Firing an Unloaded Gun
Wednesday, June 16, 2010 at 8:52PM 
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.
Reader Comments (3)
I'm suddenly intrigued by this book. I'm curious if you know how it would compare to R.C. Sproul's "Defending Your Faith" series.
I haven't read Defending Your Faith. I don't think R. C. Sproul is a presuppositionalist, so I would imagine the approach is different.
I found the first sections of this book downright tedious because he was building so slowly and carefully and repetitively. Now that he's into the actual arguing, I'm having a lot of fun.
Renewing Your Mind Weekend Edition is playing the "Defending Your Faith" series right now, so I'm listening to them (but I'm several weeks behind). I'm noticing with "Consequences of Ideas" that the book and the lectures contain different information, which is good and bad.
You're right that Dr. Sproul is not a presuppositionalist, but I was mowing when I listened to that lecture, so I really didn't catch much of it. :)