Note from Guru Kurt: I read this essay when I was in high school, and at the time I thought Bertrand Russell the epitome of logical thinking. After enlightenment, I see clearly that all his arguments are fundamentally flawed, in painfully obvious ways. One cannot disprove the existence of something that exists, or could potentially exist, even if that something should happen to be invisible to us. The ecstatic vision of God wipes out all doubt about His existence from the mind of the fortunate beholder. Indeed, the Avatar is able to witness His awesome power directly, with his physical eyes! I put this response to Russell before the eyes of all humanity, for Atheists may raise rational doubts, but they never will be able to conclusively show that God does not exist. Indeed, God laughs at their attempts to do so, uproariously!
A Response To Russell
On March 6, 1927 Bertrand Russell gave a lecture to the National Secular Society in London entitled “Why I Am Not A Christian.” The lecture was recorded and put into pamphlet and then book form, and has been very influential in swaying people from the Christian way of life. So-called rational thinkers everywhere rely on it and regard it as a chief source of secular justification for non-belief in God in general, and in Jesus Christ in particular. I myself read this lecture, now in essay form, while in college. I regarded it as a very good example of rational thinking at the time, but as my life has gone along I have come to the conclusion that I was wrong, very wrong. The essay, which leads and has led so many people from Christ, should be refuted and refuted strongly. Christianity is a rational religion, followed by rational people. Secular people do not have sole claim to the human rational faculty, as they suppose in their conceited lifestyle. Christ himself was supremely rational, and if He were here today He would certainly be angered by Bertrand Russell’s arrogant claims to wisdom that he does not possess.
The advent of science has weakened Christianity, for the secular world now feels it has another explanation for everything that exists and occurs in the world. This is the main tenor of Mr. Russell’s essay, and “Science!” is the wild proclamation of Atheists and Agnostics the world over. They think that because Christianity does not mention the discoveries of modern science, they are in a superior and safe position from which to assail the buttresses and battlements of this ancient faith, now 2000 years old. The fact that Jesus might Himself have known all about the advent of science that would come, but kept it a secret, does not matter to them at all. The fact that Jesus could not have mentioned all the details that science has recently uncovered without losing his audience completely, does not bother them at all. Here, then, is the first failing of these supposedly rational people, that they overlook the obvious truth that Jesus spoke to His times, not to our times. His message was timeless, but it was couched in the language of the times in which He spoke, which were violent, corrupt, and uncivilized by today’s standards.
Jesus may not be dismissed so easily, if He was indeed God as He claimed. The secular thinkers are making a fundamental mistake in underestimating Him, in asserting the hegemony of man and man alone, without a God above him, simply because they have alternative explanations. Jesus is not here to defend the Christian view, but if He were He might state that the scientists are presented with more truth about the world than the ancient age knew, such as the immense time spans involved in the creation of the universe, in the creation of our solar system and the evolution of life on earth. Possessing new truth about nature, man has simply invented explanations that are no more valid than the Christian explanation when it is brought up to modern times, for in truth, God has created everything as the Bible states. He has simply created it in the way that the scientists are discovering. The Creation story in the Bible, then, becomes a myth. A rational mind will immediately see that it is better to give myths to primitive peoples than to attempt advanced scientific explanations involving quarks, leptons, galaxies, solar systems, fluid dynamics and equations of state.
The danger the secular thinkers then run is that if God has indeed created everything and is really in charge of life on earth, so far sticking to myth and metaphor to explain life to unscientific peoples, as a truly rational mind will admit is a real possibility, then the parts of the Bible that are not myth may be one hundred percent true. A better response of a rational mind to the advent of science, instead of outright rejection of religion, is to examine religion closely. One should realize that God was in all probability intelligent and did not attempt advanced explanations in ancient days but merely tried to inspire and lead, improving society as He did so and in fact preparing the way for science and technology. One should separate for oneself the myth from the truth as much as possible. This is in fact what most Christians do in a practical sense, and this is why I state that Christianity is a rational religion followed by rational people. They understand that science is a recent phenomenon, and its advent does not invalidate all the teachings of the Bible. Science merely calls into question the myths that are also undeniably there, but these were arguably placed there by a wise and compassionate God reaching down to man where he was, not to where he would be.
With this said, let us examine Mr. Russell’s arguments. He begins by defining what a Christian is, as if it were some kind of zoo animal. He ends up with two requirements, a belief in God and immortality, and a belief that Christ was, if not divine, at least the best and wisest of men. Jesus Himself defined Christianity as belief that He was who He said He was, the only Son of God, and an attempt to follow his commands. Bertrand Russell has misstated here the fundamental equality that exists in the minds of all Christians, that Jesus was God. As we shall see as this argument develops, this belief is central to Christianity. There is no possibility that Jesus was the best and wisest of men. He was the embodiment on earth of God the Father, Creator of earth and all the people, animals, and plants thereon. By incorrectly defining Christianity in his own mind and in the minds of his readers, Mr. Russell opens the door for fallacious arguments that will raise their ugly heads later on. This is a common technique of Atheists, to set up a “straw man” and then attack this straw man or scarecrow fiercely. In all the furor, the reader forgets that it is a straw man, and thinks that Jesus Himself has been assailed. Through it all, however, Jesus watches in amusement and when the dust settles quietly states, “Turn around, Bertrand. I am right behind you.”
Although he has misstated the central doctrine of Christianity, Mr. Russell’s arguments against this false assessment are still interesting and carry some weight, which is why they are so devilish. There is some truth in the skeptic’s point of view, for Jesus did in fact leave all mention of the advent of science and technology out of his discourse. Who really knows? Upon this boat of justified skepticism they travel, with arguments that have partial basis in physical facts around them, but there is another boat as I have stated. One should allow the possibility in one’s mind that God may indeed exist, examine what Christ said in the light of modern society, realizing there were some things He could not, or did not want to tell ancient man.
These two approaches essentially reflect a difference in the heart of a man. A man who is friendly and inclined to be very kind to others, who has what is called a “warm personality” will be inclined to give God the benefit of the doubt. The teachings of Jesus radiate such warmth, compassion, mercy and hope for man, that they resonate within the heart of the sensitive person who is looking for truth. A man who is colder, who is self-willed and obstinate, will be inclined towards skepticism. Jesus knew that this would happen, and this is what underlies His parable about the sheep and the goats. When He returns, He will be throwing the goats into hell, and bringing the sheep into heaven. He is not upset by skepticism, for these people actually have closed minds, not open minds as they claim. An open mind will respond to the personal appeal of Jesus, strip away the myth as one peels an orange, then consider the truth at the center of religion, which is indeed like eating a sweet orange. A closed mind will state that this orange can never be peeled, and he will throw it into the garbage, where it will mold and become very bitter to the taste. When Christ returns, if a man has eaten the orange of truth he will be spiritually nourished and will have grown to the spiritual height required to enter into heaven. If he has thrown it away, it will be too late to eat it, for it will then be moldy and inedible.
Mr. Russell starts the body of his essay by attacking Christian intellectual arguments for God’s existence. He begins by finding fault with the First Cause argument for the existence of God. This argument states that everything had a cause, and if you trace these causes back farther and farther, you eventually reach the First Cause, which is God. The First Cause argument is indeed valid, but the question for modern man is what that First Cause was, for it was not obviously God. The cosmologists today feel the First Cause was the “Big Bang,” an almost instantaneous moment when all matter in the universe came into existence from an infinitesimally small point of almost infinite energy. The existence of a universe with hundreds of billions of galaxies complicates the First Cause argument considerably from the ones advanced in, say, the thirteenth century, but neither religion nor science can prove they are right without more evidence, or another revelation from God. Liberal Christians of today believe that if the universe did indeed begin with a Big Bang, that God was somehow responsible. The First Cause argument thus falls apart, and it becomes a matter of faith. In truth, only Jesus Himself can answer this question, for only He knows, whom Christians believe was the Creator.
I have refuted the First Cause argument myself here, and Bertrand Russell also refuted it, but he did so incorrectly. He stated that this argument is refuted by asking the question, “If God caused everything, then who caused God?” This question is easily answered by responding that God is outside of time, and has neither beginning nor end. He is being itself, and was not created. He was pre-existing before the universe existed. As the Bible does state in its Creation myth, and may be seen to be an accurate part of the myth, for a long time God alone existed. He brooded over the waters, that is He planned the universe in intricate detail, from the composition of the atom to the arrangement of stars within galaxies. He planned protons, neutrons, electrons, the arrangement of the entire periodic table, electromagnetism, gravity, and the nuclear reactions that occur in stars, before He created anything. God is responsible for all the properties of matter, for He planned it all to be as He desired. Water crystals must float and not sink upon freezing. Carbon must form single, double, and triple covalent bonds with many other elements to form the molecular basis of life. Mr. Russell makes the amazing statement that the material world does not need to have had a beginning, but yet he fails to realize this could also be true of God.
Mr. Russell next refutes the argument for the existence of God on the basis of Natural Law. This argument states that all the laws of physics, such as the law of gravitation, imply a Lawgiver. He states that the onset of the theory of relativity has invalidated this conclusion, because we now have an explanation for gravity better than the one Newton expostulated. Of course, this is fallacious reasoning. We merely have a more sophisticated understanding of what could well be a divine phenomenon. Gravity and the other forces that science has discovered, electromagnetism and the strong and weak nuclear forces, could well be expressions of divine power. God, when He created matter, might have held it together with His own power. The mere fact that it is all very complicated, and not simple, can argue for a better and bigger mental picture that we all should develop of the Almighty God, just as well as it argues for there being no God. Sophisticated models of matter and energy do not rule out a Lawgiver, they merely give Him greater dignity, stature, and magnificence.
He next brings up the field of quantum theory, where all matter may be thought of as being either particles or waves, and one can predict the position or the momentum of a particle, but not both. This theory forms the basis of the orbital theory of electrons, for instance, where electrons are thought of as existing in a “probability cloud” about the nucleus, not orbiting like the planets orbit our sun. Because there is not uniform, simple behavior, he argues, the existence of a Lawgiver is much less likely. I say, “Mr. Russell, have you created matter recently, that you think it should be simple? The complexity of matter argues for a very impressive, real and powerful Creator as well as it argues for no Creator.” It is not possible to argue from the basis of scientific data either way, and as I stated earlier it is mostly a matter of faith barring some new revelation by God, who knows.
I have put myself in an unusual position here, for I do not claim that the argument for God on the basis of Natural Law is valid. I merely state that Bertrand Russell’s refutations of this argument are also not valid, for I happen to believe that the universe was created by a mighty spiritual being, although he does not. I believe that all matter has the properties it does, and all living beings have the properties they do, because of the work of this Creator. He is the Lawgiver. It is just not possible to prove or disprove this by intellectual arguments. One must rely on revealed scripture and the radiant personality of Jesus Christ, who was the embodiment of this mighty God on earth. All our arguments are dust cast into the wind, quickly disappearing from view. I am showing here that the Atheists do not have a stronger case, and that a man may choose faith in Jesus Christ with full confidence that it is a rational, logical, sane position even in the modern world.
Mr. Russell next asks the question, If there is a Lawgiver, why did He issue the laws He did and not others? Here is the argument:
“If you say that he did it simply from his own good pleasure, and without any reason, you then find that there is something which is not subject to law, and so your train of natural law is interrupted. If you say, as more orthodox theologians do, that in all the laws which God issues he had a reason for giving those laws rather than others -- the reason, of course, being to create the best universe, although you would never think it to look at it -- if there were a reason for the laws which God gave, then God himself was subject to law, and therefore you do not get any advantage by introducing God as an intermediary. You really have a law outside and anterior to the divine edicts, and God does not serve your purpose, because he is not the ultimate lawgiver.”
This is an extremely weak argument, and actually resembles more the random stringing together of words and syllables. My position is that of the orthodox theologians, that God had a reason for giving the laws that He did and no others, to create the best universe possible. However, He could also have done it for His own good pleasure. I see nothing in Mr. Russell’s objection but hot air. He said that if God had created the universe on a whim only, God would not be subject to law, and the train of natural law would be interrupted. I say, God is Almighty and can do as He well pleases! Who am I to tell Him how to make a universe, who am myself a small part of that very universe? He does not even counter the argument of his day here, since why should the maker of the universal laws not be free to act as He chooses? Mr. Russell was being very careless in his assertions here.
This part of Russell’s argument is a tangled web indeed, but we shall untangle it. He states that if there was a reason for God to make the laws as He did, then God was himself subject to a higher law, and therefore merely an intermediary. This is not a necessary conclusion. For all we know, God had many choices, many possible universes all equally good. Suppose by small modifications in the properties of electron orbitals silicon instead of carbon would have had status as the best atom for the basis of life, with no loss of energy or changing any other essential law. God chose carbon, and certainly He made a rational choice, but this does not mean He was subject to a higher law! It merely means He is full of divine wisdom, as stated in scripture. If I choose to take my winter vacation in Florida rather than Minnesota, does this take away from my autonomy? Must there be a higher lawgiver that has dictated this to me? Obviously, it simply means I am capable of making wise, rational decisions.
This is a good example of another common Atheist technique in argument, the flood of words. If you put words together in certain ways, they begin to seem to have weight of their own independent of any reality that they may represent. The statement “…if there were a reason for the laws which God gave, then God himself was subject to law…” is really ludicrous and defies all common sense. If you say it quickly enough, or read it quickly enough, it can appear sagacious when it is really fallacious and shallow. The world is full of this type of argument, and no one takes the time to unravel it. The Atheists have their position, the fundamental Creationists have their position, and little rational discussion takes place between the two. They each bolster their own positions within their own ranks, and the truth of the matter is actually somewhere in between. The fundamental Creationists, who believe in a literal interpretation of every word in the Bible, are also not thinking well, and must recognize the validity of scientific data and the scientific method, which they ignore at present.
Bertrand Russell next attacks the argument for the existence of God based on Design, and he states it thusly: “…everything in the world is made just so that we can manage to live in the world, and if the world was ever so little different, we could not manage to live in it.” There is a more fundamental way to state the argument from design, which makes more sense in the context of evolutionary theory: “To a rational mind that considers well the wide variety of adaptations and traits in the animal and the human world, the theory of only the fittest organisms passing on their genes is an inadequate explanation. It seems much more likely that an intelligent hand is somehow guiding evolution to make the creatures that it wants, out of the motive of artistic expression and aesthetic appreciation. God is the supreme artist and mighty architect of evolution. He is also likely responsible for all the conditions necessary for life, such as a planet with sufficient water, an appropriate atmosphere, and a livable temperature.”
There are many Creationist web sites that describe adaptations that cannot be explained as arising from chance, and then captured by natural selection. These arguments are not conclusive, but they are persuasive to an open mind. There are many traits that are difficult to show are advantageous to the point of eliminating other creatures from the gene pool. For instance, man lost all his body hair except in key areas, including the eyebrows and the hair on his head. It is more rational, to me anyway, to state that the Creator thought that man’s visage would be more pleasing if this were the case, so these traits were engineered by him. Again, by what natural process would a butterfly arise? Consider, it must spin a cocoon as a caterpillar, then undergo a long period of transformation in a chrysalis state, until it finally emerges as a beautiful creature that shyly flutters about sipping nectar. These two examples, the eyebrow and the butterfly, to me argue strongly for a creative force behind evolution, guiding it in beautiful and efficient ways.
Nevertheless, this is just a strong supposition on my part, and I cannot prove anything. Let us continue with Mr. Russell’s argument. Here is his next point:
“When you come to look into this argument from design, it is a most astonishing thing that people can believe that this world, with all the things that are in it, with all its defects, should be the best that omnipotence and omniscience have been able to produce in millions of years. I really cannot believe it. Do you think that, if you were granted omnipotence and omniscience and millions of years in which to perfect your world, you could produce nothing better than the Ku Klux Klan or the Fascists?”
This argument is as shallow and unperceptive as the argument against a Lawgiver just discussed. It is a simple matter of defining the terms “omnipotence” and “omniscience” correctly. Mr. Russell here is invoking the typical Atheistic “straw man” naïve picture of God as a being that can do anything at all, as though the world were clay and He were a potter, or as though the whole thing existed in the divine imagination somewhere. As you will quickly learn if you decide to play hop-scotch on a busy superhighway, the world is a real place, with real objects and real people in it. We must ask ourselves, What is it possible for God to make? God may be omnipotent, meaning He has all existing powers; there are no existing powers that He does not have. This does not mean, however, that He has every conceivable power. For instance, if we asked Him to “blink” the universe into and out of existence every 10 seconds, would anyone be surprised if He could not? He is omniscient, meaning He has all existing knowledge, and is aware of everything in the world. This does not mean He knows things that do not exist to be known. For instance, He would not know how to “blink” the universe, but He would know that it is not possible to do this with a real universe, although it may be possible with an imaginary one.
It is extremely likely, judging from the evil we see in the world all around us that God is limited in what He can do in the process of making an actual world, with actual creatures that move about with complete free-will. This obvious observation completely nullifies Russell’s criticism here, for he has invoked an overly simplistic, unrealistic picture of God. Man is a spiritual being, a soul, encased in a physical body. What are the rules for making such a creature, that is immortal as well? We know nothing of the laws of making spiritual beings, but this is the reality with which God deals daily. I think most would agree with me that God has gotten the material end of things fairly well down. The earth itself is a wonderful place, and were it not for the people it would be a very peaceful place, too. Man is fallen, as stated in the Christian tradition. God has given him free-will, and he uses it to cause suffering to his fellow man. God is not pleased by this, and the promise of the second coming of Christ is the solution.
Russell’s next point is:
“Moreover, if you accept the ordinary laws of science, you have to suppose that human life and life in general on this planet will die out in due course: it is a stage in the decay of the solar system; at a certain stage of decay you get the sort of conditions of temperature and so forth which are suitable to protoplasm, and there is life for a short time in the life of the whole solar system. You see in the moon the sort of thing to which the earth is tending -- something dead, cold, and lifeless.”
He then goes on to state that this does not affect the lives of most people, who do not really care about the fate of the earth. This, however, is a prime example of something that could never have been revealed to primitive man, that in billions of years the earth would be a dry and barren hulk after the death of the sun. Jesus certainly knew of this fact. How could He not know? Yet the ancient Israelites were so busy with their day-to-day concerns such as raising children, obtaining food, shelter, and clothing, that it would have gone right over their heads. Jesus could have pointed to the sun and said, “This sun will perish some day. I will now tell you where your immortal soul will go at this time.” He did not do this, however, and instead responded to the practical needs of the times. When He comes again, He will surely tell us what our fate is to be.
It is most interesting that although Jesus promised heaven, He never described it in detail. What could it be? Most people assume it is a nebulous spiritual place that is not in the material realm, that God is able to set up non-material realms parallel to the material realm in which we live, planet earth in the Milky Way Galaxy. There are two of these realms, heaven where good people go, and hell where bad people go. The Catholics add a third place, purgatory, that can lead to heaven and is not eternal damnation as hell is. Yet, mysteriously Jesus Himself never described these regions. If the religious theories of the churches are correct, then good Christians are indeed fortunate for when the universe is a cold, dry husk they will be enjoying whatever pleasures await them in this paradise called heaven. Bertrand Russell, however, is likely to be stewing in hell or purgatory.
Christianity, therefore, has an answer to this problem posed by Russell as an argument against rational design of the material world, and we have just refuted his argument by showing that there is an “escape plan” for righteous souls within a design that includes heat death of the universe. Souls are eternal, although matter may not be. Simply because the universe is decaying does not mean it was not designed. It is just as likely that no other real possibility exists, even for the omnipotent God who has all existing powers, but not imaginary ones. Does Russell think he could create a world where entropy did not exist? As a tongue-in-cheek aside, I doubt whether Russell could even begin to understand the first course at God’s university, “Creation 101: Making souls that are independent, truly free but still can respond to you,” let alone “Creation 102: Making universes with plenty of energy so entropy does not quickly take over.” Really, he should be impressed that God has created a highly energetic universe to start with, one that will last a very long time before entropy wins out.
Christianity is a total, self-consistent plan for the entire life of man on earth. Whether heaven and hell are the final answer or not we do not know, because we do not know precisely what they are. Many Christians profess to have clear ideas about these things, but where they get their ideas I do not know. It is not from Jesus Christ, who never said. When He comes again, He will likely fill in all the details we need to answer the questions that science has raised. That is, if we are lucky enough to be around to ask them, and have not been cast into hell ourselves. Russell’s solution is, “Don’t worry, be happy.” The Christian solution is, “Follow Jesus, be happy.” Which of these solutions one chooses, as I alluded earlier, is a matter of the heart, but Russell can cast no freethinking Christians out of the fold with the specious argument he uses here.
Russell next jousts against the Moral arguments for the existence of God, where his dull mind once again blunders about without running across the truth once, for truly such a one thinks in the dark. Jesus said the whole body should be full of light, and it is the Christians, not the Atheists, who have reason and logic on their side. Here is his next point:
“…if you are quite sure there is a difference between right and wrong, then you are in this situation: Is that difference due to God's fiat or is it not? If it is due to God's fiat, then for God himself there is no difference between right and wrong, and it is no longer a significant statement to say that God is good. If you are going to say, as theologians do, that God is good, you must then say that right and wrong have some meaning which is independent of God's fiat, because God's fiats are good and not bad independently of the mere fact that he made them. If you are going to say that, you will then have to say that it is not only through God that right and wrong came into being, but that they are in their essence logically anterior to God.”
To summarize this gobbledy-gook, if the existence of right and wrong is due to God’s fiat, it is insignificant to say that God is good. If God is truly good, then right and wrong existed before God, i.e. there is a higher law than God which God follows.
This is the sheerest nonsense and is easily resolved. I will say that the statement “God is good” means that He loves all the creatures that He has made as His own children. He does not want to destroy the things that He has made, but moreover, He wants His children to be happy, for this makes Him happy too. When the creatures fight with, hurt or kill one another, the victims as well as the aggressors lose a portion of the happiness that God intended to be theirs, therefore these actions are wrong and immoral, and He is not pleased. When the creatures live in harmony, are kind to and support one another materially and emotionally, their happiness increases and God is pleased. This is right and moral behavior. What is more, people that act rightly and are surrounded by people that act rightly find themselves happier, so they too call this good. People that act in evil ways and are surrounded by others that act in evil ways find themselves unhappy, and they too call this evil. God and man generally agree on what is good and what is evil. This is a very simple and obvious conclusion.
Now, Russell here maintains that right and wrong must come from a higher authority than God, but I just don’t see it. Christians believe that Jesus is the embodiment of the Father, the Creator. Therefore, God is a personal God that we can love and adore. Imagine that a man were to build a sand castle in a box, and import some ants to this castle. He includes an abundant supply of food for his ants, so they will always have enough. There is sand, which the ants love, so there will be plenty of digging, and they can multiply and enlarge their colony to their hearts’ content, plus do whatever it is that ants do for fun. What motivation will this man have to destroy the castle? One must examine his motives for building it in the first place. If he loves watching ants move about and grow, he will certainly not destroy it, for he has built it for their enjoyment! He will take care to be certain that it is not destroyed. If, on the other hand, he has some grim ideas of letting the colony get big, then torturing the ants with a magnifying glass or matches, he may destroy it, perhaps a little at a time, perhaps all at once, depending on his mood.
Jesus, the physical embodiment of the Creator, is like this ant farmer. He has given earth to man to enjoy, and we have no evidence that he intends to utterly destroy it. His death on a Cross and resurrection are real evidence that He loves us, for why else would He undergo the degradation and humiliation He did at the hands of His own creatures, whom He could easily have squashed as the ant farmer could squash his ants? The suffering and death of Jesus on the cross is evidence that God is like the ant farmer that loves his ants and wants to see them grow and be happy. He has promised to return and cast evildoers into the lake of fire that is hell. However, He has also promised that for those who believe in Him and try to do His commands there is the reward of heaven. He loves the good men in the world, but He hates the evildoers although He goes through tremendous pains to try to reform them.
Good and evil, right and wrong, therefore are inherent in the creation itself. Things that cause sorrow to souls, either immediate or delayed, are wrong. Things that bring lasting joy, such as harmonious relationships or love of God, are right. God is good, therefore He loves His creation, but He does not need a higher authority to spell this out to Him. His motivation in creating the universe was to have a very joyful place. Apparently, the creation of souls with free will that also were all good and loving was not something that could be done in a real world. His solution is to cast evildoers into everlasting fire, while at the same time upholding good and righteous men. There is no outside agency to tell God whether this planned divine purifying action is right or wrong! He is His own authority, and He has the power to do these things, otherwise Jesus would not have warned us about them.
Russell’s argument that there must be something outside of God to tell Him right from wrong is clearly ridiculous. It is actually nonsensical, and sounds like the mutterings of a madman or idiot: “Ah, if God has some idea of right and wrong, there is no way He could have thought of this Himself! Someone else must be whispering in His ear!” This is another example of stringing words together that sound more or less correct in a lecture setting, but which fall apart under even a cursory examination. Christian man can hold his head high before all such onsets of the Atheists, who do not have a solid basis for their arguments, but spit into the wind and are masters of disheveling and obfuscation. As Jesus said, their house is built on shifting sands.
Russell next assails an argument that is admittedly weak, the “Remedying of Injustice” argument, which states that there must be a heaven and a hell to redress all the wrongs that are committed on earth. Evil men prosper on the earth, and the good often suffer. There must be justice somewhere, so a God must exist to supply it. His response is that a scientific person would look at all the injustice in the world, and since justice does not rule in the world it is more likely that God does not exist. I have no quarrel with him here, for there is no way to logically argue for the existence of God from the depraved and immoral conditions that often prevail on earth, and indeed the opposite is more likely.
Christians have faith that God is indeed watching all actions, good and bad. He is keeping a tally sheet on everyone, and on judgement day these tally sheets will be reckoned. The balance shown at the bottom of the tally sheet decides whether the person is to be saved, or to be condemned. They have only Jesus’ testimony that this is the case, for God’s action in the world of today is far from obvious and evident. Yet there is something in the heart of man that responds to this, that wants this to be true. Man yearns to be overall a good being, not an evil one. Russell states that the motivation for being a Christian is because one has been taught so since one was a child, or that one desires safety, a feeling like there is a big brother looking over one’s shoulder. I disagree. I think that man is nobler than this. I think that man naturally wants to be good, in the eyes of his neighbor and in the eyes of his God.
Over and over in the pages of the Bible God is called the righter of wrongs, the redresser of evils. This is true of both the Old and the New Testament. God upholds the innocent in the face of the oppressor. He rescues the weak and the fallen from the hands of their enemies, once these people turn to Him for help. Up until this time, this rescue appears to come most often after death, although there are many people who have had the experience of prayers for rescue and aid to God being answered. Russell has chosen a weak argument to attack, and wins. Or does he?
It is all very well to have these types of intellectual arguments with yourself. I wonder if Russell ever had any open-minded discussions with the Christians of his day, for he has simply chosen a restatement of Christian doctrine here and called it an argument. The doctrine is that God watches and will establish justice. The argument is that since justice needs to be established, God must exist. Instead of a straw man here, Russell is actually attacking Christian doctrine in a roundabout fashion. In other words, he is not just attacking the person who espoused the current argument, but he is attacking Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, David (author of the Psalms) and even Jesus Himself, all who said that God protects the helpless. It is the Lord and His prophets versus a modern secular skeptic.
In truth, only the prophets of God and of course Jesus are authorities about God. There is no rational argument that can successfully prove the existence of God. All phenomena in the material world may be explained by other means, which although less pleasing aesthetically, still could conceivably be true. The only one who can state anything with certainty about God is he who has direct contact with God, as the prophets did, or actually was God, as Jesus was. These are the formidable foes that Russell stands against here, and what do they say? Nothing, for they are all long dead. The world has need of a modern prophet to face the skeptics. If he were here, he would have the following to say:
“Bertrand Russell, you are a sinful man for you lead many astray with your so-called reasoning. You say that God does not rescue the lowly and the lost that turn to him, but you have yourself created many such with your thoughtless stammerings. You bear the guilt upon your shoulders of all the innocent children and young people who read your essays and turn their backs on God. These people may end up in hell, but I tell you truly, you who have sent them there will lead the way. Every man must choose to believe Jesus when He said He would return, or not. You have made your choice, but not only have you chosen, you have chosen to set yourself up as a signpost pointing directly to hell. We have spoken truly, for we all beheld the face of God. Beware, you worst among mankind, for the wrath of the Lord is unstoppable, and vengeance will be His.”
Bertrand Russell is like a little boy that likes to play with fire. I have shown that all his initial arguments bore no merit except for the last, and this one is against a particularly weak argument for God’s existence that is an odd reversal of Christian doctrine. I maintain that all attempts to prove or disprove God’s existence by mere application of intellect are completely impossible. I have shown that some of the arguments for God, notably that from design, have an aesthetic appeal that is persuasive, although not conclusive. All he has accomplished in this first section is to show that one of the Christian arguments for God was invalid, but any child should have been able to do this. They are all invalid, for it cannot be done. Christianity is not about absolute intellectual proof, it is about coming to a rational conclusion about the potential validity of the scriptures, for these are really the only basis for belief in God. They were written by men who had encountered God directly, and are our only contact with God. Without them, we are beings in a black box past whose borders we cannot see.
God must reveal Himself to us, for we will never find Him by our intellectual efforts. Bertrand Russell’s shocking idea of a God that can do absolutely anything He wants, regardless of whether it is possible in a real world or not, is an example of the problem. He thinks he knows what God is like, but he makes a very fundamental error that shows he has absolutely no clue at all as to what God is, and what God does. God is a mighty spiritual being who is responsible for the creation of the earth and all its living creatures. He has come at least once in a direct visit to mankind in the person of Jesus Christ, where He showed us His great love, compassion, and mercy towards mankind. He offers us eternal life if we believe in Jesus and try to follow His commandments, and on the other hand threatens everlasting damnation if we do not.
Why God should create a large number of humans and then throw the worst ones into hell we can only guess at, but there are parallels from human life. In any manufacturing process, there are “seconds,” items that are scarred or damaged by the machinery and are not fit for public sale. These are discarded. Isn’t it possible that God manufactured men in a similar fashion, and that all are not acceptable to Him? This is just one possibility, but it is an undeniable one. Russell and other Atheists would boldly assert, “But all men are equal,” and I would respond, “Are they really? There are murderers who are beyond redemption. There are hot-tempered people, and there are mild-mannered people. There are people who live very evil lives, and people who lead very good, saintly lives. Who are you to say this is not because of the way they were made?” It is good to treat all as equals with respect to liberties and rights, but it is foolish to assert that it is not possible that souls vary in goodness, or that this variance could not be due to problems in the soul-manufacturing process.
God has kindly provided an avenue for “soul-seconds” to achieve “first” status if they act quickly, before Jesus returns, and that is to become Christians and pray for forgiveness of their sins. He has promised mercy to all who turn to Him with loving and open hearts, and try to reform their lives. This is what the good Christians of the world reassert every Sunday in church, that they are weak and need God’s help and forgiveness. He did not ask them to do this except for their own good, for these Christians are entering onto a path where their souls increase speedily in goodness, kindness, and mercy themselves. In church, bad people become good, and good people become better. The wise ones who prepare for Jesus’ return will find themselves welcomed into the heavenly kingdom He will establish. The ones who don’t are at risk. They may be “firsts” and they may be “seconds.” They will not know until judgement day. Bertrand Russell plays with fire, and on that day he may find his fingers burned.
Russell next moves into criticism of Christ’s character, and he begins with a fatal mistake that most Atheists make. They say, “Whether Jesus was God or not, He should at least appear as the best and wisest of men.” As I say, this is a fatal flaw, for Jesus was not a man and applying a man-sized ruler to this divine-sized being is misleading and erroneous, as I will show in this essay. What, then, is the difference between God and man, and why is it wrong to expect God to conform to our standards? You may safely assume that God is at least as compassionate, wise, understanding, and truthful as the best man that you know, but you must understand that God deals with extremely heavy and important issues. Creating a world, or a universe full of worlds, is no light matter. There are many big decisions that He needs to make. I will leave most of these decisions to the reader’s imagination, but the pertinent one is what to do with the sinners.
Imagine what the earth would be like with no sinners. It would be a heaven! There would be no murder, no crime, and no hatred. There would be no violence of any kind, anywhere. You would walk down the street greeting everyone you met with a smile, knowing it would be returned. There would be no need for police or the military, for there would be no violence and no war. There would be no prostitution, no adultery, and no poverty. You could leave your house unlocked at night, and your car unlocked during the day with the keys in the ignition! This is the earth as Jesus envisioned it, as the Creator envisioned it. It is not like this, but it should be, I am sure all who read this will agree.
What can God do? He has created all these beings, and many of them, like Bertrand Russell, spit in his face! What would a man do if he created a living being, as for instance the Frankenstein monster, and then that being ran amuck and tried to kill the very man who made him? This monster would certainly be killed, and its maker would perhaps try again. This is the type of tough decision that God is forced to make with regard to sinners. How do we know that all souls are in fact eternal? Is it not also possible that He can take even this away, and that hell might not be eternal torment, but simply eternal death? God may take our immortality away, and try again! He may unmake us completely if we are sinners and do not acknowledge Him. How do we know this is not the case? We do not know. In some places in the Bible, it is indeed said that hell is eternal death.
You see, this is why God cannot be held to human standards of kindness and decency. We assume that since we are alive in human bodies, we are obviously of value and everyone should admit this. If they do not, we will force them to admit it! If we are sinners God is in effect holding a snarling and clawing cat that He has just pulled out of a bag. The cat is clawing His arms, causing real wounds, and because God has made the soul eternal this will never end! Should God endure eternal torment at the hands of His own creatures? Should He be forced to listen to their vituperative and self-willed, arrogant assertions about their rights, when they refuse to be kind to their neighbor, refuse to love others as themselves, and refuse to do unto others as they would be done unto? Forever? I hope you can see my point here that it is rational to conclude that God may indeed be justified to do away with such beings and try again.
With this said, let us proceed with Russell’s arguments regarding Christ’s character. He first brings up some of Christ’s teachings of which he does approve, and then snidely implies that he does not need to follow them exactly, but that real Christians should. Here are the Bible verses that he likes, as he quotes them: "Resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also." "Judge not lest ye be judged." "Give to him that asketh of thee, and from him that would borrow of thee turn not thou away." "If thou wilt be perfect, go and sell that which thou hast, and give to the poor."
These quotations from Jesus are perfect examples of why we cannot assume that He was man-like, for they are all products of the divine mind that were intended to have specific effects on the mind of man. Each of them is a very high ideal, a standard of perfection. What is the effect on a man who reads these statements? There are two effects. The first is that he will consider whether the stated ideal is good, and if it is good whether and how much he should give to try to realize the ideal. Some people, such as those in religious orders, give everything and take all these verses completely literally. Most Christians find some happy medium between these high ideals and their worldly duties of working for a living, caring for families and maintaining households. They practice them to the best of their ability, and still rightly consider themselves Christians, for Jesus certainly never meant for the entire world to renounce. There would be no children and the human population would end in one generation!
The second effect is more profound, and I say it is direct evidence of a divine, not a human, mind at work here. These statements, especially when read in the context of the Gospels, induce a feeling of mental detachment in the mind of the reader. Sit down and read an entire Gospel – Matthew, Mark, Luke or John – some day, and you will see what I mean. You will get up with your cares lessened. You will not be so worried about whether you will be getting a promotion this year. That dent in your car will not seem like such a big deal. You will be more forgiving towards your wife and children. The Gospels have a profound enlightening effect on whoever reads them, and this is one of the best pieces of evidence we have for the true divinity of Jesus. I submit it would be impossible for any human to produce a similar work, absolutely impossible. He was the supreme divine psychologist, and the teachings that He gave mankind have a timeless beneficial effect on all those who read them carefully, with an open heart and an open mind.
Russell then begins his real criticism of Christ, and I am terrified. His razor-sharp, or should I say piece of cardboard-sharp mind has already devastated, or should I say had no impact at all, on Christianity. Let us see if he can attack the divine person of Christ with any effect, or does he continue to spit into the wind? First, he states that Jesus was clearly deluded for believing that His kingdom would come within one generation. Now, I say that Jesus knew He would not come for two millennia, but He still purposefully stated He would come back immediately. I must now tell you the reason for this subterfuge on the part of Christ, although even a child should be able to figure it out!
It is again evidence of the divine mind, of a divine plan that Jesus was implementing. Consider the effect: if Jesus says He will return in 2000 years, what will men do? Nothing! They will continue in their sinning ways, for they are not in any immediate danger of hellfire: “This is a problem of the distant future. It is not our problem!” As God, He wanted as many of His “seconds” to become “firsts” as possible, so He used subterfuge. He is coming soon, but to increase the immediacy of the warning He said it would be in the current generation. This was not a lie, but He did bend the truth. Is He permitted to do this? Is God permitted to tell a white lie? Here is where we cannot apply our standards to God. He can do what He wants, when He wants, in the way He wants. Jesus judged that the positive effects of this white lie outweighed the negative effects, and that a deeper truth was served, in that many would be saved who otherwise would have been lost. God can make these decisions. Was He right? Just ask any Christian. We do not know when He will return, but this gives tremendous motivation to try and be good right now, not at the end of our life!
Russell thus errs in not realizing God would be intelligent enough to use subterfuge on His own creatures, and that He would have a right to do so! Seen in this light, his criticism seems shallow and vapid. His next criticism is that Christ “believed in hell.” He said, “I do not myself feel that any person who is really profoundly humane can believe in everlasting punishment.” Also, “I really do not think that a person with a proper degree of kindliness in his nature would have put fears and terrors of that sort into the world.” Here Russell shows errant foolishness, for Jesus was merely relating facts to His listeners. First, he faults Jesus for not being “humane.” I have already explained that as the Creator Jesus has heavy decisions to make, and whether we think He is humane or not does not matter to Him. He will make the decisions He needs to make to achieve the ends that He wants. Second, he faults Jesus for not having the “proper degree of kindliness.” This is wrong, for Jesus was being very kind when He related the terrors of hell to His listeners. If you are a “second” soul, and you are about to be sentenced to eternal death, would you want to know about the danger and about the way you can avoid it or not? It was kind and compassionate of Jesus to give these warnings.
Russell was imagining in his mind that Jesus was a person, and He was really not acting like a “proper person.” Jesus was God, and as such responsible for such weighty matters as deciding on the mass of galaxies and the positions of stars. Why should He be expected to act like one of His own creatures? It may be that He holds Himself to a high standard and will indeed act in most instances in line with what we expect, but with a powerful being like this, you never know. We are nothing before Him, just motes of dust in His eye, ants under His foot. If He should decide to crush us all instantly, He could certainly do so, even as Russell shouts, “This is not kind! I do not like being crushed under your heel! Ouch!” The only reason we believe He will not act in this way is His own revelation to man about His nature! Yet, He also included this little bit about a second coming, where He would throw sinners into a lake of fire. Who are we to tell Him He may not do this? He will laugh heartily at our notions and reply, “My child, you don’t know what it is to be God! If I let these sinners live, they will never leave me alone! They will never cease causing me intense grief. If you are infested by a fungus, as in for instance athlete’s foot, do you cherish the creatures who are causing your foot to itch? No, you buy a fungal cream and you kill them all. This is what it is like for me. I am sorry if you do not like it, but you should have listened to my Son, who would have saved you from my wrath. Now it is too late!”
Russell brings up one more point of interest here:
“I must say that I think all this doctrine, that hell-fire is a punishment for sin, is a doctrine of cruelty. It is a doctrine that put cruelty into the world and gave the world generations of cruel torture; and the Christ of the Gospels, if you could take Him as His chroniclers represent Him, would certainly have to be considered partly responsible for that.”
It is the height of man’s arrogance to think that human life is an undifferentiated good. He presumes that he himself is a type of God, to be worshipped by all, including the real God who made him! Oh man, why this arrogance? Why are you so certain God loves you as much as you love yourself? There is a common phrase popular today, “Love the sinner but hate the sin.” This is not the way it is with God. He hates the sinner too, or else why would He threaten eternal damnation? Another way to say this is that God loves all the creatures that He made, but some He knows cannot remain for they fail to meet His standards, however generous these may be. On judgement day, He will harden His heart against these “seconds,” and cast them into the fire. These people should repent now, while they still have a chance, for then it will be too late.
I must respond to the accusation of cruelty. The definition of cruelty is: “…deliberately and remorselessly causing pain or anguish; insensitivity to the pain and anguish of others.” Bertrand Russell is completely correct, then, and God is cruel. He is cruel to sinners, but kind to those that believe in Jesus and try to follow His commands. However, cruelty in a human context is usually practiced against people that do not deserve it, for instance refugees, kidnap victims, or people of particular races or religious beliefs. On earth, cruelty is performed by the one who is in power on those who are not in power, and there is no standard of righteousness to decide who is in power. God, however, is just and searches the heart of each man. His cruelty is against evil, unfailingly, never against good. This is why it is perhaps better to say that God is involved in divine retribution, not cruelty, although an intelligent person might agree that cruelty against true evil is to be praised, and is a sign of a noble and steadfast nature.
Every day in America and all over the world this type of cruelty is practiced, but we don’t call it cruelty, we call it justice. Every country with a penal system, not to mention the death penalty, practices exactly the type of cruelty that Bertrand Russell accuses God of here. I suppose he would argue that rapists and murderers should be allowed to roam freely through the streets, since imprisoning them is liable to cause them some pain and anguish, and human pain and anguish is an undifferentiated evil. He may reply that it is a matter of degree, that we do treat our prisoners humanely and that everlasting torture is not humane. I have stated a logical alternative to eternal damnation, and that is eternal death, which I’m sure he would agree is not inhumane when the person is allowed to conclude his life naturally. Let us assume instead, for the sake of argument, that God does punish people eternally in hell. What does this mean?
There are three different possible attitudes God could take toward mankind, good, indifferent, or evil. That is to say, He may intend good for mankind, He may be indifferent towards us, or He may intend evil. Let us take the last case first, and assume God intends evil toward man. This would mean He has created us out of sadistic frame of mind, and aims to torture us throughout eternity. Heaven could just be a ruse, and in reality we are all going directly to hell when we die. I mention this possibility in all seriousness, for we only have revealed scripture to tell us that this is not the case. Common sense does not apply here, for the nature of a created being does not necessarily reflect the nature of the Creator. God could indeed be wholly evil. What then can we do? There is nothing we can do, for He is the one with all the power. This is the scenario that Russell argues against here, for cruelty is only truly evil when it is purposeless, or serves to satisfy the twisted nature of the perpetrator. If God is such as this, his response is correct and we should get our pleasure while we can, on planet earth, ignoring all scriptural injunctions and avoiding church like the plague.
The second scenario is indifference, where God has created us and more or less doesn’t care what we do, how we act or whether our inner nature is good or bad. This is the scenario that most people in the modern world, including a good portion of the Christians, assume as a practical basis of life. They do more or less whatever they want, observing the laws of their country but not spending a great deal of energy or money on charitable causes, trying to spread God’s message, or trying to increase their personal virtues like compassion, love, and good-will towards all. In America, this means owning a house, a car, a boat, an RV, and if you are lucky, a cabin by a lake somewhere. To stay on the safe side, many of these people do still attend church and consider themselves good Christians, since they are not much different from their neighbors. It is well that they do so, but they would also do well to consider Jesus’ warning that many who think of themselves as belonging to Him will be rejected on the last day.
The third scenario is where God is good, and intends mankind to be happy overall, in eternity. In this scenario, the promise of heaven is real but we are left with the problem Russell has brought up, that eternal damnation seems a bit harsh and sadistic, to say the least. It is more logical to assume that if we can often reform criminals here by merely imprisoning them for a number of years, a sort of purgatory is called for instead of a hell. The torments of hell indeed sound so terrible that a very short time there should be sufficient to reform anyone, convincing the sinner of the power of God and making of him or her a true believer. Again, it is strange that the condition of not being cast into this place, which is eternal damnation, should be the mere belief in the being known as Jesus. Russell’s case here appears to have some weight, for Jesus made some apparently irrational and self-contradictory statements, that God is love and that man is in danger of eternal hellfire.
The key to answering this conundrum is that we do not know exactly what Jesus meant by either heaven or hell! He was very vague about both concepts. He even said the kingdom of heaven is within man, which does not make sense from the usual Christian theological standpoint that heaven is somewhere good where people go when they die. He was very mysterious about these things, and the answer to the issue Russell has brought up lies shrouded in this mystery. When Jesus returns, He will certainly clear this up, even as He is exercising judgement. Or perhaps He will first tell us exactly what He meant, giving mankind one more chance to choose heaven over hell. In the meantime, however, the rational mind of an intelligent Christian can attack this problem from a number of angles, and from all of these angles God may be seen to be good, although He is ruthless to sinners.
First and most obviously, suppose that hell doesn’t last forever, but some extremely long period, say a hundred thousand years. Suppose, further, that the torments of hell are real but they are small and continuous, so that a small amount of constant, irritating pain spread out over a hundred thousand years amounts to excruciating torture, should it all be added up. Think of it this way. Suppose a man were born with all the pressure sensing nerves in his feet functioning properly, except for one in each foot that registers pain instead of pressure. Every time he takes a step, he experiences a little pain. It is not enough to keep him from walking, it just makes him grimace a bit. If you add up all these little pains, one from each and every step for the man’s entire life, you end up with a lot of pain! Hell could be like this. At the end of it, the man will be reformed, but instead of talking about purgatory Jesus here exercised His divine discretion once more and said words that would really cause man to change. By threatening hell, Jesus may have saved many from the real purgatory that He knows does exist.
It is like a child with a B-B gun. The mother or father will often say, “Be careful, or you’ll shoot your eye out!” They do not really mean this to be a probability, or they would take the gun away, but say these words to scare the child into being careful with the gun. They do achieve the result they want, and was it a lie that they told? Yes, but since the result is that the child does not shoot out his eye or anybody else’s either, the lie is now called a white lie, and because deeper truth was served it is good. Similarly Jesus said, “Be careful, or you’ll end up in everlasting fire!” Now, Mr. Russell will argue that these are not strictly analogous because shooting out your eye with a B-B gun is a real possibility, but under the scenario I’m now describing everlasting fire is not, only very long-lasting fire. I say, Try to endure this pain for a hundred thousand years, and tell me it doesn’t feel like it is everlasting!
There are several other approaches to the concept of hell that preserve God’s shining image as a good, non-evil deity. I will here speak of one other approach, and let the reader beware that this is a thought experiment entirely, that I do not know these things and they are not supported in the Bible. However, I submit they are not outside the realm of possibility, for the Bible is not only vague about heaven and hell, this business about the flesh being raised up again is also vague. Suppose, just for a moment, that when Jesus said that the flesh would be raised again He was hinting at reincarnation. I bring this up just to point out that there is a scenario in which eternal damnation is very real indeed. If, as some other religions assert, we have come up through evolution as animals, then primitive man, then finally to the crown of creation, homo sapiens, then the real danger exists that God could send us back down into the animal realm.
God could take a human soul and force it back into an animal body, where it would certainly endure real torments as it discovers it can no longer gossip with its neighbors, it can no longer go to the supermarket to buy food but must obtain its food from nature, and it can no longer drive a car but must scamper about. This would be hell indeed, I am sure anyone would admit. All the capacity for rational thinking that the person had would be squashed into nothing, just like that. Except it would be painful, for it would still recall in some dim way what it used to be, a magnificent human being. What is more, suppose God never allowed it to rise to the human level again, but reserved this precious opportunity for another animal, for all animals are certainly clamoring for their chance, their opportunity to become human. This, indeed, would be eternal damnation, for the soul would never, ever enter the human context again.
My point here is that the rational mind can reconcile the harsh statements that Jesus made about hell with the idea of there being a good and loving God. It may be the case that this God, in making a real world, could not make all human beings equal in goodness, and He is forced to cast some into hell, whether this is in reality a long and more or less gentle purgatory, permanent replacement into animal bodies, or some other alternative. I submit both of these interpretations are, while not directly supported by the Bible, nevertheless consistent with a generous reading and the consideration that Jesus spoke to keep people out of whatever negative state there was. His major objective in speaking about hell was to keep people out of this place that He alone knew about, and I think most readers will agree with me that a dire threat is more likely to motivate than a gentle nudge. Indeed, to a clear-thinking man, the possibility of being cast forever into an animal body is frightening indeed, and he will be glad for whatever warning he received, if that warning were to keep him from this terrible fate.
Whether Jesus is partially responsible for the terrors of the inquisition and other evils of the church, as Russell argues, is a matter of debate. It is clear that He reserved judgement of mankind for Himself alone, for He spoke often about this. “Judge not, lest ye be judged,” and the analogy of the log and the speck come to mind. Man was not to judge his fellow man as to his godliness or ungodliness. The perpetrators of the Inquisition ignored this clear advice of Jesus. Is He then partly to blame for their activities? Perhaps, because He did use severe, stern language. However, an intelligent person will admit it is possible Jesus saved many more people by using such language than were harmed by the Inquisition or any other negative activities of the church. These are the types of heavy decisions that God must make, and to me it seems likely Jesus made the correct choice. Rather than giving watered-down versions of His parables and stories, He used stark, drastic imagery meant to capture the imagination of man, to motivate him to strive to be good. I believe He accomplished this goal. How many more murders and how much more torture would have occurred had He used a softer approach? Only He knows for sure, but mankind does not need religion as an excuse to torture, as you can verify for yourself by going into many third world countries today and insulting the ruling dictator. It is not unreasonable to think that Jesus was right, and the world is a much better place because of His informed decisions about the nature of His discourse.
Bertrand Russell’s attempt to discredit Jesus on the basis of His teachings being cruel by human standards is thus seen to have some weight, but not as much as he thought. There are logical, rational explanations why God’s actions may seem cruel to us, but in reality are simple practicalities. For instance, a livestock farmer who raises poultry, sheep, and goats may co-exist with coyotes for a number of years. One day some of the coyotes may get the idea that these farm animals are easy prey. They may overcome their fear of the man and begin dining on his herd, and going into his henhouse at night, carrying off the chickens. What is the man to do? If coyotes were intelligent, he could talk to them. He could put up signs saying, “Stay out of henhouse!” and, “These sheep are mine!” Coyotes are not intelligent, however. The farmer is likely to take a gun, await their arrival, and shoot them on sight. The coyotes which by nature are not aggressive will have stayed away from the farmer’s land, and they will be safe.
Similarly, God wants to develop a happy world, and the people who cause trouble, the sinners, are like coyotes who keep attacking His sheep, the good people of earth. Since man is intelligent, He has visited and told man about this problem. He has essentially said, “If you keep sinning, if you are evil, vile, and unrepentant, I shall have to return and kill you. I have no choice, if I want my sheep to survive and thrive. Earth is meant for good, kind, gentle people. The evil, violent ones must learn to be good, and I show the way. Believe in me and follow my commandments, and I shall be merciful.” The world we live in is full of brutal and thoughtless coyotes, who kill, steal, maim and injure the lives of all those around them. All we await is the divine farmer’s return, when He shall use His gun and set things right. This is not cruel, it is a practical manner of dealing with the evil that exists on planet earth, and it shall be successful.
Also, not all Atheists are likely to be condemned, especially the less vocal ones. These are like the coyotes who keep to themselves. The world is a confusing place, especially with the advent of modern science, and God knows this. People who are not sure about God but who still try to be kind to their neighbors and to do good, are most likely acceptable to God, although they are taking a risk. It is the Atheists that are attacking God’s sheep, like Bertrand Russell, who have reason to fear. Even with all our modern technology it is wise to follow the wonderful precepts and example of Jesus, and people should be free to do this without the harassment of so-called “rational thinkers,” whose words are no more rational than a baby’s squealing to its mother that it is out of milk.
Russell next finds fault with Jesus for casting devils into swine, who then rushed into the sea. He says, “There is the instance of the Gadarene swine, where it certainly was not very kind to the pigs to put the devils into them and make them rush down the hill into the sea. You must remember that He was omnipotent, and He could have made the devils simply go away; but He chose to send them into the pigs.” This criticism shows a lack of respect, a lack of intellect, and a lack of imagination. It lacks in respect because he is criticizing a miraculous event. Granted, Russell surely does not believe that this event could have really taken place. If it did, however, he is spitting in the face of God, for Jesus used His divine powers here. No mortal man may do such things, and it is impudent to find fault with the way God uses His powers. Suppose you are walking down the road and you behold a man with a pointed cap, wearing a flowing black robe with the images of stars and moons imprinted on it. He is surrounded by a swarm of bees, and you notice the bees are moving in ever tighter circles about him, and that when they get very close they suddenly stop flying and drop to the ground. Bees also seem to be drawn to the man from the surrounding countryside, and are arriving in constant streams. You look at his feet, and where the bees have been dropping there is a circular pile of what appear to be rabbit droppings. He is drawing all the bees in to himself, and changing them into excrement!
You hurriedly draw near, and demand an explanation. “I say, fellow! What is this you are doing here? Don’t you know the apple orchards nearby need those bees? If the trees are not pollinated fruit will not form, and all the apple growers around here will go broke! I demand that you stop immediately!” The man with the pointed cap, with the black flowing robe, stops and slowly turns toward you. He is not smiling. He says, slowly, emphasizing each word to be sure that you hear him, “Who are you to tell me what to do? Do you know what other powers I may have? You do not, and therefore I call you a fool and a madman. It is rare that I am challenged, and because I am in a good mood I will explain what I am doing to you. These bees aggravated me. I was taking a nap, and they disturbed my sleep with their endless buzzing. These bees do nothing but eat and work, work and eat. They think of nothing but their hive, and pay no attention to the other beings around them, like me, who was simply trying to get some rest. Since they have no inner stuff, no inward qualities that make them intrinsically valuable and worthy of my respect, I am achieving the end towards which they all strive in one moment instead of letting them achieve this end themselves over a period of several months.”
“I still say, you must stop,” you intone, “or I will summon the authorities.” The man looks at you, and this time there is a definite frown. “Do you think I am not an authority, who have the power of changing bees into the excrement they would themselves have made over time? You are in over your head, man, leave me be. I will continue my work until it is through.”
At this point you become very angry and stride violently toward the wizard, meaning to pummel him into submission to your will. Expecting this, he waves one arm, his left arm, and a blue bolt leaps forth from the shiny emerald ring on his finger. The bolt rushes towards you, and fans out into an oval, taller and wider than you are. Then, you find yourself encased in a bright egg of blue energy, unable to move or talk. Your mouth tastes like cotton, and your breath is difficult since the case of blue energy constricts you tightly. The wizard has forgotten all about the bees now, who fly away. The bees that were changed into excrement also change back into bees and fly away. He walks quietly over to you, and this time he is smiling. He explains, and with each word your heart sinks a little lower as you begin to see the truth. “I heard rumors about a man in this region who did not respect the power of wizards. I could not believe my ears, and hurried over to see if I could find this man, for truly such a one is an idiot. We wizards are entertained by idiocy, for a man who walks like us, talks like us, and sees like us yet does not think like us. He gives the appearance of thought, for he speaks and moves about, yet does not understand so simple a thing as the need to respect one’s betters. I have captured you, and will be taking you magically back to my castle. I and my fellow wizards would like a good laugh. I wonder what other foolish notions you may have!”
Similarly, it is wrong to criticize the stories of miracles in the Bible. For all one knows, they really happened. If they did, there is an awesome power behind them, with which one should not trifle, or one risks the fate of this foolish wizard-challenger. Russell is really saying here, “This is not the proper sort of miracle that one should do! One should perform more urbane, peaceful miracles, not such violent acts. This God, this Jesus, is a fool for performing such a miracle. This should not be allowed, and if He were here I would tell Him so to His face!” Russell regards the stories of miracles in the Bible as just stories, but he may well be wrong. The miracles of Jesus were so many, and so varied, that it would have taken a fertile human imagination indeed to conceive of them all. Simply because miracles do not seem to happen nowadays, does not mean that miracles never happened. With this said let us look at this miracle of Jesus, and decide for ourselves whether Russell’s assertion that it was not kind is a perceptive or a superficial criticism.
I have said that Russell’s criticism lacks intellect as well as respect, and here is why. A true intellectual will look at the miracle and think, “If this is really God, He may have some profound reason for choosing to send the demons into swine rather than just sending them into the air. If I can perceive what His divine purpose might have been, it could be evidence for His really being God and the miracle actually being true.” I submit that such a purpose may be found, but it requires imagination to think of it, which is why I said Russell’s criticism lacks imagination too. Let us imagine, then, what would have been the effect upon the millions of Christian readers down the centuries if Jesus had sent the demons into the air as opposed to the effect of sending them into pigs. One obvious thing that the reader immediately gets from the story as written is a very vivid mental picture of two insane men, the Lord Jesus, and a herd of pigs rushing into the sea. This Bible story thus gives man a handle, making the miracle much more memorable. If Jesus cast out demons, that is one thing, but since He cast them into a whole herd of pigs the readers of the Bible now have a very remarkable and memorable mental picture, almost as if they were present themselves at the blessed event.
This, then, is one reason for using the herd of pigs. As a brilliant divine psychologist, Jesus gave His followers a mental picture that connects the living God with the people of coming centuries. From 2000 years in the past Jesus still strikes out into the mind of man, and Russell’s taking offense at the image is noticeable and conspicuous proof of this! He read the Bible, probably in a cursory fashion, and this is one of the things that struck him, and which he remembered. Although he was offended, an honest, rational man will admit Jesus’ first purpose is certainly achieved, of having a very memorable, striking event recorded in the Bible. This is true of all the specific things that Russell criticizes. He was offended, but he noticed and remembered them, and thus even in this sinner Jesus’ purpose was accomplished.
Obviously, the criticism remains. I have merely pointed out that creating a vivid, almost living account of His actions is one reason, and perhaps even a sufficient reason, for Jesus to do such things. However, is Russell’s reaction of offense justified, or is the usual Christian response of, “A herd of pigs. Who cares? They are just animals, and there are many more where those came from.”? Who is right? Russell has taken offense at what most Christians ignore as being unimportant. It may be the case that he alone is sensitive, and the Christians insensitive, to the sufferings of animals, and therefore he is actually a better person! I do not think this is the case, however. Vegetarians of today who are not Christian would likely be highly offended by this story, and I would say that the Christians are still the better off, for they admit the divinity of Jesus and try to do good unto other humans.
Jesus chose to send the demons into the herd of pigs for two reasons beyond the one I have already stated. First, man is higher than the animals. He was giving His stamp of approval to meat-eating, to the breeding of animals for defined purposes, and in today’s world for animal testing where the benefit to man is direct. Vegetarians may be offended, and Jesus Himself may have had a private preference for plant foods (we do not know), but He recognized that world harmony, peace among mankind, love for God and love for fellow man, were far more important than the type of food one consumes. He saved two insane men by sacrificing a whole herd of pigs, thus demonstrating in a vivid way that to the eyes of God men are far more precious than animals ever could be. Animals are unimportant by comparison with men, and this is Jesus’ first point.
The second reason Jesus chose a herd of pigs is that the pig is a notoriously noisome and dirty animal. It loves to roll about in mud, and is not particular about the type of food it eats. It grunts in a disgusting way. It is slow and ugly by comparison with other animals. Although pig-lovers may disagree with me here, the general societal impression is as I say. It would not be unusual to hear, at a picnic, “That fellow is a pig! Look at the sloppy way he eats. And he’s eaten three pies already!” Jesus chose pigs to show His distaste for demons, such as were possessing the two men. Were these real demons, or did Jesus merely cure their insanity and send the pigs into the sea of their own accord? We shall never know, but He demonstrated vividly that the forces for evil in the world are worthy of our contempt. When we encounter evil in the world, we should avoid it. We should send it away from us as Jesus sent those demon-possessed pigs into the sea, to drown.
Russell next finds fault with the story of the fig tree. Here are his words:
“Then there is the curious story of the fig tree, which always rather puzzled me. You remember what happened about the fig tree. "He was hungry; and seeing a fig tree afar off having leaves, He came if haply He might find anything thereon; and when He came to it He found nothing but leaves, for the time of figs was not yet. And Jesus answered and said unto it: 'No man eat fruit of thee hereafter for ever' . . . and Peter . . . saith unto Him: 'Master, behold the fig tree which thou cursedst is withered away.'" This is a very curious story, because it was not the right time of year for figs, and you really could not blame the tree.”
Jesus looks like a fool here to the shallow reader, for He walked up to a fig tree before figs were in season, and when He found no fruit He cursed the tree, which died. It would be like, today, walking into an apple orchard during blossom time expecting to find apples. The orchard will smell very sweetly, very heavenly at that time, but no one expects to find fruit there. Jesus had to know that there would be no figs, so His meaning must be deeper. Unlike Russell, I do not choose to look at the surface of things. I choose to look at the depths. If Jesus truly was the only Son of God, as I believe He was, we should be able to find profound meanings in all His words and actions.
Let us imagine the scene, then. Jesus sees the fig tree. Knowing it is not time for fruit yet, He still says to His disciples, “Look! A fig tree. Let us see whether there is fruit for us to eat!” Then, before the disciples can stop Him by reminding Him that He is not likely to find anything, He runs quickly toward the tree trailing the disciples in a line behind Him. I am certain Jesus was an athletic person and a good runner. He stops and waits at the tree when He gets there, and the disciples slowly gather around Him. He has a plan. There are no figs, and He curses the tree, which withers as He walks angrily away. The disciples stare in wonder at this miracle, and then record it, without perhaps understanding it fully.
Jesus spoke not just in words, but in actions. This story is a parallel parable in actions to His parables about the second coming, as for instance the one about the nobleman who was given a kingdom. As he left to accept the kingdom he gave three servants one dollar (in modern terms) each. After receiving the kingdom, he returns to find one servant to have invested wisely and to have made ten dollars from one. Another servant has made five dollars. With both of these servants he is pleased, and rewards them appropriately. The third servant, citing the harsh and unkind nature of his master, just retained his dollar and did nothing with it. The nobleman takes this man’s dollar and gives it to the man who has ten dollars. There is a rebellion in his kingdom, and he orders it put down violently.
The nobleman is Jesus. The citizens of the country He inherits are the people of earth. Some among the citizens of earth He considers his servants, and these are the Christians, His followers. All Christians receive the Gospels as currency that they are to use in their own lives. A man who applies the scriptures well and thoroughly to his own life is like the man who earned ten dollars by wise investing. The man who hears the Gospel but does not apply Jesus’ teachings is like the man who did nothing with the dollar entrusted him. The first man receives a great bounty of happiness, peace and harmony in his life, and can look forward to a rich reward in heaven. The second man can not look forward to such a reward, although he may still go to heaven, for he is a servant of Jesus and not one of the rebellious citizens. The citizens are those antagonistic to Jesus in the world, the secular people, the Atheists, the sinners. On His return, Jesus will order these people thrown into hell, whatever that may be, as we have discussed.
The story of the fig tree is a parallel to this story. Jesus expects people, also, to bear fruit. This is the criterion that will be used on His return, how fruitful a person’s life is, how well he or she is able to cooperate and live in harmony with those around him or her, how loving they are, how much they contribute to their community, nation, and world. Fig trees do not have a choice whether to bear fruit or not. They must wait until the fruit season, lower forms of life that they are. Humans, however, do not have to wait. They can strive now, by going to church, learning about Jesus, and by trying to follow His commandments. When He returns, He will rush eagerly up to each human, just as He rushed up to this fig tree, expecting to find fruits of the spirit, or in terms of the parable of the investing servants, the spiritual capital He has given everyone in the Gospels well-invested, with a good return. To him who has shall more be given, but from him who has not even what he has will be taken away. A man without fruit that day will find himself cursed by Jesus and cast out of His kingdom, like it or not.
Russell next asserts that man becomes religious based on emotional grounds. He can see no intellectual or rational basis for religion, which to me is quite clear and obvious. Religion opens the door to immortality. Without religion, I have at most 100 short, brief years on this planet, and then it is all over. A rational being will conclude that this is not good, for a rational being will be interested in seeing itself continue after death. This is a logical, rational conclusion, not an emotional one. Jesus opens the door of hope to man, who otherwise is like a dog trapped in a mirrored box, barking and barking endlessly at its own reflection. Jesus comes from outside the box, and the Gospels are like a window in the box. Everywhere the dog looks, it sees itself: other mortals talking about everything under the sun except the one thing that matters, eternal life. From the window that Jesus has opened, sunlight streams in, from behind His radiant face. “I am the way, the truth and the life,” He says. “Come out of the box, and join my Father and I in the heaven we have prepared for you!”
It is like traveling along on a freeway and seeing a sign, “Fruit stand ahead. Pull over now!” You pull over, and there is Bertrand Russell who has also just pulled over in his Ford Fairlane. You both stride confidently up to the building, because you both are hungry and looking for fruit. It is a strange fruit stand, however, because the front doors are closed. You see large, swinging doors but they are locked with a padlock. What is this? You both look quizically at each other a few moments, then a woman suddenly steps out from a side entrance, holding an orange in each hand. In broken English, she asks, “You like orange?” Each of you takes one. Bertrand gets immediately excited and starts jumping up and down, for he has never seen an orange! How wonderful it is! He runs off, shouting about his wonderful orange. He takes it home, and puts it on his dresser, the perfect orange. Eventually he gets around to peeling it, but he does so little by little, ever so carefully. It must be peeled exactly, this orange, for surely there is not another orange just like this orange anywhere! Then when it is all peeled, he gets out his microscope and examines it in great detail: “How the sections come apart! Oh, look, I just got squirted by orange juice! This orange is amazing.”
Back at the fruit stand, you and the proprietor stare at each other in amazement after Bertrand evacuates the premises. Surely this is irrational behavior, that neither of you have ever witnessed! After you regain your senses, you state to the owner, “Yes, this is exactly what I was looking for. Do you have any more of these?” She smiles a wide, broken-toothed grin and says, “Yes, yes. Come inside!” The big doors out front were only for delivery, and the real entrance is to the side. You go into the establishment and find not only oranges, but papayas, jackfruit, mangos, apples, bananas, every kind of fruit you could imagine! You leave the place with a full grocery bag under each arm, and a grin on your face too! You will come back to this fruit stand.
A person satisfied with just his current life is not rational, like a man who goes to a fruit stand and leaves with only one piece of fruit. Our current life is wonderful, no doubt, but a rational man has a real craving for more. Indeed, Mr. Russell’s life is already over, and I am arguing against a dead man. He died in 1970, after less than 100 years of life. He had his one orange, made as much as he could out of it, and now he is finished eating it. He claimed not to be bothered by the fact that he had only one orange, or one life, but I find this disturbing and the sign of an irrational, illogical mind. Jesus offers all the oranges that we can eat, eternal life. A rational man will want to see inside the fruit stand, past the sample that has been offered, to see if there is any more! Whose hunger can be satisfied by a single piece of fruit? Whose desire for enjoying life itself can be satisfied with our current, mortal existence?
He next makes the astounding claim that religion does not make man virtuous. Quite the opposite, he boldly (and erroneously) asserts. He includes an interesting story to prove his point, which I shall quote in its entirety:
“One is often told that it is a very wrong thing to attack religion, because religion makes men virtuous. So I am told; I have not noticed it. You know, of course, the parody of that argument in Samuel Butler's book, Erewhon Revisited. You will remember that in Erewhon there is a certain Higgs who arrives in a remote country, and after spending some time there he escapes from that country in a balloon. Twenty years later he comes back to that country and finds a new religion in which he is worshiped under the name of the ‘Sun Child,’ and it is said that he ascended into heaven. He finds that the Feast of the Ascension is about to be celebrated, and he hears Professors Hanky and Panky say to each other that they never set eyes on the man Higgs, and they hope they never will; but they are the high priests of the religion of the Sun Child. He is very indignant, and he comes up to them, and he says, ‘I am going to expose all this humbug and tell the people of Erewhon that it was only I, the man Higgs, and I went up in a balloon.’ He was told, ‘You must not do that, because all the morals of this country are bound round this myth, and if they once know that you did not ascend into Heaven they will all become wicked’; and so he is persuaded of that and he goes quietly away.”
This is a strange story and is what I would call an “anti-parable,” for it aims to invalidate positive parables. Jesus’ parables have all been examined in detail down the ages. Let us do the same with this anti-parable. Its central idea is that the founder of a religion is not essential. It is enough to have a remarkable event, something that people regard as miraculous, and selfish men will automatically step in and take advantage of the situation by putting themselves in power. They will establish themselves as experts, and teach others who are not experts. If the founder returns and threatens to expose them, these men will convince him not to interfere by giving the reason that they have set up laws and morals based on his earlier, trivial actions, that in actuality help the people behave better. The founder then becomes a true religious figure merely by staying out of the way! Earlier in his essay, Russell parodied the argument for the existence of God by design by pointing out ridiculous adaptations, giving the example of the white tails of cottontail rabbits making them easier to shoot. This anti-parable, coming near the end of his essay as it does, resembles the white tail of a cottontail on the Russell rabbit. Let us see if this makes him easier to shoot with the barbed arrows of logical thinking.
What is wrong with this parable? It is insidious, because stories have a special grip on the mind of man. They get his attention, for some reason lost in the depths of human psychology. People are drawn in by stories such as this, and they leave not only with the truth described by the story, but also with the flavor of it. There is a subtle imprint on the mind, like the smell of an orange as you are peeling it, that goes along with the experience of reading and helps to make the experience memorable. Words have a flavor, or a scent, just as physical objects do. Stories carry a scent much better than simple statements of fact. They are much more flavorful, and this is why Jesus also resorted to them frequently. You think, “Ah, a story!” and right away you are paying attention. You carve out a space in your mind to fit the whole story in. Instead of disconnected words, suddenly the words are alive with narrative. It is much more interesting, and the reader or listener pays more attention than he would to dull prose.
Perhaps the best way to annihilate this anti-parable is with a “posi-parable” of our own. A long, long time ago a child was born, a divine child. This child grew up alongside all the other children, but He was different for He had two fathers, one a human father and the other the Creator of the Universe. All the while this child was growing up, He was aware of His mission, to found a new religion that would turn evil men toward His real Father in heaven, and to demonstrate His real Father’s compassion and mercy in a graphic way. At the appropriate age, He began His mission. It started slowly, but gradually more and more people listened. He first gathered twelve disciples, who were to be His close companions for the three years of His ministry. These men were privileged to ask this Son of God any question they desired during all this time, and of all the talk that surely must have transpired, assuming the disciples talked at the same rate at which most humans talk, most was lost. Some of His sayings were, however, recorded. He made certain, acting through the Holy Spirit, that the most significant ideas were preserved, so that man would have a complete picture of his nature, his relationship to God, and his hope for immortality.
Subsequent to His death on a cross and resurrection, a new religion sprang into existence. This religion was run by men, and since men are fallible there have been many problems. Statements of the founder were misinterpreted, and misapplied. Statements were ignored completely, such as “Judge not lest ye be judged,” for man is ever judgmental, and likes to have the upper hand in life. Man loves power. The overall effect, however, of this religion was very good. It actually contributed greatly to the socialization and civilization of man, for in each community where it was practiced the people had one day of the week where they gathered together and heard repeated the wise and kind words of the religion’s founder. Millions upon millions of people were exhorted on a weekly if not daily basis to be good, to do good, to think kindly of others and to avoid all sin, by eloquent and persuasive priests of the religion. Upon the deaths of community members, they would all gather and have a ceremony based on their common faith, and the dead were truly laid to rest instead of coldly forgotten.
All of these people desired the heaven described by the founder, and feared His hell, so they all applied His teachings about goodness in their daily lives, some more and some less. Many gave their entire lives to the cause of serving Him, the holy Son of God, such as priests, monks, nuns and missionaries. These people helped spread His message, which was one of hope, love and joy, to all peoples in the world. About 1800 years after the founder’s death, a strange thing began to happen. The intellect of man began to pierce the natural world around him in a systematic way, a way known as science. Soon all the physical difficulties of life were solved, by engines more powerful than many horses, by electricity that could light up the world even by night, by telegraph and telephone that made long-distance communication easy. The founder had not mentioned any of these things! A section of the world’s population began to have a new faith, a faith in man himself. God has not given these things to man, man has taken them for himself! Is not man therefore godlike? Is he not deserving of worship? These men cut themselves off from the religion of the ages, and formed their own religion, Atheism.
They decided to write parables of their own, ridiculing the founder of religion, which as you may know is Jesus Christ. One of their parables was about a balloonist, Higgs, who traveled to a remote country. While there, he gathered no disciples. He told no parables. He gave no commandments. No one listened to him, or followed him. He did nothing, but then left the country again in his balloon. After he left, a religion was founded, the religion of the “Sun Child.” Rules and regulations, standards of behavior, were set up. Notice that these rules were not from Higgs, but from the high priests, Hanky and Panky. When Higgs returned, these men would not allow him to address the people, for it would have upset the balance of things, or rather the balance of power, for they were now in charge.
This anti-parable of the Atheists is arrogant and blasphemous, and against it stands the whole weight of human experience, as well as common sense, which the Atheists abandon in favor of a highly questionable “reason.” First, it implies that Jesus did nothing, which is blatantly false. The men who set up the early church did introduce their own teachings, as Hanky and Panky obviously also did, but they always pointed a loving finger of thankfulness at their Master, Jesus Christ, not just at His person, but at the words that He gave mankind. Even today the Christian religion regards the actual words and teachings of Jesus Christ, the only Son of God, as its foundation and bedrock. The church does not rest on the works and words of the Apostles, but on the actual things that Jesus said and did. This is why I say this anti-parable is blasphemous, for it pokes fun at religious men and tries to make them seem non-serious, as if they have built a castle in the air. In fact, in ignoring this fundamental fact of Christianity, Bertrand Russell shows his own prejudices and biases.
Imagine, if you will, a rock in an African desert. It is a very large, flat rock about the size of a house. You climb the rock, with difficulty, for the sides are smooth. Perhaps you have a friend give you a boost up. On the top surface of the rock, you find a curious structure. It appears to be a primitive monument or shrine that the locals have placed there. You examine it closely. There is a small collection of pebbles, a frond from a palm tree, and some wax candles. The candles are burning, so you look around for the natives, but you don’t see anyone, so you continue your examination. There is a piece of cloth, and upon it a small plate. Upon the plate someone has poured honey, and there are thousands of ants engaged in eating the honey and carrying it off to their nest. Suddenly the sky grows dark, and it begins to look like rain. Gigantic, blue-gray storm clouds are gathering, so you seek shelter. The storm hits. It is a fierce one, that lasts all night. Secure in your tent, you wonder what has become of the natives’ shrine. In the morning you eagerly scurry back out onto the rock, and you find nothing remaining but the rock itself.
You begin to walk away, and suddenly you catch the glint of dark, black skin out of the corner of your eye. It is a native! You begin to run away in fear but he yells, in English, “Don’t run. I’m a friend.” You decide to risk it and stay. A conversation ensues. You ask him about the shrine, and express sorrow that the items obviously lovingly placed there were blown away in the storm. He laughs and laughs! “Those were not the shrine,” he explains. “It is the rock!” The rock itself is the shrine, and the rest were just decorations. “It will never blow away!,” he shouts. “No storm can destroy it!”
Russell and the Atheists here are like men who poke fun at the shrine on the rock. The pebbles, the smaller rocks, are Christ’s disciples and apostles. While indeed holy men, their words are not as true as those of their Master. The palm frond represents the church, providing shade and shelter to the ants, Christ’s followers who eagerly eat the honey of His teachings poured out by priests on the plate of weekly services or mass. The cloth, placed under the plate, represents Jesus’ sacrifice on the cross, for He bore the burden for all mankind’s sins. The burning wax candles represent the scriptures that have been revealed to man, for truly, these could all be lost but Jesus would still be there, for He is the living God. All these things could be blown away, but Christ remains, for He is the rock upon which the whole edifice of the church is built. You cannot find fault with Christianity by comparing it with a founderless religion, for you have missed the entire point of the religion! Christ is the living rock and true foundation of Christianity, and this alone renders the anti-parable meaningless, for it is not a true comparison, but a specious one! It is a very irrational parable, told by an illogical and vindictive man.
We may still go on, however, and point out more flaws in the anti-parable. Unlike Higgs, who returns to try and destroy the religion he ignorantly founded, Jesus has promised to return and fulfill His religion. Higgs, who gave nothing to start with and tries to take away when he returns, is nothing at all like Jesus, who gave everything to start with and will fulfill when He returns. Furthermore, He will not find fault with His priests for doing what He Himself commanded them to do, which is to spread Christianity to the four corners of the globe. They among all men are certain to find their reward in heaven. To use this anti-parable properly, Russell must really show that it bears some resemblance to Christianity, that there are deep parallels with different interpretations. The anti-parable, however, is obnoxious and vacant, bearing no resemblance to Christianity and throwing no light, only darkness, into the minds of those who are unfortunate enough to read it. If the devil exists, he would surely write anti-parables like this, twisting the minds of authors to whisper evil to their readers, causing them to stumble.
Russell’s main use of this anti-parable, however, is based on what I would call a shallow misinterpretation of it. He focuses on the last sentence only, which states that people will become wicked without their religion. It seems he may have missed the whole point about the machinations for power of Hanky and Panky, which is too bad, since he could have included the anti-parable also in his section about how churches retard progress. But I am getting ahead of myself. I will include his further argument here, for although it will be difficult to read for Christians, it is instructive to gaze deeply into the mind of an Atheist to see if there is anything there, or if it is only a space between the ears:
“It seems to me that the people who have held to it [religion] 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.”
In rational argument, it is proper to provide evidence that is commensurate with the claim. Here, he has tried to pack it all into the phrase, “…there was every kind of cruelty practiced upon all sorts of people in the name of religion.” It appears that Russell’s mind is not so irrational as it has appeared earlier, for he here seems to recognize that the Inquisition and the burning of (thousands instead of millions?) of witches do not outweigh the tremendous influence of the Christian religion upon truly hundreds of millions of followers over two millennia. I submit that the positive impact of Christianity far outweighs the negative impact, although my case is difficult to prove. This is especially true after the dreadful atrocities that were practiced on the Jews during WWII by Hitler, who certainly claimed Christianity was the correct religion. Let us say that the merciless extermination of six million Jews by the atrocious dictator Adolph Hitler may be substituted for Russell’s phrase, “…every kind of cruelty,” for Russell himself gave no other example, perhaps because he had none.
What do we have, then? An inquisition and witch burnings which were clearly against Christ’s teachings of “Judge not lest ye be judged,” and who out of mercy saved an adulteress from being stoned to death, saying “Let he among you who is without sin cast the first stone.” An insane dictator who abused his power more than any man before him in history, misleading the German people and who clearly was a Christian by name only, certainly not by practice. Three mighty evils in the world, and all clearly connected to Christianity, or are they? Let me ask you, the reader, a simple question. If you tell a child of yours, or a student if you are an elementary school teacher, one who is old enough to listen and understand, “Do not run in the street,” and the first thing the child does when you turn your back is run into the street, are you at fault? No, the child who is old enough to understand you is at fault. Everyone realizes this. Is Jesus therefore at fault for the idiotic actions of some of His supposed followers, who were not true followers but merely devils in disguise, bound for hell? No, He is not. He said that people who profess to believe in Him but ignore His commands are not His true followers, and they are not.
One may still argue that it was due to Christianity that these men had the power to do the evil that they did, and this is true. Man is fallen, and as I stated earlier, loves power. Indeed, this is the major sin of all these people, that they abused their power. Now I say to you, the power structures that would have come into existence if Jesus had never come and revealed the truth about God to man would have been far more evil than anything we have ever seen in the world that we do live in. Without the gentle placating force of religion, the evil in man would have won entirely. Imagine a world without churches, synagogues, or religious institutions of any kind. God is a concept which no one has ever even dreamed about. Everyone is certain that they only have one life, and there is no hope of immortality. This world would be brutal beyond comprehension, because every man would strive for his own satisfaction above all else.
I have stated my case, which opposes Russell but which has no evidence, for the evil world I describe was prevented by our Savior, Jesus Christ. It is not possible to argue conclusively that Christianity has done more good than evil, but it is possible to argue persuasively. It is a matter of common sense. Imagine all the peasants of Europe during the middle ages, every week hearing an inspiring sermon about loving one another, about trying to be good and do good. Every week, words of hope about a loving Savior who died on the cross for mankind. Every single week of their entire lives, exhortations to avoid adultery, fornication and other sins. Could all this have an overall evil effect on society? I believe it is irrational so to claim, as Russell does. Irrational, or influenced by the devil if he exists. Man abuses power. There is nothing mysterious about this, but we must remember the vast majority of bishops, priests, abbots, prioresses and others of holy orders, were good people who did not abuse their power but used it to support, nourish and strengthen the people of earth.
This is true even today. Ask any Christian whether he is a better or worse man for having gone to church, and he will surely say, Better by far! It is an inane argument to state the opposite as Russell so brashly does. What is more, the world itself holds Christians to a higher standard of behavior than ordinary worldly people. Is it not often said, “That man claims to be a Christian, yet look at the way he shouts at his employees! That isn’t right!,” or, “That woman professes to be a Christian, yet she is so promiscuous. She is not a true Christian, she is one of us!”? Christianity has had, and still does have, an overall beneficial effect on the world. There have been abuses, but these are small by comparison with the strengthening and enlightening effect upon society. This should be obvious to anyone who “darkens the door of a church,” as they say, and watches the happy, social people inside talking with their fellow Christians excitedly, for all these people have hope, real hope of immortality. Christianity stares death right in the face and says, “Buddy, you lose. We win!” This is obviously not what Mr. Russell saw, but as I said, the eyes were there, but about the mind I am not so sure.
He then continues in his disparagement of Christianity, which he believes is evil, in the following manner:
“You find as you look around the world that every single bit of progress in 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.”
Indicting Christianity as it has been practiced does not indict Jesus, the originator of Christianity. He is not responsible for the malicious and cruel acts of His followers who misinterpret His words. A truly rational person attempting to criticize Christianity must take issue with the teachings of Christ and these alone, for the church, while claiming to be based on His teachings, may not in fact be so based. This is the origin of the various sects of Christianity, all of whom believe they have improved on the Roman Catholic version of the faith. There are many different flavors of Christianity around today such as the Lutherans, the Mormons, the Episcopalians, and the Southern Baptists. Each feels they have the correct approach, and who knows for certain what Jesus will say when He returns? He may accept all of them, or He may bless the ones that are closest to His real teachings the most.
Russell is therefore here missing the central point, and that is that Christ’s message is inherently a personal one. He did not state that a person must follow this or that church! He gave the basic precepts of a good and moral life, a life that will lead to happiness here and beyond. Each man must come to terms with what He said himself, and then choose the church he feels most closely practices Jesus’ ideals. Or, he may start his own church, as many have done. It is likely not evil to do so. It is likely Jesus will appreciate the personal commitment people make to what they feel is the truth. Russell’s criticism of the church is vicious and nasty here, but he has taken aim at the wrong target. It is like a tree with many limbs, some of which are healthy and some of which are diseased. Russell shouts, “Those limbs are infected with fungus! The whole tree must be cut down!” If he would look closer, he would see that the tree is perfectly healthy, especially the trunk, which is in perfect condition.
I do not know what the world was like in 1927, but our modern world is much different from the one described by Russell. The churches no longer oppose “progress in humane feeling,” “every moral progress,” or “every step towards the diminution of war,” if they ever did. The rotting limbs, if he was indeed perceiving the correct state of the church in his day, have been pruned, and the tree of which Christ is the trunk is healthy, strong, and vibrant. Churches play, and have played, a big role in militating against war. Churches are bastions against racism (although not in all places; he does have a small point here.) Churches are, by and large, places where everyone is welcome, regardless of background, race, ethnicity, or even past criminal behavior. They are truly living branches on the tree of Christ, and although caterpillars sometimes come and gnaw on the leaves, you will also find nesting birds among the branches, the real saints among mankind, such as Mother Teresa of Calcutta or St. Francis of Assisi.
Russell then goes on to assail the churches in more detail. He first finds a dogmatic issue with the Catholic church, that a man who has syphilis and gets married is not allowed to use birth control, thus spreading the disease to his wife and his child. Here, I would say, the Catholic church is wrong. While they are correct to note that sex is a holy act and should be used only for procreation, they must nod to man’s cupidity and allow the use of birth control. This issue, however, is very difficult for the mind of man to understand, and only Jesus can truly decide whether I, or the Catholic church is correct. Here, Russell is condemning Catholic people for making a courageous stand which may or may not be right, but at least they are attempting to make the choices of which they feel Jesus would approve. I do not feel Jesus would condemn them for this, but rather applaud their courage.
Again, however, there are other branches of Christianity that agree with me, and
Russell’s argument does not stand against Christianity as a whole, but only
against Catholics. It answers his personal question, “Why am I not a
Christian?” but has no impact upon Christianity, as wind has no effect on a
brick wall. Perhaps I have been unfair to Russell throughout my essay, for
perhaps he was merely telling the world why he, himself, was not a Christian.
No, I am not being unfair, because he was attacking Christianity to the best of
his abilities. It is interesting, though, that he should choose such childish
arguments as the current one under discussion, and very telling. He had a strong
distaste for all Christianity simply because of one specific belief of one of
the sects! Today, it would be similar to saying, “I am not a Christian because
I know there are some Christians out there who practice snake handling.” It is
a simple logical fallacy. I will put it into logical form, so you can see how
absurd the argument really is:
1. Snake handling is evil.
2. Some Christians are snake handlers.
3. Therefore I am not a Christian.
The counter to this argument runs as follows:
1. Snake handling is evil.
2. Some Christians are snake handlers.
3. Therefore I will not join a sect that handles snakes.
4. Not all Christians are snake handlers. Some find it abhorrent, as I do.
5. Therefore I will join a sect that does not handle snakes, if I am to be a Christian.
Russell has not argued against Christianity here, but a particular type of Christianity. Lutherans were common even in his day. I wonder why he sought out the Catholics with his irate tongue? A truly rational mind must be global in its approach to problems. Russell here commits a fundamental logical fallacy, an incorrect use of the process of induction. In induction, one reasons from specific instances to the general case. Here he has only included one, biased specific instance. The commission of logical fallacies is common in political life, where people want others to agree with their conclusion at whatever cost, even at the cost of reason itself. It is simply surprising to find such an egregious example in the words of a man who purported himself to be a balanced reasoner and philosophizer, as Bertrand Russell did.
He continues with his assault on the church as follows:
“And of course, as we know, it [the church] is in its major part an opponent still of progress and improvement in all the ways that diminish suffering in the world, because it has chosen to label as morality a certain narrow set of rules of conduct which have nothing to do with human happiness; and when you say that this or that ought to be done because it would make for human happiness, they think that has nothing to do with the matter at all. ‘What has human happiness to do with morals? The object of morals is not to make people happy.’”
The object of morality is to make people happy. It has no other object. The sole purpose of Christianity, too, is the happiness of man. Russell must be very careful here, for he is espousing immorality. He is also again attacking the Catholics only, for in the matters of granting divorces, using birth control, and church attendance, other branches of Christianity are much more lenient. What moral strictures does Christianity have? Do not commit murder or adultery. Do not covet the property of your neighbor. Do unto others as you would have them do unto you. What is so narrow about these laws? They are not narrow, for all sorts of other human behaviors are allowed. Life for all should be “good clean fun.” The only things that Christian morals do not allow are things that cause sorrow. They are like the barriers at the side of a highway, which will prevent you from going off the road and crashing should you fall asleep. They are like the advice of physicians to eat nutritious foods and exercise if you want to live a long, healthy life.
Preventing sorrow is promoting happiness. All Christian morals are meant to ensure a sound family, a happy community, and a joyful world. If all would follow Christ’s suggestion to love one’s neighbor as oneself, where would violence go? Where would war go? Neither would ever happen again. Let us take adultery for instance. The Christian injunctions against adultery are tantamount to saying, “Do not take a can of gasoline and spray it all over your house, then light a match.” There are few things that tear apart a marriage as adultery does. If you do not believe me, than ask the wife of a man who commits adultery how she feels. Ask the children where their dad was on a Saturday afternoon when he could have been tossing a ball back and forth with his son, or playing dolls with his daughter. The look on their faces will tell the story of the intense misery that the adulterous man has caused each and every member of the family. The emotional scars will never leave them as they go on in life, although time will heal them to some extent.
I will not even bother to go into any arguments about why murder and robbery are wrong. Just what is Russell proposing here? A society with no morals is a society in decay. It is a society where emotional and physical pain are an everyday occurrence to every member of the society. It is a society without hope, justice, or any goodness. It is a society without joy. Russell, standing in the light of a Christian society, points his finger at darkness. This is not an argument against Christianity, it is a foolish assertion that makes him look like a devil, a creature from and of the darkness. Most Christians feel that the burden placed on them by their religion is light indeed, and most agree with the morality that Christianity supplies. A rational man will see that leading a moral life is the way to happiness, for a sinful, decadent man loses his self-respect. He begins to feel that he is ignoble, and a being that is not worth very much, to himself or to his fellow man. This is the origin of the phrase, “down and out.” Morality leads to nobility, and immorality to infamy. This is a matter of experience, but woe to the man who chooses immorality just to find out whether or not I speak the truth!
Mr. Russell next advances his own theories of human psychology, and if they are not profound they are at least provocative. His assessment of mankind is crude, hasty, and ill-considered, but here it is:
“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.”
The response to this is that, of course, the fear of death is not irrational, it is very sane and rational. It is completely logical. The man who fears not death is an idiot and a moron. I state it plainly, for it is true. Death is like an onrushing train, and every one of us is standing in the tracks directly in front of this train. With no outside agency, there is no way for us to move out of the way. There Russell is, the whistle is blowing loudly, and the train is bearing down. He is not facing the train, he is facing you. You do face the train, for you have a little longer yet to live. He asserts, “I do not fear this train. I am brave! You also should not fear this train. What is a train to me? Am I not a rational, logical man? Don’t be so timid!” If this were actually a train and death was imminent, this man is clearly a fool. Just because it is delayed a few years does not make him any less the fool.
Jesus is the outside agent. If we believe in Him with all our hearts and try to obey His commands, He has a kind of stage hook like they used in Vaudeville in the old days. It is His shepherd’s crook. He puts it round our waist, and gently pulls us out of harm’s way. For the Christian, death is not a reality, for we are saved by Jesus Himself. Eternal life is ours. In the true light of reason, the Christian man and woman are seen to be rational and wise indeed. It is misguided to think that faith and reason do not go hand in hand. Why do they go together? I shall tell you the process of salvation, for although it is a story often told, it is ever-fresh, and ever-new.
Jesus exhorts man to believe in Him, and to try to do His commands. What happens to the person who tries to believe in the person of Jesus Christ? A space is created, a space for the divine person in the heart and mind of the person who thinks about Him. You are thinking about, dwelling upon a person who is pure, perfect, sinless, bright shining like the sun. You are able to warm your heart and soul over this divine fire, and this purifies you. You are less inclined to sin, less attracted to the evil blandishments that are everywhere present in the world. You start to naturally, with joy, hold yourself to a higher standard of behavior. You will not yell at your spouse and children so much. You will forgive your co-worker who accidentally spills coffee on important papers. A little flame is lit in your own heart, the flame of eternal life and hope. A person who tries to believe in Jesus, just believe in Him and nothing else, begins a process of real spiritual growth. He becomes a better person, friendlier, kinder and more considerate towards others.
You will find, if you try to believe in Jesus with your whole heart, that you are drawn to Him with a deeper and deeper love. You will start to enjoy hearing His words of advice and consolation given in the Gospels. You will find yourself trying to do His commands as well, because of this love. Christians all over the world can verify that this is in fact what happens to the earnest believer! One goes from darkness into light, from inner poverty to spiritual wealth, from despair to real hope. The space you have created for the Lord in your heart becomes filled with joy, for you start to see all those around you, and yourself too, as children of God. This is what Jesus wanted to happen to people. This is why He came, to make the world a happier, more joyful, and more secure place.
Nevertheless, there is a darker side to Christianity that is undeniable, for along with the promise of eternal life there is the threat of eternal death, and I suppose it is too much to expect Russell, who does not even fear one death, to fear death for eternity as the worse alternative. As I said, I do not consider this attitude of his a mark of intelligence, but the sign of a brutal and paleolithic mind. Most people have enough common sense to understand that death is not desirable, eternal death is even less desirable, and if there is a chance for immortality one should take this chance! This is the position of the world’s Christians, and this is why I say that faith and reason go hand in hand. Jesus offers the real hope of immortality in a beautiful, self-consistent way. His is not a trivial potpourri of vague, half-hearted truisms. No. He gave a bold, fresh and positive revelation of the divine will that even today, with the advent of science, is still believable in truth.
Russell next brings science to the aid of his faltering logic, for it is the new religion. Man, it seems, must have faith in something, and for Russell it is science:
“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 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 better place to live in, instead of the sort of place that the churches in all these centuries have made it.”
I wish to know how Russell thinks anything can help us get over our rational, logical fear of death. Is he asking us to give up our reason? For science? But science is the epitome of reason! It is the true application of reason in a systematic way to the natural world. Not only do reason and faith go hand in hand, but science accompanies them both! How can Russell think that he can steal science for his own twisted purposes in this way? Why would Jesus, the Creator of earth and all its creatures, object to our investigations of the natural world? It is true He may object to some of our research and its results, notably human cloning and the ICBMs of the cold war, but by and large I am sure He would approve of science. Jesus was very rational Himself. Why would He object to us using our God-given rational faculty? He would not.
There are a number of things wrong with this statement of Russell’s. First, he does not tell us how science is supposed to accomplish this miracle of getting us all to forget that we must die some day. I submit that it cannot. If anything, it should increase the rational fear of death because our lives are much more pleasant and harder to leave than in the Middle Ages, say, when many lived in utter poverty. Most of the American middle class, for instance, live like kings when compared to the commoners of those days. Second, he does not explain how the heart of a man can be divorced from concern about death. He makes it sound easy, like we can just flutter around like butterflies looking all about at the natural world, and forget all about that nasty death. You may forget it, but brother it is still coming for you! Third, he presumes that Jesus Christ and God the Father are imaginary beings! God had Himself a good chuckle on the day Bertrand Russell let these words drip from his lips like slime from an imp in hell. Fourth, he presumes that Christians are incapable of “…our own efforts here below to make this world a better place to live in,…” I would submit that it is Christians, not secular people, who make the most effort to make the world a better place. Who else is motivated? Without Jesus, without the promise of eternal life, it’s every man for himself, and what a horrible world this would then be!
I will include Russell’s final summation in toto, and then examine it in detail, for it is interesting. He brings in several new points that are worth looking at:
“We want to stand upon our own feet and look fair and square at the world -- its good facts, its bad facts, its beauties, and its ugliness; see the world as it is and be not afraid of it. Conquer the world by intelligence and not merely by being slavishly subdued by the terror that comes from it. The whole conception of God is a conception derived from the ancient Oriental despotisms. It is a conception quite unworthy of free men. When you hear people in church debasing themselves and saying that they are miserable sinners, and all the rest of it, it seems contemptible and not worthy of self-respecting human beings. We ought to stand up and look the world frankly in the face. We ought to make the best we can of the world, and if it is not so good as we wish, after all it will still be better than what these others have made of it in all these ages. A good world needs knowledge, kindliness, and courage; it does not need a regretful hankering after the past or a fettering of the free intelligence by the words uttered long ago by ignorant men. It needs a fearless outlook and a free intelligence. It needs hope for the future, not looking back all the time toward a past that is dead, which we trust will be far surpassed by the future that our intelligence can create.”
The first idea he brings in here is that we should stand on our own feet and look the world straight in the eye, without fear. This is indeed the Christian ideal. The phrase “God helps those who help themselves” is a truism that I think Christ Himself would like and approve for man’s use. He would approve of the vast majority of activities in the modern, civilized world. Most people lead lives free from adultery, stealing, and murder. What then makes the Christian special? It is, as I said in the beginning, a matter of the heart. A secular man will follow the laws of the land, but he is cold inside. There is no inner warmth. He does not really love other people, and if the truth be told, without police and the critical eye of society to control him he would lead a debased life. Man has not changed that much over the centuries. It is society that has changed. What was once commonplace is no longer acceptable. Keep in mind, in those days men actually engaged in combat to the death, to the cheers of the thronging masses.
The sinners are hidden in the modern world. The bloodthirsty men keep their bloodlust hidden, for unlike Mr. Russell they value their lives and don’t want to be thrown in prison. There is something else. Sloth is called a sin by Catholicism, and they are right to do so. Often the only difference between a slothful man and a very violent man is a little energy. There is frequently evil hidden in the slothful person that will not surface except when action is forced upon him! In truth, all the seven deadly sins espoused by the Catholic church are rampant in today’s society. They simply do not result in physical violence much of the time, but there is a lot of pain hidden in the world that people do not know about. A wife who is abused by her husband is one example. Her husband is a sinner for abusing her, and in danger of hell. A businessman who ruthlessly destroys other businessmen in a mad drive for power is a terrible sinner, even if he goes to church!
When Jesus returns, He will search the hearts of men. Sin is no joke, and a sinful heart is a dark and evil heart. These people will not find a home in Jesus’ kingdom, for they are not worthy. These people are all around us, and the earnest Christian can certainly tell stories of when he or she has been stung by these devils in the world, for I call them devils who are bound for hell. Do not cause sorrow to another, or you risk hell. If you are slothful and unenergetic most of the time, you are in danger even if you harbor no evil thoughts, for you are only one step away from evil. You will not be able to control energy when it is given to you! If you are greedy, angry, gluttonous, prideful, lustful, or envious, you risk hell. There is a cure for you. Believe in Jesus, and try to do His commands. He will save everyone who prays to Him with an earnest heart.
The next interesting thing Russell introduces in his summary is the notion that God is an imaginary concept and an idea unworthy of free men. As I said, God has a good chuckle whenever He hears someone calling Him imaginary. It is really funny! This sentence is particularly humorous, because Russell’s very freedom to say this is due to God’s “fiat,” as Russell himself states. God could have made His creatures more fully under His control, but He did not. He gave all of them completely free will. As I said earlier, we know absolutely nothing about this process, but if creating souls is anything like manufacturing anything else on earth, it is likely that the process produces a mixture of good souls and evil souls. This likelihood makes hell seem like a reasonable solution, especially when one considers that it is not well-described in the Bible and may be something real that Jesus just did not elucidate. It could be a purgatory with a small pain that lasts a very, very long time, or it could be God forcing man into an animal body. These are just two possibilities, but there are certainly others that a rational mind could imagine.
Russell next finds fault with Christians bemoaning their sinful nature, as not being worthy of self-respecting, free men. As a footnote to his talk, he brings in the Christian doctrine of the fall of man, which properly belongs in the main body of his talk if he does not like it. I will explain what is meant by the fall of man. There is an ideal that God holds in His mind as to what the perfect man would be, and this man is represented by Adam in the Bible. Adam was free from care, and had a natural relationship to God, as a son to his father. He had none of the seven deadly sins: greed, anger, sloth, pride, lust, envy or gluttony. The men that followed after Adam, however, are not like this. All men are prey to these sins to a greater or lesser degree. All are fallen from the ideal represented by Adam, and all are sinful by nature. There is no man on earth that does not have sinful thoughts on a regular basis.
Every Sunday, Christians repeat this truth, to remind themselves of what they are. It is a simple statement of fact, but this is not where the liturgy stops. Jesus came to save man from himself. He endured death on the cross at the very hands of the sinful creatures He came to save, and His resurrection proves that He has the power to back up His promises. Man is miserable without Christ, for his lot is death, if not tomorrow then in a few short years. The seven deadly sins would reign unchecked on earth were it not for the happy and glorious teachings of Jesus Christ. Then free man would know fear indeed, for death or worse would lurk around every corner. A world where everyone lived just for himself would be unimaginably dark and terrible. Christianity sheds a noble and pure light on the rest of mankind, and if the truth could be told the Atheists themselves bathe in this light.
Christianity lies at the heart of all our social and moral progress. Russell would assert the opposite, but I dare anyone to prove that he is right and I am wrong about this. Christianity is deeply embedded in our culture, and lies behind many of our positive concepts, such as humility, good-will, and truthfulness. Even the ideas that murder and stealing are wrong owe their existence to ancient traditions of the Bible. We all know that murder is wrong, but the source of this universal idea, I say, can be traced back to the ten commandments of Moses. It is not obvious that murder is wrong. Primitive cultures often think that murder is laudable! Think, for instance, of the war parties of the American Indians or the tribes of Africa. Today we are sickened by stories of death even when it is not in our own community, but these people actually enjoyed killing and did it for sport. When did we start to feel that all murder is wrong? Our sensibilities are deeply rooted in ancient history, and in the process of socialization each child imbibes these ideals from others, for they are afloat in our society. They are everywhere, from television to newspaper, from literature to what is heard at the mother’s knee. It has spread throughout the globe, but Moses said it first.
The last idea in Russell’s summary that I wish to discuss is the idea that our intelligence alone can create a bright future. This is a very curious notion indeed, and betrays the primitive and rude state of this “philosopher’s” mind. A bright future for whom, Mr. Russell? For you? Certainly not, you have already decided you like to die and look forward to it. You will embrace death with open arms, and it too will embrace you – forever. There is something incredibly sick in a mind that can conceive of a bright future where it, itself will not be present! What is the source of this false selflessness? I wish I knew, for I find it baffling. Somehow, everyone is going to go on in happiness. I will not myself be there. Each of these people will also have their brief hour or two on the stage, before they too leave, never to return. Yet somehow it will all go on in happiness. This is baffling indeed. It sounds like the ravings of an maniac, and will make the rational minds of truly free men, the Christians, cringe in horror and disbelief.
Their future is indeed bright, these noble and brave souls who embrace the true religion that Jesus brought to mankind. God Himself embodied in a human vessel, Jesus bent down to our level and accepted the punishment due to all of us on His own back. He showed mankind graphically and beautifully that God is indeed merciful and kind, and will in truth redeem the sinner who prays to Him with a sincere heart. It is true bravery to adopt Christianity in the face of the world filled with devilish men like Bertrand Russell, who heap abuse and ridicule upon believers. It is true freedom when the soul, through God’s grace, gains some measure of control over its naturally sinful nature, and lives a moral life free from sin and full of compassionate and kind actions performed for the sake of its fellow man. It is true reason to fear death, and it is true logic to cling to Christ with a heart full of love, for through this process and through His grace we go beyond death, into the eternal life of the spirit that God’s only Son promised to bring us.Top