Reviews

Lessons from Bertrand Russell – by way of his daughter

Among the pantheon of world-famous atheists of the 20th century we must admit two of the most intellectual were Anthony Flew and Bertrand Russell. Both were trained in philosophy from Britain’s best universities. Dr. Flew studied at Oxford while Russell was a Cambridge man. Flew renounced his atheism and Russell remained steadfast in his unbelief until his death in 1970. I don’t know much about Flew’s personal life but Russell produced an autobiography in 1975. His daughter, Katharine Tait, told her side of the story in her book, “My Father, Bertrand Russell”, also published in 1975.

It is to her story I’d like to turn. She seems to have a very mature understanding of her life with her father and his four wives. Though we tend to distort of our own past by selective memory, she realizes this tendency and balances her initial judgments with more balanced introspection.

I’ll not bore you with the details of their relationship and her memories of her father. Rather, I think you can gather from her thoughts how things went down. I am specifically interested in her recollections of how God played into (and out of) his and her life.

Bertrand Russell and his wife established the Beacon Hill School in 1927 and their two children, John and Katharine, were among its students. It was a progressive education fostered by Bertrand’s belief that children should be presented all the options of a subject and be left to determine their own minds about it. Stuffy textbooks were not to be found at Beacon Hill (the math text was the only exception).

She recalls, “Besides being difficult, the material was often controversial. My father did not intend his education to be propaganda; he always wanted us to consider both sides and then make up our minds… In practice, at Beacon Hill, ‘making up our own minds’ usually meant agreeing with my father, because he knew so much more and could argue so much better; also because we heard ‘the other side’ only from people who disagreed with it. There was never a cogent presentation of the Christian faith, for instance, from someone who really believed in it.”

Regarding her father’s four marriages, she offers:

Tongue in cheek, my father later claimed his four marriages as proof that he approved of the institution of marriage…All his life he sought perfection: perfect mathematical truth, perfect philosophical clarify, certainty of God’s existence, a perfect formula for society, a perfect woman to live with in a perfect human relationship. And although he never found them anywhere, he never stopped looking.”

Her thoughts on good and evil:

I believe that good and evil are essential to one another, that neither of them can exist alone and that there is envy, fear, anger, resentment, in every human heart, no matter how well brought up. My father did not believe this. Though these ugly things exited in our hearts, their existence was always denied in our family relations and they were left to fester like hidden wounds.”

Later, while in college at Radcliffe, she was asked by a fellow student about her thoughts on God. She remembers the incident and recalls:

One day I sat in he library talking to a handsome young man who was a fellow student in one of my German classes. ‘Don’t you believe in any kind of God?’ he asked, knowing who my father was. ‘No,’ I said, ‘I don’t. It doesn’t seem to me necessary. ‘Then what is the point of living?’ ‘Well, I’ve been born now. I have little choice. Might as well go ahead and make the best of it.’ ‘That seems so bleak. How can you bear it?’ ‘Does it? Maybe. It’s just the way life is, the way the world happens to have developed. Not much use wishing it were otherwise.’ My godless world looked as desolate to him as a lifeless world would to me, but I was used to its impersonal freedom, never having known any other. At the same time, I was well aware that my existential despair was mere self-indulgence and that, God or no God, I would have to return someday to the humdrum world of doing good, helping individuals and mankind to the full extent of my rational benevolence, as I had been taught.”

On her marriage and nagging frustration with life’s big questions:

I was the fortunate wife of a promising young civil servant with two charming children. I had everything I wanted, yet I was not happy. What was wrong with me? In those years, the constant mental dialogue I carry on with my father took the form of reading The Conquest of Happiness,in the hope that it might help me.

The book promised a cure for ‘the ordinary day-to-day unhappiness from which most people in civilized countries suffer, and which is all the more unbearable because, having no obvious external cause, it appears inescapable.’ It seemed made to order for me, until I discovered that he considered puritan morals the cause of such unhappiness and their rejection its cure. What help was that to me, who had been brought up without this burden? How was I to explain or excuse my steady misery?…I must be a sad failure as a human being. Either that, or my father was mistaken… What could my father tell me about the purpose of living?… I read [my father's] Sceptical Essays and Unpopular Essays, In Praise of Idleness and Marriage and Morals, but they all offered the same solutions: reason, progress, unselfishness, a wide historical perspective, expansiveness, generosity, enlightened self-interest. I had heard it all my life, and it filled me with despair.”

On her father’s religious upbringing…

In Grandmother Russell’s religion, the only form of Christianity my father knew well, the life of this world was no more than a gloomy testing ground for future bliss. All hope, all joy, were centered on the life after death and were to be achieved only by unceasing warfare against evil in oneself and others. My father threw this morbid belief out the window…

I believe myself that his whole life was a search for God, or, for those who prefer less personal terms, for absolute certainty…Somewhere at the back of my father’s mind, at the bottom of his heart, in the depths of his soul, there was an empty space that had once been filled by God, and he never found anything else to put in it…

The religion my parents had grown up in was a dry morality without grace, a series of impossible demands that left them defeated and depressed. They escaped from it joyfully into a free life that affirmed their own goodness and expected their children’s. And yet they passed on to us the same impossible demands from which they had suffered…

On her conversion to Christianity (Surprise, surprise!)

Before I started going to church, I had been running about the world, like Christian in Pilgrim’s Progress, looking for a way to escape the burden of my sin, and neither my father nor psychiatry had been able to help me…I remained ‘weary of earth and laden with my sin,’ just like my father in his youth.”

She and her husband began going to church and “as we went on going, Sunday by Sunday, I listened attentively to the hymns, the prayer book, the words of the Bible, even the sermons. As I listened, I began to think that what I heard made sense out of everything…And I found it easier to believe in a universe created by an eternal God than in one that had ‘just happened.’ For me, the belief in forgiveness and grace was like sunshine after long days of rain. No matter what I did, no matter how low I fell, God would be there to forgive, to pick me up and set me on my feet again. Though I could not earn his love, neither could I lose it. It was absolute, not conditional…

On her desire to share her faith with her father:

I would have liked to convince my father that I had found what he had been looking for, the ineffable something he had longed for all his life. I would have liked to persuade him that the search for God does not have to be vain. But it was hopeless. He had known too many blind Christians, bleak moralists who sucked the joy from life and persecuted their opponents; he would never have been able to see the truth they were hiding…All I could do was trust him to God’s care, knowing that God loved him more than I did and would do what was best for him.”

Wow. Powerful stuff. No commentary needed. As Jesus said, “He that has ears to hear, let him hear.”

For more of her story, you can find her book on Amazon.

The Silence is Maddening – or, Where is Everybody?

Being a techno-nerd, I frequent sites like Engadget and Gizmodo. So, imagine my surprise when I spied this recent headline from Gizmodo: “The Possibility of Alien Life Is Now (Almost) Impossible to Deny.” Hmmm… Zat’s so? Now just what sort of evidence would lead to such a compelling conclusion? Seems it boils down pretty much to one thing: probability.

Because “our galaxy contains a minimum of 100 billion planets…This means that the chances of life and habitable planets in our galaxy alone is overwhelmingly high. So high that it’s impossible to deny that it’s out there.” (emphasis mine).

The author continues, “Couple this number with the latest calculations that have extended the goldilocks zone, the area where life could happen around stars. And then add the fact that life happens spontaneously, even under the most extreme conditions, and the idea of a Milky Way thriving with life is impossible to deny.” Did you catch that – the part about “the fact” that “life happens spontaneously, even under the most extreme conditions.”? Seems this author has been spending WAY too much time in the Orgasmatron of wishful thinkng. He just accepts it as an apriori that life happens spontaneously. Hey, why didn’t I think of that?

Now I think I’d be as excited as the next kid on the block if we found real, honest-to-God sentient life outside our planet. Some of my favorite movies include ET, The Day the Earth Stood Still, Close Encounters of the Third Kind, 2001, A Space Odyssey and Star Trek. But, then maybe, as Stephen Hawking said, we wouldn’t be very happy with our new found friends because they would probably kill us without batting an eye (or whatever it is that they see with).

Truth is, not all scientists are gaga about ET. Enrico Fermi famously asked in a 1950 conversation with fellow scientists, “Where is everybody?” His thoughts have become known as Fermi’s Paradox: the apparent contradiction between high estimates of the probability of the existence of extraterrestrial civilizations and the lack of evidence for, or contact with, such civilizations.

Paul Davies, world-renowned theoretical physicist, cosmologist and astrobiologist, says plainly, “Despite this sea change in thinking, there is still not a shred of evidence for any life beyond Earth, intelligent or otherwise. Instead of the hoped-for clamour of interstellar messages, there is only an eerie silence.” Davies considers the best thinking on this subject in his 2010 book: “The Eerie Silence: Renewing Our Search for Alien Intelligence.” It is a balanced look at the scientific evidence, in contrast to the ET-lust that we see from many today.

Then we have John Gribbin, astronomer and science writer, whose new book, “Alone in the Universe: Why Our Planet Is Unique” comes to the same, boring conclusion as Davies. He sums up his 205 page analysis: “On a planet like the earth, life may only get one shot at technology – we have exhausted the easily accessible supplies of raw materials, so if we destroy ourselves the next intelligent species, if there is one, won’t have the necessary raw materials to get started. There are no second chances. And that is the last piece of evidence that completes the resolution of the Fermi paradox. They are not here, because they do not exist. The reasons why we are here form a chain so improbable that the chance of any other technological civilization existing in the Milky Way Galaxy at the present time is vanishingly small. We are alone, and we had better get used to the idea.”

And so again we have science divided on yet another crucial matter. Why the great rush to find ET? I can’t really explain it. But what bothers me is this: Why am I considered unintelligent because I believe in God – the Ultimate ET, when certain scientists look for a demigod? Their search is just not big enough.

Come to think of it, I actually do, for God’s sake (pardon the pun), believe in extra-terrestrial life – because as a Christian I believe that an eternal, omnipotent and loving being exists – and we call Him God. I seem to remember when I was younger seeing a book in a used book store with the title, “The Visited Planet.” (Can’t find it now – but if you run across it, please email me, will you?) The truth is, our planet has been visited by “aliens”, most notably one Jesus Christ. And we have a record of these visits, the Bible. Why not look into what we have here and now as earnestly as we expect to find something extra – out there? Chew on that one for a while.

See links below to books and articles referenced:

Alien Life: …Impossible to Deny

Davies Skeptical of ET

John Gribbin: Alone in the Universe

The Grace Effect: How the Power of One Life Can Reverse the Corruption of Unbelief

The Grace Effect

There’s “hard apologetics” where we engage the merits of philosophical, scientific and Biblical issues head-on. Then, there’s “soft apologetics” where life itself dictates the issues and nudges us toward reality. This book falls into the “soft apologetics” category.

Larry Taunton is the Founder and Director of the Fixed-Point Foundation, a non-profit dedicated to the public defense of the Christian faith. Fixed-Point is at pains to show that Christianity is the viable worldview in a culture where some discount it as a relic of a bygone era. Accordingly, Fixed-Point has hosted debates between such rivals as John Lennox and Richard Dawkins, Lennox and Peter Singer and David Berlinski and Christopher Hitchens.

The book begins with a midnight dinner discussion among Taunton, Christopher Hitchens and John Lennox. Lennox and Hitchens had just ended their debate an few hours earlier and now carry it on in an amicable discussion in a nearby restaurant. The talk was turning to Hitler and his place in the pantheon of twentieth century atheistic dictators. Hitchens would have nothing of it. Hitchens and several other “new atheists” are not shy that the world would be a better place without Christianity.

Larry writes, “Sometimes these discussions can degenerate into a body count. The atheist will say, ‘Christians were responsible for the Crusades, the Inquisition, and the Salem witch trials.’ The Christian will counter, ‘Atheists were responsible for Stalin, Hitler, Mao, and Pol Pot.’ The reasoning is not sound, and this particular conversation seemed headed in that direction.” So Taunton doesn’t go there. Instead, he asks Hitchens which worldview leads society into a more humane, caring place, atheism or Christianity? Which is more prone to care for the poor and elderly, the orphan, the sick and disadvantaged?

This book takes the debate to a micro-level by looking at the process of adopting a young ten year old orphan girl from Ukraine. Taunton tells the story powerfully because it is his family who adopts her. Ukraine, of course, is part of the former USSR, where atheism was official state policy. It did its best to eradicate Christian teaching and influence during its 70 year history. Unfortunately, it was quite effective. On the other hand, it provides a dramatic picture of what life is like in a country where leaders do not believe in, much less, fear God.

The rest of the book takes us into the sad world of the Ukranian orphanage system. It seems as if the system is geared to make it as difficult as possible to adopt. Along the way we learn that bribery is a well-understood part of the process. Everyone wants a piece of the action. And to make it to the finish line, you have to play their game. Petty players in small positions of power wield it mercilessly. You must set your expectations incredibly low and even then you are surprised at the corruption.

Some say that Taunton is too hard on Ukraine. That he has created a strawman by focusing on the worst aspect of a culture and amplified it to attack a broader worldview. Maybe so. But maybe not. I’ve never been to Ukraine. Others, however, validate his account. Sasha herself provides a picture of grace and faith in God that no amount of arguing over the kalam cosmological argument could ever match. I simply commend the book to you for serious reflection on which culture you’d rather live in – one dominated by a worldview that seeks power “over others” or one that honors the teaching of Jesus of Nazareth, who said:

“Come, you who are blessed by my Father; take your inheritance, the kingdom prepared for you since the creation of the world. For I was hungry and you gave me something to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you invited me in, I needed clothes and you clothed me, I was sick and you looked after me, I was in prison and you came to visit me.”

The Grace Effect

Peter Atkins evidently didn’t read Newton

In a discussion with John Lennox about the existence of God, Peter Atkins (Professor of Chemistry at the University of Oxford) made some quite bold claims – some of them condescending to the discipline of philosophy and theology (which I suppose for Atkins is next to palm-reading). Lennox was trying to explain how science and the concept of God are decidedly Not antithetical. He details Newton’s belief in God and how that it wasn’t a hindrance to his science, but rather, was an inspiration. During this exchange on Newton, Atkins interrupts and says regarding The Principia, that “The word God doesn’t appear in it.” (27:20 into the video – see link below).

I suppose that he could be forgiven for having not read the entirety of Newton’s Principia. Most of the world hasn’t. Heck, most of the scientific world hasn’t. Doesn’t really matter. God underlies all of the Principia and is blatantly credited as the Creator and Sustainer of the Universe in the first edition. See this section from the General Scholium at the end of Book III of Newton’s Principia Mathematica (first edition):

“This most beautiful system of the sun, planets, and comets, could only proceed from the counsel and dominion of an intelligent and powerful Being. And if the fixed stars are the centres of other like systems, these, being formed by the like wise counsel, must be all subject to the dominion of One; especially since the light of the fixed stars is of the same nature with the light of the sun, and from every system light passes into all the other systems: and lest the systems of the fixed stars should, by their gravity, fall on each other, he hath placed those systems at immense distances from one another.

This Being governs all things, not as the soul of the world, but as Lord over all; and on account of his dominion he is wont to be called Lord God …, Or Universal Ruler; for God is a relative word, and has a respect to servants; and Deity is the dominion of God not over his own body, as those imagine who fancy God to be the soul of the world, but over servants. The Supreme God is a Being eternal, infinite, absolutely perfect; but a being, however perfect, without dominion, cannot be said to be Lord God; for we say, my God, your God, the God of Israel, the God of Gods, and Lord of Lords; but we do not say, my Eternal, your Eternal, the Eternal of Israel, the Eternal of Gods; we do not say, my Infinite, or my Perfect: these are titles which have no respect to servants. The word God usually signifies Lord; but every lord is not a God. It is the dominion of a spiritual being which constitutes a God: a true, supreme, or imaginary dominion makes a true, supreme, or imaginary God. And from his true dominion it follows that the true God is a living, intelligent, and powerful Being; and from his other perfections, that he is supreme, or most perfect. He is eternal and infinite, omnipotent and omniscient; that is, his duration reaches from eternity to eternity; his presence from infinity to infinity; he governs all things, and knows all things that are or can be done. He is not eternity and infinity, but eternal and infinite; he is not duration or space, but he endures and is present. He endures forever, and is everywhere present; and, by existing always and everywhere, he constitutes duration and space. Since every particle of space is always, and every indivisible moment of duration is everywhere, certainly the Maker and Lord of all things cannot be never and nowhere. Every soul that has perception is, though in different times and in different organs of sense and motion, still the same indivisible person. There are given successive parts in duration, coexistent parts in space, but neither the one nor the other in the person of a man, or his thinking principle; and much less can they be found in the thinking substance of God. Every man, so far as he is a thing that has perception, is one and the same man during his whole life, in all and each of his organs of sense. God is the same God, always and everywhere. He is omnipresent not virtually only, but also substantially; for virtue cannot subsist without substance. In him** are all things contained and moved; yet neither affects the other: God suffers nothing from the motion of bodies; bodies find no resistance from the omnipresence of God. It is allowed by all that the Supreme God exists necessarily; and by the same necessity he exists always and everywhere. Whence also he is all similar, all eye, all ear, all brain, all arm, all power to perceive, to understand, and to act; but in a manner not at all human, in a manner not at all corporeal, in a manner utterly unknown to us. As a blind man has no idea of colors, so have we no idea of the manner by which the all-wise God perceives and understands all things. He is utterly void of all body and bodily figure, and can therefore neither be seen, nor heard, nor touched; nor ought he to be worshiped under the representation of any corporeal thing. We have ideas of his attributes, but what the real substance of anything is we know not. In bodies, we see only their figures and colors, we hear only the sounds, we touch only their outward surfaces, we smell only the smells, and taste the savors; but their inward substances are not to be known either by our senses, or by any reflex act of our minds: much less, then, have we any idea of the substance of God. We know him only by his most wise and excellent contrivances of things, and final causes; we admire him for his perfections; but we reverence and adore him on account of his dominion: for we adore him as his servants; and a god without dominion, providence, and final causes, is nothing else but Fate and Nature. Blind metaphysical necessity, which is certainly the same always and everywhere, could produce no variety of things. All that diversity of natural things which we find suited to different times and places could arise from nothing but the ideas and will of a Being necessarily existing. But, by way of allegory, God is said to see, to speak, to laugh, to love, to hate, to desire, to give, to receive, to rejoice, to be angry, to fight, to frame, to work, to build; for all our notions of God are taken from the ways of mankind by a certain similitude, which, though not perfect, has some likeness, however. And thus much concerning God; to discourse of whom from the appearances of things, does certainly belong to Natural Philosophy.”

A little due diligence next time, Mr. Atkins?

The link to this fascinating discussion can be found here:

http://vimeo.com/15799514

Review of Meyer’s Signature in the Cell by Anthony J. Sadar

This review comes from the Washington Times and is favorable to Meyer’s conclusions:

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/aug/18/wise-defense-of-intelligent-design/?page=1

Next Page »