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