This study will provide a critique of Bertrand Russell's argument against Christianity in his essay "Why I Am Not A Christian."
Russell begins effectively by immediately setting the boundaries of his essay by defining precisely what a Christian is. Before he can say why he is not a Christian, he must first establish what a Christian is. Accordingly, Russell says reasonably enough that a Christian must believe in God, in immortality, and in the special quality of Christ, either that he is, "if not divine, at least the best and wisest of men" (684).
Russell effectively employs a sharp sense of humor to press his points. For example, he writes that
but for the successful efforts of unbelievers in the past, I could not take so elastic a definition of Christianity as that. . . . In this country, . . . [hell] ceased to be an essential item because of a decision of the Privy Council. . . . Consequently I shall not insist that a Christian must believe in hell (684-685).
It is clear that Russell does not consider Christians to be on the same high plane as himself intellectually. In fact, he has nothing but contempt for those believe in God and Christ, but he disguises this contempt at first and expresses his sense of his own superiority with a soft-spoken civility. The Christian can be forgiven if he feels that he is engaging in a sincere search for the truth and not an attempt to mock his cherished beliefs.
At first, Russell is able to give the impression that he honors the religion he actually seeks to destroy. For example, he says that "this question of the existence of God . . . is a large and serious question," but he quickly adds that "if I were to . . deal with it in any adequate manner I should have to keep you here until Kingdom Come" (685). He tries to give us the impression that he has some measure of respect for the importance of the subject of religion, but at the same time he must do his duty to the truth as he see...