David and Philo,

BERTRAN RUSSELL ON THE CLERGY

"It is not so much that the creed of the Church is the wrong one. What is amiss is the mere existence of a creed. As soon as income, position, and power are dependent upon acceptance of no matter what creed, intellectual honesty is imperilled. Men will tell themselves that a formal assent is justified by the good which it will enable them to do. They fail to realize that, in those whose mental life has any vigor, loss of complete intellectual integrity puts an end to the power of doing good, by producing gradually in all directions an inability to see truth simply. The strictness of party discipline has introduced the same evil in politics; there, because the evil is comparatively new, it is visible to many who think it unimportant as regards the Church. But the evil is greater as regards the Church, because religion is of more importance than politics, and because it is more necessary that the exponents of religion should be wholly free from taint." - Russell

Publication Information: Book Title: Bertrand Russell on God and Religion. Contributors: Al Seckel - editor, Bertrand Russell - author. Publisher: Prometheus Books. Place of Publication: Buffalo, NY. Publication Year: 1986. Page Number: 110. [Actually based essays from the 1920s]

Jesus; Man or God, to me, on occasion stood in opposition to Rites:e.g., Man and The Sabbath. Thus, Jesus was somewhat irreligious, where he deemed it appropriate to go against the grain.

Oliver,

You have a wide ranging knowledge on matters religious. It’s been yonks since I have enveloped myself in the murky beginnings of Christianity. I now find it not that important but it is good to know others do.

That’s an interesting quote from Bert. No doubt, you realise he is saying that following any creed dependent on income, position and power, imperils proper judgment. And in seeming contradiction he goes on to state that, for those days (1920’s) where religion had some importance to the majority, the exponents of religion must be free from the taint of ‘evil’. This is very clever stuff and I would hazard a guess, a little bit of self-protectionist doublespeak in line with the times.

As for the alleged Jesus being a man or a god, I would add, or even existing as claimed by the New Testament, I’ll stick to the alleged part, until there is a consensus of evidence, which is presently non-existent.

David

David,

Based on the evidence, as I now it, God does not exist. Nonetheless, re-modelling Lakatos a bit, I do believe in the notion of co-existence positive and negative heuristics; wherein, there is a toaster orbiting Plato. Else, you nurture absolutism and a sense of infallibility on the opposite pole to the Religionists. Just the same, for practical purposes, I assert non-existence of the toaster [or God]. Dawkins, for me, unexpectly, said something similar - he is not a 7/7.

In a similar period, H.G. Wells in his Outline on History; was alsosensitive to being too candid with his remarks for his day. Albeit; his deeper views do come through the overcast of the toned-down text.

On the topic of commitment to a conviction, Polanyi maintains said conviction is made on the basis of perceived confirmation at an ideterminant time in the future. Like Popper, I feel is a caution against absolutism.

Oliver,

One must be careful of intimidating any opposition by utilizing words, concepts and the names of folk, not in common usage. It may have been more useful to just state you do not accept a god exist because of the lack of evidence, as have I.

Atheists do not generally exhibit an absolutist stance so I see it unnecessary in you stating ambiguously, to whom you may be referring. i.e. Atheist or the religionists.

I think it well within your capacity to clearly portray your perception of reality without venturing into, what many may see. as elitist language.

I say the above as advice and not as an outright criticism. I am sure you will understand.

David

It appears so many of our threads end up in similar lines of discussion with very similar posters ... is there or isn't there a God.

If there is a God, gees I hope "it's" happy that we spend so much time debating the existence of one. If there is no God, hopefully if there is an alternate form of afterlife or soul existence we find it absurdly funny. The final option appears to be nothing whatsoever - in which case the whole question is moot.

I struggle to get past the belief of no greater entity than humanity - just like the Earth isn't the centre of the universe, I don't believe humanity is the pinacle of life - but that's just my opinion, and I look forward to laughing about it in the next life!

The question for me is how do finite beings understand infinite concepts?

Corri, many if not most atheists do not accept that "humanity" is the greatest entity in the universe. Try the "Human biases" discussion.