How Does Russell View Religion
Faith and religion. With so many religion and ways to view faith, it is difficult to see how we should understand them. This essay will compare two different ways to view religion in the form of analyzing two works. First, Bertrand Russell’s Why I am not a Christian explains straight forward way of thinking where if reason fails, then it cannot be. Terry Eagleton’s Reason, Faith and Revolution views religion and faith in more spiritual way. He explains that faith is deeper than reason. Both of these views will come short and it is actually combination of these that is the correct view of faith and religion.
First, Russell’s argument against Christianity is a very basic one. His argument in Why I am not a Christian explains what it means to be a Christian and other arguments that were made for God then argues against them. He approached Christianity in very logical and straightforward way. He explained that a Christian was someone who believes in dogmatic nature – namely, belief in God and belief in immortality. Furthermore, he said that Christian, as the name suggests, was someone who believes in Christ. He gave rather lenient description here where a Christian should believe in Christ as at least the best and wisest of men. Then, Russell began to explain some of the popular arguments for the …show more content…
For Russell the ends of knowledge in religion are logic and facts. That is why, in his writing Why I am not a Christian, he argues by critiquing all the Christian arguments. He first lays the beliefs, arguments for God and character of Christ, then he shows the foolishness of Christian faith by logically arguing against all the things he laid. In Eagleton’s case, he is much more spiritual. He believes that reason is not the deepest fundamentals about the religious beliefs. He believes that if someone truly believes, scientific discovery that may prove something wrong in Christianity would not be
First, Russell’s argument against Christianity is a very basic one. His argument in Why I am not a Christian explains what it means to be a Christian and other arguments that were made for God then argues against them. He approached Christianity in very logical and straightforward way. He explained that a Christian was someone who believes in dogmatic nature – namely, belief in God and belief in immortality. Furthermore, he said that Christian, as the name suggests, was someone who believes in Christ. He gave rather lenient description here where a Christian should believe in Christ as at least the best and wisest of men. Then, Russell began to explain some of the popular arguments for the …show more content…
For Russell the ends of knowledge in religion are logic and facts. That is why, in his writing Why I am not a Christian, he argues by critiquing all the Christian arguments. He first lays the beliefs, arguments for God and character of Christ, then he shows the foolishness of Christian faith by logically arguing against all the things he laid. In Eagleton’s case, he is much more spiritual. He believes that reason is not the deepest fundamentals about the religious beliefs. He believes that if someone truly believes, scientific discovery that may prove something wrong in Christianity would not be