Why I Am Not a Christian and Other Essays on Religion and Related Subjects

Bertrand Russell is a terrific writer, and the essays collected in this book represent some of his best work. As the title makes clear, most of the book is dedicated to Russell's thoughts on religion, which are somewhat less than flattering. Be aware of what you're getting into, though. If you want a thorough treatment on the rationality of religious belief in a philosophical context, you're better off with something like George H. Smith's "Atheism: The Case Against God." Russell is more concerned with the social and moral effects of religion, which is certainly no less interesting, but it's a somewhat different topic. The Amazon review of this book mentioned that some of the essays included herein are outdated, since they deal with contemporary social and ethical concerns of the early twentieth century. That may be true, but I still found them to be very interesting reading. Reading about the social character of an age through the eyes of someone like Russell, rather than in a book of history, seems to make that part of our past all the more real. It's interesting to see what the world was like at the time, and where Russell thought it was going. Sometimes there are surprises about what's gotten better and what's gotten worse. In addition to Russell's essays, the book includes an appendix which details the manner in which Russell was prevented from teaching philosophy at New York City College, which is also interesting reading, if rather disturbing. The number and the zealotry of those calumniators to whom the idea of a prominent atheist teaching philosophy was such anathema were simply disgusting. If you're interested in reading the freethinker's point of view, you could do little better than Russell. He is far more engaging than most philosophers, and all of these essays are thoughtful and well worth your time.

Why I Am Not a Christian by Bertrand Russell “Why I Am Not a Christian” is a very representative book of essays of the great British philosopher and man of many talents, Bertrand Russell (1872 - 1970). This book includes the following essays: 1. Why I AM Not A Christian, 2. Am I An Atheist Or An Agnostic?, 3. My Religious Reminiscences, 4. A Free Man’s Worship, 5. Religion and Metaphysics, 6. Has Religion Made Useful Contributions to Civilization?, 7. How I Came by My Creed; Or, What I Believe, and 8. Why I Am a Rationalist. Positives: 1. Well-written collection of essays despite the fact that these essays were written decades ago. 2. The lucid thoughts of the great British philosopher Bertrand Russell. 3. Eight essays that cover a wide-range of Russell’s lifetime. 4. Destroys the first-cause argument. “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.” 5. A look at the argument from design. “You all know the argument from design: 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.” 6. Gives reasons on why people believe in “God”. 7. The main reason to doubt Christ’s moral character. “There is one very serious defect to my mind in Christ's moral character, and that is that He believed in hell. I do not myself feel that any person who is really profoundly humane can believe in everlasting punishment.” 8. Religion and fear. “Religion is based, I think, primarily and mainly upon fear. It is partly the terror of the unknown and partly, as I have said, the wish to feel that you have a kind of elder brother who will stand by you in all your troubles and disputes.” 9. Defender of science as the best tool to find out the truths of our world. “To my mind the essential thing is that one should base one's arguments upon the kind of grounds that are accepted in science, and one should not regard anything that one accepts as quite certain, but only as probable in a greater or a less degree. Not to be absolutely certain is, I think, one of the essential things in rationality.” 10. He provides insights into his evolution from a believer to an atheist. : During the four following years I rejected, successively, free will, immortality, and belief in God, and believed that I suffered much pain in the process, though when it was completed I found myself far happier than I had been while I remained in doubt.” 11. A look at the contributions of religion to society. “The churches, as everyone knows, opposed the abolition of slavery as long as they dared, and with a few well-advertised exceptions they oppose at the present day every movement toward economic justice.” 12. The objection to religion. “The intellectual objection is that there is no reason to suppose any religion true; the moral objection is that religious precepts date from a time when men were more cruel than they are and therefore tend to perpetuate inhumanities which the moral conscience of the age would otherwise outgrow.” 13. Find out the three human impulses embodied in religion. 14. Explains the desires of religion to be in control. “Men desire to be in control because they are afraid that the control of others will be used unjustly to their detriment.” 15. Eye-opening factoid. “I expect you know that in America men are still sent to prison for Atheism, not only in Fundamentalist States, but even in States of the East, and altogether there is in that part of the world an enormous need of propaganda on these matters.” Negatives: 1. The book wasn’t professionally edited for the Kindle. 2. There are much better and sophisticated arguments today but in Russell’s defense he inspired a lot of the great thinkers of today. In summary, this is a wonderful and cogent introduction to atheism. The great British philosopher Bertrand Russell passed away in 1970 and I would urge readers to view some of talks online. The essays are uneven; some are much better than others. Philosophy has evolved a lot since the times of Russell and there are much better and sophisticated arguments made today but the book is still a worthwhile read. I recommend it. Further suggestions: “How to Defend the Christian Faith” and “The Christian Delusion” by John Loftus, “God: The Failed Hypothesis” by Victor Stenger, “Natural Atheism” and “Atheism Advanced” by David Eller, “Soul Fallacy” by Julien Musolino, “Free Will? By Jonathan M.S. Pearce, “A Manual for Creating Atheists” by Peter Boghosian, “God Is Not Great” by Christopher Hitchens, “The Believing Brain” by Michael Shermer, “Faith vs. Fact” and “Why Evolution Is True” by Jerry A. Coyne, “Nonbeliever Nation” by David Niose, “Trusting Doubt” by Valerie Tarico, “Nailed” by David Fitzgerald, “Think” by Guy P. Harrison, and “The Science of Miracles” by Joe Nickell.

I have heard the authors name floated around in the Atheist world, but never read any of his work until now. This is a very short but impactful read with simple, frank, and concise replies to common theist arguments.

This turned out to be a well-written essay for it's length. The short read makes it an excellent starting source for those who are agnostic or any religious person who is curious to know the reason some people choose not to be (hint: it isn't Satan).

I am impressed by the amount of study and thought Russell obviously dedicated to this topic. He does not simply dismiss Christianity out of hand or mock it simply because he disagrees. Rather, he has obviously studied the Bible, which he quotes throughout this essay, and spent considerable time thinking about his own faith in general and Christianity in particular. Although rather short, he explains his reasoning clearly and succinctly as to why he’s not a Christian, complete with examples and counter-examples. All in all, this was very interesting and pleasant to read.

Mr. Russell was obviously a very intelligent man, and he chose his friends well, including Wittgenstein, Whitehead and many others. In this book he presents his views and background on Christianity and religion in general. While brought up as a rationalist, it seems that the decisive moment for him was reading Mill's rejection of the argument from first cause. A lot of his arguments are worth reading because they express in a more sophisticated way what a lot of people think, such as the views on sexuality, education and war and peace. Interestingly, he expected Catholics to dominate America and especially Boston over the next 50 to 100 years (i.e. now) but the demographics changed due to birth control. He also notes that Freud was highly rational but the Freudians tend to dismiss any notion that people might act out of rational considerations. Since Russell rejected free will, why spend so much effort trying to will what is rational? And if religion is made up for comfort, why does it include the possibility of hell as well as heaven? There also were some areas where he could have done more research. For instance, he noted that because of Christianity's emphasis on the individual soul, there have been no saints canonized for social justice. Well this was before Mother Teresa, but what about Vincent de Paul, John of God, Frances of Rome and many others? Even John Chrysostom was highly oriented toward the love of neighbor. At least he gave props to St. Paul on the hymn to love from 1 Cor 13. Finally, Russell's BBC debates with Frederick Copleston were outstanding, and these days should be available at Youtube or elsewhere.

I really like Russell on numerous grounds, such as his ethical/social/political views. He is well known for his anti-religious views. In his essay "Why I am Not a Christian," he presents his case convincingly and his prose is notoriously simple and a pleasure to read without him going into abstract thought as most philosophers do. But the thing I care less for, is the fact that when he argues his case against existence of God, he is so flippant and spends little time over why he believes such n such. Maybe the essay should be taken more as his personal credo and I am wrong to critize him for that, but he comes off to sure of his beliefs. He states why its not so, and then moves on as if he as adequately dismissed the argument. He is in fact that direct ancestor of Dawkins and Hitchens for good reason - Russell is in a long lineage of atheists who come off as bombastic, a la Volaitre, etc. There is probably a certain need for a bombastic attitude to jolt the general public into thinking a new way. But unlike Hitchens, who goes over board, Russell keeps him composure and seems likely to be able to find middle ground with rational theists. The dogma that atheists fight against, is the same dogma that they are building around themselves, and thus the circle is complete. Atheists are in the formation of becoming the fundamentalists, so sure of their position, so sure of their dogma. What makes them so different from a run of the mill evangelical?? And why do atheists fear admitting their own militant wing?? Is it hard to accept that ideology breeds militancy? Look to history, when the Christians rooted out paganism, they did it by intimidation, by persecution, just as paganism used the same methods in trying to kill Christianity. Is it so far fetched that the same methods will be used against the last pockets of religious believers to push their agenda? Rationality/Reason is in the eyes of the winner, not in the eyes of objective truth. One person's Reason is another person's Absurdity. The line is between Reason and Absurdity is razor thin.

I just purchased this book and I am almost done the book. I know its not a long read and I just wanted to see what the hype about the book was. Now I am a Christian, a believer, a follower of Jesus Christ ....any title that fits your fancy...At best I find this thinker flawed, I find him flawed because his arguments such as the First Cause, Natural Law, The Argument of Design, and The Moral Argument make so sense at all...I read this book as a Christian not because I am questioning what I believe...I read this book as a Christian because I am not afraid of the unexplainable nature of faith, not afraid of the knowing or the not knowing...I read this book to understand what the other side thinks and to understand their position to thereby sharpen and strengthen my position as a defender of the faith and unapologetically an apologetic...so if you are a Christian...do not fear reading this book, I will not shake your faith of belief in God ( unless it is already shakened) to the opposite side of things...I was not even born when this guy was around so unlike many of the comments I do not find his writing prolific, I don't even think the book is well written, nor am I impressed with his mind...however I am glad that he is sharing his point of view, thereby confirming what Biblical scriptures already has stated...."A fool says in his heart that there is no God." Ps 14:1....and this book is foolish..but I got to read ...to rebuttal it...

Imprescindible para acabar con las supersticiones que son todas las religiones. Junto a Richard Dawkins de lo mejor demostrando que el ateísmo es la única​ postura racional y que las religiones no son más que supercherías.

The life lessons contained in this book will provide wisdom for every generation. So far ahead of its time, this book will always be relevant as long as religious dogmatism is hanging around like a bad smell.

Now. I wonder why I waited so long to read books about Bertrand Russell’s way of seeing life. The man understood human nature.

Bertrand Russell è uno dei grandi maestri del pensiero del XX Secolo: di cultura profondissima, di altissima umanità e di cristallina chiarezza, anche per la bellezza del suo inglese e la semplicità del suo stile. Esempio raro, inoltre, per la coerenza con la quale ha sposato il suo stile di vita con la sua linea di pensiero. In "Why I am not a Christian" espone in modo lineare, chiaro, impeccabilmente logico, una serie di osservazioni e critiche al pensiero cristiano in particolare e religioso in generale, mettendone in evidenza le assurdità, il pericolo e l'intrinseca violenza, senza per questo pretendere di possedere una qualsiasi verità. In effetti, il suo pensiero è incentrato sul dovere del dubbio, il nobile e tollerante dubbio, nemico di tutti i profeti. Un'opera imperdibile per chi si sforza di pensare con la propria testa.

A fearless, objective an d to the point argumentation. The end of It, period. Well written, clear and unprejudiced text. Hooray!