Bertrand Russell explains why he doesn’t believe in God in this 1959 interview.
Comments
Trackbacks
-
[...] to Unreasonable Faith for the [...]
A reasonable blog on atheism, religion, science and skepticism
Follow Patheos
Atheist:
Subscribe through RSS
Follow Patheos on
Faith Channels
Religion Library
Topics
Resources
Copyright 2008-2012, Patheos. All rights reserved. Terms of Service | Patheos Privacy Policy
I would enjoy a longer listen. From what source did this come? Thanks!
Ahead of his time by about 80 years. Sign of genius.
This is a fantastic video, Daniel. I suggested people watch it on my FB status update. Thanks.
And McCarthy didn’t throw him in jail as a result of that? ;)
He was British, in Britain and (I think) about three decades ahead of McCarthy anyway. So no.
Russell was British but he wasn’t decades ahead of McCarthy who died in 1957, two years before this interview.
You’ve got to love how the interviewer kept asking absurd questions and, a couple of times, Russell dismisses them outright with “That’s absurd.” And I agree with him–why should atheists (agnostics, freethinkers, whatever) spend time entertaining absurd questions?
I don’t think I disagreed with a single word he said, and I don’t think I would have phrased any of my answers in a way I like more than the answers he gave.
That might be a first.
Wow. I’m IMPRESSED. He comes off even better in an interview than he does in writing, and I’ve been a huge fan of his essays for years. What an intelligent, courageous man!!!
Great writer. One of my favorites. Thanks for this video.
I have only one point to add:
Woman: “Do you believe in the afterlife?”
Russell: “No, that is nonsense. None exists whatsoever.”
I wish the interviewer would have replied, “But wait, you just said earlier in this interview that if one can not ascertain truth, he should simply suspend judgment. Since you cannot PROVE there is no after life, shouldn’t you be suspending judgment?”
Would have been interesting to hear his answer.
Since you cannot PROVE there is no Allah/pink unicorns/Zeus/an invisible dragon in my garage etc., shouldn’t you be suspending judgment?
I’ve got an invisible dragon in my garage. It’s clear for anyone to see. Right next to the pink elephants (the pink unicorns have already gone to the pub).
More champagne?
Idiot Dino probably doesn’t drink Tea.
That is picking at semantics. Of course it is possible that certain things exist but it is so unlikely that, for all practical purposes, it is impossible. To require rational people to hedge every one of their statements with “to the best of my knowledge” or “all evidence points to but there may be another explanation” or “is the only rational conclusion but it cannot be conclusively proven that the universe is a rational place” is utterly ridiculous. Simply because intelligent people are willing to change their minds doesn’t mean they are no longer allowed to speak like everyone else.
And when you do hedge your statements with the standard epistemological disclaimers, you come off sounding disingenuous. It’s damned if you do and damned if you don’t.
for all “practical” purposes…
The problem we have here D’n, is that Love (God) is not “practical” at all, is anything but, is a crazy kinda love. That’s why He’s been called the “hound of heaven” since He’ll chase you all the way into some dark corner of cyberspace where no one “believes”, its crazy man, just crazy.
Happy New Year!
It’s rather ironic that you would criticize Russell of all people for giving such an answer.
Thank you, D’n, I wanted to say something like this, but hadn’t put it into words yet.
Particularly liked the refutation of death-bed conversions. However, I can see that some people might say, OK, I believe, in order to have some peace in their final hours.
Intelligent, well thought through (the interviewee, not necessarily the interviewer), level headed, logical. This was an excellent piece – I’d like to see it in full (assuming there’s more).