Bertrand Russell, Hyper-Individualism and Christianophobia

One of our more vociferous commenters left a shockingly long quote in a comment, I think to somehow point something out about how apparently one philosopher thought that the origin of hyper-individualism was the very ideology that rails against it now - Christianity. All I can say is, bad example. Note my italicized comments inline.

“The Christian emphasis on the individual soul has had a profound influence upon the ethics of Christian communities. It is a doctrine fundamentally akin to that of the Stoics, arising as theirs did in communities that could no longer cherish political hopes. [ironically, their communities took over the Roman Empire in the space of 300 years from the inception of the religion.] The natural impulse of the vigorous person of decent character is to attempt to do good [Don't make me laugh - if baseless and patently obviously wrong statements is the foundation of his philosophy, no wonder I found this whole thing tripe.] , but if he is deprived of all political power and of all opportunity to influence events, he will be deflected from his natural course and will decide that the important thing is to be good. This is what happened to the early Christians; it led to a conception of personal holiness as something quite independent of beneficient action, since holiness had to be something that could be achieved by people who were impotent in action [I don't recall Bertrand Russell being renowned for his research into the antiquities, to come to such conclusions.]. Social virtue came therefore to be excluded from Christian ethics. To this day conventional Christians think an adulterer more wicked than a politician who takes bribes, although the latter probably does a thousand times as much harm. [Generalize much? Somehow I think I am a little more in touch with general perceptions of Christians' response to moral dilemmas that either Russell or Ezra. Fallacious.] The medieval conception of virtue, as one sees in their pictures, was of something wishy-washy, feeble, and sentimental. [Now Russell is an art critic? Dang, but this guy is a Jack-of-all-Trades!] The most virtuous man was the man who retired from the world; the only men of action who were regarded as saints were those who wasted the lives and substance of their subjects in fighting the Turks, like St. Louis. [Displaying an utter ignorance of the religion one is criticizing is embarrassing and shameful. The least he could have done was actually read some of the stories of the saints. But no, it is much easier to just make crap up as you go, isn't it?] The church would never regard a man as a saint because he reformed the finances, or the criminal law, or the judiciary. Such mere contributions to human welfare would be regarded as of no importance. [They would be if it were convenient for making an argument, like this one, especially if it were true, which it isn't. Of course, never mind that the entire Christian moral tradition formed the foundation for criminal law throughout the world, with perhaps the sole exception of Sharia law.] I do not believe there is a single saint in the whole calendar whose saintship is due to work of public utility. [If the church were in charge of states in the same way that governments are, that might make the slightest bit of sense, but even in the middle ages, when the Pope did hold so much power that he dictated to many kings, he certainly never bothered himself with mundane political policy. To contend it was expected is beyond moronic.] With this separation between the social and the moral person there went an increasing separation between soul and body, which has survived in Christian metaphysics and in the systems derived from Descartes. One may say, broadly speaking, that the body represents the social and public part of a man, whereas the soul represents the private part. [One may say whatever one wants, but you kind of need to prove your contentions. Again, baseless.] In emphasizing the soul, Christian ethics has made itself completely individualistic. I think it is clear that the net result of all the centuries of Christianity has been to make men more egotistic, more shut up in themselves, than nature made them; for the impulses that naturally take a man outside the walls of his ego are those of sex, parenthood, and patriotism or herd instinct. [There is no denying that personal responsibility is a keynote of Christian thought, but when one considers what the Bible teaches, it is nigh impossible to blame the religion for humanity's failures to live up to it. Certainly in the accounts recorded in the Book of Acts evidences a much more communal bent in the early Christians than anything that was being practiced in Judea of the 1st Century. Just because its successors failed to live up to the ideal does not mean the religion is at fault for the failings of its adherents.] Sex - the church did everything it could to decry and degrade; [Catholicism was contaminated by platonic ideas about the purity of the spirit and the corruption of the flesh and its desires, but the Bible teaches something very different - you would be hard pressed to find a church that teaches the evils of sex today.] family affection was decried by Christ himself and the bulk of his followers [A simplistic and rudimentary reading to be sure - a little reflection on the context will reveal what was meant by out-of-context quotation.] ; and patriotism could find no place among the subject populations of the Roman Empire. The polemic against the family in the Gospels is a matter that has not received the attention it deserves. The church treats the Mother of Christ with reverence, but He Himself showed little of this attitude. “Woman, what have I to do with thee?” (John ii, 4) is His way of speaking to her. He says also that He has come to set a man at variance against his father, the daughter against her mother, and the daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law, and that he that loveth father and mother more than Him is not worthy of Him (Matt. x, 35-37). All this means the breakup of the biological family tie for the sake of creed — an attitude which had a great deal to do with the intolerance that came into the world with the spread of Christianity.” [A lovely contention if it were true - of course ay reading of history will demonstrate that the Church has never understood those texts as actually requiring the breakup of the family. It is about priorities - it is about reordering your life to align with God - whose instructions to you are to love him first, then your family, then your neighbours. Spending a fleeting moment thinking about how one's family can sometimes demand things that are not good from you, you realize this is very wise advice. If one is beholden to one's family without condition, then there are serious consequences and many many ways one can wind up in abusive situations. Loyalty to a power higher than the family gives one the ability to free oneself from abuse. Is that Ezra's preferred situation?]

“This individualism culminated in the doctrine of the immortality of the individual soul, which was to enjoy hereafter endless bliss or endless woe according to circumstances. [A doctrine found all the way through the Hebrew books of Law, poetry and prophets, comprising the Old Testament today. It was by no means a new idea when Christianity developed.] The circumstances upon which this momentous difference depended were somewhat curious. For example, if you died immediately after a priest had sprinkled water upon you while pronouncing certain words, you inherited eternal bliss; whereas, if after a long and virtuous life you happened to be struck by lightning at a moment when you were using bad language because you had broken a bootlace, you would inherit eternal torment. I do not say that the modern Protestant Christian believes this, nor even perhaps the modern Catholic Christian who has not been adequately instructed in theology; but I do say that this is the orthodox doctrine and was firmly believed until recent times. The Spaniards in Mexico and Peru used to baptize Indian infants and then immediately dash their brains out: by this means they secured that these infants went to Heaven. No orthodox Christian can find any logical reason for condemning their action, although all nowadays do so. [What? No logical reason for condemning the slaughter of innocents? Umm, saying something doesn't make it true.] In countless ways the doctrine of personal immortality in its Christian form has had disastrous effects upon morals, and the metaphysical separation of soul and body has had disastrous effects upon philosophy.” [By no means proven, but thaks for coming out.]
And Russell on Christianity and Sex:

“The worst feature of the Christian religion, however, is its attitude toward sex — an attitude so morbid and so unnatural that it can be understood only when taken in relation to the sickness of the civilized world at the time the Roman Empire was decaying. We sometimes hear talk to the effect that Christianity improved the status of women. This is one of the grossest perversions of history that it is possible to make. Women cannot enjoy a tolerable position in society where it is considered of the utmost importance that they should not infringe a very rigid moral code. [No, but neither can they have a tolerable position in society when they are not considered human. Ancient Rome conveyed no equality, no personhood on women. Islam today does not either. There is no other historical source documented that accounts for the presence of the concept of equality of the sexes, apart from Christian tradition.] Monks have always regarded Woman primarily as the temptress; they have thought of her mainly as the inspirer of impure lusts. [So one example of one branch of Christianity, whose traditions have little to nothing to do with anything anymore, and have long since been debunked, are the basis for contending that Christianity has not led to women's rights?] The teaching of the church has been, and still is, that virginity is best, but that for those who find this impossible marriage is permissible. “It is better to marry than to burn,” as St. Paul puts it. By making marriage indissoluble, [It never was. Judaism and Christianity have always allowed for divorce.] and by stamping out all knowledge of the ars amandi, the church did what it could to secure that the only form of sex which it permitted should involve very little pleasure and a great deal of pain. [He is contending that all sex within marriage has little pleasure and lots of pain? Hm. It is my view that the opposite is true, and I can't help but think that there are a whole lot of married people who would contend the opposite as well. Somebody has a grudge against marriage. I wonder what his real reasons for that grudge are.] The opposition to birth control has, in fact, the same motive: if a woman has a child a year until she dies worn out, it is not to be supposed that she will derive much pleasure from her married life; therefore birth control must be discouraged.” [Biology and historical anthropology indicate that "a child a year" was never the case in any community. Having a large number of progeny in most societies has been considered a blessing, because of the basic economy of division of labour. Yes, childbirth is painful, but I know precious few women who have had a child that did not consider that pain worth the pleasure of that child's existence.]

“The conception of Sin which is bound up with Christian ethics is one that does an extraordinary amount of harm, since it affords people an outlet for their sadism which they believe to be legitimate, and even noble. [I'd like to know where he gets off calling Christians "Sadists".] Take, for example, the question of the prevention of syphilis. It is known that, by precautions taken in advance, the danger of contracting this disease can be made negligible. Christians, however, object to the dissemination of knowledge of this fact, since they hold it good that sinners should be punished. [This assumes that it is a waste of time to teach morality to people. They are going to have promiscuous sex anyway, so we might as well teach them to avoid the consequences of promiscuity. Problem is there is no way to avoid the emotional damage that comes from broken sexual relationships, multiple partners, devaluation from being used sexually, and if not abortion, then children of men who they do not love (or children whom men will never see). Oh wait, there is. We'll hand out the magic "anti-syphilis" pills, and while we're at it, we'll hand out the magic "anti-depression" pills so everyone will be indiscriminate hedonists on a cocktail of medications to alleviate the suffering of living immorally. Great idea.] They hold this so good that they are even willing that punishment should extend to the wives and children of sinners. [Um, no. I don't recall reading that in my "how to be a Christian" manual.] There are in the world at the present moment many thousands of children suffering from congenital syphilis who would never have been born but for the desire of Christians to see sinners punished. I cannot understand how doctrines leading us to this fiendish cruelty can be considered to have any good effects upon morals.” [What morals?]

“It is not only in regard to sexual behaviour but also in regard to knowledge on sex subjects that the attitude of Christians is dangerous to human welfare. Every person who has taken the trouble to study the question in an unbiased spirit knows that the artificial ignorance on sex subjects which orthodox Christians attempt to enforce upon the young is extremely dangerous to mental and physical health, and causes in those who pick up their knowledge by the way of “improper” talk, as most children do, an attitude that sex is in itself indecent and ridiculous. [Nobody actually calls for ignorance anymore. This is like saying all Darwinists still subscribe to eugenics, simply because some in the past did. What they call for is accurate and complete education, controlled by those most directly responsible for the child's well-being - the parents. That accurate and complete education should begin with the reality of how sex works but also what its purpose is, and how marriage and marital fidelity is the only consistently healthy way to practice human sexuality. It is best for physical health, mental health, the well-being of women, of men, and of the progeny of that union. These facts are medically documented.] I do not think there can be any defense for the view that knowledge is ever undesirable. I should not put barriers in the way of the acquisition of knowledge by anybody at any age. But in the particular case of sex knowledge there are much weightier arguments in its favor than in the case of most other knowledge. A person is much less likely to act wisely when he is ignorant than when he is instructed, and it is ridiculous to give young people a sense of sin because they have a natural curiosity about an important matter.”

“Every boy is interested in trains. Suppose we told him that an interest in trains is wicked; [Who says interest in sex is wicked?] suppose we kept his eyes bandaged whenever he was in a train or on a railway station; suppose we never allowed the word “train” to be mentioned in his presence and preserved an impenetrable mystery as to the means by which he is transported from one place to another. [First, interest in trains and acting to ride trains at any stage in life will not have massive physical, social and mental consequences, so the allegory is false. Second, there is a world of difference between educating someone on the physics of how trains move and giving the boy mechanical details on how to pilot trains himself, then encouraging him to take up the piloting of trains without thought to who owns the trains, how they need to be run on an orderly schedule or other people will pay a price, or whether or not the boy's physical stature and mental acuity are even capable of operating a train safely.] The result would not be that he would cease to be interested in trains; on the contrary, he would become more interested than ever but would have a morbid sense of sin, because this interest had been represented to him as improper. Every boy of active intelligence could by this means be rendered in a greater or less degree neurasthenic. This is precisely what is done in the matter of sex; but, as sex is more interesting than trains, the results are worse. [Which is why nobody is against sex education - they are only against the government or special interest groups dictating what is to be taught.] Almost every adult in a Christian community is more or less diseased nervously as a result of the taboo on sex knowledge when he or she was young. [False, and baseless.] And the sense of sin which is thus artificially implanted is one of the causes of cruelty, timidity, and stupidity in later life. [Real fair argument there.] There is no rational ground of any sort or kind in keeping a child ignorant of anything that he may wish to know, whether on sex or on any other matter. [Right, so let's start passing out guns to 5 year olds, teach them how to pull the triggers, and see if we can come up with a rational reason or two to keep them ignorant for a while longer.] And we shall never get a sane population until this fact is recognized in early education, which is impossible so long as the churches are able to control educational politics.”

“Leaving these comparatively detailed objections on one side, it is clear that the fundamental doctrines of Christianity demand a great deal of ethical perversion before they can be accepted. The world, we are told, was created by a God who is both good and omnipotent. Before He created the world He foresaw all the pain and misery that it would contain; He is therefore responsible for all of it. It is useless to argue that the pain in the world is due to sin. In the first place, this is not true; it is not sin that causes rivers to overflow their banks or volcanoes to erupt. But even if it were true, it would make no difference. If I were going to beget a child knowing that the child was going to be a homicidal maniac, I should be responsible for his crimes. And If God knew in advance the sins of which man would be guilty, He was clearly responsible for all the consequences of those sins when He decided to create man. [This handily demonstrates a very poor grasp of what the Bible teaches on creation, the reasons for it, and how the fall and sin came about. It is the subject of something much longer than this post could contain, but suffice to say, these arguments have been made before, and remain off-base and oversimplified.] The usual Christian argument is that the suffering in the world is a purification for sin and is therefore a good thing. [Not even close.] This argument is, of course, only a rationalization of sadism; but in any case it is a very poor argument. I would invite any Christian to accompany me to the children’s ward of a hospital, to watch the suffering that is there being endured, and then to persist in the assertion that those children are so morally abandoned as to deserve what they are suffering. In order to bring himself to say this, a man must destroy in himself all feelings of mercy and compassion. He must, in short, make himself as cruel as the God in whom he believes. No man who believes that all is for the best in this suffering world can keep his ethical values unimpaired, since he is always having to find excuses for pain and misery.” [Holy straw man, Batman!]

Ezra seems to admit that hyper-individualism is a serious problem today, but contends that Christianity is not the cure, but the cause. The arguments Bertrand Russell presents demonstrate a lack of research, a willingness to make straw men out of just about anything, and generalize until he is blue in the face to maintain the axe that he wants to grind. Perhaps another time I will look into Russell’s biographical materials to see why he insisted on such positions in the face of anything resembling documented fact.

Yes, individualism, when taken to extremes, is unhealthy. However, I would contend that it was when western society began to abandon Christian morals that individualism bloomed into a curse, instead of a blessing, as it was when restrained by a healthy love and respect for one’s creator and one’s fellow man, as taught by Jesus in the Bible. As we abandoned belief in a creator and devalued man to simply a bunch of arranged carbon atoms, our self-interest has become overwhelming and degenerative.