Why I Am Not a Christian

“It is used these days in a very loose sense by a great many people. Some people mean no more by it than a person who attempts to live a good life. In that sense I suppose there would be Christians in all sects and creeds; but I do not think that that is the proper sense of the word, if only because it would imply that all the people who are not Christians—all the Buddhists, Confucians, Mohammedans, and so on—are not trying to live a good life.”

Here, Russell introduces what he considers a significant fallacy that most Christians have upheld: that only Christians can live a good life. It’s a value that Christians have held long enough that now the very word “Christian” has come to imply someone is a good person. By using Logos, Russell reasons that it’s foolish to believe that those who practice any other belief system aren’t attempting to “live a good life.”

“I think, however, that there are two different items which are quite essential to anybody calling himself a Christian. The first is one of a dogmatic nature—namely, that you must believe in God and immortality. If you do not believe in those two things, I do not think that you can properly call yourself a Christian. Then, further than that, as the name implies, you must have some kind of belief about Christ.”

Russell relies on Logos to set up his arguments for why he doesn’t consider himself a Christian. In this quote, he defines explicitly what a Christian is so that all who listen to or read this lecture have an agreed-upon definition. By defining what a Christian is, he can ensure that his arguments aren’t refuted solely on the basis of semantics.

“Therefore I take it that when I tell you why I am not a Christian I have to tell you two different things; first, why I do not believe in God and in immortality; and, secondly, why I do not think that Christ was the best and wisest of men, although I grant Him a very high degree of moral goodness.”

Similar to the previous quote, Russell uses Logos to state the parts of his identity that don’t align with what a Christian must be for the sake of this lecture. As part of his exposition to introduce the rest of the lecture, he must clearly state his meaning. By employing Logos, he appeals to the audience’s sense of logic and reason to agree with these definitions.

“[The] Catholic Church felt that they must stop [arguments against Christianity]. Therefore they laid it down that the existence of God can be proved by the unaided reason, and they had to set up what they considered were arguments to prove it.”

This quote establishes a history of doubt regarding God’s existence. By referencing how previous “freethinkers” pushed the Church to find additional explanations for God. Russell, through the use of Logos, reveals a pattern of the Church’s arguments being undermined by questions and reason—to the point that the Church was moved to state that all people with a base level of reason would know that God exists, without any other logical argument adding to it.

“I for a long time accepted the argument of the First Cause, until one day, at the age of eighteen, I read John Stuart Mill’s Autobiography, and I there found this sentence: ‘My father taught me that the question, “Who made me?” cannot be answered, since it immediately suggests the further question, “Who made God?”’ That very simple sentence showed me, as I still think, the fallacy in the argument of the First Cause. If everything must have a cause, then God must have a cause.”

Russell is references an autobiography written by his godfather, John Stuart Mill. Mill’s writing and philosophy had a significant influence on forming Russell’s perspective, so it isn’t surprising to find him referenced here. As Russell discusses the work of another philosopher, he’s also using Logos to track and expose the flawed logic of the First Cause argument.

“The arguments that are used for the existence of God change their character as time goes on. They were at first hard, intellectual arguments embodying certain quite definite fallacies. As we come to modern times they become less respectable intellectually and more and more affected by a kind of moralizing vagueness.”

Again, Russell uses Logos to inform his arguments. He’s giving some context for the arguments of God’s existence and where they come from. By emphasizing that the Church’s arguments tend to change with time, he reasons that most theories for God’s existence have been disproven by human advancement and are also becoming more watered down over time.

“When you come to look into this argument from design, it is a most astonishing thing that people can believe that this world, with all the things that are in it, with all its defects, should be the best that omnipotence and omniscience has been able to produce in millions of years. I really cannot believe it. Do you think that, if you were granted omnipotence and omniscience and millions of years in which to perfect your world, you could produce nothing better than the Ku-Klux-Klan or the Fascists?”

Russell uses both Pathos and Logos to explain why the argument for intelligent design is flawed. Russell puts the audience into the perspective of an omnipotent being. He asks them, if they were an entity that knew and created everything, why they’d create a world filled with suffering, in which groups of humans dedicate themselves to hurting fellow humans. Not only is he asking the audience to consider the implications of an all-knowing and all-powerful God, but he’s also evoking powerful imagery of hate groups, insisting that it makes no sense to create a world that must have them in order to function properly.

“The point I am concerned with is that, if you are quite sure there is a difference between right and wrong, [and] you are then in this situation: is that difference due to God’s fiat or is it not? If it is due to God’s fiat, then for God Himself there is no difference between right and wrong, and it is no longer a significant statement to say that God is good.”

Russell returns to Logos, the appeal he uses most deftly as someone well studied in philosophy and logic. He argues that there’s no logical way to say that God is good; if God’s will is inherently good, and everything is created through God’s will, there’s no way to say what he’s doing is right or wrong because there’s no way to know the difference.

“In the part of this universe that we know there is great injustice, and often the good suffer, and often the wicked prosper, and one hardly knows which of those is the more annoying; but if you are going to have justice in the universe as a whole you have to suppose a future life to redress the balance of life here on earth. So they say that there must be a God, and there must be heaven and hell in order that in the long run there may be justice. That is a very curious argument. If you looked at the matter from a scientific point of view, you would say: ‘After all, I know only this world. I do not know about the rest of the universe, but so far as one can argue at all on probabilities one would say that probably this world is a fair sample, and if there is injustice here the odds are that there is injustice elsewhere also.’”

Through the use of Logos, Russell establishes that humans have no way of understanding a world without injustice. The world is unjust, and while some may believe in an afterlife that will balance it, scientifically, one can’t know that. Thus, he reasons that the only known world is the world one lives in, and nothing logically indicates that any alternative, God-created world would be any different.

“I know that the sort of intellectual arguments that I have been talking to you about are not what really moves people. What really moves people to believe in God is not any intellectual argument at all. Most people believe in God because they have been taught from early infancy to do it, and that is the main reason. Then I think that the next most powerful reason is the wish for safety, a sort of feeling that there is a big brother who will look after you. That plays a very profound part in influencing people’s desire for a belief in God.”

Russell takes a brief break from Logos to focus on Pathos. He acknowledges that while it’s worthwhile to analyze the logical arguments meant to defend Christian belief, that’s not how faith is formed in people. Russell knows that through Pathos, an emotional appeal, people believe in God and follow Christianity. People are Christian for two reasons: They were raised that way, and it feels safer to believe in a God.

“Then there is one other maxim of Christ which I think has a great deal in it, but I do not find that it is very popular among some of our Christian friends. He says: ‘If thou wilt be perfect, go and sell that thou hast, and give to the poor.’ That is a very excellent maxim, but, as I say, it is not much practised. All these, I think, are good maxims, although they are a little difficult to live up to. I do not profess to live up to them myself; but then after all, it is not quite the same thing as for a Christian.”

Russell uses quotations to help build an argument. He quotes from the Bible and Jesus himself but states that few Christians follow the maxim he’s referencing. Russell notes that although this quote is at the core of what Jesus preached, many Christians don’t follow it, and logically, this means that they don’t believe in all the teachings of Christ, which undermines their belief system.

“Then you come to moral questions. There is one very serious defect to my mind in Christ’s moral character, and that is that He believed in hell. I do not myself feel that any person who is really profoundly humane can believe in everlasting punishment. Christ certainly as depicted in the Gospels did believe in everlasting punishment, and one does find repeatedly a vindictive fury against those people who would not listen to His preaching [...]”

In the section discussing Jesus Christ’s character, Russell uses Pathos to create an emotional appeal in order to break down the belief that Jesus was the best and wisest of humans, charitable and inherently good. He reminds the audience that Jesus was spiteful and used the threat of perpetual torment in hell to coerce followers to listen to him. Jesus gave humanity an ultimatum: Follow his word or suffer for eternity. Because of how Jesus used fear and punishment, Russell argues that people regard Jesus’s moral character with reasonable doubt.

“I must say that I think all this doctrine, that hell-fire is a punishment for sin, is a doctrine of cruelty. It is a doctrine that put cruelty into the world and gave the world generations of cruel torture; and the Christ of the Gospels, if you could take Him as His chroniclers represent Him, would certainly have to be considered partly responsible for that.”

Pathos is the backbone of this quote. Russell reiterates how cruel Jesus was. Russell states that centuries of pain and suffering must be laid at Jesus’s feet. His doctrine inspired great injustices against humanity.

“That is the idea—that we should all be wicked if we did not hold to the Christian religion. It seems to me that the people who have held to it have been for the most part extremely wicked. You find this curious fact, that the more intense has been the religion of any period and the more profound has been the dogmatic belief, the greater has been the cruelty and the worse has been the state of affairs. In the so-called ages of faith, when men really did believe the Christian religion in all its completeness, there was the Inquisition, with its tortures; there were millions of unfortunate women burnt as witches; and there was every kind of cruelty practised upon all sorts of people in the name of religion.”

Toward the end of his lecture, Russell uses Pathos to connect with the audience. He reminds them of the Christian history of cruelty: events like the witch trials and the Spanish Inquisition. In addition, he adds a touch of Logos to note how Christianity claims that people are bad or even evil if they don’t follow the path of God and Christ. However, some of humanity’s most heinous moments in history were driven by extreme adherence to Church doctrine. By using Pathos, Russell underscores his reasoning and makes his logical argument even more substantial.