| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"theBeaver" |
| Date: |
13 Dec 2004 07:36:45 PM |
| Object: |
Relevant Russell, in case y'all missed it ... |
Will Religious Faith Cure Our Troubles?
THERE IS a theory, which is winning widespread acceptance in the Western
World, to the effect that what is afflicting the nations is due to the
decay of religious faith. I think this theory completely contrary to the
truth. In so far as faith has anything to do with the matter, there is a
great deal more faith in the world than there was at a somewhat earlier
time. But, in actual fact, the chain of causation which has led to the
perilous position in which we find ourselves is, as I shall try to show,
almost wholly independent of men's beliefs, which are an effect rather
than a cause of what is amiss.
What has happened in the world since 1914 has proceeded with a kind of
inevitability that is like that of Greek tragedy. It is an inevitability
derived, not from external circumstances, but from the characters of the
actors. Let us briefly trace the steps in this development.
The Germans in 1914 thought themselves strong enough to secure by force
an empire comparable to those of Britain, France, and Russia. Britain,
France, and Russia combined to thwart this ambition. Russia was defeated
and, in the Revolution of 1917, abandoned its traditional imperialistic
policy. The West had promised Constantinople to the Russians, but, when
the Russians made a separate peace, this promise fell through. Britain
and France, with the help of America, defeated the Germans after the
Germans had defeated the Russians. The Germans were compelled to accept
the humiliating Treaty of Versailles and to profess a belief in their
sole war guilt. They were "wicked" because they had made war. The
Russians were "wicked" because they had made a separate peace, and,
still more, because they had repudiated their war debts. All the
victorious nations combined to fight Russia, but were defeated, and were
somewhat surprised to find that Russia no longer loved them. The
Germans, meanwhile, suffered great distress, which was much aggravated
when the folly of the American republican government brought about the
Great Depression. Suffering produced hysteria, and hysteria produced
Hitler. The Western nations, hoping that Hitler would attack Russia, did
not oppose him. They had opposed the comparatively blameless Weimar
Republic, but in befriending Hitler they proved to all mankind that they
were totally destitute of moral standards. Hitler, fortunately, was mad,
and, owing to madness, brought about his own downfall. The West had been
delighted to accept Russia's help in bringing about this result, and,
whereas at the end of the First World War Russia and Germany had been
alike weak, Russia at the end of the Second World War was strong.
Britain was traditionally hostile to Russia, but from 1907 to 1917 had
been forced into a semblance of friendship with that country by fear of
Germany. At the end of the Second World War a quite new international
pattern developed. Western Europe had ceased to count. Russia and the
United States were alone powerful. As has always happened in the past in
more or less similar situations, these two Great Powers were mutually
hostile. Each saw a chance of world hegemony. Russia inherited the
policy of Philip II, Napoleon, and the Kaiser. America inherited the
policy which England had pursued throughout the eighteenth and
nineteenth centuries.
In all this there was nothing new except technique. The conflicts of
Great Powers were just what they had always been, except that technique
had made Great Powers greater and war more destructive. The situation
would be exactly what it is if Russia still adhered to the Orthodox
Church. We in the West should, in that case, be pointing out what we
consider heretical in the Greek Church. What our propaganda would be can
be seen by anybody who reads the records of the Crimean War. I am not in
any way defending the present Russian regime any more than I should
defend the Czarist regime. What I am saying is that the two are closely
similar, although the one was Christian and the other is not. I am
saying also that, if the present government of Russia were Christian,
the situation would be exactly what it is. The cause of conflict is the
ancient clash of power politics. It is not fundamentally a clash between
faith and un-faith, or between one faith and another, but between two
mighty empires, each of which sees a chance of world supremacy.
Nobody can pretend that the First World War was in any degree due to
lack of Christian faith in the rulers who brought it about. The Czar the
Kaiser, and the Emperor of Austria were all earnest Christians. So was
Sir Edward Grey, and so was President Wilson. There was only one
prominent politician at that time who was not a Christian. That was Jean
Jaures, a socialist who opposed the war and was assassinated with the
approval of almost all French Christians. In England the only members of
the Cabinet who resigned from disapproval of the war were John Burns and
Lord Morley, a noted atheist. In Germany likewise the only opposition
came from atheists under the leadership of Liebknecht. In Russia when
the atheists acquired Power, their first act was to make peace. The
Bolsheviks it is true did not remain peaceful, but that is hardly
surprising in view of the fact that all the victorious Christian nations
attacked them.
..
But let us leave the details of politics and consider our question more
generally. Christians hold that their faith does good, but other faiths
do harm. At any rate, they hold this about the communist faith. What I
wish to maintain is that all faiths do harm. We may define "faith" as a
firm belief in something for which there is no evidence. Where there is
evidence, no one speaks of "faith." We do not speak of faith that two
and two are four or that the earth is round. We only speak of faith when
we wish to substitute emotion for evidence. The substitution of emotion
for evidence is apt to lead to strife, since different groups substitute
different emotions. Christians have faith in the Resurrection,
communists have faith in Marx's Theory of Value. Neither faith can be
defended rationally, and each therefore is defended by propaganda and,
if necessary, by war. The two are equal in this respect. If you think it
immensely important that people should believe something which cannot be
rationally defended, it makes no difference what the something is. Where
you control the government, you teach the something to the immature
minds of children and you burn or prohibit books which teach the
contrary. Where you do not control the government, you will, if you are
strong enough, build up armed forces with a view to conquest. All this
is an inevitable consequence of any strongly held faith unless, like the
Quakers, you are content to remain forever a tiny minority.
..
It is completely mysterious to me that there are apparently sane people
who think that a belief in Christianity might prevent war. Such people
seem totally unable to learn anything from history. The Roman State
became Christian at the time of Constantine and was almost continually
at war until it ceased to exist. The Christian States which succeeded to
it continued to fight each other, though, it must be confessed, they
also from time to time fought States which were not Christian. From the
time of Constantine to the present day there has been no shred of
evidence to show that Christian States are less warlike than others.
Indeed, some of the most ferocious wars have been due to disputes
between different kinds of Christianity. Nobody can deny that Luther and
Loyola were Christians; nobody can deny that their differences were
associated with a long period of ferocious wars.
There are those who argue that Christianity, though it may not be true,
is very useful as promoting social cohesion and though it may not be
perfect, is better than any other faith that has the same social
effectiveness. I will admit that I would rather see the whole world
Christian than Marxist. I find the Marxist faith more repellent than any
other that has been adopted by civilized nations (except perhaps the
Aztec's). But I am quite unwilling to accept the view that social
cohesion is impossible except by the help of useful lies. I know that
this view has the sanction of Plato and of a long line of practical
politicians, but I think that even from a practical point of view it is
mistaken. It is not necessary for purposes of self-defense where
rational arguments suffice. It is necessary for a crusade, but I cannot
think of any case in which a crusade has done any good whatever. When
people regard Christianity as part of rearmament they are taking out of
it whatever spiritual merit it may have. And in order that it may be
effective as rearmament, it is generally thought that it must be
pugnacious, dogmatic and narrowminded. When people think of Christianity
as a help in fighting the Russians it is not the Quaker type of
Christianity that they have in view, but something more in the style of
Senator McCarthy. What makes a creed effective in war is its negative
aspect, that is to say, its hatred of those who do not adopt it. Without
this hatred it serves no bellicose purpose. But as soon as it is used as
a weapon of war, it is the hatred of unbelievers that becomes prominent.
Consequently, when two faiths fight each other, each develops its worst
aspects, and even copies whatever it imagines to be effective in the
faith that it is combating.
The belief that fanaticism promotes success in war is one that is not
borne out by history, although it is constantly assumed by those who
cloak their ignorance under the name of "realism." When the Romans
conquered the Mediterranean world, fanaticism played no part in their
success. The motives of Roman generals were either to acquire the gold
reserves of temples with a view to keeping half for themselves and
giving half to their soldiers, or, as in the case of Caesar, to gain the
prestige which would enable them to win elections in Rome and defy their
creditors. In the early contests of Christians and Mohammedans it was
the Christians who were fanatical and the Mohammedans who were
successful. Christian propaganda has invented stories of Mohammedan
intolerance, but these are wholly false as applied to the early
centuries of Islam. Every Christian has been taught the story of the
Caliph destroying the Library of Alexandria. As a matter of fact, this
library was frequently destroyed and frequently re-created. Its first
destroyer was Julius Caesar, and its last antedated the Prophet. The
early Mohammedans, unlike the Christians, tolerated those whom they
called "people of the Book," provided they paid tribute. In contrast to
the Christians, who persecuted not only pagans but each other, the
Mohammedans were welcomed for their broad-mindedness, and it was largely
this that facilitated their conquests. To come to later times, Spain was
ruined by fanatical hatred of Jews and Moors; France was disastrously
impoverished by the persecution of Huguenots; and one main cause of
Hitler's defeat was his failure to employ Jews in atomic research. Ever
since the time of Archimedes war has been a science, and proficiency in
science has been a main cause of victory. But proficiency in science is
very difficult to combine with fanaticism. We all know how, under the
orders of Stalin, Russian biologists were compelled to subscribe to
Lysenko's errors. It is obvious to every person capable of free
scientific inquiry that the doctrines of Lysenko are less likely to
increase the wheat supply of Russia than those of orthodox geneticists
are to increase the wheat supply of the West. I think it is also very
doubtful whether nuclear research can long continue to flourish in such
an atmosphere as Stalin produced in Russia. Perhaps Russia is now going
to become liberal, and perhaps it will be in the United States that
bigotry will hamper atomic research. As to this, I express no opinion.
But, however this may be, it is clear that, without intellectual
freedom, scientific warfare is not likely to remain long successful.
But let us look at this matter of fanaticism somewhat more broadly. The
contention of those who advocate fanaticism without being fanatics is,
to my mind, not only false, but ignoble. It seems to be thought that
unless everybody in a nation is compelled, either by persecution or by
an education which destroys the power of thought, to believe things
which no rational man can believe, that nation will be so torn by
dissensions or so paralyzed by hesitant doubts that it will inevitably
come to grief. Not only, as I have already argued, is there no
historical evidence for this view, but it is also quite contrary to what
ought to be expected. When a British military expedition marched to
Lhasa in 1905, the Tibetan soldiers at first opposed it bravely, because
the priests had pronounced charms which afforded protection against
lead. When the soldiers nevertheless were killed, the priests excused
themselves on the ground that the bullets contained nickel, against
which their charms had been powerless. After this, the British troops
encountered little opposition. Philip II of Spain was so persuaded that
Heaven must bless his warfare against the heretics that he neglected
entirely to consider the difference between fighting the English and
fighting the Turks, and so he was defeated. There is a very widespread
belief that people can be induced to believe what is contrary to fact in
one domain while remaining scientific in another. This is not the case.
It is by no means easy to keep one's mind open to fresh evidence, and it
is almost impossible to achieve this in one direction, if, in another,
one has a carefully fostered blindness.
There is something feeble, and a little contemptible, about a man who
cannot face the perils of life without the help of comfortable myths.
Almost inevitably some part of him is aware that they are myths and that
he believes them only because they are comforting. But he dare not face
this thought, and he therefore cannot carry his own reflections to any
logical conclusion. Moreover, since he is aware, however dimly, that his
opinions are not rational, he becomes furious when they are disputed. He
therefore adopts persecution, censorship, and a narrowly cramping
education as essentials of statecraft. In so far as he is successful, he
produces a population which is timid and unadventurous and incapable of
progress. Authoritarian rulers have always aimed at producing such a
population. They have usually succeeded, and by their success have
brought their countries to ruin. Many of the objections to what is
called "faith" do not depend in any way upon what the faith in question
may be. You may believe in the verbal inspiration of the Bible or of the
Koran or of Marx's Capital. Whichever of these beliefs you entertain,
you have to close your mind against evidence; and if you close your mind
against evidence in one respect, you will also do so in another, if the
temptation is strong. The Duke of Wellington never allowed himself to
doubt the value of the playing fields of Eton, and was therefore never
able lo accept the superiority of the rifle to the old-fashioned musket.
You may say that belief in God is not as harmful as belief in the
playing fields of Eton. I will not argue on this point, except to say
that it becomes harmful in proportion as you secretly doubt whether it
is in accordance with the facts. The important thing is not what you
believe, but how you believe it. There was a time when it was rational
to believe that the earth is flat. At that time this belief did not have
the bad consequences belonging to what is called "faith." But the people
who, in our day, persist in believing that the earth is flat, have to
close their minds against reason and to open them to every kind of
absurdity in addition to the one from which they start. If you think
that your belief is based upon reason, you will support it by argument,
rather than by persecution, and will abandon it if the argument goes
against you. But if your belief is based on faith, you will realize that
argument is useless, and will therefore resort to force either in the
form of persecution or by stunting and distorting the minds of the young
in what is called "education." This last is peculiarly dastardly, since
it takes advantage of the defenselessness of immature minds.
Unfortunately it is practiced in a greater or less degree in the schools
of every civilized country.
In addition to the general argument against faith, there is something
peculiarly odious in the contention that the principles of the Sermon on
the Mount are to be adopted with a view to making atom bombs more
effective. If I were a Christian, I should consider this the absolute
extreme of blasphemy.
I do not believe that a decay of dogmatic belief can do anything but
good. I admit at once that new systems of dogma, such as those of the
Nazis and the Communists, are even worse than the old systems, but they
could never have acquired a hold over men's minds if orthodox dogmatic
habits had not been instilled in youth. Stalin's language is full of
reminiscences of the theological seminary in which he received his
training. What the world needs is not dogma, but an attitude of
scientific inquiry, combined with a belief that the torture of millions
is not desirable, whether inflicted by Stalin or by a Deity imagined in
the likeness of the believer.
.
|
|
|
Related Articles |
!Relevant Repost: Pseudo Leadership and Black Groupthink
Re: "Craig Chilton" has an obvious **aversion** to relevant FACTS,Maturity, & telling the TRUTH.
Was Hitler a Christian? Some relevant Hitler quotes
Re: "Craig Chilton" has an obvious **aversion** to relevant FACTS,Maturity, & telling the TRUTH.
Let's make the tard's post relevant to this discussion, shall we?
The Holocaust: Is it still relevant?
Re: "Craig Chilton" has an obvious **aversion** to relevant FACTS,Maturity, & telling the TRUTH.
Re: Infantile Loser, "craig chilton," has an obvious **aversion** to relevant FACTS, Maturity, & telling the TRUTH.
| OT: Time for America to Be Relevant in Cuba
Logic: Classic, Constructive and Relevant
Re: GOD=G_uv WAS RUSSELL AN ATHEIST?
RUSSELL CROWE IN ANTI CATHOLIC MUSICAL!!!!
Bertrand Russell: Prophet of the New World Order
Bertrand Russell
Jehovahs Witness Charles Taze Russell SCAM ARTIST and con man.
|
|
|
