|
Add to Interest Profile
Edit Interest Profile
Email This Message
Search
| Dear veerji Preet Mohan S Ahluwalia Sat Sri Akal Forgive me for belaboring the point, but you wrote: << THERE IS A BOOK, 'ALL AMERICAN ESSAYS BY BERTRAND RUSSELL'. I THINK THIS IS THE TITLE, I COULD BE WRONG. >> Then you wrote: << I HAVE ALREADY MENTIONED THE BOOK AND THE AUTHOR. PLEASE DO A SEARCH AND YOU'LL KNOW. THIS BOOK HAS A LOT OF QUOTATIONS BY NON-SIKHS ABOUT THE SIKH FAITH. >> Forgive me veerji but I have tried in vain to find the title of the book that you mentioned. I like to collect pertinent quotations and what you quoted was worth filing and that is the reason that I would like to be able to document it for future reference. You write: <<HOWEVER WHAT YOU MISS IS THE FACT THAT HE TITLED HIS BOOK "WHY I'M NOT A CHRISTIAN? >>. The full title of his book is actually, "BERTRAND RUSSELL WHY I AM NOT A CHRISTIAN AND OTHER ESSAYS ON RELIGION AND RELATED SUBJECTS." You also write: <<YOU ARE WORKING ON A PREMISE THAT RUSSELL WAS AN ATHEIST. MAYBE HE WAS. >> Not maybe, He was! He never did change in his attitude toward religions and I have already given you many quotations. He wrote over 40 books and his major over-arching view was anti-any and all religions. He writes: "I am myself a dissenter from all known religions and I hope that every kind of religious belief will die out." (SKEPTICAL ESSAYS p.1) Please re-read that and let it sink in. Is this your aspiration and hope? You write: <<YOU MAY ARGUE THAT HE WAS BORN INTO A CHRISTIAN FAMILY AND HENCE CHRISTIAN BY BIRTH. I'LL AGREE WITH THAT TOO. >> You can agree with that but I would never make that argument, as it is theologically fallacious. You write: <<MY IMPRESSION OF HIM IS THAT HE HAD SINCERE FEELINGS FOR THE BETTERMENT OF HUMAN SOCIETY---ALSO, RUSSELL'S COMMENTS RELATE TO A WAY OF LIFE THAT HUMANS SHOULD LIVE. >> Absolutely, I agree with you, but so do many other people but that does not necessarily make their ideas true workable or infallible. Are you really in favor of eventually abolishing the family unit and allowing immorality as he proposes? "In the meantime, if marriage and paternity are to survive as social institutions, some compromise is necessary between complete promiscuity and lifelong monogamy.---If, as is increasingly happening where wage earners are concerned, the state takes over the duties that have hitherto fallen upon fathers, marriage will cease to have any raison d'etre and will probably be no longer customary except among the rich and the religious." (BERTRAND RUSSELL WHY I AM NOT A CHRISTIAN AND OTHER ESSAYS ON RELIGION AND RELATED SUBJECTS.pp 171,178). Are you agreeing with him that there is no such thing as sin? "Those who have a scientific outlook on human behavior, moreover, find it impossible to label any action as 'sin'" (BERTRAND RUSSELL WHY I AM NOT A CHRISTIAN AND OTHER ESSAYS ON RELIGION AND RELATED SUBJECTS p.175). BTW He also does not believe in any soul. You write: << FOR A MAN OF HIS ACCOMPLISHMENT, I WOULD ASSUME, HE WOULD HAVE KNOWN THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN 'NOT BEING A CHRISTIAN' AND BEING AN ATHEIST. >> He makes it quite clear that he was an atheist which by definition would rule out being a Christian, Muslim, Hindu Buddhist, Sikh etc. I do not understand your point? You write: << I JUST POSTED AN ARTICLE ON SIKH PHILOSOPHY OF LIFE. WHAT DO YOU FIND IN THAT ARTICLE WHICH YOU FEEL IS DETRIMENTAL TO CREATING AN IDEAL SOCIETY? >> My argument is not with your posting on the Sikh philosophy, which I never addressed at all. Maybe you are making some invalid inference from my views about Bertrand Russell. I am not questioning Bertrand Russell's stature and brilliance as a philosopher or a mathematician, but he certainly was not a theologian and nor was he infallible. Many a philosopher has had their philosophical presuppositions completely torn apart by later philosophers, and Bertrand Russell is not without his critics, both philosophers and theologians. His arguments both against Christianity and the existence of God are fallacious and can be refuted. But the main point is that as already proven beyond a shadow of a doubt, he definitely makes philosophical arguments against the existence of God and against all and every form of religion, which includes Sikhism and Sikh philosophy. May be you are getting offended that I am demolishing the image of some one whom you have quoted as supporting the Sikh philosophy. I am sorry but Bertrand Russell is not infallible, and even if what he said is accurate, so what? The point is that if you are going to appeal to Bertrand Russell as an authority, then you are committi ng the "ipse dixit" fallacy (Latin for 'he himself says' i.e. he said it and that settles it). If you take your quotation as having so much value because Russell was so brilliant, then it undermines your own position as a believer in Sikhism. It's like shooting yourself in the head. If Bertrand Russell is supposed to be this great and brilliant authority then what he has to say elsewhere just totally destroys any belief in Sikhism. It is a futile and self-defeating exercise. The bottom line is that Bertrand Russell could not say what you had quoted, unless it was some obscure publication of so little consequence that it is never referred to in his major works. Prima facie the quotation looks suspect. Furthermore, without the context you do not know the significance of a quotation. I am mainly interested to get a documentation of your quotation, the title, the publisher and page number as well as the context. Surely you must know from where you got that quotation? Please try to find out. I would appreciate it very much. Bhul chak maaf karni. Respectfully Jass Singh |
