How Bertrand Russell Became An Atheist

[Rational Agnostic]

I found some interesting excerpts from "God and Religion" by Bertrand Russell on this site: God and Religion by Bertrand Russell. I remember hearing an old interview with Bertrand Russell in which he stated that he spent most of his free time between the ages of 15 and 18 thinking about Christian dogmas and discovering that they were not true.

I found it interesting to see that he continued to believe in a deistic god until age 18, when he became an atheist for this simple reason:

Until the age of eighteen I continued to believe in a Deist's God, because the First-Cause argument seemed to me irrefutable. Then in John Stuart Mill's Autobiography I found that James Mill had taught him the refutation of that argument-namely, that it gives no answer to the question "Who made God?"

 

[Sunstone]

Good OP! Thanks for it.

That is indeed a difficulty with First Cause arguments both for the obvious reason and because it is so problematic to assert precisely how god is an exception to the rule that "everything must have a cause". One can, of course, simply assert that "Gods, by definition, are not caused", but when people do that, they tend to forget to explain why gods must be defined as not needing a cause (the Greeks certainly did not always think so -- most of their gods had causes), among other things.

 

[Rational Agnostic]

Good OP! Thanks for it.

That is indeed a difficulty with First Cause arguments both for the obvious reason and because it is so problematic to assert precisely how god is an exception to the rule that "everything must have a cause". One can, of course, simply assert that "Gods, by definition, are not caused", but when people do that, they tend to forget to explain why gods must be defined as not needing a cause (the Greeks certainly did not always think so -- most of their gods had causes), among other things.

I've heard the causality rule rephrased as "everything that has a beginning must have a cause." But, according to the theist, the only thing without a beginning is God by their own definition of God. So, this is essentially the same thing as saying "Everything except God has a cause" which is definitely special pleading.

 

[Milton Platt]

I found some interesting excerpts from "God and Religion" by Bertrand Russell on this site: God and Religion by Bertrand Russell. I remember hearing an old interview with Bertrand Russell in which he stated that he spent most of his free time between the ages of 15 and 18 thinking about Christian dogmas and discovering that they were not true.

I found it interesting to see that he continued to believe in a deistic god until age 18, when he became an atheist for this simple reason:

Until the age of eighteen I continued to believe in a Deist's God, because the First-Cause argument seemed to me irrefutable. Then in John Stuart Mill's Autobiography I found that James Mill had taught him the refutation of that argument-namely, that it gives no answer to the question "Who made God?"

If god can exsist without a cause, then the universe can exist without a cause. No special pleading please.

 

[Regiomontanus]

Good OP! Thanks for it.

That is indeed a difficulty with First Cause arguments both for the obvious reason and because it is so problematic to assert precisely how god is an exception to the rule that "everything must have a cause". One can, of course, simply assert that "Gods, by definition, are not caused", but when people do that, they tend to forget to explain why gods must be defined as not needing a cause (the Greeks certainly did not always think so -- most of their gods had causes), among other things.

As an atheist I thought I was clever when I would say (I first heard it said this way by 'the most hated woman in America' who I knew and supported) "what makes more sense, a universe that was self-created or a universe created by a god who was self created"? "What's the use of a middleman?" I cringe now thinking about it; it is lame because it is an example of a category error.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

Good OP! Thanks for it.

That is indeed a difficulty with First Cause arguments both for the obvious reason and because it is so problematic to assert precisely how god is an exception to the rule that "everything must have a cause". One can, of course, simply assert that "Gods, by definition, are not caused", but when people do that, they tend to forget to explain why gods must be defined as not needing a cause (the Greeks certainly did not always think so -- most of their gods had causes), among other things.

And it's not only that! It is that "God" is, by definition, more complex and more unlikely than any of the natural explanations that physicists consider.

Think about it: God is not only an exception to "everything must have a cause," but God also has, of necessity, characteristics that are simply inexplicable: timeless and unchanging (yet suddenly needing to create a universe), creative and powerful, yet in a timeless universe does nothing for absolutely ever, until inexplicably he does.

This is simply not acceptable as an "explanation" for anything at all. But it does the trick for theists because, well, frankly, they can't think of anything else, so "that must be the truth."

 

[Aupmanyav]

One of the persons who spoiled me - Bertrand Russel.

 

[rational experiences]

When a human is first and originally just a human and you can own thinking.

Which we all do, think.

Then you pose themes. And yet every state that you talk about is natural.

Is self present and natural. It if did not exist, you could not talk about it.

Then scientists claim I know where the moment of it began and then all information of how it changed to form its presence and it is natural.

So science does not exist beyond that expression of explanation, otherwise you would be a proven liar, which you are all proven to be, liars.

For you sought the destruction and conversion and transformation of what you claim is natural energy in its natural forms, to get it for invention use. All conditions which are manipulated and only applied by human being scientists, who began their science journey as males, a group of.

Therefore if you never invented the machine, then natural creation would just exist, with you knowingly claiming and for some reason I am living within the created form.

And I can think about it, so said self was the consciousness.

If you were a human who could not think, then no stories about any creator would even exist.

So then you have to ask self, for what reason would a human be looking for the creator of everything?

Which would include all bodies of a his own built machine, from formed and created physical and material energy.

Which then also says....no reaction either.

So what is your answer theist, why did you go looking and searching for what you claim was the beginning highest self before moment of any form of creation existing, if you as a human and a self did not believe that it still existed.

For that would also make you a liar.

For if a male says, what used to exist is converted to own the lesser formed processes from cooling...then he would say, so something greater than caused creation.

If science said it was gone and converted, then you would have accepted that ideal and then gone about stating only one statement.

That you could take formed physical mass of energy, attack it and then still be enabled to use some of the energy that was left over.

If it was just energy, then as soon as you changed it, it all would be removed...and there would not be any left over. Which proves that mass never owned any space.

Therefore the body from which it was removed from, also never owned space.

So today if you still are in search and want the presence Creator, through your own human presence as that human being claiming and it was where I came from only after the gases had filled in emptied out space and I wanted to go back there.

Would equals your own ANSWER....I am the Destroyer, for that was the intention of human invented science.

Science by male group original definition said eternal always existed always had existed and always will exist, as the highest state. You can therefore talk stories like all natural humans can first. For science does not exist until it is acted upon by choice, human and invention, by the human controlled by the human.

Therefore I can talk stories about the word eternal and so can you. Yet in talking about it, does not give you claim to it....as to a theme I can take it and manipulate/change it and convert it...for you would be lying. Yet that is the exact theme that you always said everything came from...and that it still existed, which is what you were seeking, the information or contacts for it.

Yet the natural psyche says....the contacts are not on this side. So where and how we live owns 2 sides....one side into out of space which is defined to be empty itself....or the other side eternal on the other side of the gases. Which science says I cannot prove. So you ought to accept that self advice, for it was never science.

 

[Sunstone]

As an atheist I thought I was clever when I would say (I first heard it said this way by 'the most hated woman in America' who I knew and supported) "what makes more sense, a universe that was self-created or a universe created by a god who was self created"? "What's the use of a middleman?" I cringe now thinking about it; it is lame because it is an example of a category error.

Interesting point. I'll have to think about it.

 

[Mock Turtle]

One of the persons who spoiled me - Bertrand Russel.

And me. In Praise of Idleness probably accounts for my laziness too.

 

[GoodbyeDave]

Who cares about Russell? In the 1920s, he espoused racism and eugenics. In the 1940s, he advocated the use of nuclear weapons against the USSR to destroy them before they developed their own bomb. In the 1960s, he described Kennedy as worse than Hitler. Not a man who opinions I'd value.

 

[Rational Agnostic]

As an atheist I thought I was clever when I would say (I first heard it said this way by 'the most hated woman in America' who I knew and supported) "what makes more sense, a universe that was self-created or a universe created by a god who was self created"? "What's the use of a middleman?" I cringe now thinking about it; it is lame because it is an example of a category error.

Why do you think it is a "category error" and what do you mean by "category error?"

 

[Rational Agnostic]

Who cares about Russell? In the 1920s, he espoused racism and eugenics. In the 1940s, he advocated the use of nuclear weapons against the USSR to destroy them before they developed their own bomb. In the 1960s, he described Kennedy as worse than Hitler. Not a man who opinions I'd value.

I researched a few of these claims you made about him. A few of them are half-truths, but most are outright lies. What we do know is that Russell was one of the greatest mathematicians in history, and likely one of the smartest people who ever lived.

 

[Pachomius]

Russell wrote a piece on "Is There a God," commissioned by Sports Illustrated, but it was never published.

Here is the link:
Is There a God

Dear Hubert, I would like you and me to find out whether in that piece of writing Russell ever defines what is God.

What do you say?

 

[Rational Agnostic]

Russell wrote a piece on "Is There a God," commissioned by Sports Illustrated, but it was never published.

Here is the link:
Is There a God

Dear Hubert, I would like you and me to find out whether in that piece of writing Russell ever defines what is God.

What do you say?

I'll check it out when I have time. Looks interesting.

 

[rational experiences]

Aren't males as a human the inventor of science, only whilst living inside of a gas atmosphere standing on a stone body that he said was the philosophy of God?

The only place....no matter where you place your thoughts.

So he says mind is over matter.

Which would entail, a human male said my mind knows how to remove God from existing and gave that value nothing or zero.

Fake.

Space is one word, its description is owns no mass in its own presence, space...yet supports mass presence that owns no space otherwise it would just be space also.

The state nothing.

So if a male said to self for my life to gain God the power of, I would want God to be nothing, by a concept....yet God was natural and naturally present as mass.

To say, I need to irradiate a space inside of mass to make it all disappear.

As based on his mountain model ^.

Yet his machine ^ the law of God, mountain did not disappear, the stone did into sink holes...whilst he owned/operated the machine and its reaction.

So where is God the Creator in this theme in science male human reality?

Does not even exist.

Now if a male says, matter or mass in space can change by spatial pressure conditions and see the change occur....if he says...and that moment is where God came from....then that moment is not GOD is it, by your owned definition of the statement.

And if you placed the thought of what you owned, where you lived into that moment, you would not exist afterwards.

Relative statement to self that you are the Destroyer of God, not its creator/inventor.

And then you would also say, the absolute condition would be you sending us all to Hell...for we would fall into a burning mass reaction....seeing you scientist said, the Universe once was a hot dense state from the big bang.

Not really a nice human presence are you scientist.

 

[Pachomius]

Dear rational experiences, I like very much to propose to you this premise, to be adopted by all who care to investigate the topic of whether God exists or not, here below:

Existence is the default status of reality.

See if you can understand that premise as to expand on it in more words, to explain to anyone reading here, what it means.

 

[rational experiences]

Dear rational experiences, I like very much to propose to you this premise, to be adopted by all who care to investigate the topic of whether God exists or not, here below:

Existence is the default status of reality.

See if you can understand that premise as to expand on it in more words, to explain to anyone reading here, what it means.

If existence did not exist then you would not own the reality of that existence, being God.

God reality.....I live on a stone planet. If that planet did not exist, then nor would I.

Stone philosophy reality, God is the stone said the male human standing on that stone planet. Reality.

Discussions of God in space.....reality when no Nature or consciousness existed......therefore God owned no discussion in reality.

Default back to the consciousness, human being spiritual self claiming all titles about existence owning his concept that his self created it.

Yet he is only a human being bio life and a male/man.

Existence, once he states I was in the body eternal as an eternal being who created the existence of creation. I inherited it as a male/man and never wanted it to exist. Reality of the default.

De...meaning regarding the fault.

Males says, it was the eternal being.

 

[Mock Turtle]

Who cares about Russell? In the 1920s, he espoused racism and eugenics. In the 1940s, he advocated the use of nuclear weapons against the USSR to destroy them before they developed their own bomb. In the 1960s, he described Kennedy as worse than Hitler. Not a man who opinions I'd value.

Short ad hom attacks can usually be dismissed as quickly, especially when they might rebound on the reputation of the one making such attacks. When you have a Nobel prize for Literature, a reputation as one of the best philosophers/mathematicians/logicians, and a body of work highly regarded then many more might listen - but then I suppose the Nobel prize has been weakened somewhat by being given to a certain singer.

The Kennedy thing I assume was about the effects of his actions (not him personally) - and the Cuban Missile Crisis - and where a serious nuclear war would undoubtedly have been worse for mankind than even Hitler's actions. I had just started work then, aged 17, and I can remember the real fear of this brinkmanship actually causing such a war. It was that important that the climbdown was announced over the works Tannoy when it happened.

 

[Pachomius]

Dear Hubert, the title of your thread is the following:

How Bertrand Russell Became An Atheist.

I found some interesting excerpts from "God and Religion" by Bertrand Russell on this site: God and Religion by Bertrand Russell. I remember hearing an old interview with Bertrand Russell in which he stated that he spent most of his free time between the ages of 15 and 18 thinking about Christian dogmas and discovering that they were not true.

I found it interesting to see that he continued to believe in a deistic god until age 18, when he became an atheist for this simple reason:

Until the age of eighteen I continued to believe in a Deist's God, because the First-Cause argument seemed to me irrefutable. Then in John Stuart Mill's Autobiography I found that James Mill had taught him the refutation of that argument-namely, that it gives no answer to the question "Who made God?"

I don't see any relevant exposition in your OP to the effect that you achieve to tell readers how Bertrand Russell became an atheist.

You should have presented John Stuart Mill's refutation of first cause argument for God’s existence, where Bertrand found the refutation of the first cause, consisting, namely, that it gives no answer to the question "Who made God?”

What is the relevancy of no answer to the question who made God to the refutation against God’s existence as the first cause?