Rating: 
Summary: The Classic Infidel Text
Review: As a convinced agnostic, born catholic, I looked to this book to look for the fodder to use in my own re-programming efforts with convinced believers. However, as a convinced agnostic, if not downright atheist, I am well aware of the limitations of logic in matters of beleif or unbeleif and I found that russell himself makes little effort to attempt a logical case against faith. This is probably a good thing. What I did like in the collection of essays is Russell's arguments against the evils of beleif and the obstacles to human progress that it causes. i think this is the real point of arguing against faith. it is certainly more productive than arguing for or against the existence of God. In the religions - man made institutions - are the problem, not God.
Rating: 
Summary: Filled with Straw Men and Circular Reasoning
Review: The late atheists icon Bertrand Russell was known for his polemic life and controversial stances against dogma and religion. This book, a compolation of his essays and speeches, is a well written book, but ultimatley fails in the area it tries to most assert itself - logic.He often makes many fallacies like asserting "universial negatives" where he broad brushes Christianity without having full knowledge about Chritianity or Christians. His distates for this religion interferes with clear thinking. He distorts the movement to provide strength for his arguments. For example, he claims on page 27, " Christians, however, object to the disseination of knowledge of this fact (sex education), since they hold it good that sinners should be punished." Of course, he may find Christians who holdthis view, put it is a universial negative-he has no way of knowing if all of them hold this view. Ssecondly, most Christians, according to the teachins of traditional Christianity, see themselves as sinners. Is he saying they (Christians) want to be punished? When he writes that religion is based on fear, and partly on the unknown, he negates the same principle response that atheism is based because people wish to live a life without a god so they may enjoy their proclivities. In "How the Churches Have Retarded Progress" Russell chooses as an example without seriously dealing with the subject (3 paragraphs on this subject).When he says the Church has inflicted underserved suffering on people, I wonder if he is speaking about all the hospitals, colleges, and charities ran by Christian churches through-out the world. The logical outworkings of Christ's teachings have only helped society. There is so much more to be said, but space limits us here. I plead that those who are agnostic or atheist at leasts read this book with clear logical thinking - more than likely, like many, regardless of their beliefs, they will read him and accept his rantings as excuses to hold to their anti-religious views.
Rating:
Summary: An excellent personal account
Review: This work is Bertrand Russell giving a personal account of why he is not a christian. Its eloquence and wit will provide inspiration and insight into the mind of one of the 20th centuries greatest advocates of freethought. This work is not however a logical proof, and Bertrand Russell does not make any claim to the contrary. New atheists who have not yet come to realize you cannot disprove the existence of anything will be disappointed with the lack of solid arguments to refute more educated theists. Theists will revel in the apparent illogical stance that Bertrand Russell takes. Indeed, if analyzed from a logical standpoint, the entire work is rife unproved assertions and circular reasoning. But such is the nature of this work. It is a personal account. Bertrand Russell, being one of the founders of logical positivism, was a professor of logic. It would have sufficed for Bertrand Russell to merely say that he could not believe in anything that could not be proven, and proceed along that logical discourse. But that is not the point of this work. Bertrand Russell is seeking to condemn christianity in particular due to its barbaric nature, and the evil it has wrought upon the world. It is a counter-argument to those who assert that christianity is the ideal foundation of morality becaue of the quality of the morality it preaches.
Rating:
Summary: Brilliantly written essays.....
Review: ......and I don't say that lightly. This collection contains 15 essays on religion and other closely related subjects, that will make you think differently about the conventional teachings of your religion, especially if you are Christian. This reading is essential,however, for anyone calling him/herself a "freethinker". Written without heavy philosophical jargon, Russell delves into the driving force behind the "success" of converting people to Christianity (which he says has its basis in fear, not love or reason). He argues that ethics do not have their basis in religious belief, and shows how damaging religious zealotry has proven itself to be throughout the history of man. His arguments, throughout, are compelling. If you are a Christian, who believes that he/she may be offended by Russell's ideas, I ask you to first read this book with an open mind before making a judgment. Russell does not attack all Christian ideas or all Christian people, but merely points out inconsistencies in our faiths. In doing so, I did not personally feel offended, but felt that Russell was opening my eyes, and ultimately showing me how to look at my faith more critically which allows me to better separate the good from the bad. The most compelling essays in this collection, by far are: "Why I Am Not a Christian", "Has Religion Made Useful Contributions to Civilization?", and "What I Believe". Also enlightening were: "The Fate of Thomas Paine" and "Nice People". Overall I highly recommend this essay collection which, in my opinion, is written by a brilliant philosopher and very moral man.
Rating:
Summary: A deeply moral book
Review: I feel I must add to this debate and express my support for Bertrand Russell. His core belief was quite simply that a moral action is one which increases the amount of happiness in the world (or at least does not increase the amount of unhappiness in the world). On this base assumption he analysed the beliefs and actions of his religious contemporaries - and found them lacking. Not everything he says is true, but his central message is today still tacitly assumed by any sane person. Fundamentalists everywhere would do well to stop their ranting, pause for breath and listen.
Rating:
Summary: Twisted truths from desperate man
Review: Betrand Russell's writings is a betrayal of agnosticism.. While denying underlying Christian moral truths by trying to disprove them empirically, Russell uses, and unfortunately twists, these same principles to make it conform to his own opinion. This essentially proves nothing! Never have I read a book of such acclaim by humanist atheist philiophers that reaks of logical fallacies and self-contradiction. This makes me wonder about the intellectual honesty of some freethinkers. How can anyone with a rudimentary knowledge of logic fall for Russell's "philosophizing"? Referring in particular to chapter 3, "What I Believe"; his short treatise on Nature and Man falls into the fallacy of circular reasoning. The examples of faulty interpretation of Christian doctrinal teachings and Catholic Church history are too numerous to list and refute. This further adds to the impression that these writings come from a man who is in despair but cloaks his thoughts under the guise of freethinking. I would recommend this book to the intellectually honest as an argument against agnosticism and freethinking, but buy it used.
Rating:
Summary: My introduction to Atheism
Review: I bought this book out of a curious interest in what a philosopher had to say about religion, and found Bertrand Russell to be a man of integrity and great spirit. I was a guilty Christian when I read it, and a skeptical Christian when I finished, but gained respect for Bertan Russell, as he clearly had a solid basis for his point of view. Soon after I read Bertran Russell I read George Smith's book "Atheism: The case against God". That was the final nail in the coffin of Christianity, and then with great happiness knew that Bertran Russell was right. I have yet to read a more humane and moving tribute to the possibilities of a mankind free of superstition than this one. It is a great first read for a Christian, and a great read for an atheist. Russell's essay "A free man's worship" is among the most moving and tragic and beautiful essays that I have ever read.
Rating:
Summary: A Great Read
Review: This is a great book. I've always enjoyed religous criticism and Bertrand takes it to another level. His bits of prudence and satirism is very enjoyable. He backs up almost everything he says and it's hard to find a fault. I did find some problems with his criticism on Buddhism though. Ofcourse he could be referring to Mayahanna Buddhism rather than Theravada, so I'll give him the benefit of the doubt. My favorite essay is "Nice People," because of Betrands harsh criticism of hypocrisy, which also prevails throughout the book.
Rating: 
Summary: Tasting the Fruit
Review: I have always enjoyed reading Lord Russel, Voltaire or Oscar Wilde. Sharp witted but not too serious, they are like adults wading through a bunch of toddlers. Way back, when I had read this collection of essays for the first time, I could agree with almost everything. I grew up as a secular infidel, no Òapostasy,Ó no Òheresy,Ó no Òconversion,Ó no Òdebates,Ó no nonsense. I am most definitely not a Òseeker.Ó When I hear the voice of a Òtheist,Ó I hear the caveman drumming his chest. ÒFaithÓ is a poor method to build bridges, ÒspiritualityÓ another word for preferring to be ignorant. I donÕt lose my sleep over contradictions in the Bible, ÒproofsÓ for ÒHisÓ (or perhaps ÒHer?Ó) existence are not my favorite pastime. This part of Lord RussellÕs book was lost on me. (Personally I thank my God every day, that he made me an atheist.) But even for atheists there remains the question: what are we going to make of our life? Is it entirely up to us to decide? Or are we just pawns in a bigger game? Do choices matter? ManÕs growing power of intervention has put every other creature on the planet at the mercy of his involuntary custody. Are we suppose to accept responsibility? Is it all a game among losers - some earlier, some later? Personally, without giving in to the theistÕs premise, I can comprehend a situation in which ÒHisÓ (or ÒHerÓ) ways are not my ways and human morals are completely irrelevant in the larger scheme. Some may prefer to define their purpose as being a means to some unfathomable end, and others prefer to choose the burden of self-determination and responsibility. But is it really all about choice? History is full of bad choices and their consequences. In the end everything comes down to one thing: ÒBy their fruit ye shall know them.Ó Apologetic manoeuvring seeks refuge in the ÒhumanÓ factor. But this really doesnÕt cut it. I donÕt need a Ph.D. on HitlerÕs ÒMein KampfÓ to find the Nazis and the NŸrenberg laws despicable. Generally I would agree, that ÒPeople pursue, torture and kill others because ... people are intolerant bigots who use religion ... to their own ends. ... Ideology becomes not a principle but a tool; [and] if your [favorite] group has not done this to anyone, it's likely because they've never had enough power to do so.Ó (J.P. Holding) But when the same apologist continues: ÒEvery group that has had the power to do so has done this, from the pagans of Rome to the Crusaders to the Muslims and Hindus to the atheistic Communists of the modern day,Ó then I must beg to differ. History is a layered process, in terms of a Roman historian, Òthe custom of nations,Ó in which past customs generate laws of the present and commitments for the future. Without such mechanism the catalyst would be missing that creates the incitement to commit atrocities and anesthetizes the perpetratorsÕ conscience. As a rule people prefer Òto follow ordersÓ and knowing to have the law on your side is even better. Do I really need to remind of the Òtorture-box experiments?Ó It took a chairman Mao to unleash the appalling episodes in the cultural revolution. Even battle hardened conquistadors and crusaders asked for absolution after a massacre and for indulgences before. I have no illusions about human wickedness, but this doesnÕt change the fact that a catalyst is needed to put it in motion. When Constantine issued his edict of tolerance, he legalized an institution which up to the present day sees it as her god-given right to persecute Òheretics,Ó culture, learning, science and art, whenever and wherever they happen to dissent from doctrine. Russell witnesses to the effects Christianity has made on the actual turn of history which is distinctly different from what could have been without. Biblical religion, Islam, and the Catholic Church have proven to be the most effective catalysts of indoctrination and mind control prior to the introduction of nationalism and modern political ideologies. Few institutions influenced so profoundly secular legislation and our views on right and wrong. We outgrew our prehistoric childhood, shouldnÕt we have outgrown adolescence and religion by now? And yet, we continue to brainwash the unsuspecting minds of our children in order to smother critical faculties in their infancy and the advocates of school prayer continue to ignore Matthew 6:6. There is a widely held perception, that religion would underpin the foundations of ethical behavior. But Lord Russell is not the only one who denies such connection, and he is right. Ethics had been around long before our species emerged from the rainforests and long before Cro-Magnon man would articulate his first religious thought. Why am I so sure? Because I wouldnÕt be around, had it not been for my distant ancestors, who for millions of years observed ethics of cooperation and subdued aggression and the sexual taboos on inbreeding. I know of manÕs capacity to delude himself and fictionalize a meaning for meaningless situations. I also know that there is more to the Universe than is manifest in its physics. Before or after big bang, for all eternity pi (¹) remains to be pi, whether there are circles or not. This has been a strangely comforting thought in my darkest hours. Though dated in parts, the book is still a very enjoyable read, and be it only for Lord RussellÕs wicked humor.
Rating:
Summary: Honest
Review: This author's honesty recommends him highly. I found the same questions being brought to light by the book An Encounter with A Prophet however An Encounter with A Prophet answered the questions.
|
