Why I Am Not a Christian

Russell examines the logical arguments on which Christianity is based. He uses reason and logic to dismantle many of these arguments but admits that logic isn’t why people are Christian. It’s because they’re taught to be or fear an existence without a Godlike figure. Is he right? Are emotion and upbringing the main reasons people follow religion? Why or why not?

In “Why I Am Not a Christian,” Russell argues that societies built upon enforcing Christian and Church doctrine tend to be far more “wicked” than those with a secular lean. What instances might prove or disprove that theory?

One reason Russell gives for not being a Christian is that Christianity impedes societal progress. Beyond the example of a woman and her syphilitic husband, what examples to prove that theory? If you disagree, what examples disprove it?

Russell was raised secularly by progressive family members. He contends that the main reason Christians remain Christian is that it’s how they were raised. Is it fair to say Russell is secular because of how he was raised? Why or why not?

After World War I, the British government restrengthened its ties to the Anglican Church. This era experienced not only a rise in secularism but also a rise in support for Communism among the British public. Do you think the Church and government partnered (to any extent) to jointly quell secularism and Communism? By undermining the Church and Christianity, was Russell also questioning the direction of Britain’s government? Why or why not?

Do you think Russell wrote “Why I Am Not a Christian” to convince others to break from Christianity, or was his goal to bolster the arguments of his fellow secularists, or both? Why?

Much of Russell’s argument focuses on deconstructing Christian-based moral superiority. Do you believe that to be Christian, one must consider oneself morally superior? Do Christians have a moral high ground? Why or why not?

Russell comments on how the arguments supporting God’s existence have changed over time and have eroded intellectually, tending toward a sort of “moralizing vagueness.” What do you think he means by “moralizing vagueness”? Do you agree that the more humans progress intellectually, the weaker their arguments for God’s existence are? Why or why not?