That's the title of a famous talk given by Bertrand Russell, which I hereby designate my online essay of the week. You don't have to agree with him to enjoy his remarks, but if you read it, you might find yourself agreeing with more than you would expect. Russell is unhappy with Christian theology and orthodoxy, and more generally with Christendom and its early-20th-century politics. But Mormons aren't always happy with Christian orthodoxy or institutions either. Take for example the definition of a Christian.
Here's how Russell defines a Christian:
I think, however, that there are two different items which are quite essential to anyone calling himself a Christian. The first is one of a dogmatic nature — namely, that you must believe in God and immortality. If you do not believe in those two things, I do not think that you can properly call yourself a Christian. Then, further than that, as the name implies, you must have some kind of belief about Christ. The Mohammedans, for instance, also believe in God and immortality, and yet they would not call themselves Christians. I think you must have at the very lowest the belief that Christ was, if not divine, at least the best and wisest of men. If you are not going to believe that much about Christ, I do not think that you have any right to call yourself a Christian.
Mormons believe in God and immortality, and affirm that Jesus of Nazareth is the Christ and the Son of God. So thank you, Mr. Russell. You may not be a Christian, but it's nice you think Mormons are.
Mormons don't employ the proofs of God that Russell critiques (although some Mormons do have a weakness for the argument from design). Russell was much troubled by the doctrine of hell, but Mormons have done away with hell (apart from six or seven truly devilish folks who will go to outer darkness) and with purgatory (spirit prison might hold regrets for some, but not physical torments). He gets a little carried away in his historical remarks, attributing every social fault (but no moral improvement) of the last two millennia to Christianity, but then Russell is was a philosopher and mathematician, not a historian.
Surprisingly, the plea in his closing paragraph is not too far from the down-to-earth approach that appeals to many Mormons:
We want to stand upon our own feet and look fair and square at the world — its good facts, its bad facts, its beauties, and its ugliness; see the world as it is and be not afraid of it. Conquer the world by intelligence and not merely by being slavishly subdued by the terror that comes from it. ... It is a conception quite unworthy of free men. When you hear people in church debasing themselves and saying that they are miserable sinners, and all the rest of it, it seems contemptible and not worthy of self-respecting human beings. We ought to stand up and look the world frankly in the face. We ought to make the best we can of the world, and if it is not so good as we wish, after all it will still be better than what these others have made of it in all these ages. A good world needs knowledge, kindliness, and courage; it does not need a regretful hankering after the past or a fettering of the free intelligence by the words uttered long ago by ignorant men. It needs a fearless outlook and a free intelligence. It needs hope for the future, not looking back all the time toward a past that is dead, which we trust will be far surpassed by the future that our intelligence can create.
Amen, Mr. Russell.
Interesting remarks. Thanks for passing them along.
Posted by: Eric Nielson | Oct 27, 2006 at 09:33 AM
Dave, I have to admit. Your title hooked me in. :)
So I am asking, would you consider yourself a moderate Christian or a fundamentalist Christian?
And then secondly, have you read Sam Harris' latest book, Letters to a Christian Nation?
And, thirdly, do you think his position is unfair to moderate Christians in contrast to Bertrand? Who is being more consistent in his position, Bertrand or Sam?
Posted by: Todd Wood | Oct 27, 2006 at 01:52 PM
Nice post Dave, I've always really enjoyed Bertrand Russell. A bit back I wrote a post quoting him. I agree with his opinion that "Christianity" has brought more evils to the world than virtues. But then again, I think the same could be said about 'Religion' in general.
Posted by: Jared E. | Oct 27, 2006 at 02:15 PM
Dave,
From what I remember of Russell's essay (I didn't reread it), was that his basic answer to the question of why he is not a Christian had to do with the problem of evil, though he seemed to ignore the fact that Christians have been dealing with this problem for 1700 years.
Posted by: TrailerTrash | Oct 27, 2006 at 03:28 PM
apart from six or seven truly devilish folks who will go to outer darkness
Nein! Where do people get the idea that the number confined to OD will be so small? I researched this quite arduously once and could not find anything except folklore that took this stance. I suspect the number will be quite large. And it seems like only those who go there will know if its final population: D&C 76:48.
Regardless, even with 6 or 7, you still have a place of confinement for the eternally naughty, and what better word to use than "hell?"
Posted by: David J | Oct 27, 2006 at 06:47 PM
Todd, you're right, the title is kind of a hook -- which I don't do very often -- but I come clean in the first line of the post so I don't feel too bad. Sometimes good post titles are hard to come up with.
No, I haven't read Letter to a Christian Nation. I was so unimpressed with End of Faith I don't really plan on reading it, either. I think Russell is more fair than Harris is, but neither presents a balanced view of the historical role of Christianity.
Posted by: Dave | Oct 27, 2006 at 07:06 PM
David J, it sounds like you've spent more time investigating the question than I have. Here are a couple of online links that suggest it is a fairly small number: First, the entry "Hell" in the EOM states Outer Darkness (which I'll capitalize for convenience, not to make it seem more official) will be reserved for the Sons of Perdition (i.e., the devil and his angels), described as those who have "committed the unforgivable and unpardonable sin."
Second, the EOM entry "The Unpardonable Sin" states that "to commit the unpardonable sin, a person 'must receive the Holy Ghost, have the heavens opened unto him, and know God, and then sin against Him.'" (Quoting TPJS.)
So I think it's safe to say that at least the modern LDS view is that there will be very few inhabitants of Outer Darkness.
Posted by: Dave | Oct 27, 2006 at 07:17 PM
(Speaking respectfully...) From those two points, I don't see how you get to that conclusion, Dave. I don't see how anyone makes that final leap of logic. And what's indicative here is that you didn't do it from scripture, which is saturated with heaven and hell speak. No offense, man, yours is my favorite Mormon blog, but the "fingers of one hand" stuff is complete myth. Maybe we should blog this one up on a different post.
Posted by: David J | Oct 27, 2006 at 10:59 PM
I love that last paragraph, just love it. It's a scary world, thanks for the reminder.
Posted by: annegb | Oct 29, 2006 at 07:15 PM