The Logic of Bertrand Russell

I have decided, in a concerted effort to break into actually writing blog entries, to start by posting somewhat randomly about the day to day things that strike me as interesting or worth contemplating. My hope is that the randomness will level out somewhat once I settle into a style of some kind, both in writing and in purpose. Today, day 1, I find myself reflecting on the book Why I am not a Christian (Bertrand Russell). This is the current selection of my small but slightly eclectic book club, which is why I am taking a break from a very compelling George R. R. Martin story to read it now. My interest was piqued on page 6 where he briefly discusses the First Cause argument for the existence of (and belief in) a God, which is, simply put, the argument that if you ask the question “where did we come from” back far enough in time, the question becomes unanswerable by today’s knowledge of science and at this point you can attribute the cause of our existence to God. Russell makes a short but eloquent case for why this argument is fallacious, which I won’t spoil for you. What struck me about this, his first “case” for his lack of belief, was also one of my own first bits of inconsistency in god-existence arguments that set me on my own path towards atheism. It was always bothersome to me that the end of this chain of questioning was “well, then, God must have done it” because it either 1) contradicts the point of the argument in the first place. Because you are using the fact that things need a “creator” to exist, then naming god as the creator requires that god then have a creator, because that is the nature of the argument that was initiated in the first place. This line of questioning then becomes an infinite regression (check this?) and no longer suffices to “prove” the point. 2) ends the argument with an “unquestionable” conclusion, which is typically exemplified by the answer “nobody created god, he always existed” to the question referenced above. This was always a cheap way out in my opinion and unforgivably reverts to the “thou shalt not question” method of “proof”. There is no point in arguing the existence of God on this basis, as it is designed to reject questioning. At any rate, I am happy to report that, 6 pages in, the book is pleasing me with it’s logic and lack of pandering and apologies. Nice, Mr. Russell!