Posted on 10/10/2019 5:17:18 PM PDT by Faith Presses On
Bertrand Russell (May 18, 1872–February 2, 1970) endures as one of humanity’s most lucid and luminous minds — an oracle of timeless wisdom on everything from what “the good life” really means to why “fruitful monotony” is essential for happiness to love, sex, and our moral superstitions. In 1950, he was awarded the Nobel Prize in Literature for “his varied and significant writings in which he champions humanitarian ideals and freedom of thought.” On December 11 of that year, 78-year-old Russell took the podium in Stockholm to receive the grand accolade.
(snip)
Russell begins by considering the central motive driving human behavior:
All human activity is prompted by desire....
Russell points to four such infinite desires — acquisitiveness, rivalry, vanity, and love of power....
"...Many people prefer glory to power, but on the whole these people have less effect upon the course of events than those who prefer power to glory… Power, like vanity, is insatiable. Nothing short of omnipotence could satisfy it completely. And as it is especially the vice of energetic men, the causal efficacy of love of power is out of all proportion to its frequency. It is, indeed, by far the strongest motive in the lives of important men...."
(Excerpt) Read more at getpocket.com ...
beer, trucks, women, beer
“Atheist”.
I’ve been thinking lately that a lot of people who call themselves ‘atheists’ simply can’t buy-into the ‘religionist’ notion of ‘God’.
It doesn’t always mean that they reject entirely the idea of an intelligent cause behind the Universe. A lot of them just can’t buy into the concept of God as presented by the various codified religions.
If the concept of intelligent design and intelligent order and purpose were presented differently, they might not call themselves ‘atheists’.
In my opinion, Russell is off base, very significantly, and his writing unfortunately reflects a deep cynicism.
People want to find meaning in life, which is why we reach for the stars, and why we will sacrifice our lives for someone or something we believe in. It is also why we seek God.
He said he would call himself an "agnostic" when speaking to other philosophers because he didn't believe that one could logically disprove the idea of the existence of God and an "atheist" when speaking to "the ordinary man in the street" in order to make clear that he didn't believe that the Christian God existed.
“Russell points to four such infinite desires — acquisitiveness, rivalry, vanity, and love of power....”
Wrongo. Guns, fishing, vehicles, airplanes, dogs, food, sex. Not necessarily in that order. What he is talking about is democrats not normal human beings.
It’s eternally tragic how atheists can’t see how Christ saves man from himself. I wonder whether today’s atheists would admit what Russell does.
ACQUISITIVENESS:
“No man can serve two masters: for either he will hate the one, and love the other; or else he will hold to the one, and despise the other. Ye cannot serve God and mammon.” Matthew 6:24
“But seek ye first the kingdom of God, and his righteousness; and all these things shall be added unto you.” Matthew 6:33
RIVALRY:
“A new commandment I give unto you, That ye love one another; as I have loved you, that ye also love one another. By this shall all men know that ye are my disciples, if ye have love one to another.” John 13:34-35
VANITY:
“Let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus: Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God: But made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men: And being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross.” Philippians 2:5-8
“But it shall not be so among you: but whosoever will be great among you, let him be your minister; And whosoever will be chief among you, let him be your servant: Even as the Son of man came not to be ministered unto, but to minister, and to give his life a ransom for many.” Matthew 20:26-28
LOVE OF POWER:
“Again, the devil taketh him up into an exceeding high mountain, and sheweth him all the kingdoms of the world, and the glory of them; And saith unto him, All these things will I give thee, if thou wilt fall down and worship me. Then saith Jesus unto him, Get thee hence, Satan: for it is written, Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and him only shalt thou serve.” Matthew 4:8-10
“Atheist”.
I’ve been thinking lately that a lot of people who call themselves ‘atheists’ simply can’t buy-into the ‘religionist’ notion of ‘God’.
It doesn’t always mean that they reject entirely the idea of an intelligent cause behind the Universe. A lot of them just can’t buy into the concept of God as presented by the various codified religions.
If the concept of intelligent design and intelligent order and purpose were presented differently, they might not call themselves ‘atheists’.
I can understand what you are saying. I believe in God and consider myself a Christian...but I am not a church going type of person and don’t even get me around Marjoe Gortner types...
I think down inside...most of us want to be good and we do know the difference between right and wrong, but temptation leads us to bad choices. Hell I made a few...But both the “atheist” and the religious can learn from those mistakes and move forward if inside they are essential a “good person,” or want to strive to be a good person.
The Ten Commandments are a set of rules for society at large to conduct itself. Simple rules of expected behaviour. I think any thinking atheist would agree that the Commandments are logical, thought out and neccessary for a functioning society.
I think Russells four desires could be expanded upon, but hey, you gotta start somewhere...
You forgot Guns.
L
Bookmark
Every culture has had some concept of a creator ‘God’.
My point is just that many people who reject the notion are rejecting it because of the way it has been presented to them.
Our religions tend to narrow themselves down so much, and make ‘God’ in their own human image.
I personally think that a lot of so-called ‘atheists’ are very intelligent people who would probably be intrigued by a better delineation of what ‘God’ really is than they are with what has been presented to them before.
If I may be so bold, What is your personal definition of ‘God’?
Well, I don’t know who/what a ‘Marjoe Gortner’ is; will have to look that up.
But I think you are on the right track :-)
People want to find meaning in life, which is why we reach for the stars, and why we will sacrifice our lives for someone or something we believe in. It is also why we seek God.
And then that prompts the interesting question, which is if there is no God, would we invent one to bring some sort of meaning to the painful existence, which is life? No one can really answer that one way or another.
I sort of resolved it in my mind this way...I believe in God because if I am wrong, then I have lost nothing. If I am right, then I have gained everything.
I mean, it could all be a cosmic joke...or not...
But getting back to the invented God...we as humans need someone to turn to. When the child is sick, we want to appeal to a higher power to make the child better, whether its the Tree Gods or the Christian God, or whomever...If there was no one to turn to to at least ask for help...our despair would become unbearable. So, whether God is invented or Real, it really doesn’t matter. Because for us humans, God has to be real...it is really the only check we have from becoming complete animals.
He was a child evangelist and later an adult one. On youtube you might find some clips from a documentary he did at the end of his evangelical career...essentially blowing it out of the water. I don’t know what he is doing these days. I always found him entertaining...on the talk show circuit..
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QNt8VUvvBEU
Here is one video of Marjoe exposing the evangelical scams he would pull...
I don’t have time to watch it all, but I watched enough to get your point.
Do you think that instances like this are adequate to deter people from any intelligent consideration of the possibility of an intelligent Creator God?
If it is, for anyone, I don’t think they are searching deeply enough.
I’m not prepared to say that Bertrand Russell’s four concepts are the best way to classify human desires, but most people’s lists of “What I Want” could be made to fit his categories:
Guns, vehicles, and airplanes are “acquisitiveness” and/or “rivalry.” Guns, depending on why one wants them, could also be “love of power.” Fishing and dogs are “vanity” and/or “rivalry.” Sex is “vanity,” “rivalry,” and/or “love of power.”
Food is survival, but if one gets too involved with it, it could be “acquisitiveness,” “vanity,” or “rivalry.”
Bertrand was the prototypical narcissist intellectual.
Paul Johnson roasted his butt in “Intellectuals”.
Well..bookmark it and save it for later. I think Marjoe, having been used since as a child, was reallly turned off by religion and maybe even God...after all...it was how it was presented to him as well as he presented it...
To answer your question. I should hope not. If one is intelledtually honest, then one can separate the charlatans and hoopla from serious consideration of an intelligent Creator.
I agree he was a turkey in a lot of ways. G.K. Chesterton punctured some of his intellectual pretensions, too. However, it doesn’t mean he didn’t have some ideas that make a fair amount of sense.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.