Review on Why I Am Not A Christian

According to Bertrand Russell that there is this contention between the ideas of science or positivism with religion because neither of the two meet or that for him there is no place for religion to validate its own claims. Or even to the point that religion had its grounds on materiality but exemplified to extent that it has become somewhat too lofty.  As for the first article regarding “nature and man”, that for Russell there is no dichotomy or separation between man and nature because it is obvious that man is in nature and in so doing man is part of nature; that the existence of religion is the result of man’s failure to bring a scientific perspective into the interaction with nature. Man over exemplified nature in to the extent of the supernatural or the nature “suprafied”. In this world, there is nothing but the correlation or the coexistentiality with matter, especially to thinking or thought to what we deem about it in the early times as something immaterial. Just like as how philosophers treat thinking as spiritual, but for science, thinking is matter’s activity. But man’s conception in the past as partly immaterial or soul because of his thinking has now but brought down to the concept that man is not apart from the materiality of nature and that any immateriality like religion and its breed is not totally outside matter but took its roots in matter itself.

Since man is invariably part of nature, man by nature desires the good life, or man’s nature is geared towards the good life, and what is this good life? In the realm of religion the good life has again become over exemplified to the point that we do things or achieve the good for some cause which again is outside matter or even outside the “nature” or the materiality of man which is utilitarian by principle. Russell mentioned of benevolence and contemplation although benevolence may seem altruistic by nature but it still has selfish ends or ends that serve the self in return no matter how charitable may it be. Even to the point of love becoming not too romantic because it has already an end to which the party involved in return will want something that will benefit the self. Frankly when there is this want of return, there then is no sense of altruism but desire, desire which is selfish, which is teleological.

Since the good life is rooted in desire, and if every person has it, it will be inevitable that each desire will surely overlap each other, therefore morality or a code of ethics should be postulated but ultimately it is to regulate such desires in order to stabilize the relations with others as well. Morality that is rooted that is against nature like celibacy is not according to the nature of man, that is why such morality is whether lofty or out of the context of nature. But although it controls the behaviour of men, but accordingly such morality is not geared towards to the good life because it defies the nature of man. Mostly or maybe all of the morality set upon by religion is much to do with superstition rather than science, that is why such superstition leads to the detesting of even man’s one basic need and that is sex.

As for the ideas of salvation, the morality established by the shrouds of superstition is much more inclined to selfish ends, or to the gratification of the individual alone. Especially the salvation set by the church wherein the relationship between man and God is privative and therefore exclusive to the society. This kind of salvation is not the nature of man although each is geared towards the fulfilment of desires but, that is not the case since man is in a society therefore it is unscientific maybe perhaps to exclude the others in achieving the good life. Man is inside the reality of society therefore it is unlikely so to seek ultimately the selfish end of one, but one cannot help but to think of society and to extend it inevitably. Again Russell shows his utilitarian inclinations because he although highlights the idea of pleasure or desire above all, but he did not  discount the fact of the existence of a society wherein it is also more or likely so, to include it in the search for happiness. The greatest number is the greatest good, and that is to say, to respect the society also in the search for happiness and also happiness is formed through the relation of society.

All in all, science destroys myths or demystifies religion and reduces it into merely superstition based from the lack of scientific approach in understanding nature. But for Russell he emphasizes that science is a key or is the means at arriving to happiness because science concerns about knowing and what we can know for sure and with utmost certitude is the material fact and beyond that there is nothing.  Therefore happiness is derived from science wherein knowledge is prevalent plus the fact that science tackles the material world.

As for me, Bertrand Russell has a point in demystifying religion via science and the convincing argument that the realm of religion is derived from materiality but less scientific in approach but more in superstition. Although Bertrand Russell is attacking Christianity and it being un-scientific and propagating concepts which are not of nature to man especially in the realm with morals it may be perhaps that he is criticizing the decadent features of religion and that is to base beliefs from superstition. Science is a key to happiness because through science, it makes open the possibilities especially in the realm of thought and empirical knowledge of the things that can be followed which can be validly taken as having greater quantity of benefits than other or even the current existing option. Science has quantified the world made it subordinate to measure wherein man is the measure of all things and man making the world measured, makes the world under his control but not everything but at most he is dominating it. Science helps us see the weight of some possible options that can bring us more happiness. But that is my contention here, that although through science we have opened the possibility of making happiness too trivial that is to say, that we base happiness absolutely in the realm of numbers or weights. With that respect it has become utilitarian, although it has an eye for society and to be scientific sometimes is to assume that certain law which man is really subordinate to, because man is part of nature, then it is also the nature of man to follow self-preservation. We quantify what is more and to follow it make ourselves a lot more happy, but sometimes there is this what I call genuine happiness that its immensity is too massive to be quantified or even defies being measured upon, for there are some forms of happiness that requires the rejection of the self and even without asking in return but the motives are altruistic but without the selfish intent of being happy in return because this is where you are happy, and that is by giving care. But what I highly emphasize are those actions that are bereft of having an inch of being understood because it has exceeded the measurement of science and that ultimately the moral things one person did is truly having no egocentric tint. Simply saying, something has to be done with no further “because” or any reason at all, merely it was purely charity, giving and giving alone and this is the point wherein the self is rejected the action committed is already done in no relation to selfish desires.

Science fails to explain wherein there is already this rejection to the self, and although they may condemn it as a mask to cover selfishness, but still there is this pure sincerity that comes from each within that gives one the will to act selflessly. Sometimes the action already destroys nature, but the question stirs if the nature of man can be known even through the so called lens form science.

Yes, again science has great benefits because it offers knowledge and a certain respect for the hard reality of the material world. Although I favour it, because it too has made me become enlightened in certain aspects, but not at all times, or there is already this point that I might confidently say that I reached that sometimes we go mystic, leave things unknown but not surrendering the desire of continuously knowing but to continue to search for knowledge but be humble enough to claim mystery for the moment. But there is this thing as mentioned earlier that has got to do with ethics and happiness that sometimes science for me is an aid, but not absolutely so my tool to arrive at happiness.