Christianity and Women, Pondering With Bertrand Russell

This is my second part of responses I have towards the collection of essays from Bertrand Russell, Why I am Not a Christian. It was titled, My Problem with Bertrand Russell and Faith-based Religion.

“To this day conventional Christians think an adulterer more wicked than a politician who takes bribes” (p.33)

Russell comes to one of my biggest issues with Christianity. Let me give you an example. I have recently read a small book on Lying by Sam Harris, it deals with some of the psychological and moral problems with telling lies and what it does to the human psyche. Before that I read A Very Short Introduction to Derrida and A Very Short Introduction to Globalization, both parts of the Oxford collection of books that describe difficult issues in very concise books. Now if I was a Christian - I know - that I would not have read these books. This could be very personal. But it is no coincidence that NONE - and I repeat NONE - of my Christian friends have read Sam Harris, Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens, Bertrand Russell, Peter Atkins etc. etc., we could go on and on. Why is this? I can think of one elder from my former church that was reading The God Delusion, but I can't remember if he finished it or if he was reading it with an open mind. I do remember that it was more meant to ridicule the book, which is somewhat understandable if we are defensive about our beliefs. But we shouldn't be. Especially not in a purely faith-based religion where grace is the primary power that saves. What is the point in being frustrated with Atheists if it is God that made them that way: "Does not the potter have the right to make out the same lump of clay some pottery for special purposes and some for common use?" (Romans 9:21).

As a Christian I would spend more time thinking about the implications of the Fruits of the Spirit. How do I want them to be more embedded within my life? I would not think about Globalization, or Climate Change, or making a vegan diet a more crucial part of my lifestyle. Why? Because I focus on more ridiculous things, such as prayer. When I can actually be reading on how to be an effective friend, or how to be the best employee possible or best member of society to benefit all people. My primary focus is not the salvation of souls - because there is no such thing - but as Peter Singer has defended, my primary focus is on global poverty and how to end it, for example; how to produce less waste, etc. This is the end game. This is the meaning of life for an atheist. It is not self-indulgence, because evolutionarily we were not evolved to be individualistic creatures, we were evolved to live within communities.

That is what Russell is trying to say. Christians focus too much on what is irrelevant in today's world. There is much more emphasis on ridding ourselves of our sexual impulses than on cheating, especially in serious cases such as politics. I agree. We get more outraged by Bill Clinton's incident than by the Afghanistan war in many cases! But it must be pointed out that Jesus would not find this the case. He would clarify that both are bad and different sins that need to be dealt with in unique ways. But I can trace Russell's train of thought and it is good to give him that much. There is a lot to agree with in that statement, it just misses the mark.

“The world, we are told, was created by a God who is both good and omnipotent. Before he created the world He foresaw all the pain and misery that it would contain; He is therefore, responsible for all of it. It is useless to argue that the pain in the world is due to sin. In the first place, this is not true; it is not sin that causes rivers to overflow their banks or volcanoes to erupt. But even if it were true, it would make no difference, If I were going to beget a child knowing that the child was going to be a homicidal maniac, I should be responsible for his crimes” (29)

This is a beautiful argument I would say. There is not an argument in the Bible, to my knowledge, explaining how sin caused volcanoes and rivers overflowing, or any other natural disaster. One argument against could be used that the Garden of Eden was the place of paradise and once sin was introduced into the story of Genesis, Adam and Eve were forced out of the Garden and into this “normal” world that God had created outside of the Garden (?). For what reason he created this other world is unknown to me. It is possible that it was to make Adam and Eve suffer for their rebellion(?). But then that goes against the gracious account of Jesus in the New Testament. It is as if God was very much aware that they would fall into sin if he created this separate world, or was ready to create it. Which forces the question, why did you not tell them to avoid that tree more desperately. We do not know exactly how God tried to persuade them. It is left quite ambiguously, which is very frustrating. Mainly because this is the central point in the biblical narrative. It is not redemption from the fall, but the fall. The fall is the most interesting and has the most questions raised against it. Why was Satan in the garden? Why was he in the form of a snake? Where was God? Is he all-knowing, omnipotent in this setting? Or is he walking around the garden not knowing that they would taste the fruit that particular day (and yes there was time in Genesis 1-3). These are all just a couple of questions that I would raise myself.

It remains a mystery. Why build a religion based off of this mystery?

“Monks have always regarded Woman primarily as the temptress; they have thought of her mainly as the inspirer of impure lusts.” (p.27)

I need to repeat the fact that this is the monks. This is not Jesus. Russell like to do this a lot, he takes a teaching of the church, or opinion of the church and imposes it on the founders of that religion. But what if it wasn't Jesus' intent to demonize women? However, as was argued in the first blog, My Problem With Bertrand Russell and Faith-Based Religion (you can read it below), if we take the opinion that there are no God-given laws and that all is constructed by man, you can argue that Jesus does not fit in a special category and it is precisely his fault that he did not communicate these clarifications to doctrines effectively. If you are God you know the problems that will be raised in the future. If you know how much problems the virginity of Mary will raise for centuries to come, why not point out that acceptance is not found in chastity, but rather in the eye of the beholder, in this case God? If it is indeed a grace-based and faith-based religion, this would be true. But it most likely and unfortunately is not. So back to the point, if we are arguing against Christianity as an institution, particularly Roman Catholic monks than I would say yes indeed, I agree. Jesus is only to blame for not expanding on this during his reported 30 years on planet Earth.

I will now expand on the Christian position on woman-hood and try to argue why I respect much of what Christianity has proposed, but failed to apply for centuries. CHRISTIANITY AND WOMEN

It is interesting to see that Jesus was first to appear to Mary Magdalene once resurrected. And not to a male. She was to bring the testimony of Jesus’ resurrection. Anyone who knows a little bit of background on the value of the voice of a woman had in Roman-conquered Israel 2000 years ago would be able to say that this would not be the wisest business plan.

Also very interestingly, the closest circle of Jesus consisted of 3 different women, Mary (Jesus’ mother), Mary Magdalene, and Mary Salome, wife of Zebedee. Jesus let women sit at his feet (Luke 10:39).  And of course you had other such women in his closest circles. Paul’s close financial supporter on his missionary journeys was Lydia, a female that had a business with fabric, her own clothing line. Then of course there were other such women in the New Testament and prominent characters in the Old Testament that were very instrumental to the redemption story of Jesus. Such as Esther, Ruth, Rachel, Rebekah, etc.

It is not a Christian doctrine that women are “primarily” the temptress of impure lusts. Originally, it could be argued, that it was not the intention of Jesus to demonize women. Maybe of Paul, yes, for some do argue that. But not the intention of the founder.

I will like to address a couple more of the statement Russell made in my last blog about this book and then summarize them in a review of the book.

A Conversation with Sarah Haider and Dave Rubin

I have decided to start doing these summaries of conversations that I listen to. Mainly to my own benefit. I want to actually learn from these conversations. I have spent a lot of my time listening to them, while I have been doing different things. The only problem is that I have not been processing the information I listen to. These will serve as a helpful introduction to these conversations for other readers as well.

I know that I’d personally like to have summaries like this one underneath the youtube videos that I listen to.

So I hope this is helpful to someone. Also it serves to keep a track of what I have learned and what I listen to. All in all it seems like a very beneficial thing for me to do.  

Before I get into the particular parts of the interview, I have never listened to Sarah Haider previous to this video and I knew nothing about her. So I did not come into the video with pre-conceived bias against or for what she was saying. I also try to be as impersonal as possible when writing about this, it serves more as a summary than a personal response from me to Sarah Haider. When I do want to comment with my own opinion I state it clearly within that paragraph.

6:25 - 18:04

Background of Sarah Haider

Dave Rubin, a political commentator and former stand up comedian sits down with the up and coming Ex-muslim activist, Sarah Haider. They start the conversation with a brief introduction to Haider’s past and why she is so outspoken about Islam.

She says she likes the format of America’s government: the separation of power, Bill of Rights, individual liberty. This was also as she said one of the main reasons she came to the US from Pakistan.

She states that she began to have doubts about her faith at the age of 15 or 16. Mainly because Islam was foul to “women and women’s rights”.

Haider after taking issue with how mistreated she was went to her family to debate over these issues. She says that she was truly lucky that she has a “liberal” father. He was liberal in the sense that she could read whatever she wanted. She couldn’t wear shorts around the house or have boy friends. She says that she calls him liberal because she wasn’t necessarily forced to wear the hijab, however she did wear it by choice at certain times in her life. Rubin and Haider spend some time talking about the definition of liberalism and how we tend to use it within context of a more extreme conservative approach to politics or social life. MY OWN PERSONAL NOTE: this was an interesting part.

She then proceeds to addressing the issue of how western feminism did not speak to her defense. Rubin points out how if she was of the Jewish or Christian religion she would be treated very differently. She would of been celebrated by leaving that dogmatic sect. And the treatment of the religion would be condemned. Some even go so far as calling a “right wing show”. People question her agenda and she came to much personal cost at the expense of talking about what she witnessed as a female islamist with what she described as little to gain in response.

18:04 - 26:50

Reza Aslan and Charlie Hebdo

They start talking about Reza Aslan a muslim who speaks out against ex-islamists such as Sarah Haider or other atheists who are prominent on their critique of religion, like Sam Harris. She says that Aslan acts dishonestly and supposedly even calls himself a “scholar”. Which she finds laughable.  

She points out how little scholarly pursuit on Islam has been achieved due to people’s fears of being seen as a bigot or racist. People haven’t revealed the knowledge they have had or even looked into it further.  

26:50 - 29:30

Colonialism

Once again, they point out that the left is to blame for for not being able to do research on some religions because of fear of bigotry. Rubin says that this is where “the left fail us” (his personal opinion). An interesting observation is that this is why some no longer call themselves the left, but lean towards a more centrist political arena. This was something that they believe is important for a country that has free speech in their constitution.

Sarah Haider comments, that she is “sick” of hearing that colonialism is to blame for violence within Islam and that it has nothing to do with the religion. She said that it doesn’t make sense when you look into it. Not to say that it was not abhorrent, also not to say that it wasn’t a contributing factor; she also expressed that any scholar would agree that Islam was justifying violence way before colonialism.

If I can add a personal comment to this section I would just say that I did not like how they did not reference particular scholars. I would prefer them to be a little bit more specific because I know that they have done the research in the past so why not give us some references of why they have these opinions?  

29:30

ISIS  

Small section about ISIS. There was not much discussion.

30:40

Distinguishing between Atheist X Muslims and Progressive Muslims

There’s two brands of people. There are X Muslims, and atheists. And then there are Muslims that are trying to persuade their own religion. It would be intellectually dishonest to work together. She respects them tremendously, but disagrees with them. It’s hard for her to find any beauty or compassion in the text.

She described atheism as Internally coherent and ethically coherent. And hence there is, in her reasoning, a strong case to be made against Islam.

34:26

Being a Woman in this Space + True Liberalism and Bill Maher

Feminism was a big part of her leaving the religion - she left the religion because of the treatment of women. She expected a rally of feminists to come to her side. Code Pink stands for women’s rights and anti-war, doesn’t stand against the violence against women in Gaza, for example.

What are liberal principles? As she has looked into it, she says that she believes that she is the real liberal.

39:15

Ben Affleck  

When talking about the incident on Real Time with Bill Maher with Ben Affleck’s famous outrage against a calm Sam Harris, Haider acknowledges that Ben Affleck thinks that he’s standing up for the minority. But she believes that he is very wrong in his approach and later assumptions about the religion.

40:48

What can Secular people do, then?

Be intellectually honest. Say what others can not say. It is important for liberals to stand up for this, because “we are the compassionate”, originally that is.

You see no one on the news apart from Fox news that are talking about this. You need to make sure that “we,” she is speaking about liberals talk about this.

There are others such as Bill Maher, Sam Harris, Joe Rogan, Dave Rubin that talk about these topics. But it is not a popular stance by no means.

44:35

Paris Attack

A little bit about this issue. They didn’t give too much commentary on the specifics.

47:14

How do we move forward?

This section was related to the Syrian Refugees. The only long-term way of proceeding is that we don’t allow them to build isolated communities. We pull them into the Western culture.

Multi-cultural narratives are harmful.

I repeat this was Haider’s view and is expressed in her tone not mine.

49:58 - Final Positive Thought

The tide is turning. With the internet everything feels smaller. And so we can reach people that are continents apart within seconds.

All this are reasons to celebrate.

I hope you enjoyed this conversation between Sarah Haider and Dave Rubin and I wish to make many more summaries such as this one.  

My Three Stages of Happiness

My three stages of happiness

I have had the wonderful experience of living in one of the most romantic places in the world: Oxford. Arguably one of the most valued historical cities, inspiring thousands to change the world through their newly discovered ideas. Some of the most famous that I recognized being John Locke, John Wesley, Oscar Wilde, TS Eliot, Aldous Huxley, CS Lewis, JRR Tolkien, including more recent public figures like Richard Dawkins, John C. Lennox, and Bill Clinton.

It was not once that I walked by the Radcliffe Square to City Church, or to the other side of Oxford, passing Magdalen College and the famous Magdalen bridge. Going for an early morning tea to fabulous cafe’s in the centre of the city. I would enjoy my sprints at Park Meadow or my bike rides alongside the Thames River, watching the sunset sing in red colors, enjoying a book on the benches of these famous parks. I sat untouched by the world’s troubles sitting in St. Mary's church just past the City Centre. There was joy as I was discovering new places in Oxford I had not visited before. We would sit in the oldest libraries, listen to choirs sing in extravagant churches, echoing the sound of completeness (or absoluteness). I thought these experiences and memories to be something vast I could not contain in myself. I would sit there listening to something that I would not be able to describe. I was a mere child experiencing light for the first time; being reborn into a world of dark hostility. My fingers would point at objects and I cried as I could not communicate my true desires, what I craved, not for the sake of pleasure. I would desire these things just as an infant would desire food, for survival.

I read James Joyce’s Portrait of the Artist as a Young Man. I considered myself being that young man, struggling with my faith, my sexuality, my upbringing and the lies: the darkness that was disguised in the beauty of the richness of the stars.

The owner of those stars, my friend, God abandoned me. I felt him leave me as I was in my room - alone. I never felt that alone. He must of left me. What I once found to be my only source of intellectual rest and emotional peace was gone. And I quickly became bitter against him. I hated God. It was not a ridiculous hatred, my thoughts burned against him. I wanted to devote my life in disproving his affection for me.

I would pray and there would be no answer. My happiness had to be found elsewhere, apart from him. I could not find it so much in my being. I would focus on outside of my being, pointing to something else that I had not yet the opportunity to find. I did not want people to look at me, but to look beyond me to something greater. I wanted to be a creator of something that is greater than myself. Something that I found in living and admiring the wonderful city of Oxford. This would be my happiness. I realized that it wouldn’t be this simple. My time in this romantic and scenic city would well describe what I was looking for and why I couldn’t find it.

As I first arrived in Oxford, I would not consider it a long visit. I stayed for much longer than I expected. It led to a shaking of character, an emotional earthquake that left me isolated, thinking there was no one who cared about my well-being. Not even the closest of mentors.

I was naked. I could not hide behind my walls any longer. I had to face myself in a new fashion, one that I had not considered before. I had to face my doubts in front of everyone, alone. My land destroyed by the intellectual and emotional haunting of questions that remained. Somewhere deep I thought I did have an answer, later I would appreciate that it was more of a decision not to believe; to hate.

This was my quest for a full on pursuit of having “fun”. Which I have never encountered before in my life. At least not in such intensity. I loved my new way. I desensitized myself to guilt. I lived life as somewhat of a hedonist, finding me running hopelessly with no vision of a finish line, attempting to grab the air with no avail. I know it seems counter-descriptive calling yourself “somewhat of a hedonist”. I use the word somewhat because I was a hedonist in my own capability of achieving these desires. I could not attain something I did not have. So within the realm of my capabilities I achieved pleasure.

Happiness is not meant to last. This is something that temporary 21st century humans of the westernized culture can not cope with. They not only do not understand it but they fail to teach us how to deal with it individually. We think that our way is the correct way. We always believe that our opinions must be the right ones. I thought to myself, what if this would not be the case?
I recently read an essay of CS Lewis in God in the Dock, in it Lewis tackles my problem with happiness: “If you think of this world as a place intended simply for our happiness, you find it quite intolerable: think of it as a place of training and correction and it’s not so bad.” (p. 52)

I want happiness to stay. And so I went through three stages of my young being, which I will call “badness”, “goodness” and “the in between”. But what needs to be remembered is that my desire for happiness to stay, would not leave throughout these stages.

Badness
I was drunk, I would think of myself as popular. I was nice and quiet, which people liked. I loved the taste of Guinness. I loved playing pool, driving in the car past the green farms in Wolvercote, reminding me of the fantastical accounts from the Lord of the Rings of The Shire.

It was the club, the beer, the coming home, the travelling, the coffee in the midweek and the time to myself of isolation that I came to love. I worked hard and learnt to enjoy it’s fruit in new ways. We went out for dinner, we celebrated ourselves, our accomplishments - or things that seemed like accomplishments. The people I lived with became not only my friends, but family.

I remember thinking, what if this disappears? Which it most likely would. Shortly, my closest of friends left Oxford to their own homes, some travelling to different continents.

If my happiness would disappear I’d see that there may not be a finish line to my run. I slowly recollected from myself that I was trying to grab on to air. I lived in the moment as never before. Nothing was holding me down, I had dropped out of my University studies in Portsmouth and moved to the ultimate bachelor life in Oxford. Undoubtedly so, we lived messy and lazy lives.

If there was an opportunity to get something I would get it, no matter the object. And yet I would always be reminded of my youthfulness. My incapability to express myself.

I describe this as badness because I would try to use all the knowledge of what was considered as “bad” when I was younger and do it. But still, I was nice. I would remain unselfish which is what made others like me in a unique way. I wasn’t the main character in a story. I would be the funny guy who would pop in in the middle of the film and do something foolish and leave before the ending.

Being high was a time with friends making fun of the day or enjoying isolation with my guitar. Being drunk was an opportunity to enjoy music in a new way. An unembarrassed way. Although, there was an imbalance. I had to learn how to enjoy things in the middle of my circumstances not outside of them, as I have been taught in Christianity.

I was buying any piece of literature I could on how to create happiness. How do I construct it for myself? I was stricken with shame along the way as I engaged myself physically with a friend and later on overheard her being embarrassed and dismissing it.

No one would talk to me about my emotions. There is nothing lonelier than a man who thinks about his thoughts in the midst of an especially unreflective community of twenty-somethings.

My quest for all that is bad was deconstructed by it’s own pursuit. I chased money. I had all that I needed: good food, good clothes, good drinks, in one of the most beautiful cities in the world, living in one of the most peaceful locations in Oxford.

Among others, even the famous Walter Hooper was envious of my living spaces at the Trout. “What a romantic place to live at?” he said enthusiastically, as I had the wonderful experience of talking with him briefly at the Socrates in the City event in Oxford, October 2015.

I chased women and could not have what I desired and once I gained what I desired I found it too hot to hold onto any longer. What began as friendship led to my craving of something more. This more was the connection I was looking for. I wanted something lasting but I picked fruit from the tree of instant gratification that I planted in my garden. I was not planning for the future, and when the famine hit my garden, I quickly starved, returning home to get rest and food.

This acquaintance of mine was someone I talked to about our pasts, and insecurities. I was holding to her desperately. I needed this emotional connection, that for a long time I craved. But her disinterest left me burning my hands. Sleep would turn into a painful event. Days-off would be a reminder of my dead-end chase for happiness.  

There is no way to overstate the feelings that I had in my heart. Suffering was what made me leave the God I once loved. I threw him off his throne. I overruled the Kingdom he created. And I put other things on the graceful seat of his rule. And now suffering became the thing that wanted me to come back to the God I knew. I wanted to awaken that faith. And as I talked to the statue of Aslan that mildly cold night on Christmas Day, I was reminded of God’s absence in my life.

God was meant to be controlled. “You haven’t thought about this as much as I have, Christian.” I would think to myself. “I was there on the frontline, while you were comfortable in your walls and in your small communities. You go on these trips and think that you have found it? What about these people, my family? They also feel like they have found it. What if you are wrong?”

I dared to stand up to the tyranny of Jesus Christ and put him in the place where he began. In the humble barn in Nazareth. That’s who he was. A cult that was raised behind him was not his intention, but the ambitious intention of the ones who followed him. And I know your immediate response to that.
 “But who would give up his life for a lie?”
 Many have, and many will.

This is not meant to be a defence of a position, but of a perspective. God’s not dead. I put him in a prison. He is very much alive, I thought. I was just in charge of him.

Let me put the people I want to on my throne. Badness, please rule me. I want you. Why do you leave me alone? I left Oxford hurting. Badness had felt good, but just as eating candies if you do not care for your teeth you will get the toothaches, the cavities. I left myself untamed and badness came back to sting.

Goodness

Maybe my inner discussions were wrong. I think that my viewing of happiness was from outside my bubble of belief, in the past. Which happened to be the Christian view. I believed that God is most glorified in us, when we are most satisfied in him. I believed in something that was termed “Christian Hedonism”.

What if my looking at Christianity and it’s guidance on happiness from outside the bubble was not the correct way. I had to look at it from the bubble, but not excluding my newly found “freedom” of badness. And so I tried to include goodness into my badness.

I created a path away from grasping all I could and living in a “higher state of being”. A peaceful state resembling the city I missed so much.

I know what it feels like to have it. I forgot what it feels like to forsake it; to forsake pleasure.

I do not like the one sided views of many pieces of literature nowadays.

You have books and quotes that are read as if they were true. I am not trying to say that this is the right way. I did not describe these three steps of happiness as “the three steps of happiness”, but as “my three stages of happiness”.

And also, please let me include that, this does not have to be correct. By no means do I want to create a discussion of whether or not I am living the right way now. I want to create a discussion on what is beautiful in my failures. I need to find something to appreciate in it. That’s the only way for me to be happy, to appreciate the path. We watch films because of the drama, the overcoming of an obstacle and the heroism despite hopelessness. That’s what we admire. So why should it be different in my life, in our lives?

Goodness came back at me. I looked like a child trying to be good and looking around, finding himself alone and betrayed. I was expecting some sort of praise, but I discovered that I could never be completely satisfied with myself. I will always struggle with laziness or a sense of inadequacy to the tasks that are ahead of me. The burdens of them will never leave me. And bad habits are difficult to break.

The in Between is something that I find myself in now. I love philosophy. I love being. But I don’t love these things in and of themselves. I hate boring books by intelligent over-thinkers. I hate realizing the fact that I am in existence. What I love about philosophy and being is that they point to something greater - a greater reward. They point to a finish line. And if there is a finish line there has to be a path. We don’t think about the finish line when we finish our race. What we do remember is the obstacles we overcame. We talk about that moment we wanted to give up when going for a sprint but overcoming and going further than we would have expected.

I do not know what the finish line is yet. That’s the in between that I want to be in at the moment.

I want to believe that happiness received from God is the finish line. But for some reason I can’t find myself to think that that is something that we need to chase. It seems like God is the one that gives it to us as he pleases and when he pleases.

The badness left me hurting with cavities and selfish empty relationships. My goodness left me feeling inadequate. Whereas, this in between continually helps me to appreciate my failures. Now I can rest in my imperfection. And that is where I will like to stay until I reach either the peace of becoming a fundamentalist or the courage of becoming something in the middle: a man who has set standards but isn’t scared of looking at those standards from outside of his bubble and enjoying his falls on the way.

And that is what I am aiming for: happiness that is designed by realities that are intrinsic in myself. I appreciate who I am and the path I am on. These things are incomparable and achievable by me and myself alone. Why? Because they are in me; they are my own thoughts.

Therefore these are “my three stages of happiness”.

My Problem With Bertrand Russell and Faith-Based Religion

I am writing this because I believe that Bertrand Russell misunderstood many of the central dogmas of the Christian faith. I understand that Bertrand Russell is much more intelligent than I am and/or ever will be. And I will not attempt to argue otherwise. It seems ever so childish of me to go on this purge of his wonderful collection of essays, Why I am Not a Christian. Might I add, not even collected by him. I have most likely not even comprehended some of his claims. Despite this, I think it is helpful to practice our commitment to free speech even if it is guided by selfish motives or a sense of arrogance that I can disagree with such a renowned philosopher. But I can.


Background 
I’ve come to the conclusion that the reason for the vast anti-theistic writings in the world today is because people haven't completely understood the nature of Christianity. I was someone you could call a fundamentalist reformed evangelical up until a little over two years ago. And I think myself grounded in my atheistic beliefs, or even agnostic beliefs. I don’t believe these two to be very different from each other. And because of this I think that I have somewhat understood the teaching of the Bible.


I was Christian most of my life, fully convinced of it’s truthfulness. I identified with more Reformed teachings of the Bible, which meant that I was leaning Calvinist. And as a Calvinist I believed in the five points of the TULIP, one of them being Unconditional Love, the doctrine that the sheep of Christ may never fall away because of the fierceness of God's love for them. Despite this I did "fall away" from "God's love" and whole-heartedly disagree with many central dogmas of the Bible. This is one of the reasons why I picked up this book. I remember Sam Harris saying that it was very helpful for him. Which in retrospect I can't believe he actually said. How can this book be helpful against the debate against religion? I am still trying to figure out how atheists expect me to believe that.

In Russell’s case I think that he has confused the perversion of the church with actual teachings of the Bible. One could argue that there is no such thing as "teachings of the Bible" but that all is made up by people. I would like to stress that you can not win an argument against a position without first considering it's truthfulness. And so I consider the fact that the Bible makes truth-claims that are intrinsically distinct from people and are God-given. This helps because it starts a conversation from mutual grounds with the classic conservative evangelical/roman-catholic. It could also, however, be pointed out that not all Christians agree with this basic claim that Christianity is solely a construct of God, but that people were also authors and that God used them for this purpose. That is not the position I will be arguing from or for/against in this blog. I will go through some of the statements that Russell makes in this blog and try to address them and my issue or agreement with them in this short blog. This short blog will be dealing with one specific area, mainly three claims that are related to faith.

“It is possible that mankind is on the threshold of a golden age; but if so, it will be necessary first to slay the dragon that guards the door, and this dragon is religion.” (p.47)

I wanted to begin with this one. It is very ironic and sad that Bertrand Russell would write this. We should ask the question in response: What golden age are you talking about? This statement was written in 1930 and the 2nd World War started in 1939. Nonetheless, I agree that the World Wars were not the result of Secularism. I do not want to propose this. I would like to suggest a different "golden age". Russell did not stress that there was a philosophy of living, mainly The American Dream, that we needed to dismiss before we get to that "threshold of a golden age". We need to come to our evolutionary roots where small communities: family and friends are of the most essence to personal well-being.

So first we need to define what the "threshold of a golden age" is. Secondly we need to discuss whether a Christian faith is harmful. Which in some mainstream Atheist circles is not believed. In comparison with Islam, Sam Harris continuously points out the obvious, that Christianity is less damaging to society, since most of it's claims are propagating the Golden Rule. Whereas Islam propagates fear. Earlier on in the book, Russell makes the claim that Christianity also proliferates fear, “Religion is based, I think, primarily and mainly upon fear" (22). He does not clarify whether this is specific to Christianity or whether there are tiny distinctions between religions, one think is certain: there is a place where "the wicked" are thrown into a "blazing furnace, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth" (Matthew 13:50); where the "fire never goes out" (Mark 9:43). Before we argue otherwise, Christianity in particular, has these vivid examples of Hell where I am going. It is deeply unsettling, because this was the prime motivator for hundreds of years for people to go to Heaven. No doubt it is a motivator today.
It must be pointed out that the Golden Rule is misdirected in practice. In theory it could nonetheless work. I agree with Russell that many of the core and seemingly essential values of the Christian faith such as love, purity, peace, gratefulness, etc. are unfortunately misdirected. They are misdirected because they are grounded in a selfishness. How often do we see Christians who hide behind this masquerade of the "fruits of the Spirit" only to be secretly either proud or sexually active or struggling with insecurity. Or bragging about their unique spiritual gifts, when in fact they just parade their pride. Christians are not content people. They can not be. Christians that are content people find contentment in "worldly things". Understand that if you were indeed living as Jesus wanted you to, to "cut off your hand" and "gauge out your eye" when your sexual biological impulses are "tempting" you, you would be living in excruciating mental pain. And that is why Martin Luther went insane. If you take this teaching to it's fullest realization, you will come out a completely mentally unstable person. You can not argue with this. Not in today's world. But if you only half-heartedly believe this, you come to be happy - because you are actually secular: "[B]ecause you are luke-warm - neither hot nor cold - I am about to spit you out of my mouth" (Revelations 3:16).

“God and immortality, the central dogmas of the Christian faith, find no support in science.” (p.50)

Christianity is not observable and so it is hard to question it. If something is hard to question it must mean that we must accept it by faith. I begin with what I agree with in this statement (the quotation). Faith-based religion has to be wrong. There is no possible way that God does not desire the rationale yet desires the heart only. Was it not Jesus himself who said that we should love God with all our heart, soul, and mind (Matthew 22:37)? Was it not Solomon that devoted thousands of proverbs to wisdom, and he was supposedly the most intelligent, or "wise", man that ever lived up until Jesus came. What an overstatement. Just this one claim proves how out-dated the Bible must be. How naive would we have to believe that a man living before they discovered basic mathematic principles (such as the Pythagoreans), or basic laws of logic and politics (such as Aristotle and Plato), or basic concepts of well-being (such as the Stoics and Confucius), or an understanding of the physics of the world (Newton), or a grasp of expository preaching (such as Augustine, Aquinas, Calvin, or Luther) - that this man would be more intelligent than these men alone? What would we have to say about the current workers on Artificial Intelligence at Google or Facebook? Are they less intelligent than Solomon? And what is there to prove his intelligence? Little to no historical background.

To get back to my main point, I ask, if men such as Bertrand Russell can not observe the proof that religion, in this case Christianity, offers, then why should I agree with such an ideology. It is however possible that Russell has preconceived bias against Christianity. I personally do not believe that I possess such bias, but that also could be hidden bias. I must say that my bias is that I prefer to not be a Christian and I have many logical reasons why. However, many of my Christian friends and social circles are better people than my atheist ones. I do from time to time prefer to be with more sensitive people. Who knows if this correlation between faith and character is a coincidence. There has been research conducted on this and I could get into this in later blogs.

Now let me start with what I disagree with in this statement. I do not find it necessary for God to be proved by science. What science? In my limited understanding, and I am not a scientist, but if I were to ask a scientist what science is, they would no doubt answer that it is a system that observes physics, biology, chemistry. It is an observation of the physical - not the meta-physical. Now the problem is that both God and immortality are separate from time and space and hence it is arguable that he is unobservable. Which comes back to our initial dilemma: Is belief alone required for a saving, Christian faith? And if so, then what is the point of discussing any apologetics? If you can not persuade someone of religion, then why argue for it in the first place?

But in the end, the fact that science does not prove that God or immortality are real doesn’t very much negate the reality of the Christian faith. And it wouldn’t be a strong argument against a Christian to be honest. Science is the observation of the natural not the super natural. The bigger question is whether it is possible to persuade a soul of the existence of God. And the Bible presupposes that everyone has a belief in the unseen God pre-saving faith (Romans 3), which couldn't be further from the truth in today's world.

“And everybody who has ever to do with children knows that a suitable diet does more to make them virtuous than the most eloquent preaching in the world.” (p.40)

It's as if Russell believes in this classic misunderstanding that preaching makes someone virtuous. This is NOT the teaching of the New Testament and most certainly not the teaching of Jesus (Matthew 13:13). You wouldn't be able to argue this stand point from the Old Testament itself. Isaiah says: “You hear with your ears, but you don't really listen” (Isaiah 42:20).

In the classic understanding of scripture the human is the one that sows and God is the one that plants the seed. And we come to our main paradox: what is the point of preaching, then? That is the ultimate dilemma. And Paul wrestles with that quite a lot in Romans. Especially in Romans 9. It's an interesting read, yet also extremely perplexing. I want to write a blog on my issues with the Christian concept of Hell and I will want to get into Romans 9 in that. But for now let us summarize it briefly. Theologians from John MacArthur, John Piper, to Martin Luther and John Calvin have discussed this topic and no one can come up with an answer to whether God is unfair in his giving of saving faith. It is a mystery. I believe this to be unacceptable. There shouldn't be a mystery this large and central to the core teaching of an ideology: salvation is by faith through grace alone.

I will continue with some other claims in later responses. I mainly wanted to deal with these three claims because they are all interconnected, there were some more that were related to this. But I chose to keep this one short.