Russell: Why I Am Not a Theist

Bertrand Russell: “Why I Am Not a Theist” The First-Cause Argument (P1) For everything in the world, there is some cause. (P2) Nothing can cause itself. (P3) Therefore if the first thing in a series does not exist, nothing in the series exists. (P6) The series of causes cannot extend ad infinitum into the past, for then there would be no things existing now. (C) Therefore it is necessary to admit a first cause, and this cause is God.

The Natural Law Argument (P1) The universe obeys certain laws. (P2) The laws of biology depend on the laws of chemistry, which depend on the laws of physics, which depend on the laws of mathematics, which depend on the laws of logic… (P3) If the universe were merely accidental, there is no reason it should obey orderly principles, or any principles at all. (C) Therefore the universe is not accidental, and there is some law-giver. This law-giver is God. Notes Religion no longer ignores science. Although fundamental Christianity rallies against evolutionary theory, it must accept many of the findings of the sciences. With the natural law argument, it turns these findings to its own advantage. <ARGUMENT> We can easily imagine a world where the laws of biology, chemistry, or even physics were different. But it is difficult to imagine a world where the laws of mathematics or logic were different—they do not depend on any particular matter. How does the atheist account for the existence and orderliness of mathematics and logic? Russell’s Rebuttal Many “natural laws” are really human conventions, so we can disregard these. When you get down to basic physics, we generally don’t find laws, but probabilities. - If a pair of dice came up 6/6 every time, we might call that design; what we have is chance. 3. The notion of natural laws requiring a law-giver confuses the notions of natural laws and human laws. - Human laws are prescriptive; natural laws are descriptive. - We cannot assume that because things do behave some way that someone told them to. 4. We might ask, why did God issue just those laws, and not others? - Either: (a) He did it for pleasure and not for any reason, and so we have something not subject to laws, which requires further explanation; - or (b) He had reasons, in which case it seems God is subject to laws, and so these had to be prior to God. - (We can’t even imagine God contradicting the laws of mathematics of logic.)

Modern (“Teleological”) Argument (P1) X is too complex/orderly/purposeful/beautiful to have occurred randomly or accidentally. (P2) Therefore, X must have been created by some sentient/intelligent/wise/purposeful being. (P3) That being is God. (C) Therefore God exists.

Argument from Design (Russell’s Version) Everything in the world is made just so that we can manage to live in the world, and if the world was ever so little different, we could not manage to live in it. <ARGUMENT> Notes Sort of an argument of fitness-for-survival—but such that all things are fit for human survival. e.g. Rabbits have white tails to make them easier to shoot. Russell’s Rebuttal Following Darwin, it seems rather than the environment having been designed to suit us, creatures (including us) adapt to the environment.. - There simply is no evidence of design in any of this.. 2. The problem of evil: Is this world the best that omniscience and omnipotence could produce? - Human evils: the KKK, Fascists… <can be explained away as “free will”>. - <Natural evils: typhoons, diseases, etc.—Given the amount of evil in the world, it seems much more likely that the world was created by an evil God.> - It seems clear that Earth and the universe in general is headed towards death, and that life on Earth is only going to get a relatively short window.

Moral Arguments for Deity (Kant) (P1) Human virtue, in its purest form, consists in denying one’s own happiness for the benefit of others. (P2) The highest good consists in the distribution of happiness to all people (according to their virtue). (P3) But man, on his own, is unlikely to bring about this highest good. (P4) This end being likely unattainable, acting morally seems to be irrational. (P5) To save morality from meaninglessness, we must postulate some other source for meaning in morality. (C) This source (Kant believes) is God. <ARGUMENT> Notes Overall Question: On what basis do we postulate a distinction between right and wrong? Theistic Answer: God. Russell’s Rebuttal Version of the Euthyphro: If God created the distinction between right and wrong, then for God himself there is no difference between right and wrong (he stipulated it). - If this is true, it makes no sense to say God is good. - If you want to say that God is good, then “good” must have some independent meaning. - Std. Euthyphro: Is piety loved by the gods because it is pious, or it it pious because it is loved by the gods? 2. We might also ask: If morality comes from God—is hardwired into us—why is there so much moral disagreement?

Argument for the Remedying of Injustice If there is to be justice in the world, there must be some punishment and reward system beyond this world, for in this world the good often suffer, and the wicked often prosper. So, there must be a God, a heaven, and a hell to redress the balance on Earth.