And Shooting Himself in the Foot

In chapter 29 of Greg Bahnsen’s Always Ready, he puts his apologetic approach to practice against Bertrand Russell using Russell’s famous essay Why I Am Not a Christian. Yesterday I quoted two paragraphs from this chapter in a post titled Firing an Unloaded Gun. Here’s how the chapter continues:

Bertrand Russell made no secret of the fact that he intellectually and personally disdained religion in general, and Christianity in particular. In the preface to the book of his critical essays on the subject of religion he wrote: “I am as firmly convinced that religions do harm as I am that they are untrue.” He repeatedly charges in one way or another that a free man who exercises his reasoning ability  cannot submit to religious dogma. He argued that religion was a hindrance to the advance of civilization, that it cannot cure our troubles, and that we do not survive death.

We are treated to a defiant expression of metaphysical materialism—perhaps Russell’s most notorious essay for a popular reading audience—in the article (first published in 1903) entitled “A Free Man’s Worship.” He there concluded: “Brief and powerless is man’s life; on him and all his race the slow, sure doom falls pitiless and dark. Blind to good and evil, reckless of destruction, omnipotent matter rolls on its relentless way.” In the face of this nihilism and ethical subjectivism, Russell nevertheless called men to the invigoration of the free man’s worship: “to worship at the shrine that his own hands have built; undismayed by the empire of chance….”

Hopefully the brazen contradiction in Russell’s philosophy of life is already apparent to the reader. He asserts that our ideals and values are not objective and supported by the nature of reality, indeed that they are fleeting and doomed to destruction. On the other hand, quite contrary to this, Russell encourages us to assert our autonomous values in the face of a valueless universe—to act as though they really amounted to something worthwhile, were rational, and not merely the result of chance. But, after all, what sense could Russell hope to make of an immaterial value (an ideal) in the face of an “omnipotent matter” which is blind to values? Russell only succeeded in shooting himself in the foot.

Thankful Thursday

I’m thankful that my sons are busy at work. When you run your own business, lots of work = good gift from God.

I’m thankful that the carrots seeds have sprouted into little tiny grasslike carrot plants. I’m also thankful for long daylight hours to grow the garden quickly during our short summer.

I’m thankful for eyeglasses. My own pair of glasses—without them I’d be seriously handicapped—and glasses in general.

I’m thankful for the past providences—past mercies—that I’ve been remembering lately. I’m thankful that God can make very difficult circumstances into ultimately good things. I’m thankful that I’ve had God’s help in past trials to give me assurance of his help in future ones.

On Thursdays throughout this year, I plan to post a few thoughts of thanksgiving along with Kim at the Upward Call and others. Why don’t you participate by posting your thanksgiving each week, too? It’ll be an encouragement to you and to others, I promise.

Firing an Unloaded Gun

Here is yet another quote from Greg Bahnsen’s Always Ready: Directions for Defending the Faith. In Chapter 29: Apologetics in Practice, Bahnsen puts his apologetic approach to use against Bertrand Russell’s famous essay Why I Am Not a Christian.

For all his stature as a philosopher, Russell cannot be said to have been sure of himself and consistent in his views regarding reality or or knowledge. In his early years he adopted the Hegelian idealism taught by F. H. Bradley. Influenced by G. E. Moore, he changed to a Platonic theory of ideas. Challenged by Ludwig Wittgenstein that mathematics consists merely of tautologies, he turned to metaphysical and linguistic atomism. He adopted the extreme realism of Alexious Meinong, only later to turn toward logical constructionism instead. Then following the lead of William James, Russell abandoned mind-matter dualism for the theory of neutral monism. Eventually Russell propounded materialism with fervor, even though his dissatisfaction with his earlier logical atomism left him without an alternative metaphysical account of the object of our empirical experiences. Struggling with philosophical problems not unlike those which stymied David Hume, Russell conceded in his later years that the quest for certainty is a failure.

This brief history of Russell’s philosophical evolution is rehearsed so that the reader may correctly appraise the strength and authority of the intellectual platform from which Russell would presume to criticize the Christian faith. Russell’s brilliance is not in doubt; he was a talented and intelligent man. But to what avail? In criticizing Christians for their views of ultimate reality, of how we know what we know, and of how we should live our lives, did Bertrand Russell have a defensible alternative from which to launch his attacks? Not at all. He could not give an account of reality and knowing which—on the grounds of, and according to the criteria of, his own autonomous reasoning—was cogent, reasonable and sure. He could not say with certainty what was true about reality and knowledge, but nevertheless he was firmly convinced that Christianity was false! Russell was firing an unloaded gun.