Bertrand Russell's next argument against Christianity was that the organised Churches opposed all moral progress that had been attempted in the world. I argue instead that the Churches, when faithful and succumbed to follow the patterns of the world, have been the continual enemies of moral regress, just as they are today.

Russell defined Christianity in terms of two core beliefs: that God exists, and that Jesus was a uniquely morally good and wise person. Having discussed the arguments for God's existence, and found his misrepresentations of those arguments unconvincing, Russell now turns to the Character of Christ. The third and final part of this discussion was about whether Jesus' beliefs and attitude were indeed moral.

Normal service to resume next week.

Russell defined Christianity in terms of two core beliefs: that God exists, and that Jesus was a uniquely morally good and wise person. Having discussed the arguments for God's existence, and found his misrepresentations of those arguments unconvincing, Russell now turns to the Character of Christ. The second part of this was to discuss supposed errors in Christ's teaching.

Russell defined Christianity in terms of two core beliefs: that God exists, and that Jesus was a uniquely good person. Having discussed the arguments for God's existence, and found his misrepresentations of those arguments unconvincing, Russell now turns to the Character of Christ. His first salvo was to praise Jesus for various moral attributes, and complain that Christians don't live up to those standards.

Russell listed several arguments for the existence of God, but missed some of the most important ones. Here I discuss in detail the argument from miracles, and why some of the most well-cited objections to this argument fail.

Russell listed several arguments for the existence of God, but missed some of the most important ones. Here I list what I consider the most important arguments.

The last part of Bertrand Russell's discussion of the reasons people put forward for the existence of God is the argument for the remedying of injustice. The argument runs as follows.

1. The universe is ultimately fair and just.
2. Our own lives and experiences are often unjust, evil people do well, while the good suffer.
3. There therefore must be some means by which this is reversed after we die.
4. Therefore God.

I quite agree with Russell that this argument, as I have presented it here, or as he presents it himself is not the soundest ever conceived. I disagree with him about the relevance of this point, since it is not an argument that (as far as I am aware) any major Christian apologists has used. Thus this is just a straw man erected by Russell to poke fun at various naive Christians.

However, at the end of this section, Russell includes a few paragraphs on why he thinks that Christians believe in Christianity. Those paragraphs are worth discussion.

I discuss Bertrand Russell's presentation of the moral argument for God. This argument states

1. An objective ethical system is only possible if God exists;
2. We all agree that there are moral values;
3. If moral values are to mean anything they have to be universal and objective (i.e. not decided by the subjective whims of individuals or mobs but follow from reason and knowledge of the nature of beings);
4. Therefore God exists.

I outline a defence of this argument, and then consider how Russell attacks it.

I discuss Bertrand Russell's presentation of the design argument for God. I define the argument, and discuss its strengths and weaknesses, including a discussion of the usual arguments posed against it, and a few less usual ones. I also discuss what the design argument is not.