Why I Am Not a Christian

Bertrand Russell was a philosopher, mathematician, logician, and intellectual who didn’t hesitate to share his beliefs with the public. “Why I Am Not a Christian” is one of his many published lectures, pamphlets, and articles. It investigates fundamental questions of religion and humanity’s place in the universe.

This guide refers to the Routledge 2004 e-book edition of “Why I Am Not a Christian: and Other Essays on Religion and Related Subjects.”

Russell first delivered “Why I Am Not a Christian” as a lecture at Battersea Town Hall for the South London Branch of the National Secular Society in 1927. He begins by discussing how “Christian” has become a term that people commonly use to describe “a person who attempts to live a good life” (1). Russell quickly states why he doesn’t use that definition, explaining that people who attempt to do good are of many different faiths—such as Buddhism, Islam, or Judaism—so referring to someone who strives to live a good life as necessarily “Christian” is patently untrue. He then notes that in the times of St. Augustine and St. Thomas Aquinas, many held that a Christian was someone who believed in Jesus Christ and followed all of his writings and beliefs with “the whole strength of [one’s] convictions” (2). However, Russell asserts that this definition isn’t quite right for a contemporary understanding of being a Christian. Rather, in modern times, and for the sake of the lecture, he defines a Christian as someone who must believe in God and immortality and must also believe in Christ, in his divinity, and that he represented the ideal in goodness and wisdom for humanity. Having defined what a Christian is, Russell begins to explore why he doesn’t consider himself a Christian: that he doesn’t believe in God, immortality, or Christ’s inherent superiority to the rest of humanity. Additionally, he acknowledges that in the UK, belief in hell and eternal suffering hasn’t been part of the Anglican Church for some time, and therefore he doesn’t consider believing in hell necessary to being a Christian.

Russell next examines the question of God’s very existence. He explains that many arguments the Catholic Church gives to prove God’s existence came from the need to answer the questions that “freethinkers” or philosophers were asking that caused doubt in the general public. The main point the Catholic Church wanted to make was that what it called “unaided reason”—that is, the reason that all humans inherently have—is itself proof of God’s existence. Russell explains that he’ll address more of the Church’s arguments and then show why they’re built on flawed logic.

The initial argument Russell chooses to investigate is the “First Cause” argument. First Cause argues that everything in the world has a cause and that by going back far enough, one will reach that cause, which must be God. Russell’s issue with this argument is that it’s built on a fallacy because if everything has a cause, God must have one. He ends his exploration of First Cause by stating that there’s no reason to assume that the universe even had a beginning.

The next argument Russell examines is that of “natural law,” a theory of the 18th century, when Isaac Newton’s theory of cosmogony—the science that studies the solar system and the creation of the universe—was popular. Natural law held that God had simply created the universe in such a way that the planets would orbit the sun. Russell states that people were willing to accept God’s hand in natural law solely because they hadn’t bothered to explain things scientifically yet.

Similarly, Russell discusses the argument of intelligent design—that God designed everything in a specific way so that humans might live as they do. If even one thing about the world were different, “we could not manage to live in it” (6). He points out how easily one can poke holes in this argument through parody, quoting Voltaire’s critique that noses were made for balancing glasses instead of the other way around. Russell, skeptical of intelligent design, adds that if it were true, it would imply that an omniscient entity created the world—including all its defects (for instance, fascists and the Ku Klux Klan or, if one believes in science and intelligent design, a solar system that, in a distant era, is certain to decay into nothingness). Russell admits that this perspective of the world is upsetting to think about but argues that, considering that the world’s dissolution will happen millions of years from now, it might help people better appreciate life.

Next, Russell examines the argument of morality. He discusses how philosopher Immanuel Kant disproved the original three intellectual arguments of God’s existence and then created the moral argument, which states that no right or wrong exists without a deity defining it. Russell quickly points out that what’s important to consider in the moral argument is that if God’s will, or “fiat,” is good simply because God says so, then there is no good or bad, no right or wrong, to God; there is only God’s will. The idea of right and wrong thus must be somehow independent of God, so that humans can tell when God’s will is good, as many Christians claim. Russell finishes refuting the moral argument by stating that there’s no reason for humans to assume that the Devil wasn’t the one who made the world as it is.

Russell then examines the idea that God brought justice to the world. Everyone knows the world is full of “great injustice” (10), so God must remedy this situation by creating an afterlife, where those who have done wrong go to hell to be punished and those who are good go to heaven. However, examining this scientifically, Russell claims that if the God-created world humanity lives in is full of injustice, then all God-created alternative worlds must be full of injustice too. He concludes that intellectual arguments aren’t what draw people to faith and a belief in God; rather, it’s how they were raised and the idea of safety in believing that a God exists to look out for them. He likens this feeling to having a big brother as a guide to help keep one out of harm’s way.

The next section focuses on Russell’s view of Jesus Christ’s character—who he was as a person. Christians assume that Christ was the “greatest and wisest of all men” (11). Russell admits that he was better than most but notes that he may not have been the best of humanity, pointing to how many of Christ’s pronouncements, like turning the other cheek, weren’t original, that Lao-tzu and the Buddha both said similar things in earlier centuries. He adds that Christian societies often overlook some of Christ’s other beliefs, such as not judging others and giving to the needy.

Russell then begins to examine flaws in Christ’s teachings. He notes that Christ may not even have existed but that if he did, some of his claims are questionable and unwise. For example, Christ believed that his second coming and the rise of God’s Kingdom would occur in the lifetimes of his original followers and thus advised his followers to prioritize preparation for the end over daily care.

The author contends that Christ’s morality was often questionable. For example, someone who is good and forgiving surely must not believe in everlasting torment in hell. Russell notes that other figures of philosophy and religion, like Socrates, didn’t care whether people believed them, but Christ was vindictive and full of “indignation.” Christ’s disdain for nonbelievers is clear in many Bible passages, including one about speaking out against the Holy Ghost. Russell emphasizes that those passages have caused much suffering. He states that anyone with any kindness wouldn’t be so vengeful that his words would inspire fear. He then details many other passages that illustrate Christ’s stance on nonbelievers and the punishments they deserve, including one about the fig tree that didn’t have ripe fruit when Christ wanted a fig and was then withered away by his will.

Russell argues that those who are religious are rarely so because of logical argument. He believes that emotions and social norms protect Christianity from critique. People are taught that speaking out against the Church makes one a bad person. He believes that those who hold such sentiments are usually the ones who are bad. He gives a few examples, such as the Spanish Inquisition and witch trials, and even states that the Church regularly opposes movements meant to improve living standards and give people more freedom.

The author examines how the Christian Church, with all its power, has interfered with human progress. He gives a hypothetical example of a young virginal woman or “girl” (17) married to a man with syphilis; she becomes pregnant and is forced to carry the child to term—and give birth to a syphilitic child—because Christian doctrine prohibits her from either divorcing the man (after learning that he has a sexually transmitted disease) or aborting the fetus. Russell adds that there are many more examples of the Church’s rules—based on what it considers the only moral option—causing unnecessary suffering. He questions whether human happiness has anything to do with Christian morality at all, or if it’s one of the things blocking human happiness.

Russell believes that religion is based on fear—fear of the unknown, of defeat, of death—and the consequent desire to have a big-brother figure who will be supportive through any trouble. He posits that cruelty and religion are intertwined. However, turning to science, he notes, could dispel much of that fear, if only the Church didn’t stand in the way.

Russell concludes the lecture with a call to action: Humanity must become willing to look at the world, as it is, intelligently. He believes that to reach a good world, humanity must seek knowledge and kindness without the interference of faith or adherence to centuries-old beliefs. He exhorts the world to “hope for the future, not looking back all the time towards a past that is dead” (19).