Bertrand Russell's Refutation of the Argument of Design

[Rational Agnostic]

This is from Why I am Not a Christian by Bertrand Russell, and is, in my opinion, an excellent refutation of the design argument for the existence of God:

Do you think that, if you were granted omnipotence and omniscience and millions of years in which to perfect your world, you could produce nothing better than the Ku Klux Klan, the Fascist, and Mr. Winston Churchill? Really I am not much impressed with the people who say: “Look at me: I am such a splendid product that there must have been design in the universe.” I am not very impressed by the splendor of those people. Therefore I think that this argument of design is really a very poor argument indeed.

Thoughts?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

This is from Why I am Not a Christian by Bertrand Russell, and is, in my opinion, an excellent refutation of the design argument for the existence of God:

Do you think that, if you were granted omnipotence and omniscience and millions of years in which to perfect your world, you could produce nothing better than the Ku Klux Klan, the Fascist, and Mr. Winston Churchill? Really I am not much impressed with the people who say: “Look at me: I am such a splendid product that there must have been design in the universe.” I am not very impressed by the splendor of those people. Therefore I think that this argument of design is really a very poor argument indeed.

Thoughts?

Good on old Russell, that he limited it to a Christian God.
Now we just need the rest of all the possible creator gods.

Mikkel

 

[74x12]

This is from Why I am Not a Christian by Bertrand Russell, and is, in my opinion, an excellent refutation of the design argument for the existence of God:

Do you think that, if you were granted omnipotence and omniscience and millions of years in which to perfect your world, you could produce nothing better than the Ku Klux Klan, the Fascist, and Mr. Winston Churchill? Really I am not much impressed with the people who say: “Look at me: I am such a splendid product that there must have been design in the universe.” I am not very impressed by the splendor of those people. Therefore I think that this argument of design is really a very poor argument indeed.

Thoughts?

It's a negative perspective. He sees negativity and thinks people are stupid if they don't have the same negative view. I think we all have had negative perspectives before; but we shouldn't stay wallowing in them. We should do our best to change our point of view. If you want to change your perspective be more understanding of others and loving/kind. Seek for good of others and don't focus on their flaws. Because everyone has flaws. As the scripture says love covers a multitude of sins. Love overlooks all flaws and sees creation in everyone. You look in someone's eyes and you see something valuable.

 

[1213]

This is from Why I am Not a Christian by Bertrand Russell, and is, in my opinion, an excellent refutation of the design argument for the existence of God:

Do you think that, if you were granted omnipotence and omniscience and millions of years in which to perfect your world, you could produce nothing better than the Ku Klux Klan, the Fascist, and Mr. Winston Churchill? ...

I think everyone should know that Ku Klux Klan and fascism are human inventions, not God’s creations. God created people (Adam and Eve) and I think He did excellent job. And I think it is great thing that God gave us freedom, even though some use it for evil.

 

[George-ananda]

This is from Why I am Not a Christian by Bertrand Russell, and is, in my opinion, an excellent refutation of the design argument for the existence of God:

Do you think that, if you were granted omnipotence and omniscience and millions of years in which to perfect your world, you could produce nothing better than the Ku Klux Klan, the Fascist, and Mr. Winston Churchill? Really I am not much impressed with the people who say: “Look at me: I am such a splendid product that there must have been design in the universe.” I am not very impressed by the splendor of those people. Therefore I think that this argument of design is really a very poor argument indeed.

Thoughts?

Sounds like a poor argument to me. It presumes the goal for the universal intelligence is to create perfection as opposed to allowing things to evolve/achieve perfection by their own spiritual efforts (a more noble thing). A dumb person just isn't there yet but will get there by their efforts and perhaps lessons learned the hard way (I believe in reincarnation). What exists is actually perfection playing itself out.


The fantastic complexity of any living thing is to me mind-boggling (but I guess not impossible) to think it came about through only the known natural laws with no intelligent intent.

 

[Skwim]

I think everyone should know that Ku Klux Klan and fascism are human inventions, not God’s creations. God created people (Adam and Eve) and I think He did excellent job. And I think it is great thing that God gave us freedom, even though some use it for evil.

Don't forget that it's god who creates evil.

Isaiah 45:7
I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things.​

.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Don't forget that it's god who creates evil.

Isaiah 45:7
I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things.​

.

Why does Isaiah 45:7 say that God created evil? | GotQuestions.org

So apparently it is not that simple. Well, since you made the quote, I thought I would check it.

Mikkel

 

[Polymath257]

This is from Why I am Not a Christian by Bertrand Russell, and is, in my opinion, an excellent refutation of the design argument for the existence of God:

Do you think that, if you were granted omnipotence and omniscience and millions of years in which to perfect your world, you could produce nothing better than the Ku Klux Klan, the Fascist, and Mr. Winston Churchill? Really I am not much impressed with the people who say: “Look at me: I am such a splendid product that there must have been design in the universe.” I am not very impressed by the splendor of those people. Therefore I think that this argument of design is really a very poor argument indeed.

Thoughts?

While I often agree with Russell's conclusions, I generally find his arguments to be lacking and full of holes. This is a good example of such.

At best, it is an argument against a particular view of what God 'should be'. At worst, it ignores the possibility that God created (or allowed to be created) aspects that are not at all splendid.

Now, of course, if it is the KKK, the Fascists, etc who are claiming their own splendor, then I can agree with Russell that it is a poor argument that *they* make as well.

 

[Skwim]

Why does Isaiah 45:7 say that God created evil? | GotQuestions.org

So apparently it is not that simple. Well, since you made the quote, I thought I would check it.

Mikkel

Your source and its lame apologetics.

"Answer: Isaiah 45:7 in the King James Version reads, “I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things.” How does Isaiah 45:7 agree with the view that God did not create evil? There are two key facts that need to be considered.
(1) The word translated “evil” is from a Hebrew word that means “adversity, affliction, calamity, distress, misery.” [AND "EVIL"] Notice how the other major English Bible translations render the word: “disaster” (NIV, HCSB), “calamity” (NKJV, NAS, ESV), and “woe” (NRSV)."
​

Notice that out of 65 different Bibles "evil" is the most popular rendering of the word "ra" in Isaiah 45:7. *

"Evil" 40%,
"Disaster" 17% .
"Woe" 14%
"Calamity at 12%

"(2) The context of Isaiah 45:7 makes it clear that something other than “bringing moral evil into existence” is in mind. The context of Isaiah 45:7 is God rewarding Israel for obedience and punishing Israel for disobedience. God pours out salvation and blessings on those whom He favors. God brings judgment on those who continue to rebel against Him. “Woe to him who quarrels with his Master” (Isaiah 45:9). That is the person to whom God brings “evil” and “disaster.” So, rather than saying that God created “moral evil,” Isaiah 45:7 is presenting a common theme of Scripture – that God brings disaster on those who continue in hard-hearted rebellion against Him"​

What a bunch of self-serving hogwash. After having put Cyrus in control God is merely reminding him and others that it's he, god, who is ultimately in charge. God here asserts his sole dominion for and through Cyrus; that he is lord of all, and nothing is done without him. And he does so by listing a few of his powers. God. . . .

"forms the light,"
"creates darkness"
"makes peace"
"and creates evil"​

*In fact, if one consults Strong's for ra` (H7451) as used as a noun in Isaiah 45:7, "evil" is listed as the primary translation in both categories and in all six uses.


.

 

[Rational Agnostic]

While I often agree with Russell's conclusions, I generally find his arguments to be lacking and full of holes. This is a good example of such.

At best, it is an argument against a particular view of what God 'should be'. At worst, it ignores the possibility that God created (or allowed to be created) aspects that are not at all splendid.

Now, of course, if it is the KKK, the Fascists, etc who are claiming their own splendor, then I can agree with Russell that it is a poor argument that *they* make as well.

Well, I think he's making the point that we'd expect to see designs much better than humans if a perfect and omnipotent god created everything. And I agree with him. But I also agree that some of his arguments are overly simplistic. I find it amusing that a brilliant mathematician like Russell didn't even think to ask the question "who made God?" until age 18.

 

[McBell]

This is from Why I am Not a Christian by Bertrand Russell, and is, in my opinion, an excellent refutation of the design argument for the existence of God:

Do you think that, if you were granted omnipotence and omniscience and millions of years in which to perfect your world, you could produce nothing better than the Ku Klux Klan, the Fascist, and Mr. Winston Churchill? Really I am not much impressed with the people who say: “Look at me: I am such a splendid product that there must have been design in the universe.” I am not very impressed by the splendor of those people. Therefore I think that this argument of design is really a very poor argument indeed.

Thoughts?

I like Douglas Adams a lot better:

“Imagine a puddle waking up one morning and thinking, ‘This is an interesting world I find myself in, an interesting hole I find myself in, fits me rather neatly, doesn’t it? In fact it fits me staggeringly well, must have been made to have me in it!’ This is such a powerful idea that as the sun rises in the sky and the air heats up and as, gradually, the puddle gets smaller and smaller, it’s still frantically hanging on to the notion that everything’s going to be alright, because this world was meant to have him in it, was built to have him in it; so the moment he disappears catches him rather by surprise. I think this may be something we need to be on the watch out for.’”​

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Your source and its lame apologetics.

"Answer: Isaiah 45:7 in the King James Version reads, “I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things.” How does Isaiah 45:7 agree with the view that God did not create evil? There are two key facts that need to be considered.
(1) The word translated “evil” is from a Hebrew word that means “adversity, affliction, calamity, distress, misery.” [AND "EVIL"] Notice how the other major English Bible translations render the word: “disaster” (NIV, HCSB), “calamity” (NKJV, NAS, ESV), and “woe” (NRSV)."
​

Notice that out of 65 different Bibles "evil" is the most popular rendering of the word "ra" in Isaiah 45:7. *

"Evil" 40%,
"Disaster" 17% .
"Woe" 14%
"Calamity at 12%

"(2) The context of Isaiah 45:7 makes it clear that something other than “bringing moral evil into existence” is in mind. The context of Isaiah 45:7 is God rewarding Israel for obedience and punishing Israel for disobedience. God pours out salvation and blessings on those whom He favors. God brings judgment on those who continue to rebel against Him. “Woe to him who quarrels with his Master” (Isaiah 45:9). That is the person to whom God brings “evil” and “disaster.” So, rather than saying that God created “moral evil,” Isaiah 45:7 is presenting a common theme of Scripture – that God brings disaster on those who continue in hard-hearted rebellion against Him"​

What a bunch of self-serving hogwash. After having put Cyrus in control God is merely reminding him and others that it's he, god, who is ultimately in charge. God here asserts his sole dominion for and through Cyrus; that he is lord of all, and nothing is done without him. And he does so by listing a few of his powers. God. . . .

"forms the light,"
"creates darkness"
"makes peace"
"and creates evil"​

*In fact, if one consults Strong's for ra` (H7451) as used as a noun in Isaiah 45:7, "evil" is listed as the primary translation in both categories and in all six uses.


.

Okay.

Well, I don't real care, since my God is not the Christian one.

Mikkel

 

[GoodbyeDave]

The argument from design hardly assumes that we live in a perfect universe, let alone one where humans are perfect. Current interest in the argument centres on cosmic fine-tuning
Teleological Arguments for God’s Existence (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)
Regardless of whether you accept this or not, the fact remains that Russell's arguments were only slightly more intelligent than those of Dawkins. Wittgenstein used to say that every philosopher should read Russell on mathematical logic — and no-one should read him on anything else.

 

[1213]

Don't forget that it's god who creates evil.

Isaiah 45:7
I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things.​

.

Yes, and evil is basically like darkness or emptiness, nothing. Evil is possible, because God has let us to be without Him, that is how evil is formed, by being without good.

 

[Skwim]

Yes, and evil is basically like darkness or emptiness, nothing. Evil is possible, because God has let us to be without Him, that is how evil is formed, by being without good.

Nice to see you agree.

.

 

[Muffled]

This is from Why I am Not a Christian by Bertrand Russell, and is, in my opinion, an excellent refutation of the design argument for the existence of God:

Do you think that, if you were granted omnipotence and omniscience and millions of years in which to perfect your world, you could produce nothing better than the Ku Klux Klan, the Fascist, and Mr. Winston Churchill? Really I am not much impressed with the people who say: “Look at me: I am such a splendid product that there must have been design in the universe.” I am not very impressed by the splendor of those people. Therefore I think that this argument of design is really a very poor argument indeed.

Thoughts?

I believe it is a smoke screen and ignores the issue of whether things are designed. What he is actually raising is a question of whether the design is good in man's eyes.

 

[Muffled]

Well, I think he's making the point that we'd expect to see designs much better than humans if a perfect and omnipotent god created everything. And I agree with him. But I also agree that some of his arguments are overly simplistic. I find it amusing that a brilliant mathematician like Russell didn't even think to ask the question "who made God?" until age 18.

I believe when you think men's designs are so much better than God's you might think of the atomic bomb and how well it wipes out whole cities.