Russell uses many reasons to support his disbelief of God and refutes many known theories explaining God but I will focus on his main points. First of which being, “The First-Cause Argument,” which basically means everything we know has a cause and no matter how far back existence is traced, there is chain events of causes leading back to one cause. Russell rebuked this argument by quoting an autobiography by John Stuart Mills,"My father taught me that the question 'Who made me? ' cannot be answered, since it immediately suggests the further question `Who made god? That sentence for Russell confirms that God mustn’t exist, he also says our poor imagination created the idea of God (Russell Why I am not a Christian). Russell fails to logically disprove Gods existence because he did not adequately cast doubt upon the many other arguments that have a clearer, more philosophical standpoint. The Cosmological Argument simply states: (1) Everything that exists has a cause of its existence.? (2) The universe exists.? Therefore:? (3) The universe has a cause of its existence.? (4) If the universe has a cause of its existence, then that cause is God.? Therefore:? (5) God exists.
It does not seem logical or ideal to use an authors autobiography to try and disprove a widely accepted theory. Any person can take a set of ideas and say, “this is wrong because... ” but one must justify ones point. Russell’s argument carries no weight because it is not adequately philosophical. Even if you try and refute the Cosmological Argument on the grounds of saying, if everything has a cause then shouldn’t God? The Kalam Cosmological Argument takes it a step further by saying there is a difference between God and the universe, the universe has a beginning in time subjecting it to be caused/created.
Since God has no beginning in time, then he is not subject to be caused/created (Holt Philosophy of Religion). The Cosmological Argument used along with the Kalam Cosmological Argument make Russell’s standpoint weaken and seem arbitrary. The next point Russell attacks in “Why I am not a Christian” is the Design Theory, which states: “Everything in the world is made just so that we can manage to live in the world, and if the world was ever so little different, we could not manage to live in it. ” Russell denies that belief by saying, “... ince the time of Darwin we understand much better why living creatures are adapted to their environment. It is not that their environment was made to be suitable to them but that they grew to be suitable to it, and that is the basis of adaptation. There is no evidence of design about it. ” What makes his standpoint questionable is the fact that he is trying to simplify the complexity of the nature of humans and leaves it to coincidence.. Yes we adapt to our surroundings but how? By chance? That is too unbelievable, organs as complicated as the heart or lungs function sequentially because of chance?
That notion is not logical. In “Philosophy of Religion”, The Teleological Argument however is, stating that the world was created and exists with a purpose in mind. The universe is a ordered system and nothing is left to chance. The Teleological Argument is more believable than Russell’s ‘just because’ so called reasonings. Russell’s next argument is that of morality. He believes God is not the reason for right and wrong, because if you believe in God, you believe he is all good. So how can something all good create wrong? But one can refute Russell’s statement by simply saying, morality is a set of commands so there ust be a commander (Holt Philosophy of religion). The Formal Moral Argument states: (1) Morality consists of a set of commands.? (2) For every command there is a commander.? Therefore:? (3) There is a commander that commanded morality.? (4) Commands only carry as much authority as does their commander.? (5) Morality carries ultimate authority.? Therefore:? (6) The commander that commanded morality carries ultimate authority.? (7) Only God carries ultimate authority.? Therefore:? (8) The commander that commanded morality is God.? Therefore:? (9) God exists. The Formal Moral Argument seems more plausible than Russell’s theory.
It follows a clear system and answers questions of morality, while Russell just bears the conclusion of God is good so there cannot be bad. Again, Russell’s theories are illogical and incomplete compared to ones he is trying to disprove. Russell fails to clarify his statement, his argument is not convincing and is a premature conclusion about God that he cannot even validate. Russell obviously holds some strong convictions against Christianity and God in general. But his reasoning and conclusions are not philosophical, therefore rendering them illogical and mundane. Russell’s argument is not as valid as he thinks.
One needs reasons in proving or disproving something, not just banters and foolish inquires. Russell is foolish in saying God was created by humans with a poor overactive imagination, he is filled with more imagination to believe the universe and everything in it was just a random coincidence. Russell’s attempts are weak and vague, not enough to disprove complete logical statements. Works Cited Holt, Tim. “Philosophy of Religion. ” 2008. 23, Nov. 2009. . Russell, Bertrand. “Why I am not a Christian. ” edited by John R. Lenz for the Bertrand Russell Society. 1996. 23, Nov. 2009.