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: The Progression from Religious Morality to Secular Laws and the Danger of Regression of Religious Morality into Bestiality. “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 New Age Islam, Islam Online, Islamic Website, African Muslim News, Arab World News, South Asia News, Indian Muslim News, World Muslim News, Women in Islam, Islamic Feminism, Arab Women, Women In Arab, Islamophobia in America, Muslim Women in West, Islam Women and Feminism