Tämä sivusto käyttää evästeitä palvelujen toimittamiseen, toiminnan parantamiseen, analytiikkaan ja (jos et ole kirjautunut sisään) mainostamiseen. Käyttämällä LibraryThingiä ilmaiset, että olet lukenut ja ymmärtänyt käyttöehdot ja yksityisyydensuojakäytännöt. Sivujen ja palveluiden käytön tulee olla näiden ehtojen ja käytäntöjen mukaista.
While its tone is playful and frivolous, this book poses tough questions over the nature of religion and belief. Religion provides comfortable responses to the questions that have always beset humankind - why are we here, what is the point of being alive, how ought we to behave? Russell snatches that comfort away, leaving us instead with other, more troublesome alternatives: responsibility, autonomy, self-awareness. He tells us that the time to live is now, the place to live is here, and the way to be happy is to ensure others are happy.… (lisätietoja)
Good, clear writing; ideas that sound very current (for better or worse, the discussion has not changed much in 60 - 80 years); a lot to recommend this fairly short read.
Purely for historical reasons, it was interesting to read the last portion of the book concerning the furor over Russell's appointment to a professorship in New York, and the social, political and (extra-) legal wranglings to keep him from "corrupting the youth." It serves as a reminder how much things have changed, and how quickly; and how much is at risk today in parts, geographically and otherwise, of the country that seem so ready to rush into a reversal of liberal ideals. ( )
Si sente che è un libro vecchio. Però se ci penso non trovo molte differenze con i più "moderni" e blasonati Dawkins e Odifreddi: mi pare che alla fine gli argomenti siano sempre quelli...
Forse la fiducia nella scienza (in particolare nelle scienze sociali) e nel progresso è un po' meno spudorato negli ultimi anni, ma per il resto siamo lì.
Simpatico leggere di come Russell, nel '30, era convinto che la Meccanica Quantistica sarebbe stata sistemata in maniera (presumo) deterministica entro pochi anni :p ( )
From the book: "Religion, since it has its source and terror, has dignified certain kinds of fear and made people thank them not disgraceful. In this it has done mankind a great disservice: all fear is bad. I believe that when I die I shall rot, and nothing of my ego will survive. I am not young, and I love life. But I should scorn to shiver with terror at the thought of annihilation. Happiness is nonetheless true happiness because it must come to an end, nor do thought and Love lose their value because they are not everlasting.... Even if the open windows of science at first make a shiver after the cozy indoor warmth of traditional humanizing myths, in the end the fresh air brings vigor, and the great spaces have a splendor of their own."
Collection of Russell`s short critical essays about Christianity. Interesting to see how valid and thought provoking his arguments are 80-100 years later. ( )
Tiedot englanninkielisestä Yhteisestä tiedosta.Muokkaa kotoistaaksesi se omalle kielellesi.
As your Chairman has told you, the subject about which I am going to speak to you tonight is "Why I Am Not A Christian."
Sitaatit
Tiedot englanninkielisestä Yhteisestä tiedosta.Muokkaa kotoistaaksesi se omalle kielellesi.
Une vie bonne, ...c'est une vie qu'inspire l'amour et que la connaissance guide.p. 131 Ce que je crois
Science can teach us, and I think our hearts can teach us, no longer to look around for imaginary supporters, no longer to invent allies in the sky, but rather to look to our own efforts here below to make the world a fit place to live.
I do not pretend to be able to prove that there is no God. I equally cannot prove that Satan is a fiction. The Christian god may exist; so may the gods of Olympus, or of ancient Egypt, or of Babylon. But no one of these hypotheses is more probable than any other: they lie outside the region of even probable knowledge, and therefore there is no reason to consider any of them.
Conquer the world by intelligence, and not merely by being slavishly subdued by the terror that comes from it.
I do not myself feel that any person who is really profoundly humane can believe in everlasting punishment.
I believe that when I die I shall rot, and nothing of my ego will survive.
The Church no longer contends that knowledge is in itself sinful, though it did so in its palmy days; but the acquisition of knowledge, even though not sinful, is dangerous, since it may lead to pride of intellect, and hence to a questioning of the Christian dogma.
Collective wisdom, alas, is no adequate substitute for the intelligence of individuals. Individuals who opposed received opinions have been the source of all progress, both moral and intellectual. They have been unpopular, as was natural.
A good world needs knowledge, kindliness, and courage; it does not need a regretful hankering after the past or a fettering of the free intelligence by the words uttered long ago by ignorant men.
When you come to look into this argument from design, it is a most astonishing thing that people can believe that this world, with all the things that are in it, with all its defects, should be the best that omnipotence and omniscience has been able to produce in millions of years.
Moreover, the attitude that one ought to believe such and such a proposition, independently of the question whether there is evidence in its favor, is an attitude which produces hostility to evidence and causes us to close our minds to every fact that does not suit our prejudices.
Apart from logical cogency, there is to me something a little odd about the ethical valuations of those who think that an omnipotent, omniscient, and benevolent Deity, after preparing the ground by many millions of years of lifeless nebulae, would consider Himself adequately rewarded by the final emergence of Hitler and Stalin and the H-bomb.
Viimeiset sanat
Tiedot englanninkielisestä Yhteisestä tiedosta.Muokkaa kotoistaaksesi se omalle kielellesi.
What the world needs is not dogma but an attitude of scientific inquiry combined with a belief that the torture of millions is not desirable whether inflicted by Stalin or by a Deity imagined in the likeness of the believer.
Tiedot englanninkielisestä Yhteisestä tiedosta.Muokkaa kotoistaaksesi se omalle kielellesi.
This work refers to the collection of essays titled Why I Am Not a Christian and Other Essays on Religion and Related Subjects, ed. Paul Edwards, first published in 1957. The contents of the First British and American editions are slightly different but both belong here. Please do not combine with separate editions of the essay "Why I am not a Christian" or with other collections which contain completely different essays than the ones selected by Paul Edwards.
Julkaisutoimittajat
Kirjan kehujat
Alkuteoksen kieli
Tiedot englanninkielisestä Yhteisestä tiedosta.Muokkaa kotoistaaksesi se omalle kielellesi.
While its tone is playful and frivolous, this book poses tough questions over the nature of religion and belief. Religion provides comfortable responses to the questions that have always beset humankind - why are we here, what is the point of being alive, how ought we to behave? Russell snatches that comfort away, leaving us instead with other, more troublesome alternatives: responsibility, autonomy, self-awareness. He tells us that the time to live is now, the place to live is here, and the way to be happy is to ensure others are happy.
luvucenanzo06 | Aug 27, 2023 | 
)
)
Google Books — Ladataan...
(3.91)
1