Bertrand Russell joins a veritable 'tradition' of philosophers, scientists, and others who consistently make the claim that if we were to way the benefits of religion and religious belief on a scale, it would tip very heavily in the negative direction. This tradition, which is not new (he mentions Lucretius, a Roman philosopher and there are those in both Eastern and Western traditions who railed against religious 'superstition') has taken center stage in contemporary debates between religious apologists and the New Atheists like Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hutchens, Sam Harris, and Bill Mahr, just to name a few.
Take for instance Christopher Hutchens and his book God is not Great. In his book, Hutchens argues that "There are four irreducible objections to religious faith: that it wholly misrepresents the origins of man and the cosmos, that because of this original error it manages to combine the maximum of servility with the maximum of solipsism, that it is both the result and the cause of dangerous sexual repression, and that it is ultimately grounded on wish-thinking".
Like Hutchens, Russell particularly attacks the relationship between religious belief and sexual morality/repression. Unlike Hutchens, Russell focuses considerable time and space analyzing the emotional undertones of religious belief and religious faith, something that we will discuss in greater detail with Sartre and Braudlaugh. Is Russell right that religion has a negative impact on our emotional lives and on our views of sexuality?
What about Russell's claim, which he shares with Lucretius, that religion is like a disease? Why does he compare it to a disease? Is he right? What criteria do you think Russell is using to evaluate religion?
Here is a current report that I feel is quite relevant to Russell's view that religion is used, at least in part, as a tool to oppress women.
ReplyDeleteVatican orders crackdown on US nun association
I wish that the Vatican would detail the "certain radical feminist themes incompatible with the Catholic faith." From a non-Catholic point of view, this article describes something that sounds very much like a bunch of men becoming insecure with the amount of independence and influence possessed by nuns and wish to use their religious authority to reverse it.
A follow up to Isaiah's post. This article voices a similar position in more detail:
ReplyDeletehttp://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/closeread/2012/04/nuns-and-bishops.html
especially telling is the case study about the hospital on the last page.
"What about Russell's claim, which he shares with Lucretius, that religion is like a disease?"
ReplyDelete-Religion is like a disease because it can start with one person and that person shares it with other people and they share it with other people and etc.