I was re-reading Bertrand Russell’s “Introduction” to A History of Western Philosophy and a number of things struck me about Russell’s foundational assumptions:
1. In the very first paragraph Russell recognises that a philosophy is a product of two factors: (a) inherited religious and ethical conceptions; (b) ‘scientific’ investigation, broadly understood. He also observes that philosophers vary as to the proportions these two factors assume in their respective philosophies. Many would assume, and Russell himself would have thought this, that the second of these two factors carried most weight in his system of thought. It is highly ironic that in the first two pages of his introduction Russell shows that in reality it is the first of these two factors which takes the lion’s share. For Russell relies very heavily on the Enlightenment Project in presupposing that theology and science are at different ends of a spectrum.
2. Russell’s concept of theology is lamentable. Without doubt, there is a great deal of theology that is of the stereotypical nature assumed by Russell. An extreme example is furnished by the Taliban. But Russell is being grossly unfair when he applies this stereotype to all species of theology. For to Russell everything here is black and white. Theology appeals to authority, whereas science (and philosophy) appeal to reason. Russell makes no allowance for ‘good theology’ which involves a more complex, synergistic relationship between revelation and reason and does not involve treating these entities as mutually exclusive.
3. Russell’s concept of authority is poorly thought-out. Russell fails to see the obvious, that “authority” cannot be treated as merely a preserve of theology. Russell himself clearly treats reason and science, drawing on reason, as authorities.
4. Following on from this, we must note Russell’s specious distinction between “definite knowledge”, which he contends belongs to science, and “dogma”, which he asserts belongs to theology. To Russell anything that is dogmatically asserted by any species of theology belongs to the world of fairy tales; there being no access to definite knowledge whatsoever through this channel. The only way to arrive at definite knowledge is to jettison theology and pursue this through the channel of science. However, once we put aside Russell’s stereotypical and monolithic treatment of theology and make allowance for ‘good theology’ which involves a healthy relationship between revelation and reason then, given the reality of genuine revelation and access to it (yes, I fully anticipate the counters to this!), it does become possible to acquire definite knowledge via theology. Indeed, there are some aspects of definite knowledge that can ONLY be realised via good theology (remember, not excluding reason), e.g. knowledge of God. Yes, I am contending that ‘good theology’ enables to have a definite knowledge of God!
5. Ironically, Russell is himself making a dogmatic assertion in denying that any kind of theology can generate definite knowledge.
6. Russell’s gradation is seriously misguided. For him the gradation from less definite to more definite is: theology, philosophy, science. Instead, it should be: bad theology, philosophy, science, good theology (which presupposes but is not controlled by science and reason).
7. Russell states that the very definiteness with which theologies profess to give their answers causes modern minds to view them with suspicion. Again, we must keep in mind that Russell’s treatment of theology is stereotypical and that for most if not all stereotypes there is an evidential basis, albeit exaggerated. Again, the Taliban furnish us with a good, though tellingly extreme example of what Russell is saying. But if the modern mind treats all definite theological assertions as suspect then does the problem lie with theology or with the modern mind, indeed, with Russell’s own mind?
8. Russell, having so summarily dispensed with all theology, is left to conclude that philosophy must take over from theology, given the latter’s “impertinent insolence towards the universe.” This entails, however painful this may be, looking to philosophy to help us to learn “to live without certainty.” In Russell’s mind those who look to any kind of theology to help them live their lives are trying to live “with the support of comforting fairy tales.” Only philosophers, in Russell’s mind, can help people to live in the real world. What tragic foundations lie at the roots of Russell’s bleak philosophy!
How wonderful it is that the true and living God has revealed himself in Christ!
Posted March 18, 2010
www.facetofaceintercultural.com.au
Upon clicking 'Buy now' you will be redirected to paypal.com where you can securely and quickly complete your purchase with a few clicks.
Immediately after payment at PayPal you will be redirected to a download page which
provides you instant access to your purchase.
