Rhetorical Analysis Of Bertrand Russell's Why I Am Not A Christian

1143 Words 5 Pages
In the lecture, “Why I Am Not a Christian” Bertrand Russell delivers his thoughts on Christianity and the belief in God. Russell makes several claims and reasons on why he is not a Christian throughout this speech. He presents many theories and arguments about how God couldn’t possibly exist. Many of these reasons he gives have even been “proven” by a multitude of scholars and scientists. Although Bertrand Russell makes some compelling arguments he makes many illogical fallacies within his speech. Russell begins his lecture on first his idea of what a Christian actually is. Russell believes that in order to be a Christian, one must believe in God, immortality, and in Jesus Christ. However, he does not think that a Christian has to believe in Hell. He also tells us that he himself has no belief in any of the things that he believes makes one a Christian. After clarifying his stance on Christianity, Russell moves onto his arguments about why Christianity has faults in itself. …show more content…
His first point is called, The First-cause Argument. The First-cause argument states that “If everything must have a cause, then God must have a cause”. A well known fact about Christianity is that God has always been, there was no cause to it. This concept is hard for society, especially highly intellectual people to grasp. It is difficult to understand because they have always learned cause and effect. So for them to believe that God has no cause is an extremely hard idea for them. The next idea is The Argument from Design. Bertrand says in his explanation of this, that since God is omniscient and omnipotent he would not have let the Earth get so bad. He says that since God has had millions of years to create the perfect world He should not have let people groups, such as the Ku Klux Klan

Related Documents