Bertrand Russell Criticism

888 Words4 Pages
Despite Bertrand Russell’s fame and the fact that many handbooks and encyclopedias of philosophy show him as a hero, his claims as an expert in religion should be looked into more than they have been. He was an expert at mathematics, but he was not a serious student of history neither did he really show that he was qualified authority on the Gospel of Christ. As we will see, his analysis of Christianity does not reveal someone seeking to know the truth of the primary sources. Since Russell believed that Christianity, like other religions, is harmful because it is untrue, now we need to find out how Russell made the decision that it is false. But it seems as though Russell feels he can rule that Christianity is not only one of its kind and that it is not true. We will see that his epistemological basics as well as his good credentials are narrow and we are doubtful of both his arrogant rationalism and his spiritual ability to defeat the Biblical and historical testimony to Jesus Christ. In addition, we will see that most of his believed logical refutations of arguments for God do not work (Britannica). Bertrand Russell thought that religious belief came from culture and fantasy. He thought that people believe in God because they have been taught as a baby to believe. Or, as he says elsewhere: “As I said before, I do not think the real reason why people accept religion has anything to do with argumentation. They accept religion on emotional grounds (” Russell thought it was fear that made people have faith in religion. As Russell begins his essay he starts with the question of God’s existence. His first criticism is the “proofs of God”. Russell says, “You know of course, that the Catholic Church has laid it down as a dogma that the existence of God can be proved by unaided reason (” Ironically, while the traditional arguments

More about Bertrand Russell Criticism

Open Document