Christopher Hitchens references Bertrand Russell a lot. This books seems to be
a good place to start to understand Bertrand Russell.
The book is actually a collection of essays written by Russell over a 55 year
period. I will comment on each one separately.
Why I Am Not a Christian (1927)
Defines what is a Christian. More than just living a good life, it implies a
certain credo that begins with the existence of God. The piece then debunks
the various proofs for the existence of God that have been advanced by past
philosophers. He also highlights some of Christ's teachings that are not so
popular among self-proclaimed Christians, such as "turn the other cheek" or
"judge not" or "give to the poor", and others that are just plain destructive,
such as the imminence of the Second Coming or Christ's conception of Hell has
punishment for slights against his person. Religion does not appeal to reason,
we accept it wholesale because of the disproportionate influence of our early
interactions with our parents as a young child. "Fear is the basis of the
whole thing - fear of the mysterious, fear of defeat, fear of death."
Has Religion Made Useful Contributions to Civilization? (1930)
I got a good laugh at the opening statement: religion's only useful
contributions have been fixing the calendar and predicting eclipses, and nothing
else. He then discusses religions as social phenomena, started by individuals
with strong beliefs that are almost immediately rejected by the people who carry
out their legacy. Because the founders reveal one absolute and unchanging
truth, their followers become "opponents of all intellectual and moral
progress." The concept of sin is particularly dangerous because it gives people
an excuse to indulge their sadistic urges at the expense of those who have
transgressed the rules. Especially when it comes to sex.
"The objections to religion are of two sorts - intellectual and moral." We need
the openness of the scientific method to decide truths objectively. Ancient
morals were for crueler times that we have outgrown. The focus on the
individual soul, and that it is sufficient to be good instead of doing good
set Western religions apart and in the end are detrimental to social life.
Unrighteousness is behavior that is disliked by the herd, which is therefore
righteous by definition. Such behavior must be punished. "The essence of the
conception of righteousness, therefore, is to afford an outlet for sadism by
cloaking cruelty as justice."
"[...] the three human impulses embodied in religion are fear, conceit and
hatred. The purpose of religion [...] is to give an air of respectability to
these passions [...]." These are more effectively controlled with proper,
caring education than with dogma that is shrouded in mystery.
What I Believe (1925)
Russell sets forth his core convictions and his basis for living a good life.
He begins by grounding man in the physical world and expressing how science is
in the process of finding out all there is to know about the physical world.
His views are somewhat outdated; whatever limits to scientific exploration were
looming in 1925 have long been surpassed. But the intent remains that even if
the world is much more vast than expected, it is still finite; therefore its
exploration will also be finite, even if very long. Russell says how boring
physical science will become when it is complete. "It is like climbing a high
mountain and finding nothing at the top except a restaurant [...] equipped with
wireless." To me, "wireless" was wifi. I'm sure it meant something else in
1925. :-)
"The good life is one inspired by love and guided by knowledge." Love is a
spectrum between "delight" (taking pleasure in the object of love) and
"benevolence" (actually wanting something good for the object of love, like
sympathy, but with an action component too). Love is at its fullest when both
delight and benevolence are maximized. Knowledge is objective scientific
knowledge. When it follows the majority's desires, we call that knowledge
"ethical", but this qualifier only applies to the relation to our desires, not
to the knowledge when considered by itself. "Outside human desires there is no
moral standard."
A society needs moral rules to reconcile conflicting desires among its members.
Criminal law attempts to punish transgressions, but it is more effective to
find ways to align desires together in a win-win solution. It is better for
society to use scientific knowledge to measure and maximize overall happiness.
But religion too often is a set of arbitrary moral rules that only support the
ruling class of society, at the expense of everyone else. "They condemn acts
which do no harm and they condone acts which do great harm." This leads Russell
to a line of thought where [consensual] sex in the absence of children is a
private matter. Where children are concerned, he is adamant that measures must
be taken to ensure their well-being.
Western religions have an individualistic perspective on how to lead a good life
and often contain an element of catastrophic change or conversion. To Russell,
the good life can only be led in a good society. It is necessary that it rest
on more than mere conscience, but also include intelligence and health and a
full social life. In the social context, individuals need security and courage.
Do We Survive Death? (1936)
Our belief in an afterlife is motivated by fear: fear of death, fear of the
unknown.
Seems, Madam? Nay, It Is (1899)
Long-winded and pompous essay on the role of philosophy and whether we can
explain reality purely in intellectual terms, separate from any desire for
comfort or aesthetics. In its defense, it is dated 1899, when Russell was
still pretty young and his style hadn't quite emerged yet.
A Free Man's Worship (1903)
Religion tries to make us feel important by pretending that all of Creation was
built with us as its central purpose. Science shows us humanity's
inconsequential place in the universe. There is an interesting progression of
the idea of worship. "The savage, [...] having in himself nothing that he
respects more than power, [...] is willing to prostrate himself before his gods,
without inquiring whether they are worthy of his worship." "The divine power
and knowledge are paraded, but of the divine goodness there is no hint."
Since there is evil in the world and God is said to be omnipotent, then we must
conclude that either God is evil or it is a creation of our intellect. "The
worship of force [...] is itself a prostrate submission to evil."
"To every man comes [...] the great renunciation. [...] The world was not made
for us." First, we live in a world full of promise. Then, there is a period
of despair, where we abandon hopes that we realize are unattainable. This act
of renunciation can lead each one of us to wisdom where we can admire the world
without the burden of desires.
On Catholic and Protestant Skeptics (1928)
Freethinkers coming from a Protestant background tend to be individualistic.
They seek to lead a good life for themselves. Freethinkers coming from a
Catholic background tend to be social. They seek for society to lead a good
life.
Life in the Middle Ages (1925)
We are guilty of idealizing the Middle Ages and always showing them contrasted
with our current epoch. "Most people are ordinary people, concerned with their
daily bread rather than with the great themes of which historians treat."
The Fate of Thomas Paine (1935)
Paine took democratic ideas and made them available to every intelligent working
man. He democratized democracy. His contemporary (Washington, Robespierre,
etc.) tried to limit democracy to a select elite; whereas Paine insisted that it
be of the people, for the people. He was crucial in promoting democratic ideals
in England, America, and France, but in the end he died alone and destitute. He
fought against tyranny, which put his at odds with those revolutionaries who
wanted to become tyrant in place of the tyrant. "He was consistently opposed to
every form of cruelty, whether practiced by his own party or by his opponents."
Nice People (1931)
A nice tongue-in-cheek look at the hypocrisy of people who claim to be of good
morals but in reality use moral rules to gratify their sadistic impulses.
The New Generation (1930)
Just as scientific knowledge is informing our views of the world, we should
also apply it to raising the next generation. Knowledge cures ignorance and
makes actions more deliberate. Education is no exception, where new methods
informed by new knowledge can replace the old dogmatic methods. Russell
describes a social model where both men and women can pursue self-realization.
Higher standards of living ease the burden of child rearing, freeing people for
to pursue other goals. He also recommends letting children explore a lot more
freely and let them go where their thirst for knowledge leads them. Taboos
create areas of artificial interest and in the end are self-defeating.
These ideas may seem self-evident to us now, but this was written in 1930. The
ideas that Russell rails against are the same ones that my parents were raised
in.
Our Sexual Ethics (1936)
Modern life is evolving in directions that work against traditional, monogamous
unions. We need to adopt new ethics to ensure overall happiness. What is
detrimental to no one should not be proscribed. Rather than promoting chastity
unsuccessfully and forcing young men to turn to prostitutes, it would be far
better to encourage experimentation between members of the same social class.
This can help everyone develop useful relationships that will help them grow
into better citizens.
Freedom and the Colleges (1940)
On the subject of academic freedom, Russell contends that "whether a man is a
good mathematician, or physicist, or chemist, can only be judged by other
mathematicians, physicists, or chemists." Opponents to academic freedom would
also want that such a person "should have never expressed any opinion which
controverts those of the holders of power." He discusses the tyranny of the
majority and how a healthy democracy must tolerate minorities.
There is an interesting argument regarding the tradition of freedom in the West.
If we consider that dissenting opinions must be tolerated, it means that we need
institutions that can guard them against the holders of power. The latter will
have a strong desire to silence opposing opinions and there must be a force
strong enough to counter them. In the West, through the Middle Ages and the
Renaissance, the Church and the State were constantly pitted against one
another. In Constantinople, the Church was subjugated to the State and
therefore there never arose a spirit of freedom in Russia and other Orthodox
countries, where the State went unchallenged, as in the West.
NOTE: This belongs elsewhere, but I'm noting it here for now. The majority
opinion is self-reinforcing since each individual will naturally side with the
majority to avoid being on the outside. It follows that any hope of progress
lies with the minority opinion. If the majority is not kept in check and if it
is allowed to successfully silence dissent, society will stagnate.
Can Religion Cure Our Troubles? (1954)
Russell wrote this article in 1954. "It is the question whether societies can
practice a sufficient modicum of morality if they are not helped by dogmatic
religion." His answer is yes, and that some important virtues might be better
found by rejecting religion than by embracing it, such as truthfulness and
intellectual integrity.
Russell describes how some rules are purely a quirk of the religion and how
others have a strong social basis. While religion might have been useful to
primitive societies in maintaining order, providing divine justice to cover the
cases missed by the temporal one, this is less true in modern societies. The
problem with bundling moral rules with religion is that once we start doubting
the religious claims, there is a risk that we will reject the entire moral code
along with the religion.
Religion and Morals (1952)
Can religion make us happy and virtuous? Russell argues that the virtue and
happiness of believers is not really distinguishable from those of unbelievers.
"There are various practical ways in which traditional morality interferes with
what is socially desirable." What we need is tolerance and intelligence.
How Bertrand Russel Was Prevented from Teaching at The College of the City of New York
A journalistic-like account, by editor Paul Edwards, of how Bertrand Russell was
offered a position at The College of the City of New York and how influential
people who opposed the appointment fought it in the public opinion. They
mounted a campaign to vilify Russell and any intellectual who would support him.
When that didn't work, they took the fight to the courts and, with the help of a
hardly objective justice, managed to overturn the appointment. This brought
into question the notion of academic freedom and how a small minority can meddle
in the affairs of others. The board of directors of The College of the City of
New York, the faculty, the student body, the parents of students, and the
academic community at large broadly supported Russell's appointment. Those
opposed were religious groups with ties to influential people in New York. The
case in court was even brought up by woman fearful for her daughter, at a time
when the college was for men only and her daughter would therefore not have been
able to attend or be exposed to Russell.