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], [rclo...@verizon.net] 
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], [rclo...@verizon.net] 
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 everything-list@googlegroups.com. 
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. 
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 everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.

Reply via email to