Why I Am Not a Christian and Other Essays on Religion and Related Subjects

Rate this book

Clear rating

1 of 5 stars 2 of 5 stars 3 of 5 stars 4 of 5 stars 5 of 5 stars

Why I Am Not a Christian and Other Essays on Religion and Related Subjects

by Bertrand Russell, Paul Edwards (Editor)

3.98 of 5 stars 3.98 · rating details · 7,875 ratings · 291 reviews

Dedicated as few men have been to the life of reason, Bertrand Russell has always been concerned with the basic questions to which religion also addresses itself -- questions about man's place in the universe and the nature of the good life, questions that involve life after death, morality, freedom, education, and sexual ethics. He brings to his treatment of these questio...more

Paperback, 256 pages

Published October 30th 1967 by Touchstone (first published January 1st 1927)

more details... edit details

Get a copy:

More…

Friend Reviews

To see what your friends thought of this book, please sign up.

Lists with This Book

God is Not Great by Christopher Hitchens

Letter to a Christian Nation by Sam Harris

Notable Atheist Books

7th out of 229 books — 549 voters

The Book of Mormon by The Church of Jesus Christ ...

Books (Besides the Bible) Recommended for Christian Readers

195th out of 1,940 books — 1,876 voters

More lists with this book...

Community Reviews

(showing 1-30 of 3,000)

filter | sort: default (?) | rating details

Jun 20, 2007 -uht! rated it 5 of 5 stars · review of another edition

Shelves: philosophy

By the time I read this book, I was already not a Christian, but it was still hard for me to read. It was kinda like accidentally figuring out a magician's trick. You knew he wasn't *really* doing magic, but seeing how he did it somehow made the world less fun.

That said, this is a great book. It's not without bite, but it's also not bitter. Having been a big fan of Russell's epistemological books, I was impressed that this book displayed the same clarity of thought and communication. His logical...more

18 likes · like · see review

Jun 25, 2007 Alex rated it 5 of 5 stars

I love these essays! Russell never argues that faith is impossible, but makes it clear why he doesn't have it. (I cannot believe in a god who, given an infinite universe and millions of years in which to perfect it, can come up with nothing better than the nazis and the KKK) - paraphrase

11 likes · like · see review

Jul 04, 2012 P.J. Sullivan rated it 5 of 5 stars

Shelves: nonfiction, philosophy

Russell first defines what he means by a Christian: someone who believes in God, the immortality of the soul, and Jesus Christ. Then he explains why he does not believe. Step by step he dismisses as fallacious the arguments for the existence of God: the first cause argument, the argument from design, etc. Then he discusses whether we survive death. Then the character of Jesus, as presented in the Gospels. He agrees that Jesus was an admirable man, but not divine and not the best or wisest of men...more

3 likes · like · see review

Sep 26, 2008 LJ rated it 5 of 5 stars

Shelves: non_fiction, faith_philosophy_religion_spiritual, favorites

WHY I AM NOT A CHRISTIAN...- Ex
Russell, Bertrand

Dedicated as few men have been to the life of reason, Bertrand Russell has always been concerned with the basic questions to which religion also addresses itself -- questions about man's place in the universe and the nature of the good life, questions that involve life after death, morality, freedom, education, and sexual ethics. He brings to his treatment of these questions the same courage, scrupulous logic, and lofty wisdom for which his other w...more

7 likes · like · see review

May 16, 2008 Craig rated it 2 of 5 stars

After reading most of the "new Atheist" books -- I read the ones by Sam Harris, Daniel Dennett, and Christopher Hitchens -- this old one by Betrand Russell is still miles better than they. To be sure, I disagree with most of what he says, but his writing is much more clear-headed and articulate than the new ones. There really aren't many new arguments the new generation of atheists bring to the table, therefore I think it is reasonably fair to use Russell's as the standard bearer for them all.

Th...more

11 likes · like · see review

Dec 03, 2008 Nick Black rated it 3 of 5 stars

Russell "demolishes" the classic arguments (ontological, teleological, cosmological) in the quick, sweeping first few dozen pages, then digresses for the remainder, addressing vaguely the tenets of logical positivism he'd better develop in The Problems of Philosophy and The Conquest of Happiness. Overall, though, I can't help but think this is all a wanktastic waste of time. It's unknowable, and the important thing is not to kill God, but to annihilate the willingness to consider that which ca...more

3 likes · like · see review

view all 6 comments

Conrad The thought of a unicorn may or may not be a real thought, but it I can imagine it being consequential whether or not it has substance. When discussin...more
Jan 12, 2009 03:30pm

Joshua Nomen-Mutatio Conrad wrote: "Given that you and I live in a pluralistic society, Nick, and given that that will not change and the varieties of illusion are multifo...more
updated Oct 02, 2009 07:57pm

Dec 28, 2007 Brendan rated it 2 of 5 stars

Shelves: philosophy, religion

A mediocre atheism. If you want the real stuff, read Nietzsche, Marx, or Freud. No one has said anything original on the subject since they.

3 likes · like · see review

May 15, 2013 Adam rated it 4 of 5 stars

Shelves: favorites, religion, philosophy, economics, politics

Disclaimer: My upbringing in a religious home and eventual rejection of religion certainly predisposes me to a book of this subject matter.

I have personally experienced the best and worst of religion as it functions both socially and personally. I find Russell's thoughts incredibly well articulated and very enlightening to me. "Why I Am Not a Christian" and "Has Religion Made Useful Contributions to Civilization?" are must-reads for anyone, regardless of their religious or non-religious stance...more

1 like · like · see review

Jan 28, 2008 Paula rated it 4 of 5 stars

My downstairs roommates are away for a while, and I am catsitting. It just so happens that my downstairs roommates also have an extensive collection of books. Books that have been on my to-read list for YEARS. And here they are, in one location, with no chance of someone checking them out before I can get my hands on them. So every other day, I brave the cat (actually, a hellbeast), feed and water it, and select a new tome.

One of this week's selection was "Why I Am Not a Christian." I should ve...more My downstairs roommates are away for a while, and I am catsitting. It just so happens that my downstairs roommates also have an extensive collection of books. Books that have been on my to-read list for YEARS. And here they are, in one location, with no chance of someone checking them out before I can get my hands on them. So every other day, I brave the cat (actually, a hellbeast), feed and water it, and select a new tome.

One of this week's selection was "Why I Am Not a Christian." I should very much like to know whether I should be a Christian or not. For the past couple of months (years?) I have decided "not." At best, I am unaffiliated; on average, I am agnostic. I would love to know for certain either way. It would be lovely to be assured that some part of you survives death; that humanity is not an accident of the universe. Knowing the opposite is true would at least put an end to fruitless speculation.

So it was quite a surprise to me when "Why I Am Not" turned out to be only an essay, and a short one at that. Although he listed several arguments against Christianity, it just wasn't enough (for me, personally) to put the last nail in Christianity's proverbial coffin. Besides this, the book is actually a collection of essays on subjects that range from death to freedom to academia to sex. And there's a lot about sex. No, nothing scandalous (at least, not to current sensibilities). But Russell deals with sex as an essential part of the human experience, and does so in a very humane matter. Even though I didn't agree with him on every subject he wrote (and in fact, science has progressed to prove him wrong on a few counts) I was nevertheless intrigued at every page. His humanism and wit shine through.

One of the most interesting parts was Russell's constant struggle with religious authority. It's not interesting because it's a struggle-that's to be expected. But the way he describes his opponents, and the topics discuess, vary very little from debates over religion and state today. As a culture, we've progressed a bit (homosexuality is no longer a crime, for example) but we still confront the same problems: over what is sacred or profane, the limits of free speech, the power struggle in and between societies. I am sure that I will pick this book up many more times, even when it is not conveniently at hand downstairs. (less)

6 likes · like · see review

Jan 17, 2008 Donald rated it 3 of 5 stars

Shelves: philosophy-theology-culture

This was an impressive book at the time I read it. This was the most potent statement of unbelief in print at the time and, until the latest swath of the "new atheism," was the most accessible to the philosophically untrained reader. My problem with Russell's thinking is that he essentially aped his arguments from Feuerbach, which were pretty much debunked from the get-go. Russell had three issues:

1. The God = Evil problem (borrowed extensively by Hitchens in his latest polemic)
2. The God as a w...more

1 like · like · see review

Nov 14, 2007 Brian rated it 3 of 5 stars

"Why I Am Not a Christian" is a series of essays and speeches by Bertrand Russell, a famous philosopher. Russell's views were controversial in his time (he was famously denied a teaching position at the City College of New York after being railroaded by religious types), and are still controversial. I didn't read all of the pieces in the book, as my attention span just hasn't been in the right spot lately, but I was impressed by some of them, and disappointed in others.
Some of his arguments are...more

1 like · like · see review

Dec 30, 2007 Julian added it

Shelves: non-fiction

This is a book of essays by Bertrand Russell that were written in the early part of the 20th century. I read them to compare them to more modern books/essays on atheism. In some ways these were chillingly accurate when read through a modern lens, in other ways disturbingly inaccurate (such as when Russell said something along the lines of "But surely no one 50 years from now would actually believe in the creation myth!"). Recommended for anyone who is, like me, doing a weird personal study into...more

1 like · like · see review

Mar 25, 2013 Διόνυσος Ψευδάνωρ rated it 3 of 5 stars

Recommended to Διόνυσος by: Monica Morrison

Shelves: own-mine, philosophy, russell

As with every other time I have read Russell, I found Why I Am Not a Christian: And Other Essays on Religion and Related Subjects very pleasurable to read. Russell's clear and organized style of writing is somewhat of a rarity in philosophical writing. On the other hand—but also just like the other times I have read his work—he begins with a deep, but almost entirely tacit, faith in Reason's reason, a faith we can no longer seriously share with Russell in a post-Nietzschean world. For the task o...more

2 likes · like · see review

Nov 28, 2007 Joe S rated it 2 of 5 stars

Shelves: philosophy

Also known as In Which Bertrand Russel Uses Logical Fallacies to Answer Dead Questions. This book is a decent intro into the standard (bad) arguments and apologetics that surround Christianity. As a thought-primer for people who need a good starting point, it works well. As a legitimate contribution to the worlds of philosophy and theology, it falls frustratingly short.

Your sixteen-year-old nephew can articulate better reasons not to be a Christian, and they'll actually be relevant.

1 like · like · see review

Feb 06, 2013 Gregg Wingo rated it 5 of 5 stars

Recommended to Gregg by: Chuck

Lord Russell is considered one of the great thinkers of the 20th century and this collection of articles illustrate how profoundly his thoughts have guide the evolution of our society. He was a major opponent of religion due to his opposition to irrational thought as a mechanism for ordering society. The following quote illustrates his thoughts on the subject:

‎"It would seem, therefore, that the three human impulses embodied in religion are fear, conceit, and hatred. The purpose of religion, one...more Lord Russell is considered one of the great thinkers of the 20th century and this collection of articles illustrate how profoundly his thoughts have guide the evolution of our society. He was a major opponent of religion due to his opposition to irrational thought as a mechanism for ordering society. The following quote illustrates his thoughts on the subject:

‎"It would seem, therefore, that the three human impulses embodied in religion are fear, conceit, and hatred. The purpose of religion, one may say, is to give an air of respectability to these passions, provided they run in certain channels. It is because these passions make, on the whole, for human misery that religion is a force for evil, since it permits men to indulge these passions without restraint, where but for its sanction they might, at least to a certain degree, control them."

These were not merely abstract thoughts for Russell as detailed in the appendix of the book. This section covers the appointment of him to a teaching position at City College in New York and the clerical opposition brought against him and City College in the press and the courts. He sole response was not made until after the appointment was withdrawn and it is merely a statement of the importance of debate in a democracy:

‎"I do not believe that controversy is harmful on general grounds. It is not controversy and open differences that endanger democracy. On the contrary, these are its greatest safeguards. It is an essential part of democracy that substantial groups, even majorities, should extend toleration to dissentient groups, however, small and however much their sentiments may be outraged. In democracy it is necessary that people should learn to endure having their sentiments outraged..."

It was Russell's progressive thoughts on sexuality that often provided material for the demagogues who made him the Socrates of New York. His beliefs were realistic and, in truth, reflect the evolution of the institution of marriage in Western society:

"Sex cannot dispense with an ethic, any more than business or sport or scientific research or any other branch of human activity. But it can dispense with an ethic based solely upon ancient prohibitions propounded by uneducated people in a society wholly unlike our own. In sex as in economics and politics, our ethic is still dominated by fears which modern discoveries have made irrational...There has to be consistency in life; there has to be continuous effort directed to ends that are not immediately beneficial and not at every moment attractive; there has to be consideration for others; and there should be certain standards of rectitude".

Lord Russell words reminds us how far we have come since the Victorian Era and how vigilant we must remain against the forces of irrationalism that surround us today.

Les armes, les armes, mes citoyens!

(less)

1 like · like · see review

Sep 18, 2012 Steven rated it 2 of 5 stars

Shelves: essay, philosophy, non-fiction, 2012

It's an OK text that repeats itself throughout. I understand it's a collection of essays on a similar theme but the content is the same regardless.

Much of his argument is against religion and the things he either bore witness to or was told, though I tend to doubt some of the hyperbole in his claims. The historical context of the writings lends credence to some of what is stated but, on a whole, it seems a morbid claim some of what he says regarding sex, morality, and so on. Either way, the argu...more It's an OK text that repeats itself throughout. I understand it's a collection of essays on a similar theme but the content is the same regardless.

Much of his argument is against religion and the things he either bore witness to or was told, though I tend to doubt some of the hyperbole in his claims. The historical context of the writings lends credence to some of what is stated but, on a whole, it seems a morbid claim some of what he says regarding sex, morality, and so on. Either way, the arguments wage make some sense--the issues of childhood, morality (as he paints it), righteousness--but tend to be lost in ideas that, considering the age we live in now and our better understanding of psychology, don't hold as much water.

From my reading Russell comes across as a staunch pacifist, socialist, and subjectivist with a disdain for individualism and the principles of any dogmatic system, be it religion or political movement. He also likes to make claims about the nature of our mental development that borrow heavily from Freudian psychology which has, at this point in time, become less relevant and more of a launching point for new inquiries into how we look at the mind and its developments.

Overall, it's an OK text written by a smart man who is regurgitating the writings and ideas of ancient Greek philosophers, such as Epicurus, along with more rational scientific processes such as the ones proposed by Einstein and other modern fields that arose at the turn of the 20th century. Some of his arguments were pulled out of context when quoting Scripture or invalid due to his attempt at creating analogy which was Biblically unfounded (which could very well have been issues with the institution of the Church on not the text itself. I myself have many, many issues with the institution of the Church and its stance regarding various things that are poor interpretations or abusive interpretations of the text on which it is founded. He even makes this observation at one or two points but never broadens the idea as it might distract from his goal of saying religion is bad, always).

The only idea I really pulled from this text is that Man should do that which provides him with the greatest happiness while not infringing upon the happiness of others. Religion (Judeo-Christian, Eastern Philosophy, etc.), from his observations, infringes on the happiness of others by permitting immoral actions and scientifically preposterous ideas (stances on sex and marriage were his biggest, and most consistent, complaints).

Read it for a somewhat historical stance on freethinking but don't expect it to change your view of the world or show you something that, in our current environment, you don't already know.

Oh, and be prepared to read "Mohammedans" quite frequently. A term which was common until the 1960s or so for Muslim.(less)

like · see review

Sep 07, 2012 Eddie rated it 3 of 5 stars

The error of the conventional Christian aim and what Russell argues is one in the same, that making the world a happier place is the primary objective of applying their particular brand of thought. Adhering to Russell's notion of restoring the world to happiness through "an attitude of scientific inquiry" and the application of finite human intelligence would ultimately lead to the same problems he argues against found in Christian institutions. Dogma. Even as it requires faith to believe the ex...more

like · see review

Feb 29, 2012 Barak rated it 4 of 5 stars

Initially, before reading this book, I perceived Russell as a graphomaniac, that is, someone who had some scarce but important contributions to mathematical logic (such as "On Denotation" and his (and his mathematics teacher Whitehead) "Principia Mathematica"). I believed the rest he wrote was populist in nature and philosophically un-professional or at least uninteresting. After reading this book (and possibly my views in general also changed in the last couple of years) I have come to develop...more

1 like · like · see review

Jun 19, 2011 Mike Lindgren rated it 4 of 5 stars

Shelves: nonfiction

To be precise, I read only the title essay, plus one other, but that was plenty to chew. Much here to commend and agree with; but on the whole, I'm not persuaded to abandon my faith, idiosyncratic though it may be. I have not the time, inclination, or mental firepower to attempt a rebuttal, by any means; nonetheless, a couple of observations. 1. Despite his cynicism, Russell displays unbounded faith in the infinite progress of science and the perfectibility of humankind, neither of which I share...more

like · see review

May 28, 2011 Vasha7 rated it 4 of 5 stars

Why is "New Atheism" called new? As far as arguments specifically directed against religion, I can't recall anything said recently that Russell (and many others) didn't already say in the first half of the century. However, there are many other topics covered in this book, and that's where plenty of room for disagreement comes in. In particular, his idea of psychology seems very debatable to me. He's convinced that all competitiveness and aggression could be eliminated by a simple program of pos...more

like · see review

Apr 14, 2011 Jorge rated it 4 of 5 stars · review of another edition

Resulta difícil comentar obras de un filósofo tan trascendente como Bertrand Russell, y esto por varias razones: 1) no me considero ni remotamente capaz de entender toda su obra y pensamiento (principalmente porque no soy científico ni matemático como lo era él); 2) la ciencia y el conocimiento humano han vivido un salto tan importante y rápido desde la muerte de Russell a la actualidad, que resulta muy difícil situarse en el contexto del mundo de la primera mitad del siglo XX y darse cuenta de...more Resulta difícil comentar obras de un filósofo tan trascendente como Bertrand Russell, y esto por varias razones: 1) no me considero ni remotamente capaz de entender toda su obra y pensamiento (principalmente porque no soy científico ni matemático como lo era él); 2) la ciencia y el conocimiento humano han vivido un salto tan importante y rápido desde la muerte de Russell a la actualidad, que resulta muy difícil situarse en el contexto del mundo de la primera mitad del siglo XX y darse cuenta de que muchos postulados de Russell, que hoy nos resultan triviales, en su momento fueron tan revolucionarios como el cuestionamiento de Aristóteles y Ptolomeo en el Renacimiento y la Edad de la Razón. Hoy podemos reírnos de la ingenuidad de Da Vinci, Rousseau, Galileo y otros librepensadores anteriores al siglo XX, pero es muy distinto estar en esa época, enfrentado al enorme poder de la Iglesia y los Estados totalitarios y declarar cosas tan simples como que es bueno estudiar cadáveres para aprender medicina, el poder del Estado proviene de sus ciudadanos o que los planetas giran alrededor del sol.

El libro Por qué no soy cristiano es un compilado de ensayos y publicaciones breves de Russell que se orientan, precisamente, a cuestionar no sólo el cristianismo, sino todo tipo de pensamiento dogmático, el que considera peligroso y oscurantista. Sus dardos no apuntan sólo hacia el catolicismo, sino también hacia el protestantismo, el comunismo, el nazismo, los funcionarios estatales dogmáticos y, en forma indirecta, hacia el judaísmo, los musulmanes, la monarquía y cualquier forma de religión, dogma, creencia o sistema de pensamiento que no desea ser analizada y cuestionada. Una de las bases de su pensamiento radica en que el conocimiento, las leyes y la moral deben basarse en un análisis racional de los hechos y un cuestionamiento permanente a las normas existentes. No cree que la religión haga buenos a los hombres, sino que los hombres son buenos a pesar de la religión, y considera que el dilema de la existencia de Dios es una pregunta que no necesita ser respondida para vivir una vida buena o crear una sociedad justa y más propicia a la felicidad.

Considero que esta obra es de gran interés no sólo para los ateos, agnósticos y librepensadores, sino también para cualquier miembro de alguna doctrina con un mínimo de inteligencia y que tenga dudas respecto a la creencia indiscutible de ciertas normas. Hay hitos que son notables: por ejemplo, Russell se libera de la absurda dicotomía relativismo moral vs. moral absoluta (o ley natural), y postula que el bien es una convención social perfectible a través de la razón; nunca afirma que la moral sea objetiva, pero da a entender que el saber eso es tan innecesario como saber si existe Dios o si hay un mundo de las ideas ajeno al nuestro.

Si mi evaluación del libro no fue de 5, es simplemente porque la compilación no tiene un orden claro (ni cronológico, ni temático, ni de formato), y se salta de ensayos de un año a otro sin ningún orden.(less)

1 like · like · see review

Mar 02, 2011 Toni Daugherty rated it 4 of 5 stars

I think the title is misleading. There are many profound essays in this book and Why I Am Not a Christian is merely one of them & a short one at that.

Many regard Bertrand Russell as a 19th Century Socrates and those who don't, should read this text. His final essay after he was denied a teaching position at City College, prior to his professorship at Harvard, I think is his best essay ever! It is so eloquently written and speaks of liberties, justices, & simple logic, so important to us...more

like · see review

Nov 11, 2010 Scott Hotes rated it 5 of 5 stars

Russell lays out in concise, unemotional fashion how organized religion and Christianity in particular is not only entirely irrational but also hugely destructive. This work could easily serve as the foundation of the "new atheism" movement, and is superior to works such as "The God Delusion" by Dawkins and "God is not Great" by Hitchens for its clarity of thought and lack of distracting vitriol.

This question of the value (and necessity?) of organized religion to society is both complex and fasc...more

2 likes · like · see review

Apr 25, 2009 Rhonda rated it 4 of 5 stars

Shelves: philosophy

This book had a truly profound impact on my teenaged life and principally my wholesale rebellion against God. At the behest of my older brother, I began devouring books on philosophy when I was 12, even though I noticed that I would often receive queer looks from my friends when I mentioned such or quoted from them. My favorite phrase from Russell of all time originates, I think, in this book, a typically snotty English phrase of superiority: "This strikes me as curious." I used this and other R...more This book had a truly profound impact on my teenaged life and principally my wholesale rebellion against God. At the behest of my older brother, I began devouring books on philosophy when I was 12, even though I noticed that I would often receive queer looks from my friends when I mentioned such or quoted from them. My favorite phrase from Russell of all time originates, I think, in this book, a typically snotty English phrase of superiority: "This strikes me as curious." I used this and other Russellian phrases for several years, to the detriment of several friendships more than likely, through my sophomore year in college. For all intents and purposes, I sometimes do miss this era when I was smarter than God.
This was the first book which gave me the courage to become an agnostic rather than the militant atheist I had been beforehand. It was a wonderfully liberating feeling because, after this, I could go about as if I were seriously questioning things without risking open disapproval. Instead of being just another teen miscreant with an attitude, I became an intellectual with an attitude. For some reason, that made me feel better about myself, probably because I thought it might be a hedge against any possible eternal judgment: I could always argue that I had been TRYING to believe.

Many of Russell's criticisms of Christianity are still valid, especially when he talks about religious hypocrisy. On the other hand, some are just a bit silly, like throwing rocks at someone you really don't like and is unable to respond. Hence I think that as seminal as this books is, there is a mean streak at its core. Still these essays are well worth reading, especially to understand the climate of philosophy of the age in which this was written. Besides that, it's as close to readable philosophy as one can get without really getting deeply into it. I think of it as a very good quality white zinfandel, a decent introduction to thinking, but not a place where anyone would want to remain for any length of time.
I tend to think that overall, Russell's best contribution was in the philosophy of science, even though every mind seeking to understand early 20th century philosophy must read Russell, concurrently with Whitehead, Wittgenstein, Moore and even the Italian Peano, responsible for early logical symbolism and the great German logician Frege.
After all, for serious philosophy, there's always Principia Mathematica to peruse after this. It's almost a shame that Godel spoils the conclusions.(less)

3 likes · like · see review

Dec 11, 2012 Sasha rated it 4 of 5 stars

Shelves: favorite-books

My exposure to Russell started after reading contemporary critics of Religion like Dawkins, Hitchens and Harris. I found myself finishing it pretty quick with the cerebral heavy highlighting and incessant note-taking. His arguments concerning the existence of God were discussed in a fashion which I consider a gem of a summary.

After thoroughly sifting through this quick read of Russell's sound of logic, I find the bright light of reason being triumphant over Christian dogma once again. He has dis...more

1 like · like · see review

Jun 12, 2011 Zach rated it 4 of 5 stars

There's no doubt that Bertrant Russel was one of the great minds of the 20th century, but this collection of essays, chosen by the editor to reinforce a theme of secular humanism in the philosopher's work, doesn't function strongly enough as a whole to reveal the depth of that mind. The essays are all good, some excellent, and Russel was indeed a leader in the cause, but secularism is, as a unifying theme, insufficient, and in most of the essays barely present.

The most interesting part of the bo...more

like · see review

Sep 27, 2011 Jean Tessier rated it 5 of 5 stars

Shelves: leisure

Christopher Hitchens references Bertrand Russell a lot. This books seems to be
a good place to start to understand Bertrand Russell.

The book is actually a collection of essays written by Russell over a 55 year
period. I will comment on each one separately.

Why I Am Not a Christian (1927)

Defines what is a Christian. More than just living a good life, it implies a
certain credo that begins with the existence of God. The piece then debunks
the various proofs for the existence of God that have been adv...more

1 like · like · see review

May 26, 2008 Kissiah is currently reading it

OH, MY! Betrand Russell is hitting it, I tell you! This mans candid talk on God--belief--religion--people, etc., is awesome! I find myself underlining quite a few things as I quickly turn the pages. He's unapologetic in his thoughts, his voice, and his reasons for believing what he does--"that religion is a disease born of fear and a source of untold misery." This is definitely not for the faint or lighthearted. He is simply saying it!! Whew!!

1 like · like · see review

Aug 30, 2007 Jo rated it 5 of 5 stars

As I read this, I just kept thinking, "Yes!" The essays are surprisingly easy to digest and use very basic, nearly irrefutable arguments. I was pleasantly surprised to find an essay on Thomas Paine and another on spirituality and sexuality. Both inspired and encouraged me to continue on my own spiritual quest. I'd recommend this book to Christians and non-Christians alike. It makes for very interesting reading.

3 likes · like · see review

Oct 10, 2012 Yann rated it 5 of 5 stars · review of another edition

Shelves: angleterre, religion, philosophie

"Pourquoi je ne suis pas chrétien" est un texte écrit dans les années 1920 par Bertrand Russel, philosophe et logicien anglais. Il y détaille les raisons sur lesquelles il a fondé de son agnosticisme. Il ne croit pas en l'existence d'un Dieu, ni en l'immortalité de l'âme. Pour les points métaphysiques, on ne peut faire aucune assertion définitive dans un sens comme dans un autre, si bien que ces convictions de chacun en ces matières se rattachent en définitive à des sentiments personnels. Non pa...more "Pourquoi je ne suis pas chrétien" est un texte écrit dans les années 1920 par Bertrand Russel, philosophe et logicien anglais. Il y détaille les raisons sur lesquelles il a fondé de son agnosticisme. Il ne croit pas en l'existence d'un Dieu, ni en l'immortalité de l'âme. Pour les points métaphysiques, on ne peut faire aucune assertion définitive dans un sens comme dans un autre, si bien que ces convictions de chacun en ces matières se rattachent en définitive à des sentiments personnels. Non pas à la peur comme l'écrit Russel, mais plutôt me semble-t-il à la sympathie que nous inspire des personnes que nous admirons, et dont nous embrassons naturellement les idées. En lisant le texte de Russel, on voit bien que c'est parce qu'il juge que la religion est en dessous du niveau de ses propres aspirations morales qu'il la rejette, et qu'il propose de l'abandonner pour adopter une meilleure doctrine : selon, lui, la science, grosse d'espérances radieuses.

J'avais déjà noté en lisant "Science et Religion" un autre de ses ouvrages que Russel était assez partial. Même si sa logique et sa clarté sont irréprochables, qu'il allie l'ironie avec le sens de la formule, et que ses intentions sont manifestement hautes et pures, ses arguments sont toujours choisis dans le sens de sa thèse, lorsqu'ils ne sont pas carrément erronés, du fait, je suppose, de son enthousiasme plus que de sa malice. Il est très aisé de trouver des erreurs dans l'histoire de l'Eglise: il suffit de prendre ceux sur lesquelles elle est venu à résipiscence. Mais je trouvais dommage en lisant que ne soient pas non plus cités tous ceux qui ont bien mérité de l'estime de la postérité. Si un arbre se juge à ses fruits, je ne pense pas que ceux de Pierre Abélard, d'Erasme, de Bartholomé Las Casas, ou de Georges Lemaitre soient à mépriser, pour n'en citer que quelques uns qui me viennent à l'esprit. Également, citer les écritures et en critiquer une interprétation purement littérale me semble abusif : dès les débuts du christianisme, et même avant si on pense à Philon d'Alexandrie, il y a eu des travaux d'exégèse qui pouvaient permettre de limiter ce type de dérive. Il semble que Russell a du considérer que ces garde-fous avaient été insuffisants, et que l'humanité souffrirait moins de ses erreurs, si elles provenaient de ses propres lumières plutôt que de celles de ses traditions. Il prend des accents eschatologiques lorsqu'il évoque ce futur radieux où l'homme se sera enfin délivré du mal des religions.

La dernière partie du livre relate les tracas subis par l'auteur quelques années plus tard, lorsqu'au états unis pendant la seconde guerre mondiale, il fut invité à donner des cours de philosophie au College de la ville de New-York. Une véritable cabale fut organisé par l'évêque de la ville pour empêcher cette nomination, assortie de calomnie tout à fait outrageantes, et aboutissant à un procès la lequel le juge rendit une sentence manifestement inique et partiale contre cet homme, accusé d'athéisme et de corruption de la jeunesse, comme un célèbre Athénien avant lui. Il aurait été si facile de répondre aux erreurs d'un livre par un autre livre, plutôt que d'animer un mouvement d'opinion hostile, puis outrager les limites du droit et de la justice. C'est l'intention de nuire qui décide de l'injure ou de la diffamation, et non la délicatesse de chacun. La tolérance n'exclut pas le mépris. Répondre à l'erreur par la bassesse d'une injustice, c'est vraiment déchirer à belles dents les filets confiés à Pierre. Les premiers chrétiens gagnaient les païens à leurs foi par le courage et la fermeté avec laquelle, en butte à des campagnes calomnieuses et des procès iniques, ils témoignaient avec sérénité de leur foi. Comment Russell n'inspirerait-il pas de la sympathie, avec des Anytos pareils ?

(less)

like · see review

Hassiba Bon courage pour cette lecture. Aussi brillant soit il par ailleurs, je ne doute pas(et le résumé me conforte dans cette idée), que Bertrand Russell n...more
Oct 08, 2012 07:47am

Yann Merci pour tes encouragements Hassiba. Je m'interesse à l'apparition du christianisme, en particulier comment et pourquoi il s'est imposé dans le mond...more Merci pour tes encouragements Hassiba. Je m'interesse à l'apparition du christianisme, en particulier comment et pourquoi il s'est imposé dans le monde gréco-romain, à la place du polythéisme. Je ne suis ni pour, ni contre la religion, je cherche juste à comprendre un phénomène complexe et passionnant. Je lis les évangiles en grec, ainsi que la littérature patristique (surtout afrique du nord et moyen-orient). Ca ne me dérange pas de lire des opinions partiales, tranchées, voir même un peu fortes. Si les religieux ne se privent pas d'écrire des exhortations impérieuses et comminatoires, je ne trouve pas mauvais que les agnostiques et les athées montrent les dents à leur tour, quitte à être aussi un peu assertifs et dogmatiques. S'ils ne le faisaient pas, ils pourraient passer pour des gens timorés, pusilanimes et inconséquents. Je viens de finir un livre d'un Alexandrin du IIème siècle contre la religion païenne; il m'a semblé autrement plus corrosif, blasphématoire et dur que les textes des athées modernes contre le christianisme. Il me semble que la différence est bien plus grande entre le polythéisme et le monothéisme, qu'entre le monothéisme et l'athéisme, et qu'il y a paradoxalement beaucoup de similitudes entre les athées modernes et les premiers chrétiens d'afrique du nord.

Je viens juste de commencer à lire la préface. En ce qui concerne les opinions de Russel, il était agnostique, mais penchait probablement vers l'athéisme. On ne peut pas nier qu'un certain nombre d'actes immoraux ont été commis au nom de telle ou telle croyance religieuse: les exemples sont trop nombreux pour commencer à en faire une liste fastidieuse. Il reste très ferme sur le fait que la religion ne peut se poser comme critère de vérité face à la science, pour ce qui est des connaissances de la nature: c'était le thème d'un de ses livres que j'ai lu recemment, Science et religion. Par contre, il reconnaît le rôle positif de la religion dans le domaine des sentiments, en particulier dans ce qu'elle peut inspirer comme amour du prochain. Il me semble comme toi qu'il est peut-être un peu trop partial, mais c'est la nature polémique de l'ouvrage qui le veut. Et je suis bien d'accord avec toi sur le fait qu'il est tout à fait possible d'être libre penseur et théiste. Mon opinion est que Russel, qui a reçu une éducation religieuse stricte, en a concu par la suite une aversion profonde, et par altruisme, a voulu aider d'autre à s'en défaire puisqu'il en avait souffert lui-même.(less)
Oct 08, 2012 09:14am

« previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 … 99 100 next »

new topic
Discuss This Book

topics	posts	views	last activity
The Hitler button	6	36	Aug 05, 2012 09:53am

combine
Other Editions (36)

More editions...

Genres

Non Fiction

70 users

Philosophy

55 users

Writing > Essays

50 users

Religion > Christianity

18 users

Science

16 users

Religion > Theology

14 users

Politics

10 users

Spirituality

10 users

Religion

8 users

History

7 users

See top shelves...

Readers also enjoyed similar books

About Bertrand Russell

Bertrand Arthur William Russell, 3rd Earl Russell, OM, FRS, was a Welsh philosopher, historian, logician, mathematician, advocate for social reform, pacifist, and prominent rationalist. Although he was usually regarded as English, as he spent the majority of his life in England, he was born in Wales, where he also died.

He was awarded the Nobel Prize in Literature in 1950 "in recognition of his var...more

More about Bertrand Russell...

Books by Bertrand Russell

More…

Share This Book

Facebook Twitter Your website

Trivia About Why I Am Not a Ch...

No trivia or quizzes yet. Add some now »

Quotes from Why I Am Not a Christi...

“We want to stand upon our own feet and look fair and square at the world - its good facts, its bad facts, its beauties, and its ugliness; see the world as it is and not be afraid of it. Conquer the world by intelligence and not merely by being slavishly subdued by the terror that comes from it. The whole conception of God is a conception derived from the ancient Oriental despotisms. It is a conception quite unworthy of free men. When you hear people in church debasing themselves and saying that they are miserable sinners, and all the rest of it, it seems contemptible and not worthy of self-respecting human beings. We ought to stand up and look the world frankly in the face. We ought to make the best we can of the world, and if it is not so good as we wish, after all it will still be better than what these others have made of it in all these ages. A good world needs knowledge, kindliness, and courage; it does not need a regretful hankering after the past or a fettering of the free intelligence by words uttered long ago by ignorant men. It needs a fearless outlook and free intelligence. It needs hope for the future, not looking back all the time toward a past that is dead, which we trust will be far surpassed by the future that our intelligence can create.” — 41 people liked it

“The world that I should wish to see would be one freed from the virulence of group hostilities and capable of realizing that happiness for all is to be derived rather from co-operation than from strife. I should wish to see a world in which education aimed at mental freedom rather than imprisoning the minds of the young in rigid armor of dogma calculated to protect them through life against the shafts of impartial evidence.” — 37 people liked it

More quotes…

title link	preview: Why I Am Not a Christian and Other Essays on Religion and Related Subjects
avg rating	preview: Why I Am Not a Christian and Other Essays on Religion and Related Subjects Goodreads rating: 3.98 (7875 ratings)
small image	preview: click here [close]
med image	preview: click here [close]
BBCode	[url=http://www.goodreads.com/book/show/472025.Why_I_Am_Not_a_Christian_and_Other_Essays_on_Religion_and_Related_Subjects?utm_medium=api&utm_source=blog_book][img]http://d.gr-assets.com/books/1347925703l/472025.jpg[/img][/url] [url=http://www.goodreads.com/book/show/472025.Why_I_Am_Not_a_Christian_and_Other_Essays_on_Religion_and_Related_Subjects?utm_medium=api&utm_source=blog_book]Why I Am Not a Christian and Other Essays on Religion and Related Subjects by Bertrand Russell[/url]

Why I Am Not a Christian and Other Essays on Religion and Related Subjects

Friend Reviews

Community Reviews

Share This Book

Share This Book on Your Website