mangoe@umcp-cs.UUCP (Charley Wingate) (10/16/84)
Having read WHY I AM NOT A CHRISTIAN, it seems evident to me that BR's hatred of christianity is so far from rationality that I see no reason to give any credence to his arguments. BR's intolerance exceeds JC's. Charley Wingate
mrh@cybvax0.UUCP (Mike Huybensz) (10/16/84)
> Having read WHY I AM NOT A CHRISTIAN, it seems evident to me that BR's > hatred of christianity is so far from rationality that I see no reason > to give any credence to his arguments. BR's intolerance exceeds JC's. > > Charley Wingate I'd rather hear you criticize BR's arguments than his attitude. The question is whether his arguments are rational. You can't logically dismiss his arguments because his beliefs are polarized oppositely to yours. And as far as I can see, his personal experiences justify a great dislike for Christianity and many who practice it. My volume has an addendum describing some of the persecution he suffered when his appointment to a NYU faculty position became the target of religious groups. -- Mike Huybensz ...mit-eddie!cybvax0!mrh
mangoe@umcp-cs.UUCP (Charley Wingate) (10/17/84)
Mike Huybensz writes: > I'd rather hear you criticize BR's arguments than his attitude. > The question is whether his arguments are rational. You can't > logically dismiss his arguments because his beliefs are polarized > oppositely to yours. > And as far as I can see, his personal experiences justify a great > dislike for Christianity and many who practice it. My volume has > an addendum describing some of the persecution he suffered when his > appointment to a NYU faculty position became the target of religious > groups. My volume does too, and that's precisely my point. Russell's arguments ultimately boil down to his resentment of christianity for things that people did in its name; the "logical" arguments are nothing more than rationalizations. It has become popular to shoot at christianity for the things which people who were not very good christians have done. If this standard were universally applied, we could just as easily condemn atheism, or Taoism, or anything else. Since this standard of zero hypocrisy is applied only to Christianity, I must conclude that the attacks are done due to bias and not due to any logical reason. Certainly "christians" have done their share of the world's evil. I believe in personal responsibility, and thus let the evil fall upon its practitioners, not on their family or country or religion. Charley Wingate UUCP: {seismo,allegra,brl-bmd}!umcp-cs!mangoe CSNet: mangoe@umcp-cs ARPA: mangoe@maryland "My wings are like a shield of steel."
mrh@cybvax0.UUCP (Mike Huybensz) (10/18/84)
> ... Russell's arguments > ultimately boil down to his resentment of christianity for things that > people did in its name; the "logical" arguments are nothing more than > rationalizations. > > It has become popular to shoot at christianity for the things which people > who were not very good christians have done. If this standard were > universally applied, we could just as easily condemn atheism, or Taoism, > or anything else... > > Charley Wingate > "My wings are like a shield of steel." Evidently your wings must cover your eyes. While BR writes for a Christian audience, and so uses Christian examples, in the preface of my edition he writes: "...I am as firmly convinced that religions do harm as I am that they are untrue... [ommitted list of evils of religions]... The above evils are independent of the particular creed in question and exist equally in all creeds which are held dogmatically...." BR makes those same points repeatedly through the text. Now, why don't you show how his arguments in the title essay under the headings "The First Cause Argument", "The Natural Law Argument", and "The argument From Design" are just rationalizations of his dislike for Christianity , as you suggest above? -- Mike Huybensz ...mit-eddie!cybvax0!mrh
mangoe@umcp-cs.UUCP (Charley Wingate) (10/19/84)
> While BR writes for a Christian > audience, and so uses Christian examples, in the preface of my edition he > writes: > "...I am as firmly convinced that religions do harm as I am that they are > untrue... [ommitted list of evils of religions]... The above evils are > independent of the particular creed in question and exist equally in all > creeds which are held dogmatically...." > BR makes those same points repeatedly through the text. > Now, why don't you show how his arguments in the title essay under the > headings "The First Cause Argument", "The Natural Law Argument", and > "The argument From Design" are just rationalizations of his dislike for > Christianity , as you suggest above? > Mike Huybensz All those arguements that Russell cites are from Aquinas, and, while admit that he was a brilliant man, those arguements have been discredited among the protestants for hundreds of years (and certainly in this century). His arguments are the equivalent of saying that since Democritus' idea of atoms was mostly wrong, therefore the notion of atoms should be discredited. The only parts of his argument that are worth a grain of salt are his arguments referring to the evils men have done in the name of religion. And the problem is that these arguments apply equally well to any philosophical position that any large group of people have claimed allegiance to or will do so to in the future. Men revel in the practice of evil regardless of religious persuasion; christianity has not made evil more common. It has made it more obvious. Charley Wingate P.S. Mike, you and I appear to have the same edition.