Bertrand Russell Why I Am Not A Christian Summary

The subject I am writing about pertains to the essay written by Bertrand Russell titled, "Why I Am Not A Christian". This is my response to the views expressed in the essay in question.

What is a Christian?

I would first like to express that Mr. Russell is true in saying that the word "Christian" is used and applied in a more relaxed way than it was in previous centuries. Sadly, that is where my agreement with Russell ends. The entire argument of this paper is built upon Mr. Russell's own definition of Christianity. He says that to be a Christian (according to his terms) you have to believe in God and immortality and have some type of belief in Jesus. The issue I have with this statement is that Christianity is not marked by having "some kind of belief in Christ". First, the wording of Mr. Russell's statement is not ideal because even if you do not belief Christ exists that is still a belief about Christ. Secondly, I would argue that to be a Christian you must agree fully with the contents of the Bible. That agreement includes understanding who Jesus blatantly professes to be- God in the flesh. If Jesus is was just a man, Christianity has no meaning behind it. If you do not believe that Jesus is the Son of God, than you cannot believe the rest of the Bible, and if you do not believe in the rest of the Bible, you consequently do

not believe in the God of the Bible or the immortality of souls that is taught in the Bible.
The Existence of God
Mr. Russell is correct in saying that the question of God's existence or lack-thereof is broad and difficult to tackle. For some reason, Mr. Russell chooses this time to express that a large part of his argument will be against the Catholic Church. His mistake is confusing Catholicism for a synonym of Christianity. Catholicism is a branch of Christianity. Any person who has studied European history knows that Catholicism is not the only form of Christianity in the world (Reformation, anyone?). But disregarding the fact that Russell claimed to be attacking Christianity and then began attacking Catholicism, the Catholic dogmas he chose to examine are rather universal Christian beliefs.
The First-Cause Argument
Mr. Russell's answer against the first-cause argument is that for people to believe in cause and effect, they cannot believe that God is the first cause because that begs the question "Who made god?". I beg to differ. I believe it is logical to believe in cause and effect. Isaac Newton's studies have shown that movement is an integral part of life. I am not a chemist or biologist and I am definitely not a physicist but according to the elementary understanding of Sir Newton's laws of motion, external force is normally needed to set anything in motion. This is simply a rule of common sense placed into a scientific environment. It is cause and effect, and it applies to everything around us. For anything to happen, there must be a cause. Back to Russell's argument, I think it is ridiculous to ask who created God because God is self-proclaimed as the alpha-and-omega along with the fact that the question "Who made god?" demands an answer to "Who made whomever made god?" Furthermore, in the same paragraph Russell admits that "The idea that things must have a beginning is really due to the poverty of our imagination." This statement admits to the possibility that God exists.
The Natural-law Argument
The question Mr. Russell fails to answer in this section is the origin of the law of gravitation. Yes, gravity holds the planets, but who holds gravity? Christianity has a simple explanation for this inquiry: God. Onto his next point, when Mr. Russell points out the statistical averages involved in the behavior of atoms that indicate an emergence from chance, he chooses to ignore the important fact that according to the First Law of Thermodynamics, matter cannot spontaneously generate. So, the "possibility" that life emerged from chance is not a valid option. Also, it is not ridiculous to believe that God has a different set of laws designed for atoms.
In the next paragraph, Russell explains his belief that if God issues natural law but is not subject to natural law, the sequence of natural law is interrupted. What Russell fails to recognize is that God is the ultimate judge. He is perfect; unlike our earthly judges, He does not need to be under a law because He is the law.
The Argument from Design
I agree with this argument, but I believe Russell presents it in a bit of a negative light in his essay. Design is involved in our lives- if common sense does not already provide this knowledge, modern scientific discoveries show the proof. Simply look at irreducible complexity- the smallest aspects about human life are intricately formed and would cease to work (as would life) if even a small part was missing. Continuing with this thought, it has been proven that earth is in a very crucial position in relation to the sun, and in that respect design is also incredibly important. Also, Russell makes the assumption that animals must have evolved to suit their environments instead of considering the opposing stance that endorses design and claims that animals were designed for their environments and have adapted throughout time as the earth has changed.
Moving onto Mr. Russell's example that the world is not designed because everything is not perfect. I believe that this is Bertrand Russell's way of identifying that sin is real and denying his participation in it. The Klu Klux Klan and the Fascists are not the best that God can come up with, but the best that the world can conjure up. Russell is missing a large part of Christianity in not speaking about Jesus' death, His reason for having to die, and His resurrection. The acknowledgement that their is evil in this universe is admittance that humans need redemption. Mr. Russell has no answer to the question of our redemption- but Jesus does.
To tackle the next paragraph, I will simply state that it is an assumption. Many people think about the future and what is to happen to future generations or during the afterlife. Simply because Russell choses this stance does not mean it is what the majority believes.
The Moral Arguments for Deity
I understand the point Russell is trying to make in this section. His mistake is blaming God for human sinfulness. God is goodness and righteousness and He tells humans how to take care of themselves physically, mentally, and spiritually by following His instructions of what is right and what is wrong. God is pure and knows all, so logically He knows what is impure. He instructs people to not do what is wrong and they disobey. God cannot be in the presence of evil and that caused the separation between man and God.
Furthermore, morals cannot exist without God because if every person had the right to choose his or her own set of rules, chaos would rule. One person may believe murder is ok, another may be greedy and allow that selfishness to turn into actions- be it stealing, rape, or even unkind words.
The Argument for the Remedying of Injustice
My first response to this part would be to refer to Psalm 37:7, "Be still before the Lord and wait patiently for Him; do not fret when people succeed in their ways, when they carry out their wicked schemes", along with Matthew 20:16 and Revelation 20:11-15. Secondly, I would point out the assumption Russell makes in stating that most people believe in Christ because they have been taught it from a young age. Lastly, I would ask Mr. Russell what agnosticism and atheism has to offer the world in regard to ridding the world of injustices.
The Character of Christ
The major difference between Christ and men like Buddha is that Christ was not a pacifist. Christ's teaching about turning the other cheek was to endure persecution in this world, because God is the ultimate judge and justice will be served in due time. His teachings about judging refer to hypocrisy and not analyzing an aspect of another's life without looking into your own. I am positive that most judges in courts of law have not been convicted for a crime. So, they (and others) have evaluated their character and perceived it to be stellar and they are not stepping out of place when judging the actions of others. In reference to the last verse given about giving all your possessions and giving it the poor, Jesus was showing a young rich man the aspect of his life that was keeping him from following Jesus. He loved money more than God. The lesson was bigger than following the literal words in this instance.
Defects in Christ's Teaching
Contrary to what Mr. Russell writes, there is an abundance of proof that Jesus existed. Aside from the Bible, there are writings by Tacitus, Josephus, and Lucian of Samosata. Most historians agree that Jesus of Nazareth did walk this earth. Bertrand Russell also does not comprehend the pretext in which Jesus says that the second coming is soon. A few thousand years is no time at all to God. It is like a blink of an eye. Also, when Jesus says to live for the next coming He does not mean that people should not go about their lives. In actuality, He wants His followers to know that He is coming for them and that they should always be ready.
The Moral Problem
The only response I have to this part of the essay is this question: "Mr. Russell, are you saying you are God?"
The Emotional Factor
When keeping in line with Jesus' teachings, all three of these paragraphs are incorrect.

All people are wicked, not just those who are not Christians (refer to Romans 3:23). I think the question that must be asked when examining the accusations Mr. Russell makes against Christianity is whether those who profess Christ yet do not follow His teachings are actual Christians. Like previously stated, if I claimed to be an atheist yet also believed in God, my stance would be illogical. The same applies to those who use the Bible and Christianity to justify murder, segregation, the dehumanization of an individual, or any type of

cruelty.
How the Churches have Retarded Progress
Again, in regard to not allowing divorce, is this practice by the Catholic Church (which does not represent the whole of Christianity) justified by the Scriptures? In the case of the syphilitic man, there was sexual contact before marriage with another person and also deceit between the man and his now wife before their marriage. I believe when you study the Bible there is justification for an annulment. The question does come into play of whether this man and woman are Christians- and if not, they are not bound to Christ's teachings (in fact they reject the teachings).
Fear, the Foundation of Religion
The heading of this section is ironic because Mr. Russell's own beliefs, from a Christian perspective, are driven by a fear to admit that he is wrong and a sinner and there is a God above him. As a Christian, I can admit that organized religion has used and abused its power over the centuries. Religion plays to people's emotions. Mr. Russell is using fear and feelings to win others' approval of his worldview (or religion). But having a relationship with Jesus, not based on religion but on mutual love and interaction, is not based on fear but rather on freedom.
What We Must Do
Question. Question everything. Do not read "Why I Am Not A Christian" and assume it is correct because you are an atheist, agnostic, or anti-theist. In turn, do not assume Mr. Russell's writings are entirely incorrect solely based on your stance as a Christian. See the world for what it is and also see God for Himself. To have a good world, people need God. The world needs to hear the hope for the future- the hope that is in the Gospel of Jesus Christ.