Rating: 
Summary: Great introduction but for the hardend Atheist/Agnostic? Nah
Review: I have very mixed feelings about this collection of essays. If I had read it 5 or 6 years ago, I would have considered it genius. But today? I've heard these same arguments over and over again. Well, to focus on the positive, Lord Russell does put a few ideas that, while not to terribly original, are thought provoking nonetheless. He says some interesting things about Tom Paine, makes some interesting comments on Democracy and Education, and rational morality. On the other hand, Russell too often acts as a priest of the religion of Science. I won't deny the importance of science to the advancement of civilization, but when it becomes a Dogma it is no better than Christian ignorance. Overall...if you are a doubtful Christian, read this book. It will be a godsend. If you are alread a freethinker, there really isn't any point. Your time could be spent better somewhere else, certianly.
Rating: 
Summary: WATCH OUT ... It'll make you think!
Review: I snatched this book off the shelves when I saw it, eager to dive in, and it did not disappoint me at all. Living in the Bible Belt as I currently do, it is amazing to see the closed-mindedness of the local Bible-thumpers. Every other day the letters to the editor have some religious overtones to them. A profile of a prominent local atheist brought the same kind of ignorance and fear that Russell himself was forced to deal with. If anything else in the book doesn't make you question organized religion and its bid for world-dominance, the tragic story of Russell's failed bid to teach at the City College of NY will show you how afraid religion (specifically Christians) do not want anyone bucking the system and thinking for themselves. A must read for all people, followers of organized religion or not.
Rating: 
Summary: Confrontational and controversial
Review: I admit that reading a book with the title "Why I am Not a Christian" on the bus while to my right a fellow traveler studied the New Testament made me feel quite ill at ease. The title seems to suggest that the author is an argumentative dissenter - and the reader by implication too, since he seems to enjoy this kind of literature.Then, why read a collection of essays that are for the most part over 70 years old? Firstly, for the clear style and the straightforward logic of Russell. He does not beat about the bush: "My own view on religion is that of Lucretius [a Roman philosopher of the first century BC, author of "On the Nature of the Universe"]. I regard it as a disease born of fear and as a source of untold misery to the human race."(24). This statement sums it up nicely for Bertrand Russell; and as expected, Russell's answer to the questions in the titles of the essays "Has Religion made useful Contributions to Civilization?" (1930), "Do we survive Death?" (1936), and "Can Religion Cure our Troubles?" (1954) is a resounding NO. Secondly, as a warning how overly optimistic we tend to be when it comes to improving human beings by scientific means. Today, some people think that humans can be genetically "improved". In the 1930s, some people - including Russell - thought "that hatred and fear can, with our present psychological knowledge and our present industrial technique, be eliminated altogether from human life."(45) Well, three quarters of a century later we still live in a time of hatred and fear. Thirdly, for the often unusual and surprising angle from which Russell looks at the seemingly familiar. Take the Renaissance and the French writer Michel de Montaigne (1533-1592), for example. The common view is that the Renaissance was the first major step on the way to the rationalism and individualism of the Enlightenment, and Montaigne is perceived as the model of the skeptical, questioning, self-reflective intellectual of that time. Russell, however, noticed that "moderns do not always realize to what extent the Renaissance was an anti-intellectual movement. In the Middle Ages it was the custom to prove things; the Renaissance invented the habit of [merely] observing them." (120) The most perfect example for this anti-intellectual type was "Montaigne, who allowed himself also an intellectual holiday in the shape of hostility to systems and deductions."(120) Fourthly, because Russell is a worthy heir to the tradition of optimistic materialism going back to David Hume (1711-1776), and because, at his best, he displays the common sense and simple wisdom that does not wear off with the years: "To live a good life in the fullest sense a man must have a good education, friends, love, children (if he desires them), a sufficient income to keep him from want and grave anxiety, good health, and work which is not uninteresting. All these things, in varying degrees, depend upon the community and are helped or hindered by political events. The good life must be lived in a good society and is not fully possible otherwise."(75) Interestingly, the man who wrote these words about the good life, was judicially declared "unfit" to teach philosophy at the College of the City of New York. A 50-page appendix to the book explains how this happened and provides an interesting case study how - already in 1940 - a vocal minority of ideological extremists in the United States used its influence to push its agenda.
Rating:
Summary: Closing Arguments from Professor Russell
Review: Reading anything by Russell is like sitting in a single-person jury box while evaluating the arguments of a very bright, extremely lucid and highly opinionated attorney who tends to offer well-reasoned analysis but frequently crosses over into the realm of diatribe. As a result, it's very possible to agree with his general arguments despite dismissing some of his more extreme component statements. Before diving into his arguments, it's important to understand the layout of this book, as the title can be a bit misleading. This compilation includes 15 essays written between 1899 and 1954 and a lengthy (25% of the entire work) appendix written by Dr. Paul Edwards on the topic of the 1940 "Bertrand Russell Case." Despite the primary title (taken from one relatively short essay), the work includes topics beyond religion such as the cruelty of the Middle Ages, the heroism of Thomas Paine and grave threat to liberal democracy entailed in declining academic freedom. That said, Russell's views on morality and religion are infused throughout the essays and provide some degree of coherence. Russell's arguments against Christianity generally fall into the following categories: 1) there is no compelling evidence for a Creator (i.e. deism) and much less evidence to believe in theism, 2) the teachings of Jesus, while generally admirable, include many pernicious tenets, 3) Christians have routinely ignored the admirable tenets of Jesus, and 4) the net impact of Christianity has been decidedly negative for mankind. Regarding the first, Russell is on much firmer ground in his criticisms of theism than of deism. He convincingly deals with the First Cause, Natural Law and Morality arguments for a Creator. He is less convincing in his rebuttal of the Design argument, as he does not address its modern crux, which is that the odds of the initial conditions being such as to result in the successful evolution of Homo Sapiens are extremely remote, thereby increasing the odds of a Creator's involvement. Regarding the second, Russell concedes a "very high degree of moral goodness" to Jesus and points in particular to his pacifism, his social consciousness and compassion for the poor & oppressed and his admonition to avoid judging others. However, he finds Jesus' wisdom to be deficient in his clear belief that the second coming would occur during the lifetime of many of his followers. More importantly, he finds his morality to be deficient in his belief in hell and his "vindictive fury" against those who did not believe his preaching. While Russell makes valid points here, he leaves the realm of reason when he say that the eternal damnation teaching "is a doctrine that put cruelty into the world and gave the world generations of cruel torture." Clearly, cruelty and sadistic torture existed well before Christianity and continues to occur among those who do not believe in Christianity. Regarding the third, Russell, a noted pacifist who was jailed by Great Britain for refusing to serve in World War I, scornfully notes that Christians have consistently ignored Jesus' "turn the other cheek" pacifism through constant aggression and war, his "give away all your possessions to the poor" teachings through a focus on individual wealth accumulation and his urge to "judge not lest yet be judged" through an extensive criminal justice and incarceration culture. As a blanket generalization across time and groups, Russell is clearly right in these criticisms. The history of poor conduct by the Church and its believers is a long and well-known one. However, Russell seems to take his point too far when he appears to use this criticism as a component in his rationale for skepticism. The failure of Christian believers to adequately follow the teachings of Jesus is not a sufficient condition to dismiss the veracity of the core beliefs of Christianity. Regarding the fourth, Russell sums up his collective criticism by concluding that religion "is a disease born of fear" and "a source of untold misery to the human race." Among other things, he points to the doctrine of sin and hell as a justification for intolerance, hatred and sadism, the supposed eternal truth of revealed religion as a fierce opponent to learning and intellectual progress, the sexual ethics around abstinence, pre-marital sex and birth control as responsible for our warped view of the human body and sexuality and the emphasis on the individual soul as justification for self-centered, anti-social behavior. Again, his arguments are well crafted, although his case for the latter appears to be weakest, as it is clear that many Christians have viewed good works and charity in general to be central to their faith. Russell's prose is crisp and clear and allows the reader to easily follow his logic and arguments. His qualifications as a logician are well known and his arguments are frequently unassailable. He is courageous in espousing unpopular views and relentless in exposing superstition and folly. While there is much in this book that does not stand up to clearheaded analysis, it is highly recommended for anyone grappling with building the foundations of a personal belief system. I give it 4 stars.
Rating:
Summary: Russell was a great writer. This book is proof!
Review: Bertrand Russell has written some of the most fun and intellectually accessible essays in philosophy. This book is a collection of such essays, most having to do with religion. As his thoughts on religion changed gradually over time, this book tends to focus on his middle and later essays and, unlike some other collections which take essays from all points in his career, is quite consistent. One thing that deserves mentioning is that the title of this book may be a bit misleading. As with most of Russell's 'popular essay' collections, the book title is simply the title of the lead-off essay. In fact, for those looking for an intro to philosophical and logical argument against god, the essay "Why I'm not a Christian" is simply one of the best that has been produced. Otherwise, only about 5/8ths of the book is devoted to the subject or god and religion. There is also an essay on academic freedom, sexual ethics, and historical figures like Thomas Paine (though not focusing on Paine's atheism so much as his rationalism). There is also an end essay written ABOUT Russell and his experience being denied a professorship because of his contreversial social views. And what a contreversial thinker he was. He was a man dedicated to 'the life of reason' somewhat in the enlightenment tradition, science, and a liberal ethic (both socially and politically). This book gives a good sampling of all of these stances and is quite a joy to read. As I started with, Russell writes clearly, enjoyably, and has a sharp wit and humor (as the satiric essay on 'nice people' clearly illustrates). If one is looking for a book exclusively dealing with Russell's reliigious writings, this may not be the best book. Rather, there is a book by Routledge press called "Russell on Religion" that deals exclusively with Russll's religious essays. There is minimal overlap, though, between the two books.
Rating:
Summary: The Scourge of Faith
Review: Christianity or a belief in God has been doing so much harm to the world that one barely knows where to begin when discussing the issue. Of course all of this applies equally as well to all other religious faiths. The magnificent intellectual Bertrand Russell more than meets the task of unmasking supersticious nonsense such as a belief in God and an afterlife in this classic work, which should be required reading for all those who wake up early each Sunday and proudly trudge off to one or another house of worship. Freethinkers should be rejoicing given that over the last few decades church attendance has been in a steady decline. That these most successful cults in world history are suffering in membership is cause for celebration. Russell points out that most people believe in God simply because they have been taught from infancy to do so. Also during troubling times a spiritual belief gives them the reassuring feeling of an older brother type figure watching over them. It is emotional rather than scientific reasons that lead people to make this leap of faith. Sometimes one wonders why these dutiful Christians hold Jesus in such high regard given some of his more sadistic views. Why I Am Not a Christian is loaded with insightful quotes from Jesus demonstrating his more sadistic side such as everlasting punishment and turning family members against one another. Russell demolishes the well worn First-cause argument by logically reducing it to the question of "Who made God?". He points out the leap of faith involved when someone believes in God. It is clearly a question that lies outside the realm of probable knowledge where there is as much a likelihood the Easter Bunny and the Tooth Fairy exist as a God or afterlife; as the late Carl Sagan wrote: "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence." Russell goes on to discuss simple biological reasons for rejecting a belief in an afterlife. Since what constitutes a person is a series of experiences connected by memory, and the brain is rendered useless at death (obviously memory along with it), it is preposterous to assume a person survives death and enters a heaven or hell. During the first three centuries of the Christian era individuals were powerless to have an effect on the politico-economic climate under which they existed. Why I Am Not a Christian accurately remarks that this is why much of Christian doctrine is largely obsessed with making an individual perfect in an imperfect world and that the good life has little to do with external social conditions. It should be noted that the church opposed the abolition of slavery for ages. The only reason some contemporary Christians still do not adhere to some of their more outlandish tenets is due to the debt we owe to the generations of freethinkers who from the Renaissance to the present day have made religionists embarrassed over some of their traditional beliefs. Russell mentions that cruelty in society has always ran in direct correlation with the amount of dogmatic religious belief. All one has to do is look at the Inquisition and the plethora of women burned as witches to come to this rather pragmatic conclusion. Perhaps one of Christianity's most pernicious effects on the world is its war against knowledge. Because knowledge can be a force to bring about universal happiness - religion is the chief impediment to achieving this goal. Russell points out that (...) Why I Am Not a Christian is an absolutely outstanding book that some day may be more widely read. It is an obvious classic for rational people who adhere to a scientific outlook. Hopefully as the culture in the United States slowly evolves out of what can accurately be described as a pre-Enlightenment society, a great thinker like Russell will be given his proper due. In a nation where Pascal's Wager is keeping a large amount of religious worshippers in tow, and where a subtantial percentage of the population has a literal belief in the devil, it cannot happen soon enough.
Rating:
Summary: Great Thinker
Review: Although I don't agree with all of his points (calling Communism a religion in the preface!?!?), I still find Russell to be a very good writer. Its a very simple book to get through, as the essays arn't too long. I definitly would recommend this to people to read, wether agreeing with or counter to the views expressed, it is still an entertaining and stimulating read. (I think, therefor I am... prove to me you think, than you can be...)
Rating: 
Summary: More atheistic drivel
Review: Why do atheists always act like their so much smarter than everyone else? Why does any philosopher for that matter? I had to the main essay in a philosophy class. I'm pretty sure the professor was an atheist since Descartes and Pascal were lambasted while Russell and Rume were exulted as Gods among men. Why is it that when a scientific theory supports a religious belief, we can't speculated on that. But of course when a scientific theory bring into doubt some belief, guys like russell are all over it? I'm sure there are plenty of arguments you can come up with to prove I don't existence(or africa doesn't exist ,etc) as soon as I leave the room.
Rating:
Summary: Confrontational and controversial
Review: I admit that reading a book with the title "Why I am Not a Christian" on the bus while to my right a fellow traveler studied the New Testament made me feel quite ill at ease. The title seems to suggest that the author is an argumentative dissenter - and the reader by implication too, since he seems to enjoy this kind of literature. Then, why read a collection of essays that are for the most part over 70 years old? Firstly, for the clear style and the straightforward logic of Russell. He does not beat about the bush: "My own view on religion is that of Lucretius [a Roman philosopher of the first century BC, author of "On the Nature of the Universe"]. I regard it as a disease born of fear and as a source of untold misery to the human race."(24). This statement sums it up nicely for Bertrand Russell; and as expected, Russell's answer to the questions in the titles of the essays "Has Religion made useful Contributions to Civilization?" (1930), "Do we survive Death?" (1936), and "Can Religion Cure our Troubles?" (1954) is a resounding NO. Secondly, as a warning how overly optimistic we tend to be when it comes to improving human beings by scientific means. Today, some people think that humans can be genetically "improved". In the 1930s, some people - including Russell - thought "that hatred and fear can, with our present psychological knowledge and our present industrial technique, be eliminated altogether from human life."(45) Well, three quarters of a century later we still live in a time of hatred and fear. Thirdly, for the often unusual and surprising angle from which Russell looks at the seemingly familiar. Take the Renaissance and the French writer Michel de Montaigne (1533-1592), for example. The common view is that the Renaissance was the first major step on the way to the rationalism and individualism of the Enlightenment, and Montaigne is perceived as the model of the skeptical, questioning, self-reflective intellectual of that time. Russell, however, noticed that "moderns do not always realize to what extent the Renaissance was an anti-intellectual movement. In the Middle Ages it was the custom to prove things; the Renaissance invented the habit of [merely] observing them." (120) The most perfect example for this anti-intellectual type was "Montaigne, who allowed himself also an intellectual holiday in the shape of hostility to systems and deductions."(120) Fourthly, because Russell is a worthy heir to the tradition of optimistic materialism going back to David Hume (1711-1776), and because, at his best, he displays the common sense and simple wisdom that does not wear off with the years: "To live a good life in the fullest sense a man must have a good education, friends, love, children (if he desires them), a sufficient income to keep him from want and grave anxiety, good health, and work which is not uninteresting. All these things, in varying degrees, depend upon the community and are helped or hindered by political events. The good life must be lived in a good society and is not fully possible otherwise."(75) Interestingly, the man who wrote these words about the good life, was judicially declared "unfit" to teach philosophy at the College of the City of New York. A 50-page appendix to the book explains how this happened and provides an interesting case study how - already in 1940 - a vocal minority of ideological extremists in the United States used its influence to push its agenda.
Rating:
Summary: Great reading
Review: Bertrand Russell is a terrific writer, and the essays collected in this book represent some of his best work. As the title makes clear, most of the book is dedicated to Russell's thoughts on religion, which are somewhat less than flattering. Be aware of what you're getting into, though. If you want a thorough treatment on the rationality of religious belief in a philosophical context, you're better off with something like George H. Smith's "Atheism: The Case Against God." Russell is more concerned with the social and moral effects of religion, which is certainly no less interesting, but it's a somewhat different topic. The Amazon review of this book mentioned that some of the essays included herein are outdated, since they deal with contemporary social and ethical concerns of the early twentieth century. That may be true, but I still found them to be very interesting reading. Reading about the social character of an age through the eyes of someone like Russell, rather than in a book of history, seems to make that part of our past all the more real. It's interesting to see what the world was like at the time, and where Russell thought it was going. Sometimes there are surprises about what's gotten better and what's gotten worse. In addition to Russell's essays, the book includes an appendix which details the manner in which Russell was prevented from teaching philosophy at New York City College, which is also interesting reading, if rather disturbing. The number and the zealotry of those calumniators to whom the idea of a prominent atheist teaching philosophy was such anathema were simply disgusting. If you're interested in reading the freethinker's point of view, you could do little better than Russell. He is far more engaging than most philosophers, and all of these essays are thoughtful and well worth your time.
| 
