One of the best book in phylosophy I've read. Even though I consider myself an agnostic, Bertrand Russell'literature is very clear con concise, without imposing his ideas on christianity, only explaining his point of view.

I should preface this review by stating that I am not a student of philosophy, nor was I previously familiar with Bertrand Russell's other works. I ordered this collection of essays after seeing it referenced in several other books dealing with secular humanism.

While some of the essays necessarily seem a bit dated (most were written between 1900 and 1960), many of the themes Russell touches upon seem particularly relevant today. Russell writes passionately and articulately about the dangerous role that dogma -- particularly religious dogma -- plays in curtailing free thought and active debate. Further, he warns of the pain and suffering that have historically followed when dogmatic views are forced upon the population at large by those in power.

There are many other powerful ideas contained in this collection. For example, Russell also provides sobering insights on the dangers inherent in any democracy -- particularly the "tyranny of the majority" which can silence unpopular ideas.

Given the chilling times we live in -- when reasoned debate and diversity of opinion seem to be increasingly threatened by dogma (both political and religious) -- Russell's ideas (and warnings) are especially poignant.

Of course, not all of the essays resonate today. The discussion of Catholic and Protestant skeptics seems a bit strange (to say the least).

Finally, this volume concludes with an article written by Prof. Paul Edwards detailing why Bertrand Russell was prevented by teaching at the College Of The City Of New York. It is a fascinating example of how the political and legal systems of a supposedly free democracy can be used to suppress unpopular ideas and impose dogmatic belief systems.

My only reason for withholding a 5th star is that I would like to have seen the publishers release an updated edition with greater historical background and footnotes. Otherwise, an excellent and thought-provoking collection of essays.

The fact that short essays carried one theme, instead of a lengthy essays with complex nuances, strengthens the theories of B. Russell.
A bright ideological strategy to say the least.
Russell's atheism is not a tumultuous philosophy, but rather conceptual pacifism. And his anti-war policy echoes a high standard of ethics.

Then, should we question liberal morality when intended to equality and peace among nations?
I don't think so.

The historical Chairman Mao condemned religion as poison, Bertrand Russell defined religion as the expression of fear and social inquietude.
Through intellectual development, societies progress, and nations prosper. Mr. Russell is perfectly correct.

I give this book 5 stars without hesitation

After 9/11, when I finally determined to clarify my own beliefs about gods and religions (I'd left them hazy for much too long) this and Ibn Warraq's Why I Am Not a Muslim were the two most useful books I found. Russell's essay isn't elaborate or long, but it covered the ground for someone like me who's lives in a basically Judeo-Christian culture. It was interesting and gratifying to see that Warraq's book (which gave me new knowledge about Islamic religion, history, and culture) was, in essence, much the same. Not that I started out thinking myself either a Judeo-Christian or Muslim, but it was interesting to get better perspective on how all the major religions offer basically the same set of rewards and pitfalls. I used to make Buddhism a benign exception to that, but not so much anymore after a glimpse of Sri Lankan history. Take Me With You When You Go Nutty to Meet You! Dr. Peanut Book #1

One has to wonder just how sound someone's philosophical underpinnings are when to justify a philosophical point the author makes an appeal to a well-known character of fiction such as Robinson Crusoe and Charles Dickens' novels as vindication of that principal or principles! His purpose would best be served it he maintained the use of realistic examples.

Mr. Russell provides the reader with examples of Christian intolerance and injustice and the like while stating that it was freethinkers that corrected such errors shows that the author is being very selective in his choice of examples of the errors of Christianity. The author wrote, "The whole contention that Christianity has had an elevating moral influence can only be maintained by wholesale ignoring or falsification of the historical evidence." Mr. Russell is clearly being very selective of his "historical evidence" and choosing only those examples that best suit the purpose of his book. To the contrary the followers of Christ have introduced reforms that have improved the lot of man tremendously as true history clearly shows while one would be hard pressed to find any such benefits introduced, much less produced, by freethinkers on such a scale that Christianity has. While it is true that some supposed segments of Christianity were responsible for certain outrages these incidences are not symptomatic of Christianity as a whole nor should be construed as such. The atrocities committed by those who adopted the guise of Christian have done so only to gain the support and popularity of the people for their cause if not to use it as the justification of such acts.
The examples Mr. Russell chose as representative of Christianity are, as I've stated before, very selective and are not representative of Christianity as a whole. It is abundantly clear that the author is not being intellectually honest.
One gets the impression that the author thinks that Christianity is some sinister evil waiting for the appropriate time for it to rear its head to befoul the world anew. It appears that the author is letting his atheism interfere with his objectivity.
In his book Mr. Russell makes the rather outrageous claim, "And yet everybody who has taken the trouble to study morbid psychology knows that prolonged virginity is, as a rule, extraordinarily harmful to women, so harmful that, in a sane society, it would be severely discouraged in teachers." It's statements like this that has diminished a once bright star in the philosophical heavens.
The examples Mr. Russell chose as representative of Christianity are, as I've stated before, very selective and are not representative of Christianity as a whole. It is abundantly clear that the author is not being intellectually honest.

This book is nothing more than the result of a very narrow and/or biased philosophy.

Suppose you have heard of Bertrand Russell but never read any of his writings. You are interested in philosophical thought and intrigued by an individual who has such a reputation. Here now is a book that is very brief and you think you can read and absorb some of Russell's thinking. By all means book down, turn away, and don't pick it up again. This little volume is a blight on the reputation of a great thinker and great writer and a great man.

Virtual Russell is but one of my heroes for more than 40 decades and I owe him a lot as far as my intellectual growth is concerned. Politically he is a man of my own heart, and being agnostic, I should have been thrilled by this book. After reading it, I dropped it in the library dropbox -- anonymously of course. If it thinks so highly of this person as a scholar and a man why should I be down in this particular book so hard and allowed only one star and that given because I can get a zero. Maybe Russell was trying to appeal to the masses in writing this simplistic treatise, does not live up to his reputation or his ability. The problem with the book is that it is simplistic. The arguments are obvious even to the shallowest thinkers. If you want to read something worthwhile by Russell as an introduction, I would recommend his History of Philosophy.

If Bertrand Russell were still alive I would ask him to please rewrite this volume in a way that he alone could. Unfortunately our mentor is no longer with us and to protect his reputation I recommend it to anybody unacquainted with Bertrand Russell not read this book.

After I read (and reviewed here and on Amazon) Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens, Sam Harris, and Daniel Dennett's recent arguments against religious belief, I wondered what their inspiration had to say. They all acknowledge his pioneering efforts to expound an rationalist's philosophy, and I wondered-- scientific advances into DNA and political shifts in fundamentalist terror aside-- how much of today's "neo-atheist" presence had been foreshadowed, if not ghosted, by Russell.

The title's a bit misleading; "Why I Don't Believe in God" fits better this 1957 collection from over five decades of essays loosely concerned with intellectual freedom as well as "theological subjects." The title essay from 1927 attacks the standard proofs for God vigorously but rather too rapidly; it was a talk given for the National Secular Society, which may account for its briskness. "Has Religion Made Useful Contributions to Civilization?" (1930) takes on Christianity's harmful "ethical perversions" regarding most powerfully its suppression of sex. This theme occurs in many of the essays, reflecting Russell's well-known, or notorious once upon a time, advocacy of an openness in moral attitudes that even today would place him far on the left. The rest of this lengthy essay asserts "the three human impulses embodied in religion are fear, conceit, and hatred." (44) Religion makes these respectable passions, "provided they run in certain channels." Compared to Dawkins & Hitchens, Russell's position remains even more provocative perhaps, in such defiance.

"What I Believe" (1925) predicts how science will continue to obliterate credulous faith in a deity or in immortality. It rises to astonishing eloquence; its rhetoric is employed perhaps too lavishly for our tastes today, but it does leap out from the other essays which prefer more professorial tones. "Even if the open windows of science at first make us shiver after the cosy indoor warmth of traditional humanising myths, in the end the fresh air brings vigor, and the great spaces have a splendor of their own." (54) Here he's close to Hitchens' humanism as praised in his closing pages, and also Dawkins, with whom Russell shares a confidence in reason that will overcome superstition and wish fulfillment.

He does wander about considerably in this essay, but many of his warnings still remain in effect for us. "Capitalists, militarists, and ecclesiastics co-operate in education, because all depend for their power upon the prevalence of emotionalism and the rarity of critical judgment." (67-8) In criticizing the power of revolutionaries who argue that salvation, secular or religious, can only result from "catastrophic change, like the conversion of St. Paul," Russell aligns Shelley's poems. He does not blame only the churches, but all who foolishly if calculatedly goad people to revolt in hopes that if the "priests or capitalists or Germans" are overthrown, "that there will be a general change of heart and we should all live happily ever after." (75-6) This nuance, often overlooked in Russell, reminds us that he saw his foes among communists as well as the corporations, and denied any "short cuts to the millennium." The good life comes only through the cultivation of compassion, commonsense, and intelligent self-control. It cannot be grasped by the impatient.

Hitchens has been criticized for his assertion that part of the disasters of 9/11 can be traced back to the fact that the fanatics were driven to their actions by their warped sexual impulses. Russell notes: "A man or woman who has been thwarted sexually is apt to be full of envy; this generally takes the form of moral condemnation of the more fortunate." (82) Such jealousy of the rich and a hatred of luxury may, Russell implies, go on to become an "envy of love" itself.

In "A Free Man's Worship," (1903) eloquence also colors his address. He denies the primacy of power placed in a God. He supports the contrary to force, the worship of goodness. Since humans are but "a helpless atom in a world that has no such knowledge" of good and evil, Russell sets up mankind as the maker of God, who rules by fear and ignorance. Earlier people misunderstood how nature itself works without hatred or joy. For moderns, the alternative awaits. "Shall our God exist and be evil, or shall he be recognized as the creation of our own conscience?" Here, the neo-atheists align with Russell. They all accept that once we understand evolution, that we should continue to refuse to be tyrannized by attributing the patterns of blameless nature to a vengeful, loving, capricious, or jealous deity or deities.

This essay reaches a tremendous climax, full of imagery that could rival Darwin, Marx, or Nietzsche in its passionate claims for a Prometheus who breaks his chains forged in centuries of submission to mental and political and clerical control. Only a brief excerpt must suffice. Russell compares our life to that lived on a narrow raft (I think of the Medusa in Gericault's terrible painting) among "the dark ocean on whose rolling waves we toss for a brief hour; from the great night without, a chill blast breaks in upon our refuge; all the loneliness of humanity amid hostile forces is concentrated upon the individual soul, which must struggle alone, with what courage it can command, against the whole weight of a universe that cares nothing for its hopes and fears." (113) Much more in this mode awaits the intrepid reader.

A treatment of Catholic vs. Protestant skeptics (1928) has its moments: the latter tend to leave their denominations behind for denial of God more easily, as they merely continue the divisions that formed in turn the Reformation's sects. The former, however, "feels himself lost without the support of the church," upon whom the believer must perforce depend totally, and in his "desperate revolt" lacks the example of earlier heretics who found an intellectual or spiritual haven safely. He goes on the contrast the "social character" of Catholicism with the "individual character" that defines a Protestant. Goethe (I think; this is not cited by Russell) opined that it's easier to be good if one's happy than to be happy if one's good. This reminds me of Russell, somehow: "Protestants like to be good and have invented theology in order to keep themselves so, whereas Catholics like to be bad and have invented theology in order to keep themselves good." (123) These sorts of apercus keep you reading past the inevitably dated references and highlight Russell's clever wit.

Other essays here turn towards other concerns, loosely related to thought dominated by a Christian vs. a freethinking perspective. A review of Eileen Power's "Medieval People" and Johan Huizinga's "The Autumn of the Middle Ages," two popular histories from around 1925, is useful; a long 1934 account of Tom Paine's fate may have resurrected his reputation for later admirers such as Hitchens himself. "Nice People" failed to sustain its satirical edge, but can be taken as a valid 1931 indication of how the proto-hippies of the Thirties might have viewed with venom that vast majority of decent suburban hypocrites to the right of the bohemian (and perhaps then as now often trust-funded, one suspects) smart set.

This attitude pervades the essays on "The New Generation" (1930) and "Our Sexual Ethics" (1936), of course. I found this prediction has come nearly to pass among many single mothers, baby mamas, and absent fathers whose families doubtless came once from far to the right of Russell's radicals: "If women are to have sexual freedom, fathers must fade out, and wives must no longer expect to be supported by their husbands." (170) Another essay relates such statements to academic freedom (as does the long appendix devoted to the denial of Russell's appointment to a teaching post at CCNY in 1941 for his allegedly godless, pro-abortion, Communist, and free-love [etc.] espousing lack of immorality). It's still timely as a reminder of the state's exercised control of what professors can teach in their classes, and can publish.

"Can Religion Cure Our Troubles?" (1954) gives the answer you'd expect. "When two men of science disagree, they do not invoke the secular arm; they wait for further evidence to decide the issue, because, as men of science, they know that neither is infallible. But when two theologians differ, since there are no criteria to which either can appeal, there is nothing for it but mutual hatred and an open or covert appeal to force." (198) Substitute "believers" for "theologians," or "armed nations basing their aggression upon their faith-based ideologies" and you have instant relevance.

In our eras of renewed crusades and a return to jihad against those deemed enemies of God, such arguments deserve consideration. If you have read Hitchens, Dawkins, Dennett, and/or Harris, then this collection of the thoughts of a man they are all indebted to will prove a valuable introduction to the types of reasoning used in today's intellectual battles with the proponents of religion. If you disagree with the neo-atheist perspective, this volume should prove as necessary to study, for here, in imperfect expression but often engaging style, can be found the foundations for the current debates between secular humanists and believers.

Russell's position shows all the hallmarks of a personal vendetta against Christianity. It is not a collection of scholarly articles, but a series of attacks against the religion which this country is supposedly founded on. The views expressed here are out of date, uninfluenced by recent discoveries in psychology, sociology, anthropology, and physics. And yet these views are more relevant than ever. At one point, Russell states that "nobody nowadays believes that the world was created in 4004 B.C." What would he say if he could see the influence modern creationists are having on our secular public school system? How is it that our society has taken such an enormous step backwards?

In Russell's day, professors could still be punished in the academic world for expressing non-Christian views. Our society has made this small step forward. But what about the rest of us? Personally, I dare not mention my lack of faith at the library where I work for fear of being ostracized. I am constantly faced with the problem of checking out certain books (such as this one) without my co-workers noticing. My own parents believe that the world is only 6,000 years old and that the Rapture is but a few years off. I am frequently depressed by the thought that our country will not elect a non-Christian president in my lifetime (I'm 22).

And yet I can't agree with everything Russell says. He often depicts Christianity as a cause of human cruelty, though a more rational observer would see religion as merely a vehicle for the intolerance and cruelty that have plagued our species since civilization's dawn. The scholarship of Karen Armstrong and Steven Pinker provide some evidence of this. Russell also gives little attention to the origin of Christianity, which can be forgiven since so little was known of this at the time of his writing. He seems to paint religion as simply sprung from the ground fully formed and prepared to wreak havoc on mankind. He acknowledges that it is rooted in fear, but the birth of religion is far more complicated than that. While many Christians today do follow their beliefs out of fear of the unknown and unknowable, it is merely part of a tapestry of reasons human beings turn to religion. I'll even warrant that the pure emotion of hope is one of them.

This book should be read as a history of atheism and as a text to read while considering one's own faith. However, its arguements should probably not be swallowed whole and quoted verbatim, but studied against the backdrop of current knowledge and scholarship. There are more logical arguements against religion than those presented here.

Maybe this ranks three stars, maybe four. I would call it a "flawed classic" of Atheistic thought. Bertrand Russell puts forth some powerful arguments against Christian Theism. Russell asks - is this world the best that can be made by an omniscient being through eternity? If you are a Christian, this book may irritate you, but you should read it because it is an important critique from atheism. If you are an atheist, perhaps you may be familiar with better arguments, because not every argument Russell puts forward here is a good one. Russell is overconfident in education and reason. Some of his arguments are just not completely hammered home. In spite of that, this work is thought-provoking, critical, and well-written. It has become a class of atheistic literature, and should be welcomed as standard reading in an academic setting.

I bought the book driven mainly by the title. What I found is a collection of essays about religion that go far beyond Christianity. I personally share Mr. Russell's comments so my reviewed will be undoubtedly biased, but I can say that every argument is clearly and exceptionally grounded in facts. And since faith and facts don't always walk together, a rationale explanation of faith is not possible unless you do it from an atheist point of view.
What I personally enjoyed the most is the appendix: "How Bertrand Russell was prevented from teaching at The College of the City of New York". It is a clear example of the limits to freedom of speech that can be found in America. Many years after that, some people are still discussing whether to teach Darwin at US schools...

I love anything and everything written by BR. He was one of the most lucid and intelligent thinkers of the last 100 years.

That said, he does on occasion lend his credibility to activism, which is a bad habit. His arguments are at their weakest in this essay. The suggestion that religion is based on fear is a less than honest overview of religious motivation.

The essay on Christianity attempts to show all of religion in one light, when in fact we know that there are many ways of believing in a Christian God, and many personal reasons to believe, not many of which should be subject to criticism by a man who occupied himself with more important questions.

My biggest concern is why write the essay to begin with? One might as well write an essay entitled "Why I do not like the color blue". It's personal preference, and has nothing at all to do with anything that Bertrand Russell should be concerned with.

This was one of the first essays to (logically) disprove the delusion of a "God". It is a classic. I remember reading the essay back in the 1960's. It was passed around amongst students and fired our imagination toward a world where truth was more common that superstition.

Russell's arguments against Christianity are excellent, but the book is boring at times. I know it's a collection of essays, but some of the essays were quite boring, and didn't even talking about religion and Christianity. It still is a decent book. I just wish that I only read the parts on Christianity, and skipped the rest.

An incredible, clearly-written, thoroughly-argued masterpiece of human intelligence, and a clarion call for the fight against muddle-headed mysticism. This book gives me hope for a rational, sane future.

I was extremely shocked and pained to read Russell's essay Ideas That Have Helped Mankind (as well as his writings on China) and discover that he was a flaming antisemite, and also something of a fool.

He writes: "We know what the Nazis did to Jews at Auschwitz. In mass cruelty, the expulsions of Germans ordered by the Russians fall not very far short of the atrocities perpetuated by the Nazis." Here he is skirting close to Holocaust denial, comparing post-war suffering of East Germans to genocide of 90% of Europe's Jews!

Elsewhere he lists the contributions of Jewish ethics to Western civilization as fanaticism and intolerance, and pretends that we got our belief that all men are created equal from the Stoics and the New Testament, with quotes that are mere paraphrases from the Hebrew Bible. He ignores all the Jewish lessons on equality and sacredness of every life including, Love thy neighbor as thyself. This is pure religious bigotry. What a hypocrite!

What is truly distressing is that his antisemitic comments from the book on China have been picked up and repeated by Chinese web sites today, so Russell's evil deeds are poisoning the present.

Well, clearly if you are a Christian you will indubitably not relish this work nor would I see any reason why you would want to buy it. This book is for those who do not find Christianity appealing. Russell has many arguments that are logical and rational. This book is not difficult. It is not harsh. It is not mean spirited. I have read many others that are much more denigrating. Russell stays well above the shallow and vicious. He backs his arguments with history, science and logic. He is simple and to the point. This book is old. I bought my first copy back in the late 50's. But for those non-Christians and semi-Christians who are newly starting on the road to dubiousness and other possibilities, this book is as relevant as it ever was. Common sense doesn't really change all that much.
Why I am not a Christian is only one of several essays in this book. There is another great one on the Fate of Tom Paine and there is also a concise explanation of Russell personal beliefs. I've read this book several times and I will read it again, I'm sure.

If you have read any of Richard Dawkins' or Sam Harris' works, you will recognize immediately, as did I, that essentially they have not progressed very far in the main from what Russell was saying at the turn of the 20th century.

Russell writes clearly and with wonderful wit. This book is easy to read, accessible at all levels and straight forward in its conclusions. I disagree with Russell on just about everything, but there is no denying the consistency of his thought nor his willingness to live consistently what that which he espouses.

His multiple marriages and numerous liaisons are absolutely convergent with his disapproval of any societal strictures against sexual freedom. He adamantly insists that all moral formulations only reflect the inherent desires of those who espouse them. This leads him to conclude that there is no absolute difference between the poet and the murderer and that it is illogical to build a statue to one and to consign the other to the realm of shame. To Russell, all human actions result from the combined causality of genetics and social conditioning and that we should no more look down upon one who is doing criminal things than we should look down upon a person who has the measles.

Like most radical liberals of his day Russell understood education as the realm of the Messiah. Education, under the guidance of enlightened thinkers such as himself, would radically alter and improve the human specie so that we could hope to live lives of love and freedom. Utopia beckons, we have only to embrace it rationally and pursue it energetically.

In all his brilliance Russell never comes to grips in these essays with his primary problem. He was totally lacking in grounds on which to criticize the rising stars of Hitler and Mussolini other than the fact that their methods and their conclusions differed from his own. He had no standard other than appeal to like sympathies in others to say that perhaps the manner and nature of those regimes was worse or better than his own. He cannot discover in the world of science why "what is" is either "what ought" or "what ought not" to be.

Read the book and discover the ultimate vacuity of a world view without external referrent.

If you have read any of Richard Dawkins' or Sam Harris' works, you will recognize immediately, as did I, that essentially they have not progressed very far in the main from what Russell was saying at the turn of the 20th century.

Russell writes clearly and with wonderful wit. This book is easy to read, accessible at all levels and straight forward in its conclusions. I disagree with Russell on just about everything, but there is no denying the consistency of his thought nor his willingness to live consistently what that which he espouses.

His multiple marriages and numerous liaisons are absolutely convergent with his disapproval of any societal strictures against sexual freedom. His adamant insistence that all morals only reflect the inherent desires of those who espouse them leads him to conclude that there is no absolute difference between the poet and the murderer and that it is illogical to build a statue to one and to consign the other to the realm of shame. All human actions are determined by the combined causality of genetics and social conditioning and we should no more look down upon one who is doing criminal things than we should look down upon a person who has the measles.

Like most radical liberals of his day Russell understood education as the realm of the Messiah. Education, under the guidance of enlightened thinkers such as himself, would radically alter and improve the human specie so that we could hope to live lives of love and freedom. Utopia beckons, we have only to embrace it rationally and pursue it energetically.

In all his brilliance Russell never comes to grips in these essays with his primary problem. He was totally lacking in grounds on which to criticize the rising stars of Hitler and Mussolini other than the fact that their methods and their conclusions differed from his own. He had no standard other than appeal to like sympathies in others to say that perhaps the manner and nature of those regimes was worse or better than his own. He cannot discover in the world of science why "what is" is either "what ought" or "what ought not" to be.

Read the book and discover the ultimate vacuity of a world view without external referrent.

Russell teaches to be atheist, a concept none can develop if left, unarmed since a boy, under the havy bombings of christian ideas.

Isn't it interesting that Mr. Russell claims that all religions are shackles to the mind, but yet why is it that only Christians are attacked, even the title of this book is WHY I AM NOT A CHIRSTIAN, well if it's true that Mr., Russell believes this of all religions why is only Christianity attacked? Why is it that out of all the religious leaders in history of all the religions only Christ is made fun of, only Christ is repeatedly sought out to be disproved...Because HE IS THE TRUTH. The world and things of this world will never understand that. But lies will always attack the truth. Granted there are fanatics to every religion, but if you want to know the truth find a REAL Christian. They are rare to be found but there are still a few.

Isn't it interesting that Mr. Russell claims that all religions are shackles to the mind, but yet why is it that only Christians are attacked, even the title of this book is WHY I AM NOT A CHIRSTIAN, well if it's true that Mr., Russell believes this of all religions why is only Christianity attacked? Why is it that out of all the religious leaders in history of all the religions only Christ is made fun of, only Christ is repeatedly sought out to be disproved...Because HE IS THE TRUTH. The world and things of this world will never understand that. But lies will always attack the truth. Granted there are fanatics to every religion, but if you want to know the truth find a REAL Christian. They are rare to be found but there are still a few.

This book, as so described by many reviews, is not all on one subject, but is a collection of essays on many different subjects relating to religion, morality, ethics, and just generally the way we relate to each other and carry ourselves as human beings. The prime value in the philosophy of Russell is that he is effective in showing us how to reevaluate what we think by taking a hard look at why we think it. Many of the things he discussed a century ago have taken shape in modern times exactly the way he predicted, not because he was a prophet, but because he had an uncanny ability to look into the thought processes of humanity, see where it came from, and extrapolate to where it must go. This was just an ability to observe the evolution of human thought and morality, almost as though looking from the outside.

I highly recommend this book to anyone wishing to get a sampling of Bertrand Russell's thoughts, or just good secular philosophy. Even the last 50 or so pages from the editor describing the vilification of Russell in 1940 by the religious right of New York to prevent his being installed as professor at one of the colleges is a worthy read. There are perhaps as many lessons to be learned in that section as there are in the rest of the book, as it shows on what grounds Russell was attacked, then compares the accusations with what Russell actually wrote that was attacked, showing the treatment groundless. Well, he was not the first to be treated that way, and I am afraid he will not be the last.

The books' editors are quite proud of the fact that in 1940 Bertrand Russell was found by a court of law to be 'unfit' to teach philosophy. They tell you such on the outside cover. Naturally, I assume that anyone the 'establishment' finds unfit to teach would be worth hearing. I only got to page seven of this book before I figured out that the court was right; Russel isn't insightful, or progressive. He's just a demagogue. Likely, the only reason he's even notable is because he espoused a very unpopular notion in a time when espousing unpopular notions was particularly unpopular.

What is page 7? Start on page 6, where Russell begins with the intent to discredit the doctrine of "First Cause" as evidence of the existence of God. Cause and effect are pretty much universally understood; you drop a ball, the ball falls. The cause is you dropping the ball, the effect is that the ball fell. If you work backwards, you eventually get to a single cause for every effect. Philosophers and theologans since the days of Plato and Aristotle have labelled this first cause as God.

Russell's problem with this is summed up as follows. "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. "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."

This delightfully circular argument basically supposes that if God can exist without a cause, then all of creation can just as well exist without God having caused it. He then argues that it is only because humans are stupid that we even think there needs to be a cause at all for anything. With a flourish, he concludes that he no longer needs to dignify that line of thinking, and moves along. He does so without addressing the fact that he just argued that causality being either just as likely for creation with or without a god, or causality not even being necessary in the first place, that the existence of God is equally likely as the non-existence of a God.

It didn't get any better in the next few pages of that first essaay, nor did it get any better in the other essays in that book. Bertrands "poverty of imagination" is his own failing in as much as it might be that of anyone else. The undertone of all his writings in this book is a pedantic arrogance that does more to offend than to enlighten.

The books' editors are quite proud of the fact that in 1940 Bertrand Russell was found by a court of law to be 'unfit' to teach philosophy. They tell you such on the outside cover. Naturally, I assume that anyone the 'establishment' finds unfit to teach would be worth hearing. I only got to page seven of this book before I figured out that the court was right; Russel isn't insightful, or progressive. He's just a demagogue. Likely, the only reason he's even notable is because he espoused a very unpopular notion in a time when espousing unpopular notions was particularly unpopular.

What is page 7? Start on page 6, where Russell begins with the intent to discredit the doctrine of "First Cause" as evidence of the existence of God. Cause and effect are pretty much universally understood; you drop a ball, the ball falls. The cause is you dropping the ball, the effect is that the ball fell. If you work backwards, you eventually get to a single cause for every effect. Philosophers and theologans since the days of Plato and Aristotle have labelled this first cause as God.

Russell's problem with this is summed up as follows. "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. "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."

This delightfully circular argument basically supposes that if God can exist without a cause, then all of creation can just as well exist without God having caused it. He then argues that it is only because humans are stupid that we even think there needs to be a cause at all for anything. With a flourish, he concludes that he no longer needs to dignify that line of thinking, and moves along. He does so without addressing the fact that he just argued that causality being either just as likely for creation with or without a god, or causality not even being necessary in the first place, that the existence of God is equally likely as the non-existence of a God.

It didn't get any better in the next few pages of that first essaay, nor did it get any better in the other essays in that book. Bertrands "poverty of imagination" is his own failing in as much as it might be that of anyone else. The undertone of all his writings in this book is a pedantic arrogance that does more to offend than to enlighten.

I enjoyed this book very much. Some of the scientific references are out dated, but science moves fast so that's to be expected. Why people in this day and time still believe in fairly times and mythical beings, I cannot understand. Great, highly recommended.

I agreed with some of Russell's main points, and I disagreed with others, but I found that they were all stimulating to think about. Let me begin by pointing out that this is not simply a book about Russell's thoughts on Christianity, but rather a collection of Russell's essays and seminars on religion and ethics. Especially interesting is his essay on sexual ethics, in which I think he makes insightful commentary on accepted conduct of behavior, and predictions that seem now to be correct. Additionally, Russell's discussion of why people are religious is equally interesting and insightful. Having gone to Catholic school my entire life and taken a few years of theology, I cannot say that I fully agree with Russell, but Russell's assertions that there are psychological elements that people seek to fulfill with religion seem to have at least some element of truth in them.

I should also mention that while this is an interesting work by a man known for his philosophy, it is the least philsophical of Bertrand's writings that I have read so far.

Readers, please ignore the Christian wackos who take time off their Bible-thumpin' to "contribute" here.

I see that my review will be only one of a hundred. This is a far cry from the legal books I typically review, with which my rating can have an appreciable effect on the average. It's not surprising: religion is a topic many people get easily worked up about. Bertrand Russell is no different.

I should state at the outset that I am an atheist, and though I'm not a Socialist, as it seems Russell was from these essays, I am similar to the philosopher in that I have a socially liberal view of sex and marriage--substantive disagreements between the two of us are rare. Nonetheless, I did have my problems with the work.

"Why I am Not a Christian" is a collection of essays, some devoted to the titular topic, others directed towards contemporaneous sexual ethics, childrearing, and politics. They are not strictly scholarly, but rather for the layman. Even today, some eighty years after some of them were published, certain passages are hot with controversy--one can only imagine the response of the time.

Russell was, of course, an atheist, and the titular essay outlines his case for so being. The arguments are conversationally written (it is a transcribed speech), and made with a lawyer's flair for persuasion. Some is quite interesting--some is tiresome. Russell almost certainly overstates his case; not content to attack Christianity as false, he insists it is also a nearly absolutely evil pox upon humanity. As he stretches his case one wonders how much of the writing is for mere shock value, and how much the result of an immauture pomposity. It is one thing to believe that one is correct: it is another to believe that no reasonable man could believe otherwise.

As we move into topics that deal with the plasticity of human nature, Russell betrays a (though sometimes qualified) utopian view of the world and humanity, a belief that men can be simply remolded into a better shape with the right set of Pavlovian treatments. It is a naive and incorrect view, made the more infuriating because of the arrogance with which the author holds it. But much of it seems to be simply hyperbole, as in other essays we find Russell modifying his beliefs into more pragmatic variants. Much of these works are polemics, not arguments, and trying to appreciate them as the latter when they are not can only annoy the reader.

The appendix is entertaining, an account of the author's rejection from appointment to City College, spurred by an outrage dpopulace misconstruing Professor Russell's views and petulantly trying to censor him. However, it is not written by Russell, but rather by a seeming devotee, who, while miming his hero's acid tongue, lacks his ability with language.

An amusing, but shallow work, probably best suited to display Russell's fiery tone and beliefs.

Russell's lead essay, "Why I Am Not a Christian," is wrong on almost every point:

"There is no reason why the world could not have come into being without a cause" - if scientists took this argument seriously, they wouldn't be trying to explain the Big Bang. But they are.

On natural law: "... [atoms] are much less subject to law than people thought, and ... the laws at which you arrive are statistical averages of just the sort that would emerge from chance" - this is not an argument against the existence of physical law. The laws of quantum mechanics are as valid as they have ever been.

Russell disagrees with the idea that "... if the world was ever so little different, we could not manage to live in it" - but in recent years scientists have shown this to be exactly the case - the earth's size, distance from the sun, distance from the galactic center and so forth are essential for life; small changes would make life impossible on earth.

"Historically it is quite doubtful whether Christ ever existed at all" - almost no historian, secular or otherwise, believes this to be true.

"The churches have retarded progress" - this is partly true. But it is an argument against being like the churches, not an argument against being a Christian. Furthermore, atheism in the twentieth century retarded progress far more than religion - just take a look at Russia.

Christ's moral character was defective because he warned of hell - this begs the question because it supposes there is no hell, which would make the warning against hell inappropriate; otherwise, it makes sense to warn people of danger.

People "accept religion on emotional grounds" - I look around today, and the most emotional people I see are atheists. Perhaps that is a good reason not to believe in atheism.

"Conquer the world by intelligence and not merely by being slavishly subdued by the terror that comes from it." - very good advice. Atheists should not project their fears and terrors onto God but instead make friends with the God who loves them.

After reading this book, I converted to Christianity. I didn't realize the arguments of freemasons (masquerading as agnostics and atheists) were that weak. Thanks Bertrand.

Gordon Van Wylan in his book Classical Thermodynamics states irrefutably that physics supports God's existence. Indeed, Antony Flew recanted his atheism and said he could no longer hold on to it with honesty or sincerity.

About Russell's argument that the existence of evil negates the plausibility of theism: well, if ultimate reality isn't moral, then you can't morally condemn it. Therefore, to use the topic of evil to attack God's existence is self-defeating. Of course, Russell has no problem with this rebuttal since he has assumed the role as ultimate moral arbiter. And that arrogence is the ultimate consequence of trying to maintain that secular position.

Put another coal in the furnace for satan, Russell ol' boy.

A book worth the time to read, with a bit of this and a bit of that. I especially enjoyed the initial Why I am Not a Christian, a piece on Thomas Paine, and the appendix about Bertrand Russell being denied a teaching position because he was openly an atheist. In America!

Russell does as good a job as one can philosophically do at proving religion false. The obvious problem is that a talented thinker and writer can prove just about anything, philosophically. He attempts, it seems to me, to make atheism sound inspiring. His arguments may be threatening to a Christian who hasn't given much thought to apologetics. But really he offers no argument that is all that tough for a theologian to rebut. I enjoyed the book because he, again, did a great job and the arguments are well thought out. My faith in God was not damaged. I was challenged to think deeper and God was still there. For a well-reasoned argument for Christianity, try Orthodoxy by GK Chesterton. I believe they were contemporaries.

A previous review mentioned that this book does not include the essay "What I Believe". That is false. The essay commences on page 48.

I looked around at first to find whether mine was a newer edition, but it definitely is not. It is the same edition, the same 266 pages.

I'm always pleased to pick up a book by Russell, his writing is always so brilliant and clear at the same time. This book, is a collection of essays on Christianity and Religion, and Russell provides logical and compelling arguments against the institution of faith, arguing that organized religion is grounded in hatred and fear and that its effects are harmful in the world. SOme of the essays are a little dry, and some of them are simply old news, but I would recommend this text to anyone interested in the topic. Russell is not confrontational or condescending, he simply argues his position with logic, history, and sometimes humor. The essay in which he equates Communism wiht Religion is particularly intriguing.