Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site cybvax0.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!decvax!genrad!mit-eddie!cybvax0!mrh
From: mrh@cybvax0.UUCP (Mike Huybensz)
Newsgroups: net.religion
Subject: Re: Why Bertrand Russell was not a Christian
Message-ID: <191@cybvax0.UUCP>
Date: Thu, 18-Oct-84 00:29:45 EDT
Article-I.D.: cybvax0.191
Posted: Thu Oct 18 00:29:45 1984
Date-Received: Fri, 19-Oct-84 06:35:40 EDT
References: <382@umcp-cs.UUCP>
Organization: Cybermation, Inc., Cambridge, MA
Lines: 32

> ...  Russell's arguments
> ultimately boil down to his resentment of christianity for things that
> people did in its name; the "logical" arguments are nothing more than
> rationalizations.
> 
> It has become popular to shoot at christianity for the things which people
> who were not very good christians have done. If this standard were
> universally applied, we could just as easily condemn atheism, or Taoism,
> or anything else...
> 
>   Charley  Wingate   
> "My wings are like a shield of steel."

Evidently your wings must cover your eyes.  While BR writes for a Christian
audience, and so uses Christian examples, in the preface of my edition he
writes:

"...I am as firmly convinced that religions do harm as I am that they are
untrue... [ommitted list of evils of religions]... The above evils are
independent of the particular creed in question and exist equally in all
creeds which are held dogmatically...."

BR makes those same points repeatedly through the text.

Now, why don't you show how his arguments in the title essay under the
headings "The First Cause Argument", "The Natural Law Argument", and
"The argument From Design" are just rationalizations of his dislike for
Christianity , as you suggest above?

-- 

Mike Huybensz				...mit-eddie!cybvax0!mrh