On Russell's 'Why I Am Not A Christian' (2/2)

In this post I continue with the second part of Russell's lecture, in which he attempts to show that one cannot grant superlative wisdom and superlative goodness of Christ.

Russell starts by saying: "I think that there are a good many points upon which I agree with Christ a great deal more than the professing Christians so. I do not know that I could go with Him all the way, but I could go with Him much further than most professing Christians can.". Russell provides examples of teachings of Christ that he endorses, all from the Gospel of Matthew: "But I say to you, Do not resist the one who is evil. But if anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also", "Judge not, that you be not judged", "Give to the one who begs from you, and do not refuse the one who would borrow from you" and “If you would be perfect, go, sell what you possess and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven”.

Russell readily admits that these are all very good, even excellent, principles. Yet, he points out that many Christians do not live up to them. Now, I surely agree that these maxims are not much practised, neither by Christians nor non-Christians, but that does of course nothing at all to show that Christ himself is in any sense less great or good. I take this to be a quite self-evident point.

Subsequently Russell contends that "[h]istorically it is quite doubtful whether Christ ever existed at all, and if He did we do not know anything about him". Now, this statement has become entirely outdated. During the second half of the 20th century biblical historians started to realize themselves that historical skepticism towards Jesus is in fact unwarranted. As a result many critical scholars began a new quest of the historical Jesus. And nowadays, the vast majority of biblical scholars hold that Jesus of Nazareth did in fact exist. Moreover, most contemporary critical historians agree on many aspects of Jesus' biography, such as being regarded as eschatological prophet and autonomous ethical teacher, telling original parables, many about the coming Kingdom of God, being baptized by John the Baptist, and being crucified in Jerusalem on the orders of the Roman Prefect Pontius Pilate. In fact, even the historicity of Jesus' tomb found empty after the crucifixion is now argued for [1]. In any case, Jesus is nowadays undeniably considered as being a part of recorded history. If we today would doubt whether Jesus ever existed, we could as well start doubting the historicity of many other well-known historical figures.

In his lecture Russell further points out that Jesus cannot be that wise, since "he certainly thought that His second coming would occur [...] before the death of all the people who were living at that time". To substantiate this claim Russell cites two statements of Jesus from Matthew: "You will not have gone through all the towns of Israel before the Son of Man comes" and "Truly, I say to you, there are some standing here who will not taste death until they see the Son of Man coming in his kingdom". Now, these statements were uttered by Jesus before the crucifixion, and thus, for all we know, Jesus speaks here about the upcoming appearances of Jesus to the disciples (and others) after the resurrection.

The last tangible argument of Russell (*) against the superlative goodness of Chris is that "Christ certainly as depicted in the Gospels did believe in everlasting punishment". Now, I agree that this argument has some force. However, in the beginning of his lecture Russell admits that the belief in eternal punishment is not essential to Christianity, for he states: "I shall not insist that a Christian must believe in hell". I entirely agree with Russell on this point, and therefore I do not take this last argument as being a real problem for Christianity at all.

Nevertheless, if God exists, and if there is an afterlife, and if some monstrous evils are infinite, then it seems to me that it is not entirely inconceivable to think that wickedly performing such evils could result in being separated from God forever after death, or in not receiving eternal life. And, more importantly, if this would be the case, it would still do nothing to show that Jesus has pleasure in this, or that Jesus does not passionately desire every single human to be saved. In short, it does nothing to disprove Jesus' goodness.

(*) Russell concludes his lecture with some further remarks, such as that religion is based primarily and mainly on fear, that people who have held to Christianity have been for the most part extremely wicked, that Christianity is the principal enemy of moral progress in the world, and so forth. I take these remarks not to be serious objections, and thus I shall not spend time to refute them.

[1] Historical Jesus ( http://bit.ly/5I7dtJ )

Liar, Lunatic or Devine

In his book Mere Christianity C.S. Lewis asks whether Jesus was a liar, a lunatic or divine. Being a liar or a lunatic is not compatible with being a great moral leader. Thus, anyone who grants that Jesus was a great moral leader must reject these two options, and acknowledge him to be divine.

Treating others as subjects instead of objects

It seems to me that it is morally good to treat other people not as objects but as subjects. Someone, I take it, has a morally distorted picture of reality if he or she treats other people as mere objects instead of subjects.

Now, Sartre argues that, as a matter of fact, we all try to reduce other people to objects and that everyone is busy precisely with avoiding to be reduced to an object by others. Nobody wants to be considered a mere object in the eyes of the other and everyone strives to be itself a subject by seeking to reduce others to mere objects. So, according to Sartre, the inclination to reduce other people to objects is inherent to our human nature. This might indeed be the case. But that does not make such behavior morally acceptable. I take it that it is morally wrong to try to reduce other people to objects, even if doing so belongs to our human nature.

The thesis that it is just rational to treat others as subjects and not objects is reminiscent to Kantian ethics. The ethical system of Kant culminates in his famous categorical imperative: "Act in such a way that you treat humanity, whether in your own person or in the person of any other, always at the same time as an end and never merely as a means". So, Kant's imperative requires that one should not treat a person merely as a means, i.e. one should treat others as ends or one should treat others as means that are also ends. Kant argues for this imperative by claiming that it is implied by our reason itself, that is, it is our own human rationality that learns us that this imperative is perfectly rational and therefore the proper way to act. Note that Kant's imperative doesn't tell us what to do, it tells us how to do it, i.e. it addresses our behavior.

There is another ethical position according to which one should treat others as subjects instead of objects. The position I have in mind is Christian ethics. It goes beyond a Kantian appeal to the principle that it is rational to bring ones actions in accordance with a cognitively correct picture of the world. Christian ethics is grounded in love instead of rationality. Christians would totally agree with Kant that treating others as subjects instead of objects is a way of behavior that is fully in accordance with a rationally undistorted picture of reality. However, according to Christian ethics, one should treat others as subjects not just because doing so is implied by our reason, but primarily because one loves other people. Surely, this love is not the same kind of love one feels for its spouse, children, other family, or friends. Nor has it anything to do with eros. The love meant here is known as agape or caritas. It is reflected for example in these words of Jesus of Nazareth: "A new command I give you: Love one another. As I have loved you, so you must love one another". So, Christianity addresses our way of being. It's about being involved in others and caring about them. We treat others as subjects because we are truly interested in them, not because it is rational to do so.

For me the main question would be this: should we embrace a kind of rational Kantian ethics according to which we treat others as subjects instead of objects because our reason implies that this is the most rational conduct? Or, should we aim at the more profound far-reaching goal of agape or caritas? The first goal should be attainable for most people. The second goal might be much more difficult to arrive at for many (perhaps most?) people.