Homo economicus’ Weblog

There is a collection of Russell’s writings entitled Why I am not a Christian – the title based on a lecture he gave of that title which can be found here.

First published in 1957, the book covers the many writings that Russell wrote on religion, with issues raging from blasphemy to faith schools and the influence of religion in the public sphere is still relevant as the contents page would suggest:

1. Why I am not a Christian
2. Has Religion Made Useful Contributions to Civilisation?
3. Do We Survive Death?
4. Seems, Madam? Nay, it is [the supposed comfort of faith]
5. On Catholic and Protestant sceptics
6. Life in the Middle Ages
7. The Fate of Thomas Paine
8. Nice People
9. The New Generation
10. Our Sexual Ethics
11. Freedom and the Colleges
12. The Existence of God - a Debate between Bertrand Russell and Father F.C. Copleston, SJ
13. Can Religion Cure Our Troubles?
14. Religion and Morals

If there would be any further recommendation for you to read this book, then find below the Preface that Russell wrote:

Professor Edward’s republication of various essays of mine concerned with theological subjects is a case of gratitude to me, especially in view of his admirable prefatory observations. I am particularly glad that this opportunity has occurred for reaffirming my convictions on the subjects with which the various essays deal.

There has been a rumour in recent years to the effect that I have become less opposed to religious orthodoxy than I formerly was. This rumour is totally without foundation. I think all great religions of the world – Buddhism, Hinduism, Christianity, Islam and Communism – both untrue and harmful. It is evident as a matter of logic that, since they disagree, not more than one of them can be true. With very few exceptions, the religion which a man accepts is that of the community in which he lives, which makes it obvious that the influence of environment is what has led him to accept the religion in question. It is true that Scholastics invented what professed to be logical arguments proving the existence of God, and that these arguments, or others of a similar tenor, have been accepted by many eminent philosophers, but the logic to which these traditional arguments appealed is of an antiquated Aristotelian sort which is not purely logical. I mean the argument from design. This argument , however, was destroyed by Darwin; and , in any case could only be made logically respectable at the cost of abandoning God’s omnipotence. Apart from logical cogency, there is to me something a little odd about the ethical valuations of those who think that an omnipotent, omniscient, and benevolent Deity, after preparing the ground by many millions of years of lifeless nebulae, would consider Himself adequately rewarded by the final emergence of Hitler and Stalin and the H-bomb.

The question of the truth of a religion is one thing, but the question of its usefulness is another. I am firmly convinced that religions do harm as I am that they are untrue.

The harm that is done by religion is of two sorts, the one depending on the kind of belief which it is thought ought to be given to it, and the other upon the tenets believed. As regards the kind of belief: it is thought virtuous to have faith – that is to say, to have a conviction which cannot be shaken by contrary evidence. Or, if contrary evidence might induce doubt, it is held that contrary evidence must be suppressed. On such grounds the young are not allowed to hear arguments, in Russia, in favour of Capitalism, or, in America, in favour of Communism. This keeps the faith of both intact and ready for internecine war. The conviction that is is important to believe this or that, even if free inquiry would not support the belief, is one which is common to almost all religions and which inspires all systems of state education. The consequences is that minds of the young are stunted and are filled with fanatical hostility both to those that have other fanaticisms, and even more virulently, to those who object to all fanaticisms. A habit of basing convictions upon evidence, and of giving to them only that degree of certainty which the evidence warrants, would, if it became general, cure most of the ills from which the world is suffering. But at present, in most countries, education aims at preventing the growth of such a habit, and men who refuse to profess belief in some system of unfounded dogmas are not considered suitable as teachers of the young.

The above evils are independent of the particular creed in question and exist equally in all creeds which are held dogmatically. But there are also, in most religions, specific ethical tenets which do definite harm. The Catholic condemnation of birth control, if it could prevail, would make the mitigation of poverty and the abolition of war impossible. The Hindu beliefs that the cow is a sacred animal and that it is wicked for widows to remarry cause quite needless suffering. The Communist belief in the dictatorship of a minority of True Believers has produced a whole crop of abominations.

We are sometimes told that only fanaticism can make a social group effective. I think this is totally contrary to the lessons of history. But, in any case, only those who slavishly worship success can think that effectiveness is admirable without regard to what is effected. For my part, I think it is better to do little good than to do much harm. The world that I should wish to see would be one freed from the virulence of group hostilities and capable of realising that happiness for all is to be derived rather from co-operation than from strife. I should wish to see a world in which education aimed at mental freedom rather than at imprisoning the minds of the young in a rigid armour of dogma calculated to protect them through life against the shafts of impartial evidence. The world needs open hearts and open minds, and it is not through rigid systems, whether old or new, that these can be derived.

BERTRAND RUSSELL