Vous voulez voir cette page en français ? Cliquez ici.


or
Sign in to turn on 1-Click ordering.
or
Amazon Prime Free Trial required. Sign up when you check out. Learn More
More Buying Choices
Have one to sell? Sell yours here
Tell the Publisher!
I'd like to read this book on Kindle

Don't have a Kindle? Get your Kindle here, or download a FREE Kindle Reading App.

Why I Am Not a Christian: And Other Essays on Religion and Related Subjects [Paperback]

Bertrand Russell
4.0 out of 5 stars  See all reviews (120 customer reviews)
List Price: CDN$ 17.50
Price: CDN$ 12.64 & FREE Shipping on orders over CDN$ 25. Details
You Save: CDN$ 4.86 (28%)
o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o
Only 4 left in stock (more on the way).
Ships from and sold by Amazon.ca. Gift-wrap available.
Want it delivered Tuesday, April 22? Choose One-Day Shipping at checkout.

Formats

Amazon Price New from Used from
Hardcover --  
Paperback CDN $12.64  
Unknown Binding --  

Book Description

Oct. 30 1967
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 work as philosopher, writer, and teacher has been famous. These qualities make the essays included in this book perhaps the most graceful and moving presentation of the freethinker's position since the days of Hume and Voltaire.

"I am as firmly convinced that religions do harm as I am that they are untrue," Russell declares in his Preface, and his reasoned opposition to any system or dogma which he feels may shackle man's mind runs through all the essays in this book, whether they were written as early as 1899 or as late as 1954.

The book has been edited, with Lord Russell's full approval and cooperation, by Professor Paul Edwards of the Philosophy Department of New York University. In an Appendix, Professor Edwards contributes a full account of the highly controversial "Bertrand Russell Case" of 1940, in which Russell was judicially declared "unfit" to teach philosophy at the College of the City of New York.

Whether the reader shares or rejects Bertrand Russell's views, he will find this book an invigorating challenge to set notions, a masterly statement of a philosophical position, and a pure joy to read.


Frequently Bought Together

Why I Am Not a Christian: And Other Essays on Religion and Related Subjects + History of Western Philosophy + The Problems of Philosophy
Price For All Three: CDN$ 35.21

Some of these items ship sooner than the others. Show details

  • In Stock.
    Ships from and sold by Amazon.ca.
    FREE Shipping on orders over CDN$ CDN$ 25. Details

  • History of Western Philosophy CDN$ 18.17

    In Stock.
    Ships from and sold by Amazon.ca.
    FREE Shipping on orders over CDN$ CDN$ 25. Details

  • The Problems of Philosophy CDN$ 4.40

    Usually ships within 3 to 5 weeks.
    Ships from and sold by Amazon.ca.
    FREE Shipping on orders over CDN$ CDN$ 25. Details


Customers Who Bought This Item Also Bought


Product Details


Product Description

Review

Devastating in its use of cold logic. - The Independent


The most robust as well as the most witty infidel since Voltaire and he can not fail to sharpen mens sense of what is entailed both in belief and unbelief. - The Spectator


What makes the book valuable is life-long uncompromising intellectual honesty. - Times Literary Supplement

--This text refers to an alternate Paperback edition.

Excerpt. © Reprinted by permission. All rights reserved.

Chapter 1

Why I Am Not a Christian

This lecture was delivered on March 6, 1927, at Battersea Town Hail under the auspices of the South London Branch of the National Secular Society.

As your Chairman has told you, the subject about which I am going to speak to you tonight is "Why I Am Not a Christian." Perhaps it would be as well, first of all, to try to make out what one means by the word Christian. It is used these days in a very loose sense by a great many people. Some people mean no more by it than a person who attempts to live a good life. In that sense I suppose there would be Christians in all sects and creeds; but I do not think that that is the proper sense of the word, if only because it would imply that all the people who are not Christians -- all the Buddhists, Confucians, Mohammedans, and so on -- are not trying to live a good life. I do not mean by a Christian any person who tries to live decently according to his lights. I think that you must have a certain amount of definite belief before you have a right to call yourself a Christian. The word does not have quite such a full-blooded meaning now as it had in the times of St. Augustine and St. Thomas Aquinas. In those days, if a man said that he was a Christian it was known what he meant. You accepted a whole collection of creeds which were set out with great precision, and every single syllable of those creeds you believed with the whole strength of your convictions.

What Is a Christian?

Nowadays it is not quite that. We have to be a little more vague in our meaning of Christianity. I think, however, that there are two different items which are quite essential to anybody calling himself a Christian. The first is one of a dogmatic nature -- namely, that you must believe in God and immortality. If you do not believe in those two things, I do not think that you can properly call yourself a Christian. Then, further than that, as the name implies, you must have some kind of belief about Christ. The Mohammedans, for instance, also believe in God and in immortality, and yet they would not call themselves Christians. I think you must have at the very lowest the belief that Christ was, if not divine, at least the best and wisest of men. If you are not going to believe that much about Christ, I do not think you have any right to call yourself a Christian. Of course, there is another sense, which you find in Whitaker's Almanack and in geography books, where the population of the world is said to be divided into Christians, Mohammedans, Buddhists, fetish worshipers, and so on; and in that sense we are all Christians. The geography books count us all in, but that is a purely geographical sense, which I suppose we can ignore. Therefore I take it that when I tell you why I am not a Christian I have to tell you two different things: first, why I do not believe in God and in immortality; and, secondly, why I do not think that Christ was the best and wisest of men, although I grant him a very high degree of moral goodness.

But for the successful efforts of unbelievers in the past, I could not take so elastic a definition of Christianity as that. As I said before, in olden days it had a much more full-blooded sense. For instance, it included the belief in hell. Belief in eternal hell-fire was an essential item of Christian belief until pretty recent times. In this country, as you know, it ceased to be an essential item because of a decision of the Privy Council, and from that decision the Archbishop of Canterbury and the Archbishop of York dissented; but in this country our religion is settled by Act of Parliament, and therefore the Privy Council was able to override their Graces and hell was no longer necessary to a Christian. Consequently I shall not insist that a Christian must believe in hell.

The Existence of God

To come to this question of the existence of God: it is a large and serious question, and if I were to attempt to deal with it in any adequate manner I should have to keep you here until Kingdom Come, so that you will have to excuse me if I deal with it in a somewhat summary fashion. You know, of course, that the Catholic Church has laid it down as a dogma that the existence of God can be proved by the unaided reason. That is a somewhat curious dogma, but it is one of their dogmas. They had to introduce it because at one time the freethinkers adopted the habit of saying that there were such and such arguments which mere reason might urge against the existence of God, but of course they knew as a matter of faith that God did exist. The arguments and the reasons were set out at great length, and the Catholic Church felt that they must stop it. Therefore they laid it down that the existence of God can be proved by the unaided reason and they had to set up what they considered were arguments to prove it. There are, of course, a number of them, but I shall take only a few.

The First-cause Argument

Perhaps the simplest and easiest to understand is the argument of the First Cause. (It is maintained that everything we see in this world has a cause, and as you go back in the chain of causes further and further you must come to a First Cause, and to that First Cause you give the name of God.) That argument, I suppose, does not carry very much weight nowadays, because, in the first place, cause is not quite what it used to be. The philosophers and the men of science have got going on cause, and it has not anything like the vitality it used to have; but, apart from that, you can see that the argument that there must be a First Cause is one that cannot have any validity. I may say that when I was a young man and was debating these questions very seriously in my mind, I for a long time accepted the argument of the First Cause, until one day, at the age of eighteen, I read John Stuart Mill's Autobiography, and I there found this sentence: "My father taught me that the question 'Who made me?' cannot be answered, since it immediately suggests the further question 'Who made God?'" That very simple sentence showed me, as I still think, the fallacy in the argument of the First Cause. If everything must have a cause, then God must have a cause. If there can be anything without a cause, it may just as well be the world as God, so that there cannot be any validity in that argument. It is exactly of the same nature as the Hindu's view, that the world rested upon an elephant and the elephant rested upon a tortoise; and when they said, "How about the tortoise?" the Indian said, "Suppose we change the subject." The argument is really no better than that. There is no reason why the world could not have come into being without a cause; nor, on the other hand, is there any reason why it should not have always existed. There is no reason to suppose that the world had a beginning at all. The idea that things must have a beginning is really due to the poverty of our imagination. Therefore, perhaps, I need not waste any more time upon the argument about the First Cause.

The Natural-law Argument

Then there is a very common argument from natural law. That was a favorite argument all through the eighteenth century, especially under the influence of Sir Isaac Newton and his cosmogony. People observed the planets going around the sun according to the law of gravitation, and they thought that God had given a behest to these planets to move in that particular fashion, and that was why they did so. That was, of course, a convenient and simple explanation that saved them the trouble of looking any further for explanations of the law of gravitation. Nowadays we explain the law of gravitation in a somewhat complicated fashion that Einstein has introduced. I do not propose to give you a lecture on the law of gravitation, as interpreted by Einstein, because that again would take some time; at any rate, you no longer have the sort of natural law that you had in the Newtonian system, where, for some reason that nobody could understand, nature behaved in a uniform fashion. We now find that a great many things we thought were natural laws are really human conventions. You know that even in the remotest depths of stellar space there are still three feet to a yard. That is, no doubt, a very remarkable fact, but you would hardly call it a law of nature. And a great many things that have been regarded as laws of nature are of that kind. On the other hand, where you can get down to any knowledge of what atoms actually do, you will find they are much less subject to law than people thought, and that the laws at which you arrive are statistical averages of just the sort that would emerge from chance. There is, as we all know, a law that if you throw dice you will get double sixes only about once in thirty-six times, and we do not regard that as evidence that the fall of the dice is regulated by design; on the contrary, if the double sixes came every time we should think that there was design. The laws of nature are of that sort as regards a great many of them. They are statistical averages such as would emerge from the laws of chance; and that makes this whole business of natural law much less impressive than k formerly was. Quite apart from that, which represents the momentary state of science that may change tomorrow, the wh...


Inside This Book (Learn More)
First Sentence
AS YOUR Chairman has told you, the subject about which I am going to speak to you tonight is "Why I Am Not a Christian." Read the first page
Explore More
Concordance
Browse Sample Pages
Front Cover | Copyright | Table of Contents | Excerpt | Index | Back Cover
Search inside this book:

Sell a Digital Version of This Book in the Kindle Store

If you are a publisher or author and hold the digital rights to a book, you can sell a digital version of it in our Kindle Store. Learn more

What Other Items Do Customers Buy After Viewing This Item?


Customer Reviews

Most helpful customer reviews
6 of 6 people found the following review helpful
5.0 out of 5 stars If you're reading this review -- Buy this book Feb. 22 2004
By "efoff"
Format:Paperback
Unbelievable. That is the only word for the negative reviews....If you don't want anything other than a good laugh, sort these reviews with the most negative first. Who do these people think they are, calling Bertrand Russell a "fool" and a "hack"? And do those reviewers who cite to Acts of the Apostles and Paul's letter to Romans, the Epistles to Timothy et al, do they really think that is "evidence" to refute Mr. Russell's positions?
Many years ago, during my first year in college, my humanities teaching assistant explained to our little section that there are basically two writing styles: Kant and Russell. Russell worked hard to write clearly, and consequently, readers of his works are able to chart the inconsistentcies and changes in his philosophy over time. Kant's style, on the other hand, was to write in such a manner that no one in their right mind could be certain what Kant was trying to say. As a result, everyone today still believes Kant to be brilliant. Our section was to strive to be Russell, and not Kant (The sucess of our striving was largely mixed and debatable, but that is beside the point).
Russell is a good writer--and this book adresses the subject. For me (and I am speaking only for myself here--I'm not calling anyone a fool or a pervert or trying to create a strawman. If you think I am, my e-mail address is available, so please write me--if you care. I'll edit this review), this book addresses Blaise Pacal's rationale for "faith:" If you believe in the christian god, and there is no god--you really have not lost anything. But if you do not believe in the christian god (or whatever system of beliefs is at issue), and it turns out to be "true"--why, you've lost a whole big bunch, swimming around in that lake of fire.....
Read more ›
Was this review helpful to you?
4 of 4 people found the following review helpful
4.0 out of 5 stars Confrontational and controversial March 25 2004
Format:Paperback
I admit that reading a book with the title "Why I am Not a Christian" on the bus while to my right a fellow traveler studied the New Testament made me feel quite ill at ease. The title seems to suggest that the author is an argumentative dissenter - and the reader by implication too, since he seems to enjoy this kind of literature.
Then, why read a collection of essays that are for the most part over 70 years old?
Firstly, for the clear style and the straightforward logic of Russell. He does not beat about the bush: "My own view on religion is that of Lucretius [a Roman philosopher of the first century BC, author of "On the Nature of the Universe"]. I regard it as a disease born of fear and as a source of untold misery to the human race."(24). This statement sums it up nicely for Bertrand Russell; and as expected, Russell's answer to the questions in the titles of the essays "Has Religion made useful Contributions to Civilization?" (1930), "Do we survive Death?" (1936), and "Can Religion Cure our Troubles?" (1954) is a resounding NO.
Secondly, as a warning how overly optimistic we tend to be when it comes to improving human beings by scientific means. Today, some people think that humans can be genetically "improved". In the 1930s, some people - including Russell - thought "that hatred and fear can, with our present psychological knowledge and our present industrial technique, be eliminated altogether from human life."(45) Well, three quarters of a century later we still live in a time of hatred and fear.
Thirdly, for the often unusual and surprising angle from which Russell looks at the seemingly familiar. Take the Renaissance and the French writer Michel de Montaigne (1533-1592), for example.
Read more ›
Was this review helpful to you?
3 of 3 people found the following review helpful
5.0 out of 5 stars The Best I Have Read Yet Sept. 8 2003
By Rain
Format:Paperback
In my opinion there is no other book ever written so well, so put together, so accurate, and so passionate. This book will make any Christian/Catholic question there beliefs, and also if there beliefs are truly morally right. This book is sort of a moral code for non-believers, and with the bleakest of beliefs one may believe we have, this book gives us hope. If is a sort of moral guide, 'based by knowledge and guided by love' as he would say. You will find no better collection of essays and quotable paragraphs anywhere. Though it is not a scientific book, and doesn't have much information on evolution and biology, it uses mere logic to provide it's reader with a flawless argument against Christianity, without basis, and with pure honesty. Bertrand Russell was greatly admired by Albert Einstein, and is brilliant, poetic, and a friendly kind person. Where most non-religious authors tend to be crude, blunt, arrogant, and quite heartless, Bertrand Russell approaches the issues with grace and ease. This is a very wonderful book, uplifting, and a glorious read.
Was this review helpful to you?
9 of 11 people found the following review helpful
5.0 out of 5 stars The Scourge of Faith April 19 2004
Format:Paperback
Christianity or a belief in God has been doing so much harm to the world that one barely knows where to begin when discussing the issue. Of course all of this applies equally as well to all other religious faiths.
The magnificent intellectual Bertrand Russell more than meets the task of unmasking supersticious nonsense such as a belief in God and an afterlife in this classic work, which should be required reading for all those who wake up early each Sunday and proudly trudge off to one or another house of worship. Freethinkers should be rejoicing given that over the last few decades church attendance has been in a steady decline. That these most successful cults in world history are suffering in membership is cause for celebration.
Russell points out that most people believe in God simply because they have been taught from infancy to do so. Also during troubling times a spiritual belief gives them the reassuring feeling of an older brother type figure watching over them. It is emotional rather than scientific reasons that lead people to make this leap of faith. Sometimes one wonders why these dutiful Christians hold Jesus in such high regard given some of his more sadistic views. Why I Am Not a Christian is loaded with insightful quotes from Jesus demonstrating his more sadistic side such as everlasting punishment and turning family members against one another.
Russell demolishes the well worn First-cause argument by logically reducing it to the question of "Who made God?". He points out the leap of faith involved when someone believes in God.
Read more ›
Was this review helpful to you?
Want to see more reviews on this item?
Most recent customer reviews
5.0 out of 5 stars An honest discussion
I admire Bertrand for his other volumes like "the history of Western Philosophy". I really wanted to hear his take on why he rejects Christianity and I was not... Read more
Published 16 months ago by Harold Wise
3.0 out of 5 stars Inferior Philosophy Bitterly Communicated
Bertrand Russell’s Why I am not a Christian is not as intellectually forceful as I expected it to be. Read more
Published 17 months ago by Gaboora
5.0 out of 5 stars Great stuff, very well written.
I first read this years ago, and it turned me from a christian plagued by doubts and maddened by my religion into a fufilled atheist. Read more
Published on Dec 20 2005 by Joshua
1.0 out of 5 stars Refuted long ago
Russell's arguments have been refuted a long time ago by the likes of Greg Bahnsen, Gordon Clark, and Vincent Cheung. Read more
Published on July 15 2004
1.0 out of 5 stars Very Saddened ....Bertrand Russell now finding the truth :(
Very Saddened ....Bertrand Russell and Smith both now finding the truth in Hell :(
DONT MAKE THE SAME MISTAKES AS THESE OTHERS HAVE MADE IN THEIR QUEST TO VANISH GOD FROM... Read more
Published on July 15 2004
4.0 out of 5 stars Great Thinker
Although I don't agree with all of his points (calling Communism a religion in the preface!?!?), I still find Russell to be a very good writer. Read more
Published on April 19 2004 by Hunter H
1.0 out of 5 stars More atheistic drivel
Why do atheists always act like their so much smarter than everyone else? Why does any philosopher for that matter? I had to the main essay in a philosophy class. Read more
Published on April 4 2004 by some guy
5.0 out of 5 stars Great reading
Bertrand Russell is a terrific writer, and the essays collected in this book represent some of his best work. Read more
Published on Feb. 29 2004 by Ironblayde
5.0 out of 5 stars Lucid, thought-provoking and witty
This is a briliiant book. No question about it. Russell sets out with great clarity his reasons for rejecting the Christian religion and any other form of faith. Read more
Published on Jan. 12 2004 by "shreerams"
5.0 out of 5 stars Some of the reviewers have missed the point
When I first picked up this book over five years ago I think I may have agreed with some of the people giving this book a low rating. Read more
Published on Dec 4 2003 by millerc
Search Customer Reviews
Only search this product's reviews
ARRAY(0xb00bdec4)


Feedback