Why I Am Not a Christian

In 1927, Bertrand Russell delivered his lecture “Why I Am Not a Christian” to the South London branch of the National Secular Society. The lecture was soon considered one of his most noteworthy writings, and it was included in the selection of his work that won him the Nobel Prize in Literature. In his lecture, Russell is deeply critical of the Christian Church and presses for a kinder and more intellectually curious society to replace the one steeped in fearmongering Christianity. He places great importance on Societal Progress, and this becomes a major theme throughout the lecture text. In his mind, Christianity is too full of hypocrisy and anti-progressive beliefs to have a place in modern society. Although his arguments are closely tied to the British society of his time, many are still relevant and important in today’s conversations about Christianity and morality.

One of the arguments that Russell returns to throughout the lecture is how the Church commonly equates being a Christian with being morally good. He knows that, as a holdover from the staunchly religious Victorian era, being called a Christian had become a common way of referring to someone who aims to be moral and live a good life. Clearly, Russell is thoroughly unimpressed by that use of the word “Christian.” Throughout his lecture, he dismisses the idea that living a good life is a uniquely Christian value: “I do not think that this is the proper sense of the word [Christian], if only because it would imply that all people who are not Christians—all the Buddhists, Confucians, Mohammedans […]—are not trying to live a good life” (1). By reminding his audience of all the other faiths, he implicitly includes those who aren’t religious but can—and do—live a good life without the presence of God. Bertrand Russell himself was negatively impacted by the way Christianity had become a benchmark for goodness in society. In 1916, while he was a Cambridge University lecturer at Trinity College, he was denied an important fellowship that would have prevented him from being fired because he voiced controversial views on the basis of his anticlerical position. His agnostic beliefs factored into his firing just two years later for being a vocal pacifist during World War I. His lack of faith was tied to his character; he wasn’t the type of person whom Cambridge wanted to represent them, either out of fear of negative reception from the Church or public, or because they genuinely believed that his lack of faith indicated a weak or absent moral compass. Russell clearly felt the need to assert that goodness and morality are not solely tied to Christianity, an idea that resonates today in many facets of everyday life.

In his lecture, Russell also dissects the idea that “God is required in order to bring justice into the world” (10). He argues that the world is fraught with injustice—that “the good suffer, and often the wicked prosper” (10). Many Christians recognize this and would argue that although injustice exists in the world, the afterlife—heaven and hell—will correct the injustices that people experience in life. Russell argues that scientifically examining the idea of other worlds like heaven and hell yields no evidence to believe that they’d be free of injustice. He gives an example of buying a crate of oranges: If one opens it and finds that the top layer is rotten, one would assume that the rest are rotten too. Indeed, a major critique of the idea of a Christian heaven is that only those who are Christian can get into it; anyone else, despite the life they lived, would be unable to. Additionally, Russell argues that faith has stopped progress to a better world that might have more justice in it. He discusses how the Catholic Church, in particular, clings to beliefs that unfairly punish women and force them to live a life of pain. He gives a hypothetical example of a woman marrying a man with syphilis; Christian doctrine would force her to stay in that marriage despite the physical harm it would cause her and any children they might have.

[…] in that case the Catholic Church says: ‘This is an indissoluble sacrament, you must stay together for life.’ And no steps of any sort must be taken by that woman to prevent herself from giving birth to syphilitic children […] I find that is fiendish cruelty, and 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 (17).

Russell is clearly stating that the Catholic Church is responsible for making it taboo to divorce or to terminate unwanted pregnancies. Both issues are still contentious today, and the Church’s influence on both the views of government bodies and individuals are tied to that struggle. Despite the push for progress in the 1920s, many of the policies regarding women’s rights are still heavily debated because of how the Church’s values have impacted people’s views on things like divorce and abortion. Russell continues to argue that the point of progress is to improve the world and “diminish suffering.” In his mind, the Church has decided that its views and rules are exclusively what’s moral and “have nothing to do with human happiness; and when you say that this or that ought to be done because it would make for human happiness they [the Church] think that has nothing to do with the matter at all” (17). Here, Russell is highly critical of what the Church considers moral. He believes that morality should align with quality of life and happiness of humans, but the Church’s view of morality doesn’t. Rather, Christian morality is tied to following the rules set by Christ long ago with the goal of reaching heaven. Russell considers these ideas antiquated and thinks humanity should always aim to relieve suffering and injustice instead of focusing on what will happen after death.

Russell’s “Why I Am Not a Christian” examines the theme of Christian Morality and is an indictment of the idea of Christian moral superiority. He views Christianity as an impediment to human progress and a place for old views to fester. In his mind, without religion—Christianity in particular—much human suffering would be alleviated. He argues that Christians are too preoccupied with the afterlife and salvation to care enough about the world they live in. Russell instead advocates for embracing science and logic to dispel the fear that old Christian beliefs impose on progress. Underscoring the theme of Logic and Knowledge Undermining Christian Authority, he calls for people to pursue of knowledge and kindness free from the shackles of antiquated beliefs. He urges a forward-thinking approach that looks toward the future instead of relying on the past for answers to societal challenges.

It has been a century since Russell gave his lecture, but many of his arguments resonate with current political and societal issues. Conservative leaders continue to use rhetoric that leans on Christian fear and faith, resulting in divisiveness and stagnant policies. However, the influence of Russell and today’s progressive thinkers remains a strong force in the world.