How Bertrand Russell Became An Atheist

[Rational Agnostic]

Dear Hubert, the title of your thread is the following:

How Bertrand Russell Became An Atheist.




I don't see any relevant exposition in your OP to the effect that you achieve to tell readers how Bertrand Russell became an atheist.

You should have presented John Stuart Mill's refutation of first cause argument for God’s existence, where Bertrand found the refutation of the first cause, consisting, namely, that it gives no answer to the question "Who made God?”

What is the relevancy of no answer to the question who made God to the refutation against God’s existence as the first cause?

Because if we can't answer who made God, God explains nothing. The problem of figuring out where the universe came from cannot be solved with God, as invoking an uncreated God just recreates the same problem we were attempting to solve.

 

[BilliardsBall]

I found some interesting excerpts from "God and Religion" by Bertrand Russell on this site: God and Religion by Bertrand Russell. I remember hearing an old interview with Bertrand Russell in which he stated that he spent most of his free time between the ages of 15 and 18 thinking about Christian dogmas and discovering that they were not true.

I found it interesting to see that he continued to believe in a deistic god until age 18, when he became an atheist for this simple reason:

Until the age of eighteen I continued to believe in a Deist's God, because the First-Cause argument seemed to me irrefutable. Then in John Stuart Mill's Autobiography I found that James Mill had taught him the refutation of that argument-namely, that it gives no answer to the question "Who made God?"

And here I thought Russell was a brilliant man--he thought of something at age 18 that most children ask around age 5.

NO ONE MADE GOD. Russell missed that STATEMENT refuting the question in the Bible!

 

[Rational Agnostic]

And here I thought Russell was a brilliant man--he thought of something at age 18 that most children ask around age 5.

NO ONE MADE GOD. Russell missed that STATEMENT refuting the question in the Bible!

Russell was brilliant. He pointed out a major problem in mathematical set theory that no one had thought of before. I agree that it's surprising it took him until age 18 to think of that question. But why do you think his refutation of the first cause argument is wrong?

 

[Samantha Rinne]

(Talking about Bertrand Russel)

Until the age of eighteen I continued to believe in a Deist's God, because the First-Cause argument seemed to me irrefutable. Then in John Stuart Mill's Autobiography I found that James Mill had taught him the refutation of that argument-namely, that it gives no answer to the question "Who made God?"

It never ceases to amaze me that you find people's turn away from faith extremely compelling and "proof" that religion doesn't work, yet you never spend one iota of interest bothering to learn about people who used to be atheists turning to God. Or Buddha. Or whatever.

Nor do you bother with the even somewhat hard work of trying to piece together whether your unbelief is as insurmountable as all that, or if your questions can in fact be answered easily.

God is an original creator. That is to say, in the long chain of creation, the state of being a God means that you're the first. That what made you either became you (similar to how two-part epoxy works) or you simply always were through some sort of enclosed time/space loop. If you are eternal, this means that there was never any point where God was not nor will not be, so the question far from being a convincing reason not to believe in God, is actually an excuse.

That is not to say you couldn't become an agnostic or something or just not attend church, but if you're looking for reasons as a child not to believe in God, that's one of the suckier ones.

Now, for reference, here are some atheists who became theists.

List of converts to Christianity from nontheism - Wikipedia
List of converts to Judaism from non-religious backgrounds - Wikipedia

John Dobson (amateur astronomer) - Wikipedia
Sita Ram Goel - Wikipedia

(These two converted from atheism to Hinduism)

https://www.christiantoday.com/article/five-atheists-who-lost-faith-in-atheism/61784.htm

These are five of the big ones, including C.S. Lewis. They were dead-sure about atheism, and then all of a sudden things changed.

 

[Pachomius]

Dear Hubert, first your thread is about How Bertrand Russell became an atheist, and you have not shown how at all.

Anyway, everyone seems to have gone into the existence of God, away from Bertrand Russell.

That is allowable because there is no law against evading from the topic itself of the thread - if I am correct, for so far no one is calling attention to the fact that the thread from you as you put it, is How Bertrand Russell became an atheist.

Now, you say that in brief - the existence of God does not explain where the universe comes from.

Suppose you tell me what from your own thinking on truths, facts, logic, and the history of ideas, where the universe comes from?

Because if we can't answer who made God, God explains nothing. The problem of figuring out where the universe came from cannot be solved with God, as invoking an uncreated God just recreates the same problem we were attempting to solve.

 

[Pachomius]

For the most definitive thoughts of Bertrand Russell on how he became an atheist, I recommend these two pieces of journalistic literature:

See the debate between Fr. Copleston and Russell aired on BBC on the existence of God in year 1948.
Fr. Copleston vs. Bertrand Russell: The Famous 1948 BBC Radio Debate on the Existence of God

And Russell's "Is There a God" in 1952.
Is There a God

 

[Shad]

God is an original creator. That is to say, in the long chain of creation, the state of being a God means that you're the first. That what made you either became you (similar to how two-part epoxy works) or you simply always were through some sort of enclosed time/space loop. If you are eternal, this means that there was never any point where God was not nor will not be, so the question far from being a convincing reason not to believe in God, is actually an excuse.

Not if one accounts for time in physics and astrophysics which render eternal moot and turns the point about being first merely an assertion based on nothing.

 

[Pachomius]

I propose that we all let specific concrete humans talk instead of abstracts like physics and astrophysics talk, because they can't talk at all, they are just concepts in our mind.

So in regard to the existence of time, I submit that all humans experience the existence of time, for example, you and I we are using up our time, we even measure time.

You don't agree with me?

Consider that you need time to get to office, so you have to reserve the time needed for you to get to office, otherwise you will not get to office, and you could miss your daily wage if you happen to be a daily wage earner.

Another example of the continuous experience of time by humans: every government is waiting for the time when the coronavirus will cease its pandemic hold over mankind at the present time.

So, you cannot just dismiss the existence of time as "an assertion based on nothing."

Time exists, it is based on our experience of time: in fact you can lose time and you can gain time, and you can waste time.

Not if one accounts for time in physics and astrophysics which render eternal moot and turns the point about being first merely an assertion based on nothing.

 

[rational experiences]

Not if one accounts for time in physics and astrophysics which render eternal moot and turns the point about being first merely an assertion based on nothing.

Does a scientist wonder why he was told to be conscious and just live spiritually and naturally?

For if you say to a mind who is spiritual. The first natural and origin self, human is very aware of everything by circumstance of having come out of an eternal spirit, who had released the cause of creation.

As nature came out of that body only after gases, had filled in space...that had its eternal body removed into God O masses.

So we got forced out of the eternal spirit.

When science gives a detailed conscious description of living on one planet O that half is in natural day light, that affects the other half of the atmosphere in night time, is what he discusses as relative mind/psyche or conscious studied advice.

And there is only one owned science cause on Planet Earth today that is not in its correct gas light placement.

UFO metal radiation burning 24 hours a day for nuclear dust converting, 24 hours a day...that affects night time clear gases, without light.

As statements for science, about science, relative to human males having invented all terms of references just as humans for science. Only alive and living inside of a gas burning alight atmosphere, that is cooled. Whilst apply the evils of fakeness…..science.


Did you ever think about how fake you all are?

 

[Mock Turtle]

And here I thought Russell was a brilliant man--he thought of something at age 18 that most children ask around age 5.

NO ONE MADE GOD. Russell missed that STATEMENT refuting the question in the Bible!

Well, for me, the God question was deferred until much later - not really sure when and I'm still a bit agnostic - but it was the number of religions and their obvious disagreements as well as some agreements that persuaded me not to travel the religious/spiritual route - and which started aged about 11 when I discovered this fact. Everything I learnt later, including looking into the major religious and spiritual beliefs failed to entice me.

Any logical arguments for the existence of some God I'll leave to the logicians, and since I have suspicions about all knowledge that humans can have, such don't impress me. For me, there is no more sense in there being a God as to there not being based on some 'everything is caused' argument. And whatever one might conceive as a cause doesn't necessarily relate to anything that one might postulate subsequently - but which has seen so many religions thrive from doing such.

PS I've read some of Russell's works but so long ago as to be useless now.

 

[Pachomius]

Dear Sunstone, I fear that you have deficiently presented what you say is the rule that is embraced by theists, that everything has a cause, as you put it thus:

"the rule that "everything must have a cause"

That is what I see to be a deficient presentation, because no learned theist ever declares that everything must have a cause, what every learned theist declares is that everything with a beginning must have a cause.

So, with all due respect to your office here as a staff member, you are hitting a straw man of your own making.

Good OP! Thanks for it.

That is indeed a difficulty with First Cause arguments both for the obvious reason and because it is so problematic to assert precisely how god is an exception to the rule that "everything must have a cause". One can, of course, simply assert that "Gods, by definition, are not caused", but when people do that, they tend to forget to explain why gods must be defined as not needing a cause (the Greeks certainly did not always think so -- most of their gods had causes), among other things.

 

[Pachomius]

Dear Mock Turtle, I just care to enlighten everyone who is mistaken with the so often but deficiently presented, namely, the premise that everything has a cause.

The premise among theists who are learned or are taught correctly is not that everything has a cause, but everything with a beginning has a cause.

So, please everyone, get correctly informed, theists declare that everything with a beginning has a cause - not just everything has a cause, and therefore folks who hit the first cause argument is into targeting a straw man with a deficient rule that everything has a cause.

It is not everything has a cause, but everything with a beginning has a cause.

Well, for me, the God question was deferred until much later - not really sure when and I'm still a bit agnostic - but it was the number of religions and their obvious disagreements as well as some agreements that persuaded me not to travel the religious/spiritual route - and which started aged about 11 when I discovered this fact. Everything I learnt later, including looking into the major religious and spiritual beliefs failed to entice me.

Any logical arguments for the existence of some God I'll leave to the logicians, and since I have suspicions about all knowledge that humans can have, such don't impress me. For me, there is no more sense in there being a God as to there not being based on some 'everything is caused' argument. And whatever one might conceive as a cause doesn't necessarily relate to anything that one might postulate subsequently - but which has seen so many religions thrive from doing such.

PS I've read some of Russell's works but so long ago as to be useless now.

 

[BilliardsBall]

Russell was brilliant. He pointed out a major problem in mathematical set theory that no one had thought of before. I agree that it's surprising it took him until age 18 to think of that question. But why do you think his refutation of the first cause argument is wrong?

For one, you have a problem of endless regression BOTH with God and without...

 

[BilliardsBall]

Well, for me, the God question was deferred until much later - not really sure when and I'm still a bit agnostic - but it was the number of religions and their obvious disagreements as well as some agreements that persuaded me not to travel the religious/spiritual route - and which started aged about 11 when I discovered this fact. Everything I learnt later, including looking into the major religious and spiritual beliefs failed to entice me.

Any logical arguments for the existence of some God I'll leave to the logicians, and since I have suspicions about all knowledge that humans can have, such don't impress me. For me, there is no more sense in there being a God as to there not being based on some 'everything is caused' argument. And whatever one might conceive as a cause doesn't necessarily relate to anything that one might postulate subsequently - but which has seen so many religions thrive from doing such.

PS I've read some of Russell's works but so long ago as to be useless now.

But there is a problem of infinite regression with or without a god!

 

[Mock Turtle]

Dear Mock Turtle, I just care to enlighten everyone who is mistaken with the so often but deficiently presented, namely, the premise that everything has a cause.

The premise among theists who are learned or are taught correctly is not that everything has a cause, but everything with a beginning has a cause.

So, please everyone, get correctly informed, theists declare that everything with a beginning has a cause - not just everything has a cause, and therefore folks who hit the first cause argument is into targeting a straw man with a deficient rule that everything has a cause.

It is not everything has a cause, but everything with a beginning has a cause.

Yes, well that was what I meant of course. very sloppy of me - again.

 

[Mock Turtle]

But there is a problem of infinite regression with or without a god!

Well that is easily stopped - by not asking such questions.

 

[GoodbyeDave]

I researched a few of these claims you made about him. A few of them are half-truths, but most are outright lies. What we do know is that Russell was one of the greatest mathematicians in history, and likely one of the smartest people who ever lived.

Then perhaps you should edit the Wikipedia article! And also read this
Bertrand Russell (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

 

[Mock Turtle]

Then perhaps you should edit the Wikipedia article! And also read this
Bertrand Russell (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

Think some are flawless? I'm sure we could find fault with most notable people who get to have the attention they have from their work. It's more about the latter than their personal failings, and the works of most philosophers usually end up on the rubbish heap apart from some gems that have value.

 

[Rational Agnostic]

For one, you have a problem of endless regression BOTH with God and without...

Well, we can get around this problem by proposing a circular chain of causes. It's a weird idea, as it would ultimately mean that events cause themselves, but it's not illogical.

 

[Ponder This]

I found some interesting excerpts from "God and Religion" by Bertrand Russell on this site: God and Religion by Bertrand Russell. I remember hearing an old interview with Bertrand Russell in which he stated that he spent most of his free time between the ages of 15 and 18 thinking about Christian dogmas and discovering that they were not true.

I found it interesting to see that he continued to believe in a deistic god until age 18, when he became an atheist for this simple reason:

Until the age of eighteen I continued to believe in a Deist's God, because the First-Cause argument seemed to me irrefutable. Then in John Stuart Mill's Autobiography I found that James Mill had taught him the refutation of that argument-namely, that it gives no answer to the question "Who made God?"

Just to clarify Bertrand Russel's thinking here...
"There is no reason why the world could not have come into being without a cause; nor, on the other hand, is there any reason why it should not have always existed. There is no reason to suppose that the world had a beginning at all." - Bertrand Russell
That is to say, if you suppose that something can have no beginning (as, indeed, you suppose God to have no beginning), then there remains no reason to suppose the universe had a beginning.

I would also note that John Stuart Mill was being impressed upon by his Father to reject "priestly tyranny for liberty of thought" (from John Stuart Mill's Autobiography same paragraph).

There is some reason to consider that the universe had a beginning. The Big Bang Theory was proposed by Georges Lemaître in 1927 and evidence was found to support his theory in 1929 and again in 1964. But this is not enough to convince Bertrand Russell who adopted Victor Stenger's proposition that the universe may have "emerged from nothing". Bertrand Russell said, "The universe is just here, and that's all." (from the Copleston-Russell debate on the existence of God)

The notion of First Cause goes back to ancient Greece. Aristotle pointed out that if the universe had come to be its first motion would lack an antecedent state and Parmenides said "nothing comes from nothing". So Aristotle concluded that at least one unmoved mover must exist.
Bertrand Russell is contesting the notion that "nothing comes from nothing". Bertrand is asserting that the universe came into being without a cause.