(Continuing Bertrand Russell's "God and Religion")
Chapter 10: "What is the Soul?". I don't hold to a dualistic philosophy (that the "soul" is some separate entity). When the Bible refers to our spirit or soul, it is simply referring to what makes us, us. Heaven and Hell are places for material bodies, although they will be different than our bodies now.
Chapter 11: "Mind and Matter in Modern Science". Meh.
Chapter 12: "Science and Religion". I had an interesting thought while reading this. On page 172, Russell is discussing another person's view on how the universe has brought about human life. Russell is skeptical about the efficiency of the universe for this purpose. It then occurred to me, that inanimate matter (and animals) is 100% obedient to God. It is only human beings that are rebels. So, the vastness of the universe demonstrates that we are just a tiny fraction of God's kingdom in rebellion (not the near victory atheists would have us believe). An interesting thought.
Page 177, "This illustrates the fact that the theological conclusions drawn by scientists from their science are only such as please them". Two points here, first this is what happens when you try to reconcile the world's ideas with Biblical ideas. Second, Russell does the exact same thing when it comes to making moral decisions. He has no basis no truth, and right and wrong, so he believes what pleases him.
Chapter 13, "Cosmic Purpose".
Chapter 14, "An Outline of Intellectual Rubbish". Meh
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
"Two points here, first this is what happens when you try to reconcile the world's ideas with Biblical ideas."
Um, shouldn't the empirical facts of the world be in accord with the Bible and the word of god? Are you admitting here that this is not the case, and further that you don't care?
"Second, Russell does the exact same thing when it comes to making moral decisions."
What? Are you serious?
"He has no basis no truth, and right and wrong, so he believes what pleases him."
Again, this is simply wrong. There are empirical bases for determining our morals. We've evolved as a social animal for one which we can see in other animals as well. Also, we can make objective determinations as to what brings about some measure of good or evil as we define it. Of course, your position is actually less well defined due to Euthyphro's dilemma, which I'm assuming you didn't even look at. No theologian has come up with an answer for it yet.
Post a Comment