atheism for lent, day 7

Hidey-ho, inklings, travelers, various, and sundry!

Welcome back to Atheism for Lent, the annual Lenten practice of destabilization and decentering hosted by Dr. Peter Rollins, Irish philosopher and author. Today we’re delving more deeply into arguments against the existence of God by way of Bertrand Russell.

Bertrand Russell (1872-1970) was a British mathematician, philosopher, logician, and pacifist. Our text for today comes from his book of essays, Why I Am Not a Christian.

Echoing a perspective we saw yesterday in Antony Flew, Russell emphasizes the question “what do you mean by ‘Christian’?” Flew wants the theist to define what they mean by God; Russell points out that there are innumerable definitions of “Christian” and we have to explain what we mean before we can discuss it. Russell himself does not define “Christian” as “someone just trying to live a good life.” He insists that a person must have a definite set of beliefs before they have the “right” to that self-appellation. Part of that necessary set, he says, is the belief in God and immortality; another part is a belief about Christ as divine or at least as the best and wisest of humans.

Therefore, Russell points out, if he’d going to explain why he’s not a Christian, he has to explain why he doesn’t believe in God, or in immortality, or in Christ as the divine/best & wisest of humans.

I had to chuckle at Russell’s opening salvo on why he doesn’t believe in God. He says that if he went in-depth into all of his reasons, he would have to keep his audience’s attention “until kingdom come” — of kingdom he doesn’t believe in, of course.

So Russell tries to keep it short by addressing several arguments brought by the Catholic Church as “proofs” of God’s existence. First, he tackles the argument of a “First Cause” (and there we’re back at Aquinas again): everything in our universe has a cause, and every cause is the effect of a preceding cause, turtles all the way down until we slam into the First Cause That Is Uncaused. But, maintains Russell, if we’re going to claim that everything has a cause, then God must also have a cause. If God doesn’t have to have a cause, then the world doesn’t either. So this argument doesn’t work. If we can’t imagine the world just popping into existence or existing in infinity past, it only proves that we lack imagination.

Next, Russell assails the “natural law” argument, which wants to claim that because the laws of nature exist (observable, consistently repeating conditions in nature, such as the “law” of gravity), there must be a Lawgiver. But, he says, that is assuming that nature functions like a human institution, which it obviously doesn’t. Human laws describe commands meant to determine human behavior — and we can follow these commands or choose not to follow them. But the so-called “laws” of nature don’t involve choice; they’re just processes that humans have recorded based on observation of how nature *always* works. When the stem of the apple detaches from the branch, the apple can’t choose whether or not it’s going to fall to the ground. It is going to fall whether it would rather float or not. (This apple example is mine as I try to process my own comprehension of what Russell is saying.)

As an aside, Russell notes that presumably, if God exists, God intended to create the best possible universe — “although you would never think it to look at it.” *GIGGLESNORT*

To the argument that God made certain natural laws and not others BECAUSE OF REASONS, Russell retorts that in that case, God Godself is subject to laws, and that destroys the idea that God is the ultimate Lawgiver.

Thirdly, Russell looks at the argument from design (more Aquinas!): that everything in our universe has a design, so there must be a designer. Russell basically says this is backward thinking. Instead of saying “our environment is designed so that we can survive in it,” we should be saying “we evolved in a way that lets us survive in the already existing environment.” He references Darwin and adaptation here. Moreover, he points out that if God had had infinity or even just millions of years to make this the best possible universe, then it would already be in much better shape than it is and wouldn’t contain the Ku Klux Klan or fascists.

EXCELLENT POINT.

Gorram I appreciate this man’s dry sense of humor. “It is, of course, a gloomy view to suppose that life will die out – at least I suppose we may say so, although sometimes when I contemplate the things that people do with their lives I think it is almost a consolation.”

Same, Bertie. SAME.

Now, Russell takes issue with the moral argument as formulated by Immanuel Kant, specifically the claim that without God, we wouldn’t have an understanding of the difference between right and wrong. But Russell points out that to say “God is good” mean to assume that there existed a measurement of right and wrong that existed before God and that God has to measure up to it.

Russell has similar thoughts concerning the argument for our need to address injustice and our need for safety.

Now he gets to the question of whether or not Christ was, indeed, divine and/or the best and wisest human. He says he agrees that Christ was awesome and all, and Russell himself probably agrees with and admires Christ in more particulars than a lot of Christians do. (Russell wrote this in 1927, and I think this would be even more accurate today.)

But, says Russell, while Christ’s teachings were revolutionary, they certainly weren’t new. Here, I have to take issue with his argument. He brings the example of “turn the other cheek,” which Laozi (Lao Tzu) proponed some 500-600 years before Christ. The trouble with this as an effective counter to “Christ as best and wisest” is that, whatever Laozi proposed, Jesus of Nazareth had a particular goal in mind with this Sermon on the Mount “command.”

I don’t have references on hand, but “stop askin’ me what it is when you all have access to Google.” 😉😆 But my understanding of Jesus’s intent is this:

In the culture of the 1st-century Roman Empire, hitting someone with your right hand is a signal that you considered them an equal. Remember, the left hand was “sinister” — that’s why you used it to hit inferiors. Jesus was speaking to 1st-century Jews, who would’ve been hit by Roman citizens a not negligible amount — Romans who considered the Jews inferior and would’ve used the left, “sinister” hand to do the hitting.
So Jesus tells his Jewish followers, “If someone hits you on the right cheek…” — which could only be accomplished with the left hand — “…turn to him your left also” — which would necessitate using the right hand. But if the Roman uses his right hand, he’s acknowledging the Jew as an equal.

Therefore, the way I understand it (again, y’all: Google), “turning the other cheek” does NOT mean a compliant “give them opportunity to hit you some more.” Instead, “turning the LEFT cheek” is a dissenting, rebellious act of DEFIANCE aimed directly at oppressive power structures. It is a bold act of radical nonviolence.
And I don’t think that’s what Laozi had in mind, considering that he wasn’t part of 1st-century Roman or Jewish culture.

This whole discussion reminds me very strongly of Atticus Finch’s defense of Tom Robinson in To Kill a Mockingbird.

So, I finished typing the above paragraph about 4 ½ hours ago, but I had to stop then in order to leave on time for my yoga class followed by weight-lifting, and after the workouts I came outside to discover that I’d locked my keys in my car, so I had to wait for the husband’s co-worker to bring me a key because the husband couldn’t leave, and then I had to descend into the deepest pits of Hades (read: Walmart), so all of that to say that I don’t remember what deeper comment (if any) I had on Russell’s use of the “turn the other cheek” thing as proof that Jesus wasn’t actually that great.

I’m not saying Russell’s wrong, because I am trying to approach all of AfL with an open mind and heart, letting it wash over me and work on me instead of deciding whether I agree or don’t. Success, in that particular, is a one doozy of a mixed bag. At any rate, I’m not expressing disagreement with him about Jesus; I just think the “cheek” thing is an ineffective hill on which to lay one’s bones.

Anyway, moving right along, Russell mentions several other principles Jesus preached concerning giving to the poor, not judging others, and not accumulating wealth. Russell concedes that these are pretty good things to live by, but he critiques them because Christians don’t tend to like them or live by them. ??? I dunno, that feels to me like proof that Christians are mere humans at best, hypocrites at worst; but it doesn’t say anything about the character of Jesus of Nazareth (or Jesus the Christ) as best or wisest.

Russell says he doesn’t want to speak to the historicity of Jesus; he is concerned with the Christ presented in the gospels. And here, Russell brings what feels to me like a more valid argument. He points out that Christ’s own words in the gospels confirm that Christ believed his “Second Coming” would occur within the lifetime of his then-followers. Obviously, that hasn’t happened, which Russell takes as proof that Christ was certainly not “superlatively wise.”

As for Christ’s alleged “superlative goodness” (bestness?), Russell takes issue with the fact that he believed in hell. Surely a superlatively Good person would not believe in the existence of a place where humans suffer eternal torment, and this superlatively Good person certainly wouldn’t allow that torment actually to take place. Furthermore, says Russell, Christ often displayed a “vindictive fury” toward people who wouldn’t listen to him, which Russell notes is absent from the character of someone like Socrates.

I would contend that anytime Christ evinced such “vindictive fury,” it was directed at people who were (in their refusal to listen) actively harming the oppressed and the fringe members of society. Punching Nazis isn’t a moral defect, imho!

That said, I can relate to what Russell is saying about Christ’s preaching on hell and punishment as neither wise nor good. Futhermore, Russell points out that even just the existence of these teachings has been responsible for putting a metric shit-ton of pain and misery into the world. Yes, the responsibility for that pain and misery (evil?) rests on the shoulders of the Christians who perpetrated it over the past two millennia. But Russell makes a valid point that, as originator of the doctrine, Christ carries responsibility as well.

Russell is even concerned about the ultimate fate of the cursed fig tree and the Gadarene swine. I’ve heard oodles of apologetics on both incidents, and I’ve never been able to come to see those acts of Christ as fair or just, either.

In one of Russell’s final points, he critiques the idea that morals and ethics come from God and the church, specifically the belief that without Christianity, everybody in the whole world would be wicked. Russell mentions that he has known and known of a great many Christians who have been extremely wicked.

“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 towards the diminution of war, every step towards better treatment of the coloured races, or every mitigation of slavery, every moral progress that there has been in the world, has been consistently opposed by the organised Churches of the world. I say quite deliberately that the Christian religion, as organised in its Churches, has been and still is the principal enemy of moral progress in the world.

“…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. Fear is the parent of cruelty, and therefore it is no wonder if cruelty and religion have gone hand-in-hand. It is because fear is at the basis of those two things.”

–Bertrand Russell, “Why I Am Not a Christian”

Thinking of how so many evangelicals treat women, non-straight folks, and non-cis folks today, and the current rise of christo-fascism in the United States, ALL DUE TO INTENSE FEAR OF THE OTHER, I can only nod.

And my very core resonates with one of Russell’s near-final conclusions:

“…our own hearts can teach us no longer to look round 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 fit place to live in….
“…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 towards a past that is dead, which we trust will be far surpassed by the future that our intelligence can create.”

–Bertrand Russell, “Why I Am Not a Christian”

By everything that is Good and True and Right in this universe, let us see the world as it is, let us not be afraid of it, and let us look to our own efforts to make it a fit place to live in.