Is There a God?

A renowned logician, mathematician and a philosopher, Bertrand Arthur William Russell considered religion merely a bunch of superstitions devoid of any rationality. He always maintained that religion is primarily based on fear (Bertrand). Russell’s liberalistic and rationalistic approach may come as a surprise when one considers the conservative environment he was brought up in. ‘The atmosphere was one of frequent prayer, emotional repression, and formality’. So Russell used his writing as a medium to vent out. Over the next few years he wrote numerous essays; one which perhaps stood out the most was “Is There a God?” Reconciling faith with science and logic has always been problematic. With the advancements in the world of science and the emergence of philosophy, some people started to view science and religion as two mutually exclusive entities. In an era when such great disparity prevailed between logic, science and religion, Russell’s article served only to widen this gap; however, he also posed certain crucial questions which every society must answer if it’s to succeed. Blind faith in a set of rituals does no good. It’s only after one questions their own faith that they develop a better understanding of it. In his essay, Russell raises doubt over the existence of a supreme being. Although his arguments are engaging and grounded in sound reasoning, however at times certain logical fallacies demerit his otherwise logical claims against theism.

In this essay, written in 1952, Russell starts off by giving a brief history of evolution of the monotheistic tradition of Jews and how Islam and Christianity followed suit. He then goes on to refute many of the arguments that theologians present when faced with the burden of proving Go...

... middle of paper ...

...s believe that God doesn’t exist because of lack of evidence in favor of His existence but this lack of evidence doesn’t necessarily imply non-existence of God. Neutrinos, particles which move with speeds greater than the speed of light, were recently discovered. Does this mean that neutrinos didn’t exist prior to this? No. Just because there was insufficient evidence for the existence of neutrinos doesn’t imply that they did not exist. So to imply that the ‘burden of proof’ lies only on theists would be wrong. Atheists equally share the burden of proof and hence they should give concrete reasons to disprove God’s existence and not just rely on insufficient evidence as a cause for non-existence.

Works Cited

Russell, Bertrand, John Greer. Slater, and Peter Kollner. "Is There a God." The Collected Papers of Bertrand Russell. London: Routledge, 1997. 543-48. Print.