Why I Am Not a Christian.docx

Why I Am Not a Christian.docx

《Why I Am Not a Christian.docx》由会员分享，可在线阅读，更多相关《Why I Am Not a Christian.docx（10页珍藏版）》请在冰豆网上搜索。

WhyIAmNotaChristian

Haldeman-JuliusPublications

Girard,Kansas

Copyright,1929,

ByHaldeman-JulliusCompany

PrintedintheUnitedStatesofAmerica

WhyIAmNotaChristian

AnExaminationoftheGod-IdeaandChristianity

[ThelecturethatisherepresentedwasdeliveredattheBatterseaTownHallundertheauspicesoftheSouthLondonBranchoftheNationalSecularSociety,England.ItshouldbeaddedthattheeditoriswillingtosharefullresponsibilitywiththeHon.BertrandRussellinthatheisinaccordwiththepoliticalandotheropinionsexpressed.][Thepreviousstatementwasincludedintheoriginal,andisnotmadebyPositiveAtheism.]

Asyourchairmanhastoldyou,thesubjectaboutwhichIamgoingtospeaktoyoutonightis"WhyIAmNotaChristian."Perhapsitwouldbeaswell,firstofall,totrytomakeoutwhatonemeansbytheword"Christian."Itisusedinthesedaysinaveryloosesensebyagreatmanypeople.Somepeoplemeannomorebyitthanapersonwhoattemptstoliveagoodlife.InthatsenseIsupposetherewouldbeChristiansinallsectsandcreeds;butIdonotthinkthatthatisthepropersenseoftheword,ifonlybecauseitwouldimplythatallthepeoplewhoarenotChristians--alltheBuddhists,Confucians,Mohammedans,andsoon--arenottryingtoliveagoodlife.IdonotmeanbyaChristiananypersonwhotriestolivedecentlyaccordingtohislights.IthinkthatyoumusthaveacertainamountofdefinitebeliefbeforeyouhavearighttocallyourselfaChristian.Theworddoesnothavequitesuchafull-bloodedmeaningnowasithadinthetimesofSt.AugustineandSt.ThomasAquinas.Inthosedays,ifamansaidthathewasaChristianitwasknownwhathemeant.Youacceptedawholecollectionofcreedswhichweresetoutwithgreatprecision,andeverysinglesyllableofthosecreedsyoubelievedwiththewholestrengthofyourconvictions.

WhatisaChristian?

Nowadaysitisnotquitethat.WehavetobealittlemorevagueinourmeaningofChristianity.Ithink,however,thattherearetwodifferentitemswhicharequiteessentialtoanyonecallinghimselfaChristian.Thefirstisoneofadogmaticnature--namely,thatyoumustbelieveinGodandimmortality.Ifyoudonotbelieveinthosetwothings,IdonotthinkthatyoucanproperlycallyourselfaChristian.Then,furtherthanthat,asthenameimplies,youmusthavesomekindofbeliefaboutChrist.TheMohammedans,forinstance,alsobelieveinGodandimmortality,andyettheywouldnotcallthemselvesChristians.IthinkyoumusthaveattheverylowestthebeliefthatChristwas,ifnotdivine,atleastthebestandwisestofmen.IfyouarenotgoingtobelievethatmuchaboutChrist,IdonotthinkthatyouhaveanyrighttocallyourselfaChristian.Ofcourse,thereisanothersensewhichyoufindinWhitaker'sAlmanackandingeographybooks,wherethepopulationoftheworldissaidtobedividedintoChristians,Mohammedans,Buddhists,fetishworshipers,andsoon;butinthatsenseweareallChristians.Thegeographybookscountsusallin,butthatisapurelygeographicalsense,whichIsupposewecanignore.ThereforeItakeitthatwhenItellyouwhyIamnotaChristianIhavetotellyoutwodifferentthings:

first,whyIdonotbelieveinGodandinimmortality;and,secondly,whyIdonotthinkthatChristwasthebestandwisestofmen,althoughIgranthimaveryhighdegreeofmoralgoodness.

Butforthesuccessfuleffortsofunbelieversinthepast,IcouldnottakesoelasticadefinitionofChristianityasthat.AsIsaidbefore,intheoldendaysithadamuchmorefull-bloodedsense.Forinstance,itincludedthebeliefinhell.BeliefineternalhellfirewasanessentialitemofChristianbeliefuntilprettyrecenttimes.Inthiscountry,asyouknow,itceasedtobeanessentialitembecauseofadecisionofthePrivyCouncil,andfromthatdecisiontheArchbishopofCanterburyandtheArchbishopofYorkdissented;butinthiscountryourreligionissettledbyActofParliament,andthereforethePrivyCouncilwasabletooverridetheirGracesandhellwasnolongernecessarytoaChristian.ConsequentlyIshallnotinsistthataChristianmustbelieveinhell.

TheExistenceOfGod

TocometothisquestionoftheexistenceofGod,itisalargeandseriousquestion,andifIweretoattempttodealwithitinanyadequatemannerIshouldhavetokeepyouhereuntilKingdomCome,sothatyouwillhavetoexcusemeifIdealwithitinasomewhatsummaryfashion.Youknow,ofcourse,thattheCatholicChurchhaslaiditdownasadogmathattheexistenceofGodcanbeprovedbytheunaidedreason.Thisisasomewhatcuriousdogma,butitisoneoftheirdogmas.TheyhadtointroduceitbecauseatonetimetheFreethinkersadoptedthehabitofsayingthatthereweresuchandsuchargumentswhichmerereasonmighturgeagainsttheexistenceofGod,butofcoursetheyknewasamatteroffaiththatGoddidexist.Theargumentsandthereasonsweresetoutatgreatlength,andtheCatholicChurchfeltthattheymuststopit.ThereforetheylaiditdownthattheexistenceofGodcanbeprovedbytheunaidedreason,andtheyhadtosetupwhattheyconsideredwereargumentstoproveit.Thereare,ofcourse,anumberofthem,butIshalltakeonlyafew.

TheFirstCauseArgument

PerhapsthesimplestandeasiesttounderstandistheargumentoftheFirstCause.Itismaintainedthateverythingweseeinthisworldhasacause,andasyougobackinthechainofcausesfurtherandfurtheryoumustcometoaFirstCause,andtothatFirstCauseyougivethenameofGod.Thatargument,Isuppose,doesnotcarryverymuchweightnowadays,because,inthefirstplace,causeisnotquitewhatitusedtobe.Thephilosophersandthemenofsciencehavegotgoingoncause,andithasnotanythinglikethevitalitythatitusedtohave;butapartfromthat,youcanseethattheargumentthattheremustbeaFirstCauseisonethatcannothaveanyvalidity.ImaysaythatwhenIwasayoungman,andwasdebatingthesequestionsveryseriouslyinmymind,IforalongtimeacceptedtheargumentoftheFirstCause,untiloneday,attheageofeighteen,IreadJohnStuartMill'sAutobiography,andItherefoundthissentence:

"Myfathertaughtmethatthequestion,Whomademe?

cannotbeanswered,sinceitimmediatelysuggeststhefurtherquestion,WhomadeGod?

"Thatverysimplesentenceshowedme,asIstillthink,thefallacyintheargumentoftheFirstCause.Ifeverythingmusthaveacause,thenGodmusthaveacause.Iftherecanbeanythingwithoutacause,itmayjustaswellbetheworldasGod,sothattherecannotbeanyvalidityinthatargument.ItisexactlyofthesamenatureastheHindu'sview,thattheworldresteduponanelephant,andtheelephantresteduponatortoise;andwhentheysaid,"Howaboutthetortoise?

"theIndiansaid,"Supposewechangethesubject."Theargumentisreallynobetterthanthat.Thereisnoreasonwhytheworldcouldnothavecomeintobeingwithoutacause;nor,ontheotherhand,isthereanyreasonwhyitshouldnothavealwaysexisted.Thereisnoreasontosupposethattheworldhadabeginningatall.Theideathatthingsmusthaveabeginningisreallyduetothepovertyofourimagination.Therefore,perhaps,IneednotwasteanymoretimeupontheargumentabouttheFirstCause.

TheNatural-LawArgument

ThenthereisaverycommonargumentfromNaturalLaw.Thatwasafavoriteargumentallthroughtheeighteenthcentury,especiallyundertheinfluenceofSirIsaacNewtonandhiscosmogony.Peopleobservedtheplanetsgoingaroundthesunaccordingtothelawofgravitation,andtheythoughtthatGodhadgivenabehesttotheseplanetstomoveinthatparticularfashion,andthatwaswhytheydidso.Thatwas,ofcourse,aconvenientandsimpleexplanationthatsavedthemthetroubleoflookinganyfurtherforanyexplanationofthelawofgravitation.NowadaysweexplainthelawofgravitationinasomewhatcomplicatedfashionthatEinsteinhasintroduced.Idonotproposetogiveyoualectureonthelawofgravitation,asinterpretedbyEinstein,becausethatagainwouldtakesometime;atanyrate,younolongerhavethesortofNaturalLawthatyouhadintheNewtoniansystem,where,forsomereasonthatnobodycouldunderstand,naturebehavedinauniformfashion.WenowfindthatagreatmanythingswethoughtwereNaturalLawsarereallyhumanconventions.Youknowthatevenintheremotestdepthofstellarspacetherearestillthreefeettoayard.Thatis,nodoubt,averyremarkablefact,butyouwouldhardlycallitalawofnature.Andagreatmanythingsthathavebeenregardedaslawsofnatureareofthatkind.Ontheotherhand,whereyoucangetdowntoanyknowledgeofwhatatomsactuallydo,youwillfindthattheyaremuchlesssubjecttolawthanpeoplethought,andthatthelawsatwhichyouarrivearestatisticalaveragesofjustthesortthatwouldemergefromchance.Thereis,asweallknow,alawthatifyouthrowdiceyouwillgetdoublesixesonlyaboutonceinthirty-sixtimes,andwedonotregardthatasevidencethatthefallofthediceisregulatedbydesign;onthecontrary,ifthedoublesixescameeverytimeweshouldthinkthattherewasdesign.Thelawsofnatureareofthatsortasregardstoagreatmanyofthem.Theyarestatisticalaveragessuchaswouldemergefromthelawsofchance;andthatmakesthewholebusinessofnaturallawmuchlessimpressivethanitformerlywas.Quiteapartfromthat,whichrepresentsthemomentarystateofsciencethatmaychangetomorrow,thewholeideathatnaturallawsimplyalaw-giverisduetoaconfusionbetweennaturalandhumanlaws.Humanlawsarebehestscommandingyoutobehaveacertain