Re: why I am not a Christian
Reading his arguments, it is clear that Russell did not possess the intellectual depth in 1927 that he did later in life.
Towards the end, his argument against the first Cause principle was "Why should there be a cause? Why can it not just be?" which in fact is another word for God, or the being that just IS: "I Am who Am". Just BEING. Of course, Russell refused to use the word God in defining this state, even though he is talking about the same thing.
But that only answers the Deist question. As for the Christian question, he clearly is not a Christian because he did not have the grace of Faith. One does not have to possess any emotions to be a Christian, or at least a Catholic.
|