Bertrand Russell’s Error
By
Naseer Ahmed, New Age Islam
4 April
2024
"Those, blinded by god and religion, will
never concede that morality evolved without any god, religion and
scripture."
Bertrand Russell
That is a
counterfactual statement because religion and religious morality have always
existed.
Russell's
dismissal of religious morality was rooted in his belief, which I heartily
agree with, that critical thinking and empirical evidence are crucial in
comprehending the nature of morality and ethics. There can be no quarrel with
this.
However, in
stark contrast, the theologians defined morality as 'what God commands', with
nothing to do with pursuing the greatest good or happiness. This fundamental
difference in approach led to a stagnation in the theologian's willingness to
reform despite mounting evidence of its necessity.
“I say
quite deliberately that the Christian religion, as organized in its churches,
has been and still is the principal enemy of moral progress in the world,” he
said.
He cited
the following example:
“Supposing that in this world that we live in
today an inexperienced girl is married to a syphilitic man; in that case the
Catholic Church says, 'This is an indissoluble sacrament. You must endure
celibacy or stay together. And if you stay together, you must not use birth
control to prevent the birth of syphilitic children.' Nobody whose natural
sympathies have not been warped by dogma, or whose moral nature was not
absolutely dead to all sense of suffering, could maintain that it is right and
proper that that state of things should continue.”
He goes on
to say,
That is only an example. There are a great many
ways in which, at the present moment, the church, by its insistence upon what
it chooses to call morality, inflicts upon all sorts of people undeserved and
unnecessary suffering. And of course, as we know, it is in its major part an
opponent still of progress and improvement in all the ways that diminish
suffering in the world because it has chosen to label as morality a certain
narrow set of rules of conduct which have nothing to do with human happiness.
When you say that this or that ought to be done because it would make for human
happiness, they think that has nothing to do with the matter at all. 'What has
human happiness to do with morals? The object of morals is not to make people
happy.”
In my articles,
I have explained why moral rules from religion had to be a list of do’s and
don’ts without a rational explanation because every rule is counterintuitive.
The good they promoted did not become evident until after they were practised
for an extended period. Since religion did not justify its moral laws, the
theologians understood the rules as commands to be obeyed without asking why.
They incorrectly assumed that morality was divorced from human happiness. The
attitude of the theologians is understandable. They are not philosophers and
thinkers.
Theologians'
conservatism and “blind” obedience to God's commands in the scriptures ensured
that the rules were obeyed, although every rule was counterintuitive. It pays
to lie, cheat, and steal if one can get away with it, and therefore, people had
to be made to pay dearly for breaking the rules, which they could not for a
long time understand as promoting their good and that of their society and
therefore follow willingly.
Morality is
also about how we deal with the “other”. Religious bigotry has distorted the
religious morality about dealing with justice and kindness the “other”.
Theologians
need to become thinkers and philosophers if they are to remain relevant. The
following is an excerpt from my article:
“A more
comprehensive liberal education, including the study of philosophy, is
essential to realize that the object of morality is to please God by promoting
the greatest happiness for all in this world. This is a truism, and yet, most
religious persons are oblivious to it, which is why they are easy prey to the
preaching of anti-social radicals. A religious person, while seeking to please
God, should ensure that he does not end up incurring God’s wrath instead. He can avoid acts that incur God’s wrath by
checking whether the act will also promote the greatest happiness for all, and
avoid anti-social acts. Bigotry and extremism have become so common that
religion, which gave the world its morality, is today more often associated
with what is bestial and immoral. “
The article
The
Contribution of Atheists to Moral Philosophy and the Practice of Morality
concludes with:
“Religion undeniably had a civilizing influence
on society; without it, we would have remained barbarians. The weakening of the
influence of faith and the absolute moral values that go with it, as well as
the growing trend of moral relativism, will lead us into an enlightened form of
barbarianism, but barbarianism nevertheless. Technology may help us with
surveillance and to ensure compliance with manmade laws, but can it be a
substitute for voluntary compliance with absolute ethical and moral values, to
the inner peace and serenity that goes with it, and the higher meaning it gives
to life?
There is a
good side to atheists, which has contributed immensely to promoting moral
values, and there is a destructive part, which is bent upon destroying the very
foundations of morality. There is a good side to religion, which makes the
sincere followers who are also sensitized by philosophy and great literature
among the best, and there are the unthinking bigots who have made immoral
principles their religion and have become a threat to peace and harmony.
Good people
must learn to work together and espouse good causes rather than be at
loggerheads with each other. While atheists can excel in giving voice to the
oppressed, it is only the theists who excel in the practice of morality simply
because their threshold for resisting pain and suffering while espousing moral
causes is far greater than that of atheists. This is because their values are
absolute and not negotiable for them. The atheists are more pragmatic and have
a point beyond which they will not go for their values. This is why it would be
difficult to find a counterpart to Mahatma Gandhi, Nelson Mandela, Mother
Teresa or Martin Luther King among atheists.”
Bertrand
Russell's error is that he conflates the religion of Christianity with the
theologian’s false argument.
Premise: “Religious morality has nothing to
do with human happiness and therefore with critical thinking and empirical
evidence.”
What
follows logically from the premise is that religion has nothing to do with
morality.
However,
since the premise is false, the conclusion is also false. He is conflating the
defective view of a theologian with religion. This error blinds him to
religion's foundational role in articulating a moral code and ensuring this is
internalized.
-----
A frequent contributor to NewAgeIslam.com, Naseer
Ahmed is an Engineering graduate from IIT Kanpur and is an independent IT
consultant after having served in both the Public and Private sector in
responsible positions for over three decades. He has spent years studying Quran
in-depth and made seminal contributions to its interpretation.
URL: https://newageislam.com/islam-west/russell-atheist-morality-quran-religion-scripture/d/132100