Hi meekerdb
I found this on wikipedia:
"Russell begins by defining what he means by the term Christian and sets out to
explain why he does not
"believe in God and in immortality" and why he does not "think that Christ was
the best and wisest of men",
the two things he identifies as "essential to anybody calling himself a
Christian". He considers a number of
logical arguments for the existence of God, including the cosmological
argument, the natural-law argument,
the teleological argument and moral arguments following what he describes as
"the intellectual descent that the Theists have made in their argumentations".
He also goes into specifics
about Christian theology, alleging defects in Jesus's teaching and his moral
character, in particular because
Jesus believed in hell and everlasting punishment. He argues ad absurdum
against the "argument from design",
and favors Darwin's theories:"
1) Russell was an atheist (probably a communist), so what could you expect ?
This is
an ignorant political (communist-atheist) diatribe.
2) Russell was also a disciple of the 19th century religious cult of
materialism, to which the idea of spirit and
immortality were anathema. That enough is to disqualify him. You might as
well have a champanzee
review a bach motet.
3) Russell was a total believer in logic, which is incapable of understranding
anything. So while he was a
brilliant logician, he was illiterate as far as anything human or spiritual
is concerned. Again, that
disqualifies him.
4) He confessed at one time that he hadn't a clue as to the meaning of
pragmatism.
He understood Leibniz's logic and wrote a book on it, but said that L's
metaphnysics was
a fairy tale. What you can infer from this is that he was an expert in
logic, but logic
is useless to understand anything. Not anything human anyway or spiritual.
5) So he naturally rejects Christianity as an illogical, political tract, which
it is not intended to be.
[Roger Clough], [[email protected]]
1/4/2013
"Forever is a long time, especially near the end." - Woody Allen
----- Receiving the following content -----
From: meekerdb
Receiver: everything-list
Time: 2013-01-03, 13:13:07
Subject: Re: The evolution of good and evil
On 1/3/2013 7:10 AM, Roger Clough wrote:
Hi meekerdb
Although a brilliant logician, Russell was far left (no doubt a
communist and so anti-christian).
He was anti-communist too.
His diatribe against Christianity
is a prime example.
It's certainly a prime example of his brilliance and logic.
It's totally misinformed and mistaken.
Ethics is, at bottom, loving your neighbor as your self.
And your evidence for this is...?
Brent
Man is a Religious Animal. He is the only Religious Animal. He
is the only animal that has the True Religion--several of them.
He is the only animal that loves his neighbor as himself and cuts
his throat if his theology isn't straight.
--- Mark Twain
[Roger Clough], [[email protected]]
1/3/2013
"Forever is a long time, especially near the end." - Woody Allen
----- Receiving the following content -----
From: meekerdb
Receiver: everything-list
Time: 2013-01-02, 18:21:27
Subject: Re: The evolution of good and evil
On 1/2/2013 2:24 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
That really has nothing to do with Evil though, except in sloppy reasoning.
True Evil is about intentionally initiating social harm. Getting smallpox is
not evil, it is just unfortunate. Giving someone blankets known to be infected
with smallp
On the contrary it is sloppy ethics to confine 'evil' to intentional social
harm. First, it implies that socially bad is bad simpliciter, but values are
ultimately personal values. Second, it implies that as soon as we find a
physical cause (he was drunk, he had YY chromosmes, his father beat him) for a
behavior it's not longer evil. But all behavior has a physical cause. So I'm
ok with just dropping the term 'evil' and just referring to good/bad for
individuals and good/bad for society as derivative. But I think it's a
hangover from theodicy to refer to human actions as evil but not natural events
- it's part of the idea that humans are apart from nature.
Brent
Ethics is, at bottom, the art of recommending to others the
self-sacrifice necessary to cooperate with ourselves.
--- Bertrand Russell
No virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 2013.0.2805 / Virus Database: 2637/6005 - Release Date: 01/02/13
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to [email protected].
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
[email protected].
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to [email protected].
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
[email protected].
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
