A Quote
Bertrand Russell was a 20th Century English philosopher. He wrote the essay “Why I Am Not a Christian,” which, along with other essays, was later published as a book critiquing religion. The quote below is from an essay titled “On Youthful Cynicism” from his book The Will to Doubt.
“They [believers] are not nearly so sure that this world was created for the glory of God as they are that God is a useful hypothesis for improving this world. By subordinating God to the needs of this sublunary life, they cast suspicion on the genuineness of their faith. They seem to think that God, like the Sabbath, was made for man.”
Thoughts?
Would molding God in this way be considered idolatry, or true faith? Does a belief in an all-powerful God who can improve this broken world mean that we are creating our own god to solve our problems, or that we are merely recognizing our need for what God claims to be- a redeemer, savior, and healer?
Harrison makes a good point.
I think the dichotomy hinges on a sincere Fear of the Lord. Perhaps the greatest offense I’ve ever committed (and still do commit) is fostering the notion that God is mine. He’s not a tame Lion.
The idolatry of a giant cosmic teddy bear is no laughing matter.
Seems like you guys are saying that the action might be the same, but we just think and talk about it differently. I think what Russell is saying is that we don’t live in such a way that God is primary and we / our world / our problems are secondary. Rather, we have problems and we go looking for the most powerful, lowest cost solution. God is that product. So I agree with Franklin that it is idolatry, but I don’t think doing the same thing just with a different attitude will change that. (My guess is that isn’t the entirety of what you were trying to say.)
Great point! What I’m still not quite sure about is, what does the difference in action look like? When Russell talks about treating God as a “useful hypothesis for improving this world,” is he just talking about sitting back and trusting God to deal with both our personal problems and those of the globe while we comfortably do nothing? If so, then it seems the Christian failing that repels him is disobedience to the command to serve the “least of these.” However, I feel like his point is more complex than that.
Can it be both? Can the world have been created by God for, and to, bring glory to God? Is this fellow, Russell, acknowleding the truth of God? He states the God is a useful hypothesis. In my un derstanding of the scientific method, a hypothesis can only be useful if in fact it is found to be true after testing it. Genesis 2:7 Then the LORD God formed a man[c] from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being.
Genesis 2:3 Then God blessed the seventh day and made it holy, because on it he rested from all the work of creating that he had done. From this I see no proof that man made either God or the Sabbath.
“Earl”–
Bertrand Russell is a famous philosopher and atheist, so he is not acknowledging God’s existence. Actually, I don’t think he’s making any claim about the existence of God at all, but about the practice of Christians. His statement about God, like the Sabbath, being made for man is in reference to Jesus’ saying in the gospel, “Humanity was not made for the Sabbath–the Sabbath was made for humanity.”
So his critique is that the social action of Christians has the same goals and methods as anyone else’s, and the only difference is that God is somehow a useful idea for taking about what we’re doing, or maybe a more powerful tool for accomplishing our purposes.
I like the quote because there’s an awful lot of Christians using God to get what they want (or at least thinking that’s what this is all about), even if what they want serves a seemingly selfless end.