My Wrestling Match with Bertrand Russell

Wrestling is the act of struggling, grappling or battling with a person or ideology and subjugating it. Often, wrestling involves acts of defending or protecting one’s self, and acts of offense, much like a sports game or war. Defense would occur when the ball is in one’s court in a basketball game or under fire at war. Offense would be the opposite action. Some people believe offense is the best defense, which would help eliminate the risk of defeat. As one wrestles, the wrestler learns from their opponent’s strengths and weaknesses. This learning process can create a dynamic in which a wrestler can realize the strength of their cause. Without wrestling one easily becomes conquered, then dominated by alien power.

Bertrand Russell lived out his days of freedom during decades of emancipation of thought wrestling against ideologies, people and the “whole world of art and philosophy, and the vision of beauty”.1 Reading about his life and looking at the titles of his books, I realized that this man was an activist for social justice; defined the forefront of defining reality through mathematics eschatology, philosophy and other sciences; and was victim of persecution by many, including the Catholic Church.2 He was an independent thinker, who would not bow to the masses, but controlled every facet of his thoughts to be pure from any kind of corruption. He witnessed reconstruction of the civil war; the civil rights movement; two world wars; the effects of colonization; died in the middle of the cold war; and lived his days of freedom surrounded by rumors of death and destruction fighting a war of emancipation that seemed unending. 3 Bertrand Russell was orphaned at four in a wealthy bourgeois family in England, was married four times, faced persecution for his radical beliefs that clashed with the “malice of power.”4

Russell and I share many convictions and the ideals that lay the foundations of our soul are not much different, yet several points of our worldviews diverge. Russell, an atheist, looks at the world pessimistically and hunts for meaning in a reality centered on the cold fate science presents to humankind: life and civilization are “destined to extinction in the vast death of the solar sytem”?5 I, a am a theist, who acknowledges a force of love and logic in the world and universe, view nature, through the lens of science, as an element existing for the possibility or purpose of love. In contrast, Bertrand Russell seems to be an atheist who looks at the universe and bows in acquiescence to nature as the “unthinking Mother”, despite self proclaimed freedom.6

Let’s take a fresh look at Nature. Many revolutions of the earth’s hurrying through the abysses have taken place, since the time nature gulped-down Bertrand Russell. Today, debates rage about weather the universe is truly unconscious. Outspoken atheists and, in 2004, a leading philosopher and former atheist Antony Flew turned deist renouncing atheism in the wake of an age old idea that the universe does have the mark of consciousness, a thinking mother.7 Does science really tell us that the universe is conscious or unconscious? No, there is absolutely no scientific evidence that proves the inexistence or existence of God. Any assertion beyond scientific evidence is belief. Yet, in the following statement, Bertrand Russell boldly as any religious man, asserts his atheist belief:

That Man is the product of causes which had no prevision of the end they were achieving; that his origin, his growth, his hopes and fears, his loves and his beliefs, are but the outcome of accidental collocations of atoms. 8

From my soul resounds, in opposition to the above dark ominous assumption of opinion, not fact: “I hope you’re wrong.” As I contemplate beauty, I see this statement is utterly bereft aesthetic jubilee. To yield to such a statement is to invite the taskmaster of darkness and wanton destruction to rule the habitation of one’s soul.

Through centuries of renaissance and enlightenment mans belief systems have been constantly refined through advances in the sciences. Some have made this refinement of beliefs into a war between science and religion. Through the millennia man has taken religion into his own hands for his own benefit. Islam spread rapidly to fight against oppression from Jews, Catholics sold indulgences for personal gain, some Protestants in the United States, today, use their religion as a spring board for power and to morally bereft rationalization to justify injustice. What this means is that people are free, autonomous, imperfect and have a history of using what could be good to do evil. Bertrand Russell sees these inconsistencies between ideals of faith and action and fights to remove both! I see his struggle as futile and reckless. On the other hand, I fight against such inconsistencies but respect faith.

When we have realised that Power is largely bad, that man, with his knowledge of good and evil, is but a helpless atom in a world which has no such knowledge, the choice is again presented to us: Shall we worship Force, or shall we worship Goodness? Shall our God exist and be evil, or shall he be recognized as the creation of our own conscience? 9

Russell presents, in these questions, his conviction that it is better to worship goodness rather that force, and that it’s good to realize that God is the creation of our own conscience. Let’s create a hypothetical scenario in which God is essentially good, and man was made in God’s image? Then man is an image of God and therefore in his conscience resides a morality capacity of knowing what is good and what is evil. The story of the apple tree in the Garden of Eden might be a beautiful metaphor for such a reality.10 Bertrand Russell admits that he sees the light, but refuses to believe in the existence of a light bulb. In other words, Bertrand Russell acknowledges goodness, but does not construct a God as the source of goodness. Ultimately, he defines man’s true freedom as

The determination to worship only the God created by our own love of the good, to respect only the heaven which inspires the insight of our best moments. 11

From my soul resounds, in support to the above words of enlightenment: “Preach it, brother!” Bertrand Russell opens up his heart and presents the shrine, temple, or home for his soul.
Let us preserve respect for truth, for beauty, for the ideal of perfection which life does not permit us to attain, though none of these things meet with the approval of the unconscious universe. 12

Aside from “unconscious universe”, I agree that the ideal of truth, beauty, and perfection is unattainable, but respectable. I interpret the following statement as the humanist manifesto:
For in all things it is well to exalt the dignity of Man, by freeing him as far as possible from the tyranny of non-human Power. 13

Bertrand Russell made a huge leap of faith boldly preaching that the mother universe is an ignorant blind creator, but I think anger, bitterness, and fear keep Bertrand Russell from making the leap of all leaps, which he fought wrathfully against, into the realm of creating a God. Also, out of bitterness and stubbornness, he reasoned that if evil existed then a truly altruistic God is not worthy or submission. He feared a religion or worldview that would let him down.
When first the opposition of fact and ideal grows fully visible, a spirit of fiery revolt, of fierce hatred of the gods, seems necessary to the assertion of freedom. 14

He feared a God who is an omnipotent slave master who will crack-the-whip, bind the hands and feet and beat into subjugation the precious freedom of Bertrand Russell. He preaches that it’s slavery to worship a manmade God despite the darkness and pain he had seen in the world.
Since the independence of ideals is not yet acknowledged, Power may be freely worshiped, and receive an unlimited respect, despite its wanton infliction of pain. 15

Can one find freedom in a worldview of the universe in which a deity resides? In contemplation of such a universe I find freedom. In a civilized nation one finds freedom in the presence of volumes of laws. Physics are ruled by sets of laws, yet one finds a relative form of freedom in such laws.

Can God exist and evil subsist? Bertrand Russell rushes to the conclusion that the coexistence of evil and God in a universe would be mutually exclusive. Sure Bertie, oil and water don’t mix, we all know that, but they can coexist in a jar. I think Bertrand Russell has an elephantine ego that supports a worldview filled structured upon belief not fact, only to deceive himself into thinking he is omniscient; therefore, he is God and refuses answer to anyone but himself.

Sadly enough, Bertrand Russell drinks the rain and thanks the clouds, has sex and thanks himself for such an amazing body with the capability of having an orgasm, eats fruit and thanks a tree, sees the stars only to thank gravity, looks into the joy of a child’s eyes the and thanks cold coincidence for all of these.





Footnotes
Russell, essays, p. 14
Craig, Philosophy, p. 392
Craig, Philosophy, p. 393
Russell, essays, p. 13
Russell, essays, p. 10
Russell, essays, p. 11
Unknown, God, p.1
Russell, essays, p. 10
Russell, essays, p. 12
Plaut, Commentary, p. XVIII
Russell, essays, p. 13
Russell, essays, p. 12
Russell, essays, p. 12
Russell, essays, p. 13
Russell, essays, p. 11


Bibliography
Craig, Edward. Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Vol. 8. Routledge. London. 1998.
Plaut, W. Guenther. The Torah: A Modern Commentary. Union of American Hebrew Congregations. New York. 1981.
Russell, Bertrand. A Free Man’s Worship and other essays. Unwin Paperbacks. London. 1976.
Unknown, Famous Atheist Now Believes in God. Associated Press: http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory?id=315976
Dec 9, 2004.