More Russell Quotes on Religion

[andyfox]

"Religion is something left over from the infancy of our intelligence, it will fade away as we adopt reason and science as our guidelines.”

“I observe that a very large portion of the human race does not believe in God and suffers no visible punishment in consequence. And if there were a God, I think it very unlikely that he would have such an uneasy vanity as to be offended by those who doubt his existence.”

“Christians hold that their faith does good, but other faiths do harm. At any rate, they hold this about the Communist faith. What I wish to maintain is that all faiths do harm. We may define 'faith' as a firm belief in something for which there is no evidence. When there is evidence, no one speaks of 'faith.' We do not speak of faith that two and two are four or that the earth is round. We only speak of faith when we wish to substitute emotion for evidence.”

“The Church attacked the habit of the bath on the ground that everything which makes the body more attractive tends towards sin Dirt was praised and the odor of sanctity became more and more penetrating. 'The purity of the body and its garments,' said St. Paula, 'means the impurity of the soul.' ( Havelock Ellis, Studies in the Psychology of Sex, Vol. IV, p. 31.) Lice were called the pearls of God, and to be covered with them was an indispensable mark of a holy man.”

“It is not by prayer and humility that you cause things to go as you wish, but by acquiring a knowledge of natural laws. The power you acquire in this way is much greater and more reliable than that formerly supposed to be acquired by prayer, because you never could tell whether your prayer would be favorably heard in Heaven. The power of prayer, moreover, had recognized limits; it would have been impious to ask too much. But the power of science has no known limits. We were told that faith could remove mountains, but no one believed it; we are now told that the atomic bomb can remove mountains, and everyone believes it.”

“I am constantly asked: What can you, with your cold rationalism, offer to the seeker after salvation that is comparable to the cosy homelike comfort of a fenced dogmatic creed? To this the answer is many-sided. In the first place, I do not say that I can offer as much happiness as is to be obtained by the abdication of reason. I do not say that I can offer as much happiness as is to be obtained from drink or drugs or amassing great wealth by swindling widows and orphans. It is not the happiness of the individual convert that concerns me; it is the happiness of mankind. If you genuinely desire the happiness of mankind, certain forms of ignoble personal happiness are not open to you. If your child is ill, and you are a conscientious parent, you accept medical diagnosis, however doubtful and discouraging; if you accept the cheerful opinion of a quack and your child consequently dies, you are not excused by the pleasantness of belief in the quack while it lasted.”

“The agnostic is not quite so certain as some Christians are as to what is good and what is evil. He does not hold, as most Christians in the past held, that people who disagree with the Government on abstruse points of theology ought to suffer a painful death. He is against persecution, and rather chary of moral condemnation. As for 'sin,' he thinks it not a useful notion. He admits, of course, that some kinds of conduct are desirable and some undesirable, but he holds that the punishment of undesirable kinds is only to be commended when it is deterrent or reformatory, not when it is inflicted because it is thought a good thing on its own account that the wicked should suffer. It was this belief in vindictive punishment that made men accept hell. This is part of the harm done by the notion of 'sin.'”

“There is something feeble and a little contemptible about a man who cannot face the perils of life without the help of comfortable myths. Almost inevitably some part of him is aware that they are myths and that he believes them only because they are comforting. But he dare not face this thought! Moreover, since he is aware, however dimly, that his opinions are not rational, he becomes furious when they are disputed.”

“I do not understand where the 'beauty' and 'harmony' of nature are supposed to be found. Throughout the animal kingdom, animals ruthlessly prey upon each other. Most of them are either cruelly killed by other animals or slowly die of hunger. For my part, I am unable to see any very great beauty or harmony in the tapeworm. Let it not be said that this creature is sent as a punishment for our sins, for it is more prevalent among animals than among humans.I suppose what is meant by this 'beauty' and 'harmony' are such things as the beauty of the starry heavens. But one should remember that the stars every now and again explode and reduce everything in their neighborhood to a vague mist.”

“Nature, it is true, still sees to it that we are mortal, but with the progress in medicine it will become more and more common for people to live until they have had their fill of life. We are supposed to wish to live forever and to look forward to the unending joys of heaven, of which, by miracle, the monotony will never grow stale. But in fact, if you question any candid person who is no longer young, he is very likely to tell you that, having tasted life in this world, he has no wish to begin again as a 'new boy' in another.”

“We read in the Old Testament that it was a religious duty to exterminate conquered races completely, and that to spare even their cattle and sheep was an impiety. Dark terrors and misfortunes in the life to come oppressed the Egyptians and Etruscans, but never reached their full development until the victory of Christianity. Gloomy saints who abstained from all pleasures of sense, who lived in solitude in the desert, denying themselves meat and wine and the society of women, were, nevertheless, not obliged to abstain from all pleasures. The pleasures of the mind were considered to be superior to those of the body, and a high place among the pleasures of the mind was assigned to the contemplation of the eternal tortures to which the pagans and heretics would hereafter be subjected.”

“One occasion for theological intervention to prevent the mitigation of human suffering was the discovery of anesthetics. Simpson, in 1847, recommended their use in childbirth, and was immediately reminded by the clergy that God said to Eve: 'In sorrow shalt thou bring forth children' (Gen. id. 16). And how could she sorrow if she was under the influence of chloroform? Simpson succeeded in proving that there was no harm in giving anesthetics to men, because God put Adam into a deep sleep when He extracted his rib. But male ecclesiastics remained unconvinced as regards the sufferings of women, at any rate in childbirth.”

“Belief in God and a future life makes it possible to go through life with less of stoic courage than is needed by skeptics. A great many young people lose faith in these dogmas at an age at which despair is easy, and thus have to face a much more intense unhappiness than that which falls to the lot of those who have never had a religious upbringing. Christianity offers reasons for not fearing death or the universe, and in so doing it fails to teach adequately the virtue of courage. The craving for religious faith being largely an outcome of fear, the advocates of faith tend to think that certain kinds of fear are not to be deprecated. In this, to my mind, they are gravely mistaken. To allow oneself to entertain pleasant beliefs as a means of avoiding fear is not to live in the best way. In so far as religion makes its appeal to fear, it is lowering to human dignity.”

“I do not believe that a decay of dogmatic belief can do anything but good. I admit at once that new systems of dogma, such as those of the Nazis and the Communists, are even worse than the old systems, but they could never have acquired a hold over men's minds if orthodox dogmatic habits had not been instilled in youth. Stalin's language is full of reminiscences of the theological seminary in which he received his training. What the world needs is not dogma, but an attitude of scientific inquiry, combined with a belief that the torture of millions is not desirable, whether inflicted by Stalin or by a Deity imagined in the likeness of the believer.”

“Christ . . . said that a man who had looked after a woman lustfully had sinned as much as the man who had seduced her. How absurd!”

[sexdrugsmoney]

References! References! Where for art thou references?

[craig r]

I didn't read all of these, but like I said in another thread, I respect Russell for what he is "good" at, but not in any area regarding ethics, etc... Actually, I may agree with him in some areas, but not because of anything he wrote. I really don't think he says anything original in his "WIANAC" essays.

It is a huge fallacy (I can't actually remember the technical name of the fallacy) to agree with somebody on a topic they are not "experts" in because they are experts in another area.

I know you don't agree with Russell, but I think there are other philosophers who are atheist that can be taken more seriously in that area than Russell. Russell's essays are for 10th graders.

I don't know, maybe I am being too harsh. But it seems his essays prove the idea that a little knowledge in some area is a scary thing. A good example would be with Nietzche's comment "God is dead". People read this and take it literally. But, one cannot understand what he truly meant without studying the history of philosophy, language, culture, etc... In fact, professors of philosophy can't even know if Nietzsche was atheist (or Descartes for that matter). Or even the Nazi's used Nietzsche. He was not anti-semitic and did not believe in a super race of people. But, they took a few quotes or ideas and tried to use them out of their original context.

Anyways, I don't know whether I believe in God. But, I do know that I would not read Russell as an argument one way or the other (just like I wouldn't ask Bush if global warming is real..that is not his area of expertise).

</end rant>

craig

[andyfox]

I got them all from the following web sitem which indicates from which of Russell's writings each comes:

http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Orac...#Best%20quotes

Click on best quotes and then on religion.

[David Sklansky]

"It is a huge fallacy (I can't actually remember the technical name of the fallacy) to agree with somebody on a topic they are not "experts" in because they are experts in another area."

Unless the subject they are expert in, is thinking itself.

[andyfox]

"It is a huge fallacy (I can't actually remember the technical name of the fallacy) to agree with somebody on a topic they are not 'experts' in because they are experts in another area."

Russell: “Even when all the experts agree, they may well be mistaken.”

[craig r]

[ QUOTE ]
"It is a huge fallacy (I can't actually remember the technical name of the fallacy) to agree with somebody on a topic they are not "experts" in because they are experts in another area."

Unless the subject they are expert in, is thinking itself.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree with this. But, wasn't his main area of "expertise" Math? And his famous student's (Wittgenstein) area of expertise more logic. Wouldn't Wittgenstein be a better person to read on this topic of "God" (I don't know if he wrote anything on this, because he would say it doesn't matter)?

craig

edit for: I am wrong. That crazy anarchist [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img] did work in Logic. I don't know how that slipped my mind.

[craig r]

[ QUOTE ]
"It is a huge fallacy (I can't actually remember the technical name of the fallacy) to agree with somebody on a topic they are not 'experts' in because they are experts in another area."

Russell: “Even when all the experts agree, they may well be mistaken.”

[/ QUOTE ]

Thanks Andy, now I have two fallacies I have to find [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img] .

craig

[sexdrugsmoney]

[ QUOTE ]
edit for: I am wrong. That crazy anarchist [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img] did work in Logic. I don't know how that slipped my mind.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yep, he was the one who broke Frege.

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
"It is a huge fallacy (I can't actually remember the technical name of the fallacy) to agree with somebody on a topic they are not "experts" in because they are experts in another area."

Unless the subject they are expert in, is thinking itself.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree with this. But, wasn't his main area of "expertise" Math? And his famous student's (Wittgenstein) area of expertise more logic. Wouldn't Wittgenstein be a better person to read on this topic of "God" (I don't know if he wrote anything on this, because he would say it doesn't matter)?

craig

edit for: I am wrong. That crazy anarchist [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img] did work in Logic. I don't know how that slipped my mind.

[/ QUOTE ]

'Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent.' Wittgenstein