Bertrand
Russell attacks the Christian viewpoint through an analysis and systematic
deconstruction of many popular (though very dated) arguments on the existence
of God. It is a strength of his argument that he chooses the arguments which he
addresses. This type of rhetoric is one that is very commonly used in debate
and refutation of an idea.
Russell
begins by addressing the idea of a “First Cause.” This idea states that we are
all a result of a cause. Everything around us is also the result of some kind of
cause down the line. All these causes and results are thought to stem from one
common first cause. Russell says that this cannot be plausible as the very
nature of the argument states that even God must have a cause. In the eyes of
Russell, this leaves the argument of “First Cause” quite invalid. He states
that there is really no reason to believe the world had any beginning at all.
There is just as much evidence to suggest the world has simply always been.
Natural Law
is the next on Bertrand Russell’s hit list. Natural Law states that things work
the way they do because of the will of a grand designer. This idea was
popularized in the time of Isaac Newton when it was discovered that the planets
are rotating about the sun. It was then thought that God set this in motion as
part of his master plan. Russell states that the way things work seem to
actually imply the opposite of grand design. He states that occurrences in this
world are far too unpredictable to indicate design.
Russell next
addresses the idea of the Argument of Design. This idea states that the world
we live in is the way it is to suit us and provide for our existence. Russell
calls upon the work of Charles Darwin with the finches of the Galapagos to form
his counterpoint. Darwin compiled data to suggest that we change according to
our environment. This idea is one which seems to tear down the popular Argument
from Design. By the very definition of the argument it seems to fail in the
face of the hard numbers and figures compiled by Darwin.
Another
common argument which Russell addresses is one stating that morality is proof
of God’s existence. It states that there would be no right or wrong without a
God to tell us which is which. Russell goes on to fleetingly mention that there
may not even be such a thing as right and wrong in the first place. He states
that there really may be no appreciable difference between right and wrong in
the first place. Russell believes that the world may have been made by the
devil one day when God wasn’t watching. This is a strange but interesting idea.
The final
argument is for the remedying of injustice. This seems to be a particularly
weak argument and one Russell obviously saved for last as it is his strongest
point. This idea states that God exists to ensure the suffering of the wicked
and the prosperity of the good. This of course is not always the case and that
fact lends itself to the bolstering of Russell’s argument.
What are some of the justifications for the suffering of good people you have heard?
ReplyDeleteDo you believe that there would be an innate sense of right and wrong if the world were without a religious ideal to provide it? Where could this potential sense come from?