Why I Am Not a Christian.docx
- 文档编号:6834036
- 上传时间:2023-01-11
- 格式:DOCX
- 页数:10
- 大小:46.48KB
Why I Am Not a Christian.docx
《Why I Am Not a Christian.docx》由会员分享,可在线阅读,更多相关《Why I Am Not a Christian.docx(10页珍藏版)》请在冰豆网上搜索。
WhyIAmNotaChristian
Haldeman-JuliusPublications
Girard,Kansas
Copyright,1929,
ByHaldeman-JulliusCompany
PrintedintheUnitedStatesofAmerica
WhyIAmNotaChristian
AnExaminationoftheGod-IdeaandChristianity
[ThelecturethatisherepresentedwasdeliveredattheBatterseaTownHallundertheauspicesoftheSouthLondonBranchoftheNationalSecularSociety,England.ItshouldbeaddedthattheeditoriswillingtosharefullresponsibilitywiththeHon.BertrandRussellinthatheisinaccordwiththepoliticalandotheropinionsexpressed.][Thepreviousstatementwasincludedintheoriginal,andisnotmadebyPositiveAtheism.]
Asyourchairmanhastoldyou,thesubjectaboutwhichIamgoingtospeaktoyoutonightis"WhyIAmNotaChristian."Perhapsitwouldbeaswell,firstofall,totrytomakeoutwhatonemeansbytheword"Christian."Itisusedinthesedaysinaveryloosesensebyagreatmanypeople.Somepeoplemeannomorebyitthanapersonwhoattemptstoliveagoodlife.InthatsenseIsupposetherewouldbeChristiansinallsectsandcreeds;butIdonotthinkthatthatisthepropersenseoftheword,ifonlybecauseitwouldimplythatallthepeoplewhoarenotChristians--alltheBuddhists,Confucians,Mohammedans,andsoon--arenottryingtoliveagoodlife.IdonotmeanbyaChristiananypersonwhotriestolivedecentlyaccordingtohislights.IthinkthatyoumusthaveacertainamountofdefinitebeliefbeforeyouhavearighttocallyourselfaChristian.Theworddoesnothavequitesuchafull-bloodedmeaningnowasithadinthetimesofSt.AugustineandSt.ThomasAquinas.Inthosedays,ifamansaidthathewasaChristianitwasknownwhathemeant.Youacceptedawholecollectionofcreedswhichweresetoutwithgreatprecision,andeverysinglesyllableofthosecreedsyoubelievedwiththewholestrengthofyourconvictions.
WhatisaChristian?
Nowadaysitisnotquitethat.WehavetobealittlemorevagueinourmeaningofChristianity.Ithink,however,thattherearetwodifferentitemswhicharequiteessentialtoanyonecallinghimselfaChristian.Thefirstisoneofadogmaticnature--namely,thatyoumustbelieveinGodandimmortality.Ifyoudonotbelieveinthosetwothings,IdonotthinkthatyoucanproperlycallyourselfaChristian.Then,furtherthanthat,asthenameimplies,youmusthavesomekindofbeliefaboutChrist.TheMohammedans,forinstance,alsobelieveinGodandimmortality,andyettheywouldnotcallthemselvesChristians.IthinkyoumusthaveattheverylowestthebeliefthatChristwas,ifnotdivine,atleastthebestandwisestofmen.IfyouarenotgoingtobelievethatmuchaboutChrist,IdonotthinkthatyouhaveanyrighttocallyourselfaChristian.Ofcourse,thereisanothersensewhichyoufindinWhitaker'sAlmanackandingeographybooks,wherethepopulationoftheworldissaidtobedividedintoChristians,Mohammedans,Buddhists,fetishworshipers,andsoon;butinthatsenseweareallChristians.Thegeographybookscountsusallin,butthatisapurelygeographicalsense,whichIsupposewecanignore.ThereforeItakeitthatwhenItellyouwhyIamnotaChristianIhavetotellyoutwodifferentthings:
first,whyIdonotbelieveinGodandinimmortality;and,secondly,whyIdonotthinkthatChristwasthebestandwisestofmen,althoughIgranthimaveryhighdegreeofmoralgoodness.
Butforthesuccessfuleffortsofunbelieversinthepast,IcouldnottakesoelasticadefinitionofChristianityasthat.AsIsaidbefore,intheoldendaysithadamuchmorefull-bloodedsense.Forinstance,itincludedthebeliefinhell.BeliefineternalhellfirewasanessentialitemofChristianbeliefuntilprettyrecenttimes.Inthiscountry,asyouknow,itceasedtobeanessentialitembecauseofadecisionofthePrivyCouncil,andfromthatdecisiontheArchbishopofCanterburyandtheArchbishopofYorkdissented;butinthiscountryourreligionissettledbyActofParliament,andthereforethePrivyCouncilwasabletooverridetheirGracesandhellwasnolongernecessarytoaChristian.ConsequentlyIshallnotinsistthataChristianmustbelieveinhell.
TheExistenceOfGod
TocometothisquestionoftheexistenceofGod,itisalargeandseriousquestion,andifIweretoattempttodealwithitinanyadequatemannerIshouldhavetokeepyouhereuntilKingdomCome,sothatyouwillhavetoexcusemeifIdealwithitinasomewhatsummaryfashion.Youknow,ofcourse,thattheCatholicChurchhaslaiditdownasadogmathattheexistenceofGodcanbeprovedbytheunaidedreason.Thisisasomewhatcuriousdogma,butitisoneoftheirdogmas.TheyhadtointroduceitbecauseatonetimetheFreethinkersadoptedthehabitofsayingthatthereweresuchandsuchargumentswhichmerereasonmighturgeagainsttheexistenceofGod,butofcoursetheyknewasamatteroffaiththatGoddidexist.Theargumentsandthereasonsweresetoutatgreatlength,andtheCatholicChurchfeltthattheymuststopit.ThereforetheylaiditdownthattheexistenceofGodcanbeprovedbytheunaidedreason,andtheyhadtosetupwhattheyconsideredwereargumentstoproveit.Thereare,ofcourse,anumberofthem,butIshalltakeonlyafew.
TheFirstCauseArgument
PerhapsthesimplestandeasiesttounderstandistheargumentoftheFirstCause.Itismaintainedthateverythingweseeinthisworldhasacause,andasyougobackinthechainofcausesfurtherandfurtheryoumustcometoaFirstCause,andtothatFirstCauseyougivethenameofGod.Thatargument,Isuppose,doesnotcarryverymuchweightnowadays,because,inthefirstplace,causeisnotquitewhatitusedtobe.Thephilosophersandthemenofsciencehavegotgoingoncause,andithasnotanythinglikethevitalitythatitusedtohave;butapartfromthat,youcanseethattheargumentthattheremustbeaFirstCauseisonethatcannothaveanyvalidity.ImaysaythatwhenIwasayoungman,andwasdebatingthesequestionsveryseriouslyinmymind,IforalongtimeacceptedtheargumentoftheFirstCause,untiloneday,attheageofeighteen,IreadJohnStuartMill'sAutobiography,andItherefoundthissentence:
"Myfathertaughtmethatthequestion,Whomademe?
cannotbeanswered,sinceitimmediatelysuggeststhefurtherquestion,WhomadeGod?
"Thatverysimplesentenceshowedme,asIstillthink,thefallacyintheargumentoftheFirstCause.Ifeverythingmusthaveacause,thenGodmusthaveacause.Iftherecanbeanythingwithoutacause,itmayjustaswellbetheworldasGod,sothattherecannotbeanyvalidityinthatargument.ItisexactlyofthesamenatureastheHindu'sview,thattheworldresteduponanelephant,andtheelephantresteduponatortoise;andwhentheysaid,"Howaboutthetortoise?
"theIndiansaid,"Supposewechangethesubject."Theargumentisreallynobetterthanthat.Thereisnoreasonwhytheworldcouldnothavecomeintobeingwithoutacause;nor,ontheotherhand,isthereanyreasonwhyitshouldnothavealwaysexisted.Thereisnoreasontosupposethattheworldhadabeginningatall.Theideathatthingsmusthaveabeginningisreallyduetothepovertyofourimagination.Therefore,perhaps,IneednotwasteanymoretimeupontheargumentabouttheFirstCause.
TheNatural-LawArgument
ThenthereisaverycommonargumentfromNaturalLaw.Thatwasafavoriteargumentallthroughtheeighteenthcentury,especiallyundertheinfluenceofSirIsaacNewtonandhiscosmogony.Peopleobservedtheplanetsgoingaroundthesunaccordingtothelawofgravitation,andtheythoughtthatGodhadgivenabehesttotheseplanetstomoveinthatparticularfashion,andthatwaswhytheydidso.Thatwas,ofcourse,aconvenientandsimpleexplanationthatsavedthemthetroubleoflookinganyfurtherforanyexplanationofthelawofgravitation.NowadaysweexplainthelawofgravitationinasomewhatcomplicatedfashionthatEinsteinhasintroduced.Idonotproposetogiveyoualectureonthelawofgravitation,asinterpretedbyEinstein,becausethatagainwouldtakesometime;atanyrate,younolongerhavethesortofNaturalLawthatyouhadintheNewtoniansystem,where,forsomereasonthatnobodycouldunderstand,naturebehavedinauniformfashion.WenowfindthatagreatmanythingswethoughtwereNaturalLawsarereallyhumanconventions.Youknowthatevenintheremotestdepthofstellarspacetherearestillthreefeettoayard.Thatis,nodoubt,averyremarkablefact,butyouwouldhardlycallitalawofnature.Andagreatmanythingsthathavebeenregardedaslawsofnatureareofthatkind.Ontheotherhand,whereyoucangetdowntoanyknowledgeofwhatatomsactuallydo,youwillfindthattheyaremuchlesssubjecttolawthanpeoplethought,andthatthelawsatwhichyouarrivearestatisticalaveragesofjustthesortthatwouldemergefromchance.Thereis,asweallknow,alawthatifyouthrowdiceyouwillgetdoublesixesonlyaboutonceinthirty-sixtimes,andwedonotregardthatasevidencethatthefallofthediceisregulatedbydesign;onthecontrary,ifthedoublesixescameeverytimeweshouldthinkthattherewasdesign.Thelawsofnatureareofthatsortasregardstoagreatmanyofthem.Theyarestatisticalaveragessuchaswouldemergefromthelawsofchance;andthatmakesthewholebusinessofnaturallawmuchlessimpressivethanitformerlywas.Quiteapartfromthat,whichrepresentsthemomentarystateofsciencethatmaychangetomorrow,thewholeideathatnaturallawsimplyalaw-giverisduetoaconfusionbetweennaturalandhumanlaws.Humanlawsarebehestscommandingyoutobehaveacertain
- 配套讲稿:
如PPT文件的首页显示word图标,表示该PPT已包含配套word讲稿。双击word图标可打开word文档。
- 特殊限制:
部分文档作品中含有的国旗、国徽等图片,仅作为作品整体效果示例展示,禁止商用。设计者仅对作品中独创性部分享有著作权。
- 关 键 词:
- Why Am Not Christian