Bertrand Russell - FISH!!!

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I think people confuse an informal style with pedestrian


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



My problem is with the simplicity of the argument, not the prose. Russell's style is nice and makes one wish that he would have done a German to Earthling translation of Kant.

[/ QUOTE ]
Agreed the argument is simple, hard to see how anyone can misunderstand it. There's clearly scope for approaches like Matt R wishes to take but no guarantee they will get there without implausible assumptions.

If the criticism is that the book doesn't deal with the issues in enough depth then fair enough but its a short book.

chez

[revots33]

I finally gave in and dug out my old copy of WIANAC. After re-reading the relevant section I think there are a few things to mention:

1. OP seems to be overly focused on Russell's "It comes in one verse after another", since he could only find the phrase "wailing and gnashing of teeth" in 2 verses. He sees this as a factual error which throws doubt upon the author's overall credibility. However in the book Russell continues to mention several other places where a similar description of hell is discussed by Jesus ("fire that shall never be quenched", "everlasting fire", etc.) It's pretty obvious upon re-reading that Russell is talking about Jesus' belief in hell overall, not the use of a particular phrase.

2. This work was originally a spoken lecture and as such was meant to entertain an audience also. It is rather informal in its tone and I don't think factchecking every statistic used in his speech is an effective way to show his position is wrong (or that he is a "Fish"). It is not a philosophy text with exhaustively cited references. He is trying to convey his reasons for WIANAC to the audience, and his bit about Jesus taking pleasure in describing hell is undoubtedly his own interpretation. This probably came across better in the original lecture than in print, but it doesn't undermine his point anyway.

3. A couple of better passages from the same section which I think quite clearly sum up Russell's overall point:

"There is one very serious defect to my mind in Christ's moral character, and that is that He believed in hell. I do not myself feel that any person who is really profoundly humane can believe in everlasting punishment."

and

"I must say that I think all this doctrine, that hell-fire is a punishment for sin, is a doctrine of cruelty. It is a doctrine that put cruelty into the world and gave the world generations of cruel torture; and Christ of the Gospels, if you could take Him as His chroniclers represent Him, would certainly have to be considered partly responsible for that."

Note he is clearly saying "I think" and "I do not myself feel". He is inviting those who have no moral problem with hell to disagree with him.

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

It's pretty obvious upon re-reading that Russell is talking about Jesus' belief in hell overall, not the use of a particular phrase.


[/ QUOTE ]

That's neither the point nor is it correct. The point is this from Russell:

[ QUOTE ]

and it is quite manifest to the reader that there is a certain pleasure in contemplating wailing and gnashing of teeth, or else it would not occur so often.


[/ QUOTE ]


He is specifically talking about wailing and gnashing of teeth, he emphasizes that it is the repetition of this precise phrase, which is incorrect, that gives Christ pleasure.

[ QUOTE ]

This work was originally a spoken lecture ...


[/ QUOTE ]

All of this is true. The problem is the written speech has been used as a polemic against Christianity, it was put in a book which contains the same errors as the speech and was presumably endorsed by Russell, anti-Christians today still think the book is somehow above kindergarten level and attempt to use it against Christians, and as far as I know Russell never corrected or explained the errors but allowed its continued use against Christianity. Whatever his original motivation it became no longer relevant because of his endorsement, direct or implied.

[ QUOTE ]

There is one very serious defect to my mind in Christ's moral character, and that is that He believed in hell.


[/ QUOTE ]

This just emphasizes the logical error I showed. If Russell thinks Christ believed in hell, Christ would be immoral if he didn't warn.

[luckyme]

[ QUOTE ]


[ QUOTE ]

There is one very serious defect to my mind in Christ's moral character, and that is that He believed in hell.


[/ QUOTE ]

This just emphasizes the logical error I showed. If Russell thinks Christ believed in hell, Christ would be immoral if he didn't warn.

[/ QUOTE ]

Georgio believes in the Death Penalty.
Hortense believes in card rushes.

I haven't read the book. In which way is Russell using 'believes in'?

luckyme

[luckyme]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]


[ QUOTE ]

There is one very serious defect to my mind in Christ's moral character, and that is that He believed in hell.


[/ QUOTE ]

This just emphasizes the logical error I showed. If Russell thinks Christ believed in hell, Christ would be immoral if he didn't warn.

[/ QUOTE ]

Georgio believes in the Death Penalty.
Hortense believes in card rushes.

I haven't read the book. In which way is Russell using 'believes in'?

luckyme

[/ QUOTE ]

ok, nevermind, I think I've solved it without reading the book. For Russell to be commenting on a Hortense 'believe in' would be a waste of ink. Russell wouldn't be upset about somebody believing in something if it were true.
So, Russell must be making a moral stance and using 'believe in' the Georgio way .. having a hell is the correct thing to do ( it's irrelevant whether it exists or not).

Let me know if I'm going to actually have to read it,

thanks, luckyme