BERTRAND RUSSELL AGAINST THE FIRST CAUSE ARGUMENT FOR THE EXISTENCE OF GOD

Bertrand Russell, the author of Why I am not a Christian, had been regarded as the most brilliant mathematician of his day.

·       [The First Cause argument for the existence of God] maintains that everything we see in this world has a cause, and as you go back in the chain of causes further and further you must come to a First Cause, and to that First Cause you give the name of God…If everything must have a cause, then God must have a cause. If there can be anything without a cause, it may just as well be the world as God, so that there cannot be any validity in that argument…There is no reason why the world could not have come into being without a cause; nor, on the other hand, is there any reason why it should not have always existed. There is no reason to suppose that the world had a beginning at all. The idea that things must have a beginning is really due to the poverty of our imagination. Therefore, perhaps, I need not waste any more time upon the argument about the First Cause. https://users.drew.edu/jlenz/whynot.html

There are many problems with Russell’s argument. Even as he had stated, “everything we see in this world has a cause” leaves God out of this assessment. In fact, the argument from the First Cause posits that something or Someone must be eternal and uncaused, and without the uncaused (doesn’t require a prior cause), there can never be a rational explanation for anything. Why not? Because cause “C” requires a prior cause “B,” and “B” requires an “A,” and this goes on infinitely – a logical impossibility.

Russell even acknowledged that there is a need for something to be eternal and uncaused, and so he suggested that it could easily be the universe. However, this suggestion violates both science and reason. Now science acknowledges that the time-space-matter universe had a beginning.

Robert Wilson and Arno Penzias, Nobel laureate in physics, had initially believed in the “Steady State Theory,” which maintained that the universe had always existed. Consequently, the question, “Who created it,” became unnecessary. However, as the evidence accumulated against it, Penzias admitted:

·       “The Steady State theory turned out to be so ugly that people dismissed it. The easiest way to fit the observations with the least number of parameters was one in which the universe was created out of nothing, in an instant, and continues to expand.” https://crossexamined.org/god-and-the-astronomers/

Robert Jastrow was the founding director of NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies, a professor at Columbia University, and the director emeritus of the Mt. Wilson Observatory.  Jastrow observed:

·       When a scientist writes about God, his colleagues assume he is either over the hill or going bonkers. In my case it should be understood from the start that I am an agnostic in religious matters. My views on this question are close to those of Darwin, who wrote, "My theology is a simple muddle. I cannot look at the Universe as the result of blind chance, yet I see no evidence of beneficent design in the details." (God and the Astronomers (1978), Ch. 1: In the Beginning)

Yet, he does see scientific evidence for the existence of God.  In one interview, after strongly asserting his agnosticism, Jastrow admitted:

·       …that scientific evidence (including Hubble’s discoveries) pointed quite clearly to the existence of a supernatural Creator. Yet, the materialistic philosophy he had long embraced rebelled at such a conclusion. He ended with an admission I’ll never forget: “I’m in a completely hopeless bind.” https://thejohn1010project.com/blog/2018/05/17/god-and-the-astronomer/

Why the bind? Jastrow remains committed to a naturalistic world view but sees the evidence pointing to ID. In God and the Astronomers, Jastrow also acknowledged that naturalism had failed to account for the evidence:

·       At this moment it seems as though science will never be able to raise the curtain on the mystery of creation. For the scientist who has lived by his faith in the power of reason, the story ends like a bad dream. He has scaled the mountains of ignorance; he is about to conquer the highest peak; as he pulls himself over the final rock, he is greeted by a band of theologians who have been sitting there for centuries. (116; p. 107 in 1992 edition)

This seems to rule out the possibility that the universe or any part of it could serve as our first cause. However, I think that the logical evidence against an always-existing-universe is even more dismissive. If the universe is eternal, it means that an infinite number of years would have needed to be fulfilled to ever arrive in the now, the present, and this is a logical impossibility. Therefore, whatever is eternal (the first cause) must lie outside of the time-space-matter package. He must transcend time, and this is exactly the portrait that the Bible presents of the Creator God.

As a last resort, Russell concluded, “The idea that things must have a beginning is really due to the poverty of our imagination.” Perhaps there is a reality beyond our feeble imagination and even our logic. However, we live, believe, and make our decisions based upon the very limited knowledge that we do have. We have nothing else. To be responsible with our limited knowledge, experience, and science, we are coerced to conclude  that the phenomena of this world does have a beginning and a cause.

CREATING OUR OWN MEANING IN A MEANINGLESS UNIVERSE

Can we thrive in a meaningless, purposeless world that cares nothing for us? Atheist Bertrand Russell believed that humanity could impose their own will and purpose on the purposeless, filling the emptiness with meaning:

• Undismayed by the empire of chance, [man determines] to preserve a mind free from the wanton tyrant that rules his outward life; proudly defiant of the irresistible forces... [He determines] to sustain alone... the world that his own ideals have fashioned despite the trampling march of unconscious power. (A Free Man’s Worship)

However, there are dreams that will not take wing no matter how confident we might be about them. Years later, Russell confessed that his dreams folded like a rose dropping its dried pedals:

• I wrote with passion and force because I really thought I had a gospel. Now I am cynical about the gospel because it won’t stand the test of life.

Why did his dream die? It wasn’t able to deliver what humanity requires. But why can’t we simply create our own meaning? Perhaps, it’s like trying to create an imaginary family and mate, which we can enjoy in our minds without the messiness of relationships. And when we get tired of our “wife,” we can simply exchange her for “another” mental construction.

Ludicrous? Of course! However, this is just what we do when we exchange a genuine relationship with God and the meaning that can only come from such a relationship with our own mental creation. Yes, I can be the captain of my own ship, but this ship ultimately will not take me where I need to go.

IS PATRIOTISM EVIL?

Today, patriotism has a black eye. While there had been a time that people had proudly worn the flag of patriotism, such attire is now rejected, even disdained. Pledging allegiance to a nation is pledging antagonism to the rest of the world. Consequently, it is now fashionable to reject patriotism entirely in favor of a single border-less world. 

The late atheist, Bertrand Russell, had expressed his understandable reservations regarding malignant forms patriotism:

**Patriotism which has the quality of intoxication is a danger not only to its native land but to the world, and “My country never wrong” is an even more dangerous maxim than “My country, right or wrong.” 

Of course, patriotism can take on dangerous forms, but so can parenting - "My children are never wrong." And so, if we should reject patriotism entirely, then perhaps we should also reject parenting and family. 

Any good thing can be abused including parenting and family. If we are to reject national affiliation and responsibility entirely in favor of a global identity, why not also reject community responsibility in favor of a world identity?

Therefore, when your block association asks you to pitch in to fill potholes or to feed the elderly, you can tell them, "My allegiance is to all people. It is just too parochial, too narrow and chauvinistic, to simply devote myself to my neighbors. My neighborhood is the world."

How foolish! How can we serve the world if we don't start out by serving a particular community, namely our community? 

I would now like to remind us of a principle of prime importance that should be obvious to all of us. Charity must begin at home, first with our own family and then our own community. 

If we start by loving our neighbor's child and wife, rather than our own, it can only engender bitterness, resentment, and envy.

Instead, love of neighbor must begin with love of our own family. It is only after our own family feels loved that we can move on to loving our neighbor.

I think that the same principle pertains to our nation. To best serve other nations, we have to first serve our own, seeking its peace and welfare.

At this point, I am tempted the list the many acts of generosity of the USA. However, to just list of few of these would be to minimize the extent of this generosity. However, to list a convincing number would be tedious.

However, even without listing examples, I hope that my simple point has become obvious - that even though patriotism has often become malignant, it can also provoke acts of justice and generosity.

As patriotism has become a dirty word, patriotic conscience and involvement has lamentably declined. Harvard sociologist Robert Putnam wrote:

**Americans who came of age during the Depression and World War II have been far more deeply engaged in the life of their communities than the generations that have followed them. The passing of this "long civic generation" appears to be an important proximate cause of the decline of our civic life.

**Evidence for the decline of social capital and civic engagement comes from a number of independent sources. Surveys of average Americans in 1965, 1975, and 1985, in which they recorded every single activity during a day--so-called "time-budget" studies--indicate that since 1965 time spent on informal socializing and visiting is down (perhaps by one-quarter) and time devoted to clubs and organizations is down even more sharply (by roughly half). Membership records of such diverse organizations as the PTA, the Elks club, the League of Women Voters, the Red Cross, labor unions, and even bowling leagues show that participation in many conventional voluntary associations has declined by roughly 25 percent to 50 percent over the last two to three decades. Surveys show sharp declines in many measures of collective political participation, including attending a rally or speech (off 36 percent between 1973 and 1993), attending a meeting on town or school affairs (off 39 percent), or working for a political party (off 56 percent). 

After all, who will sacrifice their time for a nation they no longer believe in, for leaders they no longer trust, and for a discredited concept - patriotism?

With this precipitous decline in civic involvement, in our social capital, our quality of life is suffering, and so too our quality of involvement in other nations.

TO REJECT GOD IS TO REJECT HOPE

When we reject and expel God from our lives, something else will inevitably fill the vacuum. Generally, the self is elevated to fill the gap with god-like abilities. We grant ourselves forgiveness, inappropriate self-trust, powers to create our purpose-for-living, and morality, even if only subjective. Our hope is in ourselves to stand against life’s threats. However, this hope and self-trust will not bear the test of time. Atheist and mathematician Bertrand Russell described in 1903 his insipient despair with his morally flat universe:

·       “That man is the product of causes that had no prevision of the end they were achieving; that his origin, his growth, his hopes and fears, his loves and his beliefs, are but the outcome of accidental collocations of atoms; that no fire, no heroism, no intensity of thought and feeling, can preserve individual life beyond the grave; that all the labors of the ages, all the devotion, all the inspiration, all the noonday brightness of human genius, are destined to extinction in the vast death of the solar system, and that the whole temple of Man's achievement must inevitably be buried beneath the debris of a universe in ruins- all these things, if not quite beyond dispute, are yet so nearly certain that no philosophy which rejects them can hope to stand.”

·       "Only within the scaffolding of these truths, only on the firm foundation of unyielding despair, can the soul's habitation henceforth be safely built."

         

In a letter to Lowes Dickinson, Russell wrote:

·       “We stand on the shores of an ocean, crying to the night and the emptiness; sometimes a voice answers out of the darkness. But it is a voice of one drowning; and in a moment the silence returns.” (Bertrand Russell, Autobiography, p. 287 as quoted by Leroy Koopman, “Famous Atheists Give Their Testimonies,” Moody Monthly, Nov. 1975, p. 124.)

Consequently, there is a strong correlation between atheism and suicide. Pitzer College sociologist Phil Zuckerman reports:

·        “Concerning suicide rates, this is the one indicator of societal health in which religious nations fare much better than secular nations. According to the 2003 World Health Organization's report on international male suicides rates (which compared 100 countries), of the top ten nations with the highest male suicide rates, all but one (Sri Lanka) are strongly irreligious nations with high levels of atheism. It is interesting to note, however, that of the top remaining nine nations leading the world in male suicide rates, all are former Soviet/Communist nations, such as Belarus, Ukraine, and Latvia. Of the bottom ten nations with the lowest male suicide rates, all are highly religious nations with statistically insignificant levels of organic atheism.” (Adherents.com)

In contrast to this, Dr. Stephen Joseph, University of Warwick, reported that:

·       "Religious people seem to have a greater purpose in life, which is why they are happier. Looking at the research evidence, it seems that those who celebrate the Christian meaning of Christmas are on the whole likely to be happier.” (Conservapedia)

Why is this so? The Late psychiatrist M. Scott Peck, author of The Road Less Traveled, wrote 15 years later about his journey from Zen Buddhism to Christianity. He had repeatedly observed that his Christian clients would improve, no matter how serious their psychiatric condition. He concluded:

·       "The quickest way to change your attitude toward pain is to accept the fact that everything that happens to us has been designed for our spiritual growth…We cannot lose once we realize that everything that happens to us has been designed to teach us holiness…We are guaranteed winners!" (Further Along the Road Less Traveled)

Why are we “guaranteed winners?” Because our Savior guarantees it! Peck subsequently gave his life to the Lord.

Self-Contentment: It’s Limts

How did the Stoic philosopher deal with pain and persecution? The Roman Stoic Seneca wrote:

• “It is the mind that makes us rich; this goes with us into exile, and in the wildest wilderness, having found there all that the body needs for its sustenance, it itself overflows in the enjoyment of its own goods.”

While such self-contentment is admirable, the Russian author Leo Tolstoy understood that it could only be temporary. It had only been temporary for him:

• "A person could live only so long as he was drunk; but the moment he sobered up, he could not help seeing that all that was only a deception, and a stupid deception at that."

Atheist and mathematician, Bertrand Russell, had been content with his life. He had even penned a book proudly entitled, Why I am not a Christian. However, some years later, Russell confessed:

• "I wrote with passion and force because I really thought I had a gospel [creating his own meaning]. Now I am cynical about the gospel because it won’t stand the test of life." (Os Guinness, The Journey, 106)

One of the New Testament authors, Paul, that contentment with our present lives would not be enough:

• If only for this life we have hope in Christ, we are to be pitied more than all men. But Christ has indeed been raised from the dead, the firstfruits of those who have fallen asleep. (1 Cor. 15:19-20)

Even if our situation is comfortable, contentment with this life can only be temporary. This understanding eventually brought Leo Tolstoy to his Savior Jesus.