Bertrand Russell's Arguments Against The Existence Of God

1. Examine the strengths and weaknesses of the argument for the existence of God based on religious experience. (18) 2. ‘The argument merely indicates the probability of God and this is of little value to a religious believer.’ Discuss. (12)

B. Explanation of allusion: Bertrand Russell was a British philosopher, mathematician and social critic who was involved in the Anglo-American philosophy movement. He campaigned for peace and wrote on social, political, and moral subjects publishing 70 books and around 2,000 articles. In 1890, Russell switched his focus from mathematics to philosophy. He was awarded the Nobel Prize for Literature in 1950. He spent

God? A Debate Between a Christian and an Atheist The existence or otherwise of God has attracted a seeming countless debates from all classes of people mainly academics, comprising theologians, scientists and philosophers, not to mention laypersons. Consequently, this singular topic has generated many publications and reviews. Of particular interest are the two opposing views brilliantly presented by William Lane Craig, a popular Christian philosopher and apologist who is Research Professor of Philosophy at Talbot School of Theology and Walter Sinnott-Armstrong, Professor of Philosophy at Dartmouth College. There had been intense rounds of debate on the subject, prominent among which were the one at Dartmouth in 1999 and another at Wooddale Church in 2000. William Lane Craig believes, and firmly too, that God exists while Walter Sinnott-Armstrong would always want to convince his listeners that He does not. These opposing views and more are taken up in the 2003 popular and unique book, God? A Debate Between a Christian and an Atheist. The uniqueness of the book, and in fact, its greatest strength can be found in the fact that it was co-authored by opponents, a christian and an atheist. What makes the book more interesting is that it represents the results of an actual debate, where each side not only presents its succinct and polite views but has the chance to actively respond to its opponent with some succinct theological and philosophical sophistication. While they arrive

In 1968, H.J. McCloskey, an Australian Philosopher wrote an article titled “On Being an Atheist” which is an attempt for his personal reasons to reject the belief in God. In the article McCloskey criticizes against the theistic proofs, which are cosmological argument and the teleological argument. Majority of the article is focused on the evil issues and catastrophic events to innocent people in a world that is supposedly designed by an omnipotent and loving God, which McCloskey believes is a valid case in his arguments against cosmological and teleological arguments as well as his assertions that evil is proof against God’s existence. But, it still remains that the most reasonable explanation for the creator of the universe

After reading “Thoughts of the Presence of Fear” by Wendell Berry and “Useless Knowledge” by Bertrand Russell, I found that it is quite evident that the approach of the 2 arguments proposed by the authors are very different. Wendell Berry’s approach is a more negative way because he states the solutions to the given problems, however, they are generalized. He doesn’t really go in depth as to why a certain solution will help or how the solution will lead to a better environment. Rather he mainly states that if we don’t change then it will lead to destruction. On the other hand, Russell incorporates personal experiences in his essay to fully support his argument. An example from the text would be his quote, “Curious learning not only makes unpleasant

He first disproves of the thought that philosophy studies only controversies to which the answer is impossible to know, and says that it will only matter, and have an effect on those who study philosophy for the purpose of gaining knowledge to connect the sciences for an understanding of the universe. Russell then compares a life without philosophy and a life with philosophy, the difference being that a life without philosophy is confined to only thinking of our world, while one who lives a philosophical life is free to think of the outer world, as well as beyond. He concludes by saying philosophy is not studies for the sake of answers, but for the sake of the questions themselves, in order to expand our knowledge of possibilities and intellectual imagination, in addition to understanding the capabilities and greatness of the

One burning and enduring problem in philosophy to which we have given considerable examination is the question of the existence of God--the superlative being that philosophers have defined and dealt with for centuries. After reading the classic arguments of St. Anselm and St. Thomas Aquinas, the contentious assertions of Ernest Nagel, and the compelling eyewitness accounts of Julian of Norwich, I have been introduced to some of the most revered and referenced arguments for and against God's existence that have been put into text. All of them are well-thought and well-articulated arguments, but they have their holes. The question of God's true existence, therefore, is still not definitively answered and put to rest; the intensity of this

In the article “ On Being an Atheist,” H.J. McCloskey attempts to inform his readers that the belief in atheism is a “much more comfortable belief” by effectively using a disdainful rhetoric towards theists and their faith. McCloskey delves into both the Cosmological and Teleological arguments, which within he criticizes the arguments and to further his argument against theism, he also presents the Problem of Evil and why evil cannot possibly exist with a perfect God being the creator of universe. What will be displayed in this essay are the counter-arguments to McCloskey’s criticisms and the attempt to discredit his claims that regard the “comfortable” position that lies within atheism and its arguments.

A woman similar to his mother played a brief but important role in his life. This person was his grandmother Ida Rebecca. Ida Rebecca and his mother did not pair well mostly because they shared a certain amount of competitiveness. It was this competitiveness that showed Russell exactly what kind of woman Ida Rebecca was. She had a domineering presence that displayed a quaint form of matriarchy over all those around her, not limited to just her children. This power humbled Russell towards adults and caused him to listen more than speak. Ida Rebecca could be considered one of his biggest benefactors. Because of this simple quality of silence she instilled in him, he was able to understand life much better. Obviously, anyone who listens more than speaks is more likely to learn more. Although she was strong, Ida did have some loose ends. She was very superstitious. Everything

Most major arguments of God are rooted in the existence, or lack thereof. However there has been a continuous debate regarding the specific characteristics of God. In this debate, Charles Hartshorne, Alfred North Whitehead, and other the processed theologians oppose Anselm, Augustine, and other classic theologians. Although there are many points of disagreement, there are some characteristics for which both sides can agree upon. I will show one strong point of agreement and one strong point of opposition, and allow you the opportunity to decide for yourself how different, or similar, these two camps are.

The debate of the existence of God had been active since before the first philosopher has pondered the question. Anselm’s Ontological Argument was introduced during the 11th century and had stood deductively valid until the 18th century. Then there are the arguments to aim disprove God, such as the Argument from Evil.

“However, when Russell found himself unable to answer certain questions of a sceptic, he, himself, passed over into a frigid unbelief. It was then that he met the Seventh-day Adventists, and his faith in Christianity, and especially in the Second Advent, was restored.”1

In the report, The Case for Faith by Lee Strobel was the main focus of study and discussion on the strongest objections of Christianity, additionally, the book following Lee Strobel as he sought answers intentionally to disprove Christianity. However, there were circumstances which led to him proving the case as to why faith in God is justified. Accordingly, the main task of this report provided answers to the theological objections proposed in the book. Given these points, a conclusion arose on the contents of the book disputing whether the information in the book is valid, as the overall opinions on the book were confirmed.

Bertrand Russell discussed certain problems he found with philosophy. Russell was concerned about how much did we really know. There is the stuff we know with our mind when we have a particular idea, and stuff we know through actually experiencing it which would justify it. But how do we know if it is real, or even there, for that matter? Russell says, “For if we cannot be sure of the independent existence of object, we cannot be sure of the independent existence of other people’s bodies, and therefore still less of other peoples minds, since we have no grounds for believing in their minds except such as are derived from observing their bodies” (Russell, 47). How can Farmer Brown be sure that the dairyman just didn’t have an idea

Russell was a leader in the revival of the philosophy of empiricism in the large field of epistemology. He wrote Our Knowledge of the External World (1914), The Analysis of Matter (1927) and Human Knowledge, Its Scope and Limits (1948). He also wrote Principles of mathematics (1903), Principia Mathematica (with A.N. Whitehead; three volumes, 1910 – 1913), and Introduction to mathematical Philosophy (1919).