Rating: 
Summary: If you're reading this review -- Buy this book
Review: Unbelievable. That is the only word for the negative reviews....If you don't want anything other than a good laugh, sort these reviews with the most negative first. Who do these people think they are, calling Bertrand Russell a "fool" and a "hack"? And do those reviewers who cite to Acts of the Apostles and Paul's letter to Romans, the Epistles to Timothy et al, do they really think that is "evidence" to refute Mr. Russell's positions?Many years ago, during my first year in college, my humanities teaching assistant explained to our little section that there are basically two writing styles: Kant and Russell. Russell worked hard to write clearly, and consequently, readers of his works are able to chart the inconsistentcies and changes in his philosophy over time. Kant's style, on the other hand, was to write in such a manner that no one in their right mind could be certain what Kant was trying to say. As a result, everyone today still believes Kant to be brilliant. Our section was to strive to be Russell, and not Kant (The sucess of our striving was largely mixed and debatable, but that is beside the point). Russell is a good writer--and this book adresses the subject. For me (and I am speaking only for myself here--I'm not calling anyone a fool or a pervert or trying to create a strawman. If you think I am, my e-mail address is available, so please write me--if you care. I'll edit this review), this book addresses Blaise Pacal's rationale for "faith:" If you believe in the christian god, and there is no god--you really have not lost anything. But if you do not believe in the christian god (or whatever system of beliefs is at issue), and it turns out to be "true"--why, you've lost a whole big bunch, swimming around in that lake of fire.....I did have a brief discussion along these lines once with a family member. I suggested that such a "belief" sounded more like "hedging your bets" than "faith." A good deal of shouting by the family member followed my suggestion, and that was the end of the discussion. What is a "belief"? Kierkegaard talks about the "leap of faith:" Your reason will only take you so far, and then you must accept that "belief" is contrary to "reason." If your "belief" was supported by reason, then no "faith" or "belief" would be necessary. Russell eloquently points out the harm of both simple-minded beliefs, and "beliefs" that are really disguised superstition and fear. I enjoyed this book, and found it very helpful. I bought copies for my atheist friends--but I wouldn't bother buying the book for my christian friends (and certainly not christian family members). If you're interested in exploring these issues, buy the book. Or, if you're looking for an excuse to get angry, indignant, feel self-righteous--and have too much money in your pocket--then go ahead and buy the book. Otherwise, there are other ways to better spend your time and money............
Rating: 
Summary: Not as systematic as I'd hoped, but worthy
Review: Frankly I was expecting more when I read Bertrand Russell's well-known collection of essays, collectively entitled Why I Am Not A Christian. This sort of thing is sometimes to be expected when reading books based on word of mouth. My first letdown was in discovering that it was, in fact, a collection rather than a unified work. Fine. This should not necessarily be a problem, but it did take away from what I expected to be a detailed and coherently devastating attack on the evil that is religion. So much for the problems that I could have avoided by better research. The bigger issue at hand is that the essays were so haphazard. The title essay is a reprint of a public speech Russell made in 1927. Though he touches on most of the major arguments against God's existence, there is hardly time to explore them in detail. A page or two for each topic is about the most one can get. I liked the essay, and I think Russell certainly has the right ideas, but little in it would convince a religionist to change his opinions. As I often do, I've started with the negatives, and left the more numerous positive points to finish with. Many of the essays are quite enjoyable, and focused enough to be useful. Nice People is one of the cleverest and yet most sarcastic condemnations of the typical 'God fearing Christians' and 'decent folk' I've read in a long time. And Russell, if he hadn't heard the phrase, would certainly agree that a fundamentalist is someone who behaves as God himself would, if only He had all the facts, or that a Puritan is a person who lives every day with a terrible fear that somewhere, somehow, someone is having fun. Finally, it is most instructive for the reader to compare chapter thirteen, which is a printed transcript of a BBC debate between Russell and a Father F. C. Copleston concerning the existence of God, and the Appendix, which gives a detailed account of how Russell was prevented by conservatives from teaching philosophy in New York's City College. In the BBC debate, we read the words of two men who obviously disagree on a point of fact, but are clearly well read on the subject, well versed in philosophy and theology, and eminently respectful of the other. Broadcast in 1948, it is the very ideal of a public debate. Contrast this to the 1941 travesty of education in which conservatives of all sorts rose up and launched blistering ad-hominem attacks at the first sign that a noted Atheist would teach philosophy courses in logic, and philosophy of science and the foundations of mathematics. Long lists of outright lies were published about the man and his own published works, including obvious non-sequiturs and blatant reversals of his actual writings. That this should have happened in New York and not Alabama is astounding. The reader may see these two sections as demonstrating the difference between religion in England and in America. Russell moves easily through the subject of religion, and says things in ways that do not always show up in the debates over the validity of religion. Although he does make some strange comments at times (like listing Communism as a religion), his writings are intelligent and honest. For a clever discussion on the subject of the harm done by religion, one can do worse than to read why Bertrand Russell is not a Christian.
Rating:
Summary: Lucid, thought-provoking and witty
Review: This is a briliiant book. No question about it. Russell sets out with great clarity his reasons for rejecting the Christian religion and any other form of faith.
There are a few misconceptions about this book that I'd like to clear up first.
Actually, Why I am Not a Christian is not a book, but a collection of Russell's essays written over a long period of time and hence as such lacks continuity, but the coherence of Russell's thinking is obvious.
Many people have labelled Russell an atheist, but this is not true. He was an Agnostic and to an Agnostic, an atheist is logically no different from a theist. Atheists and theists are dogmatically certain that there is/isn't a god. An agnostic just suspends making an assertion in lack of evidence.
Russell's arguments against the Christian Religion are comprehensive and convincing. There is no reason to believe a god exists, and belief in god has had a harmful effect on mankind.
Russell rightly points out that belief in anything without proof("faith") is an intellectual vice and leads to dogmatism and fanaticism. Very correctly, he states that what amkes people believe in Christianity is having been taught in early age. No one would arrive at the same beliefs via unaided reason.
The deleterious effects of religion are more debatable, and less certain, but Russell makes a convincing argument. Agree with him or not, he cannot fail to bring clarity into an area still obscured by mystical vagueness for most of humanity.
Rating:
Summary: Some of the reviewers have missed the point
Review: When I first picked up this book over five years ago I think I may have agreed with some of the people giving this book a low rating. I thought that Russell had been incapable of proving that the Christian god did not exist, and that, the book wasn't worthwhile. But just over a year ago I decided to give this book a second chance, and I realized just how much I had erred in my opinion. The title of the book is "Why I am not a Christian," not "How I Know that the Christian God Does Not Exist." Regardless of what *you* think Jesus actually taught, or if some deity actually exists; Christians are people who have a history and have shared beliefs. It is the history and beliefs that provide Dr. Russell's main line of attack in this book, and he does so superbly and rationally. It was not his mission to prove to anyone that the Christian god did not exist through the use of formal logic, but it was to show that people who have labeled themselves Christians have not been very moral, even by their own supposed standards (which he details in "Religion and Morals"), and have contributed little to our society in general (detailed in "Has Religion Made Useful Contributions..."). Some people would have us believe that modern Christians are some how different, and that, Russell's arguments no longer apply. But as anyone who has read the title essay would know, Russell argues that this is only because those who question Christian theology have forced otherwise dogmatic Christians to change slowly from one generation to the next. And this has been proven true up through recent history. In the title essay Dr. Russell mentions that the Catholic Church (and I would say many other Christian denominations) says that the "existence of God can be proved by the unaided reason." Russell gives clear refutations of the common theological arguments for the existence of the Christian god. He does not even attempt to formally disprove the existence of a deity. He does not need to. The burden of evidence is on those who make a claim, not those who do not buy into it, and he shows that the theologians have provided no proof. With the moral/historical arguments, and with the refutation of the common 'rational' arguments, Russell clearly shows why he rejects the label of Christian for himself. Also of note, is the essay entitled "Freedom and the Colleges" which describes Russell's beliefs about academic freedom, and the essay entitled "Nice People" which shows a bit of his sense of humor.
Rating: 
Summary: Sad commentary on a pitiful life
Review: Bertrand Russell was little better than a fool why did Russell believe in atheism? Its simple. He believed in it so he didn't have to worry about sexual morality. One of his wives was granted a divorce, on grounds that Russell seduced his Doctor's teenage daughter. Sorry but this was not a wise man. This was a pervert and a fool.
Rating:
Summary: The Best I Have Read Yet
Review: In my opinion there is no other book ever written so well, so put together, so accurate, and so passionate. This book will make any Christian/Catholic question there beliefs, and also if there beliefs are truly morally right. This book is sort of a moral code for non-believers, and with the bleakest of beliefs one may believe we have, this book gives us hope. If is a sort of moral guide, 'based by knowledge and guided by love' as he would say. You will find no better collection of essays and quotable paragraphs anywhere. Though it is not a scientific book, and doesn't have much information on evolution and biology, it uses mere logic to provide it's reader with a flawless argument against Christianity, without basis, and with pure honesty. Bertrand Russell was greatly admired by Albert Einstein, and is brilliant, poetic, and a friendly kind person. Where most non-religious authors tend to be crude, blunt, arrogant, and quite heartless, Bertrand Russell approaches the issues with grace and ease. This is a very wonderful book, uplifting, and a glorious read.
Rating:
Summary: "Why I Am Not a Christian" and 14 more essays
Review: This book comprises a collection of fifteen essays, plus an appendix by the editor (Paul Edwards) discussing how Bertrand Russell was barred from teaching in the City College of New York. Actually this appendix is quite interesting, as it shows the ardent zeal of the NY city municipal leaders of the time to rescind the decision that appointed B. Russell to the Chair of Philosophy, stemmed in their religious prejudices and moral inflexibility. It also depicts how democracy, when artfully manipulated by demagogues, may turn into a tyranny of the mob. Last, but not least, Paul Edwards castigates NY mayor La Guardia for his role in the whole issue, as well as the judicial system, both at the state and federal level, for its handling of the case. Russell was an atheist. The two tenets of Christianity he mainly objects to are belief in God and immortality. Immortality he rejects on the grounds of materialistic monism; he refutes the body-soul duality, and cannot see:
i. How the soul, which he really treats as a manifestation of certain bodily (mainly encephalic) functions, can survive bodily death
ii. How the body can be reconstructed upon the Second Coming, and re-united with the soul, since the body would have by long time disintegrated. He is a pure scientist, and cannot see as probable a metaphysical scenario (although, he admits that in scientific terms he cannot strictly disprove it). He rejects the notion that Christ has been "the best and wisest of men", and he puts "Buddha and Socrates above Him" in the respects of virtue and wisdom. He maintains that "the churches have retarded progress", stressing the point that not only he considers religion as a falsehood, but also as detrimental to human well-being. His belief is that "the metaphysical separation of soul and body has had disastrous effects upon philosophy". In "What I Believe", which is one of the most important essays in this book (the title betrays it) he proclaims that "Man is a part of nature, not something contrasted with nature". By this proclamation, he appears to take a naturalistic and non-existentialist view. He attributes the belief in immortality to fear of death and the tendency of men to assuage it. He emphasizes the smallness of our world compared with the universe at large, and considers it as egotistical of ours to believe that the cosmos as a whole has a purpose tailored to our needs; terming men as "parasites" dwelling on the surface of the Earth may be epitomizing his viewing. Also, in what in year 1925 (that this essay was written) was a bold pro-birth-control stand he claims that "Birth control is thought wicked by people who tolerate celibacy, because the former is a new violation of nature and the latter an ancient one". In his next essay, entitled "Do we Survive Death?", written in 1936, he makes what amounts to a prophetic statement: "Nietzsche argued for an ethic profoundly different from Christ's, and some powerful governments have accepted its teachings. If knowledge of right and wrong is to be an argument for immortality, we must first settle whether to believe Christ or Nietzsche, and then argue that Christians are immortal, but Hitler and Mussolini are not, or vice versa. The decision will obviously be made on the battlefield, not in the study." Less than 10 years of this statement the WWII battlefields of Europe and the Pacific had decided for Christ. To bring this one step further, 55 years later the military-economic chessboard of the Cold War had decided for Christ over Marx. And what we are currently experience may be the battle for deciding between Christ and Mohammed" All his 15 essays are a nice exposition of his rationalistic, freethinker views. The essay on Thomas Paine is pretty interesting, since it shows how, throughout the ages, those yielding power tend to persecute the people that can't help speaking the truth. He correctly points out how Catholic and Protestant upbringing typically permeate the behavior of freethinkers on a perhaps subconscious level. He is a rationalist and speaks things as they are. He does not try to invent metaphysical worlds to allay fears, and he disdains superstition. This book is a good read, and I feel this so for deists and atheists alike. For the latter it will reinforce, and perhaps systematize, the belief that they instinctively have; for those believing in God, and the Christian one specifically, it may help them view things in a broader perspective (move away from moral absolutism to moral relativism), as well as tempt them to try regard some core theological and philosophical issues (deity, immortality, resurrection) from a different, and hopefully refreshing and enlightening, point of view.
Rating:
Summary: An important text for understanding secular thought
Review: Bertrand Russell is a genius on par with Noam Chomsky, and this collection of essays on the problems with Christian morality are essential to anyone who wants to better understand the secular viewpoint. Going as far as to say that Christianity is "the principal enemy of moral progress in the world," Russell takes on topics like birth control and the inherent misogyny of Christian theology. The only problem I have with the book is that being a collection of essays and speeches, some of the material overlaps each other. Still, it is an intriguing read and an important philosophical text.
Rating:
Summary: Eye opener
Review: This book is old and in some parts hard to read. But it's really an eye opener, especially for religious people like many of my friends and family.
Rating:
Summary: Brilliant and inspiring, a free-thinkers truth
Review: Wonderful, just wonderful. I could not begin to summarize all the ways this work is a masterpiece in this short forum. A must for all critical thinkers.
|
