5 parts or 21 chapters; main narative 300 pages; bibliography; name index; subject index)
XXXXX
A THEOLOGIAN'S NIGHTMARE
XXXXX
This book consists of twenty-one essays by philosopher (among other things) Bertrand Russell (1872 to 1970) that were written between 1912 and 1961. They were compiled and edited by Al Seckel, a member of the Bertrand Russell Society and one who has lectured extensively on Russell's life and work.
According to Seckel,
"the purpose of this collection is to bring together in one...volume some of Russell's most well thought-out essays on [organized] religion."
Some topics discussed are agnosticism, atheism, rationalism, churches, God, soul, free-thought, sin, and faith. Russell examines these and other topics with "rational skepticism" which is "withholding judgement where the evidence is not sufficient, or, even more so, when there is contrary evidence."
This collection of essays definitely captures the scope and depth of Russell's thinking on religion. His logic and reasoning are impeccable. I now undestand why he was called "the world's most famous atheist."
This book is divided into five parts. Here are the titles of my favorite essays from each part:
I. (6 essays)
(1) Why I am not a Christian.
(2) The faith of the rationalist. (No supernatural reasons are needed to make humans kind.)
II. (5 essays)
(1) A debate on the exisence of God. (Between Russell and the Father of the Church.)
III. (2 essays)
(1) Science and religion.
IV. (6 essays)
(1) An outline of intellectual rubbish.
(2) The value of free thought. (How to be a truth-seeker and break the chains of mental slavery.)
(3) Ideas that have harmed mankind [and womankind].
(4) ideas that have helped mankind [and womankind].
V. (2 essays)
(1) The theologian's nightmare.
Before the first essay begins, there is a brief biography of Bertrand Russell (later Lord Russell) by Seckel. It is quite thorough as evidenced by the more than 55 footnotes at its end.
Finally, the only problem I had with this book for the essays was with regard to referencing. All essays are either not referenced or inadequately referenced. I know that Russell in his other works extensively referenced. Thus, I am not sure if Seckel edited out references to save space and assumed that the reader would believe everything Russell said due to his reputation. On a subject like this, I think references should have been kept in.
In conclusion, this is a fascinating collection of essays by one of the most prolific and brilliant thinkers and writers of the twentieth century. Now I understand why Russell won the 1950 Nobel Prize in literature!!
XXXXX
(1986; acknowledgements; biography of Bertrand Russell; 5 parts or 21 chapters; main narative 300 pages; bibliography; name index; subject index)
XXXXX
October 14, 2021
I really appreciate Russell as a thinker and for his take on religion. I do have a problem with the structure of this volume, however. Part One, which focuses on Russell's personal history and development along with definitions and outlines of agnosticism, is the least interesting of all the sections. In a way it makes sense to place those essays in the front as an introduction of sorts but it also bores one to death until, suddenly, we're halfway through the book and realize we've been accidentally skimming over great content.
Russell's incisive sarcasm is particularly pleasant, as found in "An Outline of Intellectual Rubbish" and "Ideas that have Helped Mankind." In context, these are probably the best essays. They don't necessarily thoroughly outline what Russell suggests as a way of living, but given that the rest of the volume does, the reader will particularly enjoy these essays.
If you have read "Why I am Not a Christian: and other essays on religion and related subjects" edited by Paul Edwards, you'll appreciate this volume as deeper background material. If you haven't read that volume before you read this one, you should go and read it afterward because the essays collected there are more directly about religion.
Russell's incisive sarcasm is particularly pleasant, as found in "An Outline of Intellectual Rubbish" and "Ideas that have Helped Mankind." In context, these are probably the best essays. They don't necessarily thoroughly outline what Russell suggests as a way of living, but given that the rest of the volume does, the reader will particularly enjoy these essays.
If you have read "Why I am Not a Christian: and other essays on religion and related subjects" edited by Paul Edwards, you'll appreciate this volume as deeper background material. If you haven't read that volume before you read this one, you should go and read it afterward because the essays collected there are more directly about religion.
September 20, 2017
This collection of writings from Russell's long philosophical life is oddly compiled. You'll read one that is clear as day while the other is steeped in historical reference so as to totally obscure the content to a neophyte. That's not to criticize his writing - rather to marvel at the flexibility of his mind and his ability to retain such a diversity of information.
October 6, 2017
"Gli uomini tendono a credere a tutto ciò che si confà alle loro passioni. Quelli crudeli credono in un dio crudele, e usano la loro fede per giustificare le loro crudeltà. Solo quelli miti e generosi credono in un dio mite e generoso, ma costoro sarebbero miti e generosi in ogni caso."
(La fede di un razionalista [1947], p. 80)
(La fede di un razionalista [1947], p. 80)
March 17, 2019
Provokatif. Menggugah dan penuh kritik berdasar.
Marah bukan sikap tepat untuk merespon buku ini.
Marah bukan sikap tepat untuk merespon buku ini.
December 2, 2019
While I disagree with him on a whole lot of issues, yet I must concede that he is a deep thinker and a great writer.
February 13, 2011
This book is a posthumous collection of religious-themed essays by Bertrand Russell, published 16 years after his death. I came upon this book on the recommendation of a friend, a Psychology professor I know, who mentioned Russell’s famous essay Why I am not a Christian. I had previously read Russell’s A History of Western Philosophy and found it absolutely captivating. I picked up this collection with high hopes.
The first essays of the collection are My Religious Reminiscences and First Efforts. They are primarily autobiographical in nature, and offer an interesting glimpse into the childhood of a man who the editor of this work calls “without question one of the most productive and brilliant thinkers of the 20th century.” They speak of his solitary childhood, and his feeling of intellectual entrapment under the guardianship of his grandmother which led him to turn his reflections inward. One gets the sense that this hardship led Russell as a boy to think more deeply on religious subjects than many do in a lifetime.
Why I Am Not A Christian is one of Russell’s more famous essays, but I found it less than compelling. He first outlines a few historical proofs of God’s existence, dismissing each with relatively simplistic swipes. He then mentions a few Biblical accounts which call into question Christ’s character, and ends with his thesis that “Religion is based, I think, primarily and mainly on fear”. This essay may be a fair description of why Russell himself is not a Christian, but as a broad-reaching case for atheism it falls short. For this purpose, I found much more compelling another essay which I read nearly concurrently (Ironically written by a Christian!), Arguments For Atheism by John O’Leary-Hawthorn, part the collection Reason for the Hope Within (ed Michael J. Murray).
Regardless of my disappointment with the essay that led me to this collection of Russell’s works, I found the remainder to be very enjoyable. My thoughts could fill pages, but I will focus on what is perhaps the most whimsical and entertaining essay of the collection, An Outline of Intellectual Rubbish. In this, Russell surveys many widely held beliefs in the realm of religion, history, and pseudo-science, as well as some more narrowly-held beliefs of individuals he has encountered over the years. The essay is laced with a dry, British wit: one can picture Russell faintly smirking to himself as he writes the words. The tone is haughty: it is of one who is certain of the superiority of his own views; nonetheless the gems of subtle wit dispersed throughout had me rereading it two or three times. One of my favorite examples comes while Russell is poking fun at Christian doctrine: “the whole conception of ‘Sin’ is one which I find very puzzling, doubtlessly owing to my sinful nature.” One gets the sense by the end that Russell viewed the world as his intellectual playground. He walked through life collecting ideas and ideologies as an entomologist might collect beetles, and through doing so came to a rare understanding of the things that make people tick.
Russell was a prolific and compelling writer. In this collection, he espouses on complex philosophical issues with a stunning clarity. This collection of essays is one of those rare books that, having returned it to the library, I am tempted to purchase and have on my shelf, always at hand.
The first essays of the collection are My Religious Reminiscences and First Efforts. They are primarily autobiographical in nature, and offer an interesting glimpse into the childhood of a man who the editor of this work calls “without question one of the most productive and brilliant thinkers of the 20th century.” They speak of his solitary childhood, and his feeling of intellectual entrapment under the guardianship of his grandmother which led him to turn his reflections inward. One gets the sense that this hardship led Russell as a boy to think more deeply on religious subjects than many do in a lifetime.
Why I Am Not A Christian is one of Russell’s more famous essays, but I found it less than compelling. He first outlines a few historical proofs of God’s existence, dismissing each with relatively simplistic swipes. He then mentions a few Biblical accounts which call into question Christ’s character, and ends with his thesis that “Religion is based, I think, primarily and mainly on fear”. This essay may be a fair description of why Russell himself is not a Christian, but as a broad-reaching case for atheism it falls short. For this purpose, I found much more compelling another essay which I read nearly concurrently (Ironically written by a Christian!), Arguments For Atheism by John O’Leary-Hawthorn, part the collection Reason for the Hope Within (ed Michael J. Murray).
Regardless of my disappointment with the essay that led me to this collection of Russell’s works, I found the remainder to be very enjoyable. My thoughts could fill pages, but I will focus on what is perhaps the most whimsical and entertaining essay of the collection, An Outline of Intellectual Rubbish. In this, Russell surveys many widely held beliefs in the realm of religion, history, and pseudo-science, as well as some more narrowly-held beliefs of individuals he has encountered over the years. The essay is laced with a dry, British wit: one can picture Russell faintly smirking to himself as he writes the words. The tone is haughty: it is of one who is certain of the superiority of his own views; nonetheless the gems of subtle wit dispersed throughout had me rereading it two or three times. One of my favorite examples comes while Russell is poking fun at Christian doctrine: “the whole conception of ‘Sin’ is one which I find very puzzling, doubtlessly owing to my sinful nature.” One gets the sense by the end that Russell viewed the world as his intellectual playground. He walked through life collecting ideas and ideologies as an entomologist might collect beetles, and through doing so came to a rare understanding of the things that make people tick.
Russell was a prolific and compelling writer. In this collection, he espouses on complex philosophical issues with a stunning clarity. This collection of essays is one of those rare books that, having returned it to the library, I am tempted to purchase and have on my shelf, always at hand.
September 4, 2016
"Karena manusia bergerak ke depan, segala yang baik tidak lagi baik"
Apa yang terjadi pada kau, Mai ? Setelah berhabis masa dengan tulisan-tulisan Russell setahun lama-nya ? Adakah iman kau semakin kuat atau jatuh merudum termakan idea-idea Russell. Soal hati kecil aku. Aku tidak puas lagi dengan sajian-sajian idea buku ini sebenar-benarnya. Bacaan-bacaan begini sering kali buat aku terlelap dealam keadaan buntu.
Apa yang terjadi pada kau, Mai ? Setelah berhabis masa dengan tulisan-tulisan Russell setahun lama-nya ? Adakah iman kau semakin kuat atau jatuh merudum termakan idea-idea Russell. Soal hati kecil aku. Aku tidak puas lagi dengan sajian-sajian idea buku ini sebenar-benarnya. Bacaan-bacaan begini sering kali buat aku terlelap dealam keadaan buntu.
March 31, 2020
Ho letto quest'opera nello stesso periodo in cui mi sono cimentato con "Pensieri", altra raccolta di scritti di Russell, quindi durante l'adolescenza. Il mio giudizio è quindi relativo alla consapevolezza che questi scritti, letti a quell'età, sono stati fondamentali per aiutarmi a ragionare sui grandi temi della vita.
February 27, 2008
I just love Bertrand Russell.
Read
August 7, 2010Pemikiran yang diilhami dengan hati.
March 7, 2014
good books! i like it
Displaying 1 - 22 of 22 reviews