La improbabilidad de Dios
La gente hace muchas cosas en nombre de Dios. Los irlandeses se vuelan los unos a los otros en su nombre. Los árabes se vuelan en su nombre. Los imames y los ayatolás oprimen a la mujer en su nombre. Los papas y sacerdotes en celibato trastornan la vida sexual de la gente en su nombre. Los shohets judíos le rajan la garganta a los animales en su nombre. Los logros de la religión en la historia (las sangrientas cruzadas, los inquisidores torturadores, los conquistadores genocidas, los misioneros destructores de culturas, la resistencia impuesta legalmente a toda verdad científica hasta el último momento) son aun más impresionantes. ¿Y a qué ha ayudado todo esto? Creo que está quedando cada vez más claro que la respuesta es absolutamente a nada. No hay razón para creer en la existencia de ningún tipo de dios, y buenas razones para creer que no existen y nunca han existido. Todo ha sido una enorme pérdida de tiempo y de vidas. Sería un chiste de proporciones cósmicas si no fuera tan trágico.
¿Por qué cree la gente en Dios? Para la mayoría de la gente, la respuesta es todavía una versión del antiguo Argumento del Diseño. Contemplamos la belleza y la complejidad del mundo: el aerodinámico batir del ala de una golondrina, la delicadeza de las flores y de las mariposas que las fertilizan, la hormigueante vida existente en una gota de agua de estanque a través de un microscopio, la copa de una secuoya gigante a través de un telescopio. Nos reflejamos en la complejidad electrónica y la perfección óptica de nuestros propios ojos, que son los que miran. Si tenemos algo de imaginación, estas cosas nos llevan a un sentimiento de respeto y reverencia. Por otra parte, no podemos dejar de impresionarnos por la obvia semejanza entre los organismos vivientes y los diseños cuidadosamente planificados de los ingenieros humanos. Este argumento fue expresado en la famosa analogía del relojero del sacerdote del siglo XVIII William Paley. Aunque no supieras lo que es un reloj, el carácter obviamente diseñado de sus ruedas dentadas y muelles, y de cómo se engranan para un propósito, te forzarían a concluir "que el reloj debe tener un hacedor: que tiene que haber existido, alguna vez, y en algún lugar, un inventor o inventores que lo construyeron para el propósito que le encontramos; que comprendían su construcción, y diseñaron su uso." Si esto es cierto para un reloj relativamente simple, ¿cuánto más lo será para el ojo, el oído, el riñón, el codo y el cerebro? Estas estructuras bellas, complejas, intrincadas y con un propósito obvio tienen que tener su propio diseñador, su propio relojero (Dios).
Así decía el argumento de Paley, y es un argumento que casi todas las personas pensativas y susceptibles acaban por descubrir en algún momento de su infancia. A lo largo de casi toda la historia, debe haber sido una verdad completamente convincente y autoevidente. Y ahora, como resultado de una de las revoluciones intelectuales más sorprendentes de la historia, sabemos que es falso, o al menos superfluo. Sabemos que el orden y el aparente propósito del mundo viviente ha aparecido mediante un proceso completemente distinto, un proceso que trabaja sin necesidad de ningún diseñador y que básicamente es consecuencia de unas leyes físicas muy simples. Es el proceso de la evolución por selección natural, descubierto por Charles Darwin e, independientemente, por Alfred Russel Wallace.
¿Qué tienen en común todos los objetos que parecen haber tenido un diseñador? La respuesta es su improbabilidad estadística. Si encontramos una piedra transparente pulida en forma de lente por el mar, no concluímos que debe haberla diseñado un óptico: las leyes físicas pueden lograr este resultado sin ayuda; no es tan improbable que simplemente "haya ocurrido". Pero si encontramos una lente compuesta, corregida cuidadosamente contra la aberración esférica y cromática, con un filtro para la luz brillante, y con las palabras "Carl Zeiss" grabadas en la montura, sabemos que no puede haber aparecido por casualidad. Si coges todos los átomos de la lente compuesta y los juntas al azar bajo la influencia de las leyes de la física, es teóricamente posible que, por pura casualidad, los átomos formen el patrón de una lente compuesta de Zeiss, e incluso que los átomos de alrededor de la montura queden de manera que aparezca grabado el nombre de Carl Zeiss. Pero el número de otras posibilidades en las que podrían quedar los átomos es tan enorme, vasto e inconmensurablemente grande que podemos despreciar completamente la hipótesis de la casualidad. La casualidad no cuenta como explicación.
Por cierto, esto no es un argumento circular. Puede parecer circular porque se podría decir que cualquier disposición de los átomos es muy improbable. Como se ha dicho con anterioridad, cuando una bola cae sobre una hoja de césped particular en un campo de golf, sería absurdo exclamar: "De todos los miles de millones de hojas de césped en los que podría haber caído, la bola ha caído justamente sobre ésta. ¡Qué asombrosa y milagrosamente improbable!" Aquí la falacia es, por supuesto, que la bola tenía que caer en alguna parte. Sólo podemos asombrarnos de la improbabilidad del suceso si lo especificamos a priori: por ejemplo, si un hombre con los ojos vendados gira sobre sí mismo en el tee, golpea la bola al azar, y logra un hoyo en uno. Eso sería realmente asombroso, porque el objetivo de la bola se especifica de antemano.
De los trillones de formas que hay de juntar los átomos de un telescopio, sólo una minoría funcionaría realmente de manera útil. Sólo una pequeña minoría tendría el nombre de Carl Zeiss grabado, o, de hecho, cualquier palabra de cualquier lenguaje humano. Ocurre lo mismo con las piezas de un reloj: de todos los miles de millones de formas que hay de juntarlas, sólo una pequeña minoría dará la hora o hará algo útil. Y, por supuesto, lo mismo ocurre, a posteriori, con las partes de un cuerpo viviente. De las trillones de trillones de maneras que hay de juntar las partes de un cuerpo, sólo una minoría infinitesimal podría vivir, buscar comida, comer y reproducirse. Cierto, hay muchas formas de estar vivo (al menos diez millones de formas si contamos el número de especies distintas que hay en la actualidad) pero, haya las formas que haya de estar vivo, ¡es seguro que hay muchísimas más formas de estar muerto!
Podemos concluir con seguridad que los seres vivos son demasiado complicados (demasiado improbables estadísticamente) para que hayan aparecido por pura casualidad. ¿Cómo, pues, han aparecido? La respuesta es que la casualidad tiene que ver en esta historia, pero no un acto individual y monolítico de casualidad. En cambio, se ha dado uno tras otro en secuencia, una larga sucesión de pequeños pasos casuales, cada uno lo suficientemente pequeño para que sea un producto creíble de su predecesor. Estos pequeños pasos de casualidad están causados por las mutaciones genéticas, cambios al azar (errores de hecho) en el material genético. Estos cambios producen alteraciones en la estructura del cuerpo. La mayoría de estos cambios son letales y llevan a la muerte. Una minoría de ellos resultan ser ligeras mejoras, que llevan a un aumento de la supervivencia y la reproducción. A través de este proceso de selección natural, esos cambios azarosos que resultan ser beneficiosos acaban por extenderse en la especie y se convierte en la norma. La escena queda ahora a la espera de otro pequeño cambio en el proceso evolutivo. Después de, digamos, un millar de estos pequeños cambios, cada uno de los cuales proporciona la base para el siguiente, el resultado final se ha hecho, por proceso de acumulación, demasiado complejo para que haya aparecido en un acto individual de casualidad.
Por ejemplo, es teóricamente posible que aparezca, de un simple golpe de suerte, un ojo de la nada: digamos de la piel desnuda. Es teóricamente posible en ese sentido que la receta se haya escrito en la forma de un gran número de mutaciones. Si todas estas mutaciones ocurrieran simultáneamente, podría aparecer un ojo de la nada. Pero, aunque es teóricamente posible, es inconcebible en la práctica. La cantidad de suerte implicada es demasiado grande. La receta "correcta" implica cambios en un número enorme de genes simultánemente. La receta correcta es una combinación particular de cambios entre trillones de combinaciones de cambios igualmente probables. Podemos descartar con seguridad una coincidencia tan milagrosa. Pero es perfectamente plausible que el ojo moderno haya aparecido a partir de algo casi igual al ojo moderno pero no del todo: un ojo un poquito menos elaborado. Con el mismo argumento, este ojo un poquito menos elaborado apareció a partir de un ojo un poquito menos elaborado aún, etcétera. Si suponemos un número suficientemente grande de diferencias suficientemente pequeñas entre cada etapa evolutiva y su predecesora, podemos derivar un ojo complejo a partir de la piel desnuda. ¿Cuántas etapas intermedias podemos postular? Eso depende de con cuánto tiempo podemos tratar. ¿Ha habido suficiente tiempo para que se desarrollen ojos de la nada mediante pequeños pasos?
Los fósiles nos dicen que la vida se ha desarrollado en la Tierra desde hace más de 3.000 millones de años. Es casi imposible para un hombre imaginar una cantidad de tiempo tan inmensa. Natural y afortunadamente, tendemos a percibir nuestra propia vida como un periodo de tiempo bastante largo, aunque raramente vivamos un siglo. Hace 2.000 años que vivió Jesucristo, un periodo de tiempo suficientemente largo para confundir la diferencia entre historia y mito. ¿Puedes imaginar un millón de veces ese periodo? Supón que queremos escribir toda la historia en un largo rollo de papel. Si metiéramos toda la Historia en un metro de rollo, ¿cuánto ocuparía la parte del rollo destinada a la Prehistoria, desde el principio de la evolución? La respuesta es que la parte del rollo dedicada a la Prehistoria se extendería desde Milán a Moscú. Piensa en las implicaciones que esto tiene en la cantidad de cambio evolutivo que cabría en todo ese tiempo. Todas las razas domésticas de perro (pekineses, perros de lanas, perros de aguas, San Bernardos y Chihuahuas) han surgido a partir de lobos en un periodo de tiempo que se mide en cientos o como mucho miles de años: no más de dos metros en el trayecto de Milán a Moscú. Piensa en la cantidad de cambio implicado en el tránsito de un lobo a un pekinés; ahora multiplica esa cantidad de cambio por un millón. Si lo miras de esa manera, parece más fácil creer que un ojo puede desarrollarse de la nada poco a poco.
Se hace necesario para satisfacer nuestra existencia que todas las partes intermedias en la ruta evolutiva, digamos desde la piel desnuda hasta el ojo moderno, tienen que haberse favorecido por la selección natural; haber sido una mejora con respecto a su predecesor en la secuencia o al menos haber sobrevivido. No tiene sentido pensar que teóricamente existe una cadena de partes intermedias casi imperceptiblemente diferentes, si muchos de esos individuos intermedios han muerto. A veces se arguye que las partes de un ojo tienen que estar todas presentes o el ojo no funcionaría en absoluto. Medio ojo, dice el argumento, no es mejor que ningún ojo. No puedes volar con medio ala; no puedes oír con medio oído. Por tanto no puede haber existido una serie de partes intermedias hasta el ojo, ala u oído modernos.
Este tipo de argumento es tan ingenuo que uno sólo puede preguntarse cuáles son los motivos subconscientes para querer creer en él. Es obviamente falso que medio ojo sea inútil. Los que padecen de cataratas cuyos cristalinos han sito extirpados quirúrjicamente no ven bien sin gafas, pero están mucho mejor que la gente que no puede ver nada. Sin cristalino no puedes enfocar detalladamente una imagen, pero puedes evitar chocar con obstáculos y detectar la sombra amenanzante de un depredador.
Con respecto al argumento de que no se puede volar con medio ala, es refutado por un gran número de animales planeadores, incluyendo a mamíferos de muchos tipos, lagartos, ranas, serpientes y calamares. Muchos tipos distintos de animales arbóreos tienen membranas de piel entre sus articulaciones que son realmente medio alas. Si te caes de un árbol, cualquier membrana de piel o aplanamiento del cuerpo que aumente el área de tu superficie puede salvarte la vida. Y, sean como sean de grandes tus membranas, siempre tiene que haber una altura crítica tal que, si te caes de un árbol desde esa altura, habrías salvado la vida con sólo un poquito más de superficie. Entonces, cuando tus descendientes hayan desarrollado esa superficie extra, podrán salvar sus vidas con sólo un poquito más de superficie, si se caen de un árbol a una altura ligeramente superior. Y así, mediante una sucesión imperceptiblemente gradual de pasos, cientos de generaciones después, aparecen alas completas.
Los ojos y las alas no pueden aparecer de una vez. Eso sería como tener la casi infinita suerte de dar con la combinación que abre la caja fuerte de un gran banco. Pero si giras las ruedas de la cerradura al azar, y cada vez que te acercas un poco al número afortunado la puerta de la caja fuerte hace un crujido, ¡no tardarías en abrir la puerta! Esencialmente, ése es el secreto de cómo la evolución por selección natural logra lo que antes parecía imposible. Las cosas que no pueden derivarse plausiblemente de predecesores muy diferentes pueden derivarse plausiblemente de predecesores sólo ligeramente diferentes. Teniendo una serie suficientemente larga de predecesores ligeramente diferentes, podemos derivar cualquier cosa a partir de cualquier otra cosa.
La evolución, pues, es teóricamente capaz de hacer el trabajo que, érase una vez, parecía ser una prerrogativa de Dios. Pero ¿existe alguna prueba de que la evolución haya existido realmente? La respuesta es sí; las pruebas son abrumadoras. Se encuentran millones de fósiles exactamente en el sitio y exactamente a la profundidad que deberíamos esperar si la evolución fuese cierta. No se ha encontrado ni un solo fósil en un lugar donde la evolución no sea capaz de explicarlo, aunque esto podría haber pasado fácilmente. Un fósil de mamífero en rocas tan antiguas que los peces aún no habían aparecido, por ejemplo, sería suficiente para refutar la teoría de la evolución.
Los patrones de distribución de los animales y plantas en los continentes e islas del mundo es exactamente lo que esperaríamos si se hubieran desarrollado a partir de ancestros comunes mediante un proceso lento y gradual. Los patrones de semejanza entre los animales y plantas es exactamente lo que deberíamos esperar si algunos fueran primos entre ellos, y otros fueran primos más distantes. El hecho de que el código genético sea el mismo en todas las criaturas vivientes sugiere abrumadoramente que todas son descendientes de un único ancestro. La evidencia de evolución es tan convincente que la única manera de salvar la teoría de la creación es suponer que Dios colocó deliberadamente enormes cantidades de pruebas para hacer que pareciese que la evolución fuese real. En otras palabras, los fósiles, la distribución geográfica de los animales, etcétera, son todos un gigante truco de timador. ¿Alguien quiere adorar a un Dios capaz de tal fraude? Es seguro mucho más reverente, y más sensato científicamente , aceptar el significado literal de la evidencia. Todos los seres vivos son primos unos de otros, descendientes de un ancestro remoto que vivió hace más de 3.000 millones de años.
El Argumento del Diseño ha sido pues destruido como razón para creer en Dios. ¿Hay muchos más argumentos? Algunos creen en Dios por lo que dicen es una revelación interior. Tales revelaciones no son siempre edificantes pero parecen sin duda reales al individuo implicado. Muchos habitantes de manicomios tienen la fe interior de que son Napoleón o Dios mismo. El poder de esas convicciones es indudable para los que las tienen, pero esto no es razón para que el resto de nosotros les creamos. De hecho, ya que esas creencias son mutuamente contradictorias, no las creemos en absoluto.
Hay algo más que debe decirse. La evolución por selección natural explica muchas cosas, pero no pudo empezar de la nada. No podría haber empezado hasta que apareciese algún tipo de reproducción y herencia. La herencia moderna está basada en el código del ADN, que es de por sí demasiado complicado para que apareciese espontáneamente mediante una casualidad individual. Esto parece significar que tuvo que haber existido un sistema hereditario anterior, ahora desaparecido, que era lo suficientemente simple para que apareciese por casualidad por las leyes de la química, y que proporcionó el medio en el que pudo dar comienzo una forma primitiva de selección natural acumulativa. El ADN fue un producto posterior de esta selección acumulativa. Antes de esta original forma de selección natural, hubo un periodo en el que los compuestos químicos se formaron a partir de elementos más simples, siguiendo las conocidas leyes de la física. Antes de eso, todo fue construido a partir del hidrógeno puro como consecuencia inmediata del big bang, el suceso que inició el universo.
Existe la tentación de argumentar que, aunque Dios puede no ser necesario para explicar la evolución de orden complejo una vez que el universo comenzó con sus leyes fundamentales de la física, sí necesitamos a Dios para explicar el origen de todas las cosas. Esta idea no le deja mucho trabajo a Dios: sólo hizo estallar el big bang, se sentó y esperó a que pasara todo. El físico-químico Peter Atkins, en su libro maravillosamente escrito La Creación, postula un Dios perezoso que se esforzó por hacer lo menos posible para iniciarlo todo. Atkins explica cómo todo suceso en la historia del universo resulta, por simple ley física, de su predecesor. Así reduce el trabajo que el perezoso creador necesitaría realizar y finalmente concluye que, de hecho, ¡no habría necesitado hacer nada en absoluto!
Los detalles de la etapa primordial del universo pertenecen al reino de la física, mientras que yo soy un biólogo, más relacionado con las etapas posteriores de la evolución de la complejidad. Para mí, la cuestión importante es que aunque el físico necesite postular un mínimo irreductible que tuvo que estar presente en el inicio, para que el universo pudiera comenzar, ese mínimo irreductible es ciertamente extremadamente simple. Por definición, las explicaciones que surgen de premisas simples son más plausibles y más satisfactorias que las explicaciones que tienen que postular comienzos complejos y estadísticamente improbables. ¡Y es difícil conseguir algo más complejo que un Dios Todopoderoso!
Richard Dawkins
Traducción: Gabriel Rodríguez Alberich
Copyright © 1998 Richard Dawkins
Why I Am Not A Christian by Bertrand Russell
Introductory note: Russell delivered this lecture on March 6, 1927 to the National Secular Society, South London Branch, at Battersea Town Hall. Published in pamphlet form in that same year, the essay subsequently achieved new fame with Paul Edwards’ edition of Russell’s book, Why I Am Not a Christian and Other Essays … (1957).
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." Perhaps it would be as well, first of all, to try to make out what one means by the word Christian. It is used these days in a very loose sense by a great many people. Some people mean no more by it than a person who attempts to live a good life. In that sense I suppose there would be Christians in all sects and creeds; but I do not think that that is the proper sense of the word, if only because it would imply that all the people who are not Christians — all the Buddhists, Confucians, Mohammedans, and so on — are not trying to live a good life. I do not mean by a Christian any person who tries to live decently according to his lights. I think that you must have a certain amount of definite belief before you have a right to call yourself a Christian. The word does not have quite such a full-blooded meaning now as it had in the times of St. Augustine and St. Thomas Aquinas. In those days, if a man said that he was a Christian it was known what he meant. You accepted a whole collection of creeds which were set out with great precision, and every single syllable of those creeds you believed with the whole strength of your convictions.
What Is a Christian?
Nowadays it is not quite that. We have to be a little more vague in our meaning of Christianity. I think, however, that there are two different items which are quite essential to anybody calling himself a Christian. The first is one of a dogmatic nature — namely, that you must believe in God and immortality. If you do not believe in those two things, I do not think that you can properly call yourself a Christian. Then, further than that, as the name implies, you must have some kind of belief about Christ. The Mohammedans, for instance, also believe in God and in immortality, and yet they would not call themselves Christians. I think you must have at the very lowest the belief that Christ was, if not divine, at least the best and wisest of men. If you are not going to believe that much about Christ, I do not think you have any right to call yourself a Christian. Of course, there is another sense, which you find in Whitaker’s Almanack and in geography books, where the population of the world is said to be divided into Christians, Mohammedans, Buddhists, fetish worshipers, and so on; and in that sense we are all Christians. The geography books count us all in, but that is a purely geographical sense, which I suppose we can ignore.Therefore I take it that when I tell you why I am not a Christian I have to tell you two different things: first, why I do not believe in God and in immortality; and, secondly, why I do not think that Christ was the best and wisest of men, although I grant him a very high degree of moral goodness.
But for the successful efforts of unbelievers in the past, I could not take so elastic a definition of Christianity as that. As I said before, in olden days it had a much more full-blooded sense. For instance, it included he belief in hell. Belief in eternal hell-fire was an essential item of Christian belief until pretty recent times. In this country, as you know, it ceased to be an essential item because of a decision of the Privy Council, and from that decision the Archbishop of Canterbury and the Archbishop of York dissented; but in this country our religion is settled by Act of Parliament, and therefore the Privy Council was able to override their Graces and hell was no longer necessary to a Christian. Consequently I shall not insist that a Christian must believe in hell.
The Existence of God
To come to this question of the existence of God: it is a large and serious question, and if I were to attempt to deal with it in any adequate manner I should have to keep you here until Kingdom Come, so that you will have to excuse me if I deal with it in a somewhat summary fashion. You know, of course, that the Catholic Church has laid it down as a dogma that the existence of God can be proved by the unaided reason. That is a somewhat curious dogma, but it is one of their dogmas. They had to introduce it because at one time the freethinkers adopted the habit of saying that there were such and such arguments which mere reason might urge against the existence of God, but of course they knew as a matter of faith that God did exist. The arguments and the reasons were set out at great length, and the Catholic Church felt that they must stop it. Therefore they laid it down that the existence of God can be proved by the unaided reason and they had to set up what they considered were arguments to prove it. There are, of course, a number of them, but I shall take only a few.
The First-cause Argument
Perhaps the simplest and easiest to understand is the argument of the First Cause. (It is maintained 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.) That argument, I suppose, does not carry very much weight nowadays, because, in the first place, cause is not quite what it used to be. The philosophers and the men of science have got going on cause, and it has not anything like the vitality it used to have; but, apart from that, you can see that the argument that there must be a First Cause is one that cannot have any validity. I may say that when I was a young man and was debating these questions very seriously in my mind, I for a long time accepted the argument of the First Cause, until one day, at the age of eighteen, I read John Stuart Mill’s Autobiography, and I there found this sentence: "My father taught me that the question ‘Who made me?’ cannot be answered, since it immediately suggests the further question `Who made god?’" That very simple sentence showed me, as I still think, the fallacy in the argument of the First Cause. 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. It is exactly of the same nature as the Hindu’s view, that the world rested upon an elephant and the elephant rested upon a tortoise; and when they said, "How about the tortoise?" the Indian said, "Suppose we change the subject." The argument is really no better than that. 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.
The Natural-law Argument
Then there is a very common argument from natural law. That was a favorite argument all through the eighteenth century, especially under the influence of Sir Isaac Newton and his cosmogony. People observed the planets going around the sun according to the law of gravitation, and they thought that God had given a behest to these planets to move in that particular fashion, and that was why they did so. That was, of course, a convenient and simple explanation that saved them the trouble of looking any further for explanations of the law of gravitation. Nowadays we explain the law of gravitation in a somewhat complicated fashion that Einstein has introduced. I do not propose to give you a lecture on the law of gravitation, as interpreted by Einstein, because that again would take some time; at any rate, you no longer have the sort of natural law that you had in the Newtonian system, where, for some reason that nobody could understand, nature behaved in a uniform fashion. We now find that a great many things we thought were natural laws are really human conventions. You know that even in the remotest depths of stellar space there are still three feet to a yard. That is, no doubt, a very remarkable fact, but you would hardly call it a law of nature. And a great many things that have been regarded as laws of nature are of that kind. On the other hand, where you can get down to any knowledge of what atoms actually do, you will find they are much less subject to law than people thought, and that the laws at which you arrive are statistical averages of just the sort that would emerge from chance. There is, as we all know, a law that if you throw dice you will get double sixes only about once in thirty-six times, and we do not regard that as evidence that the fall of the dice is regulated by design; on the contrary, if the double sixes came every time we should think that there was design. The laws of nature are of that sort as regards a great many of them. They are statistical averages such as would emerge from the laws of chance; and that makes this whole business of natural law much less impressive than it formerly was. Quite apart from that, which represents the momentary state of science that may change tomorrow, the whole idea that natural laws imply a lawgiver is due to a confusion between natural and human laws. Human laws are behests commanding you to behave a certain way, in which you may choose to behave, or you may choose not to behave; but natural laws are a description of how things do in fact behave, and being a mere description of what they in fact do, you cannot argue that there must be somebody who told them to do that, because even supposing that there were, you are then faced with the question "Why did God issue just those natural laws and no others?" If you say that he did it simply from his own good pleasure, and without any reason, you then find that there is something which is not subject to law, and so your train of natural law is interrupted. If you say, as more orthodox theologians do, that in all the laws which God issues he had a reason for giving those laws rather than others — the reason, of course, being to create the best universe, although you would never think it to look at it — if there were a reason for the laws which God gave, then God himself was subject to law, and therefore you do not get any advantage by introducing God as an intermediary. You really have a law outside and anterior to the divine edicts, and God does not serve your purpose, because he is not the ultimate lawgiver. In short, this whole argument about natural law no longer has anything like the strength that it used to have. I am traveling on in time in my review of the arguments. The arguments that are used for the existence of God change their character as time goes on. They were at first hard intellectual arguments embodying certain quite definite fallacies. As we come to modern times they become less respectable intellectually and more and more affected by a kind of moralizing vagueness.
The Argument from Design
The next step in the process brings us to the argument from design. You all know the argument from design: everything in the world is made just so that we can manage to live in the world, and if the world was ever so little different, we could not manage to live in it. That is the argument from design. It sometimes takes a rather curious form; for instance, it is argued that rabbits have white tails in order to be easy to shoot. I do not know how rabbits would view that application. It is an easy argument to parody. You all know Voltaire’s remark, that obviously the nose was designed to be such as to fit spectacles. That sort of parody has turned out to be not nearly so wide of the mark as it might have seemed in the eighteenth century, because since the time of Darwin we understand much better why living creatures are adapted to their environment. It is not that their environment was made to be suitable to them but that they grew to be suitable to it, and that is the basis of adaptation. There is no evidence of design about it.
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 have been able to produce in millions of years. I really cannot believe it. Do you think that, if you were granted omnipotence and omniscience and millions of years in which to perfect your world, you could produce nothing better than the Ku Klux Klan or the Fascists? Moreover, if you accept the ordinary laws of science, you have to suppose that human life and life in general on this planet will die out in due course: it is a stage in the decay of the solar system; at a certain stage of decay you get the sort of conditions of temperature and so forth which are suitable to protoplasm, and there is life for a short time in the life of the whole solar system. You see in the moon the sort of thing to which the earth is tending — something dead, cold, and lifeless.
I am told that that sort of view is depressing, and people will sometimes tell you that if they believed that, they would not be able to go on living. Do not believe it; it is all nonsense. Nobody really worries about much about what is going to happen millions of years hence. Even if they think they are worrying much about that, they are really deceiving themselves. They are worried about something much more mundane, or it may merely be a bad digestion; but nobody is really seriously rendered unhappy by the thought of something that is going to happen to this world millions and millions of years hence. Therefore, although it is of course a gloomy view to suppose that life will die out — at least I suppose we may say so, although sometimes when I contemplate the things that people do with their lives I think it is almost a consolation — it is not such as to render life miserable. It merely makes you turn your attention to other things.
The Moral Arguments for Deity
Now we reach one stage further in what I shall call the intellectual descent that the Theists have made in their argumentations, and we come to what are called the moral arguments for the existence of God. You all know, of course, that there used to be in the old days three intellectual arguments for the existence of God, all of which were disposed of by Immanuel Kant in the Critique of Pure Reason; but no sooner had he disposed of those arguments than he invented a new one, a moral argument, and that quite convinced him. He was like many people: in intellectual matters he was skeptical, but in moral matters he believed implicitly in the maxims that he had imbibed at his mother’s knee. That illustrates what the psychoanalysts so much emphasize — the immensely stronger hold upon us that our very early associations have than those of later times.
Kant, as I say, invented a new moral argument for the existence of God, and that in varying forms was extremely popular during the nineteenth century. It has all sorts of forms. One form is to say there would be no right or wrong unless God existed. I am not for the moment concerned with whether there is a difference between right and wrong, or whether there is not: that is another question. The point I am concerned with is that, if you are quite sure there is a difference between right and wrong, then you are in this situation: Is that difference due to God’s fiat or is it not? If it is due to God’s fiat, then for God himself there is no difference between right and wrong, and it is no longer a significant statement to say that God is good. If you are going to say, as theologians do, that God is good, you must then say that right and wrong have some meaning which is independent of God’s fiat, because God’s fiats are good and not bad independently of the mere fact that he made them. If you are going to say that, you will then have to say that it is not only through God that right and wrong came into being, but that they are in their essence logically anterior to God. You could, of course, if you liked, say that there was a superior deity who gave orders to the God that made this world, or could take up the line that some of the gnostics took up — a line which I often thought was a very plausible one — that as a matter of fact this world that we know was made by the devil at a moment when God was not looking. There is a good deal to be said for that, and I am not concerned to refute it.
The Argument for the Remedying of Injustice
Then there is another very curious form of moral argument, which is this: they say that the existence of God is required in order to bring justice into the world. In the part of this universe that we know there is great injustice, and often the good suffer, and often the wicked prosper, and one hardly knows which of those is the more annoying; but if you are going to have justice in the universe as a whole you have to suppose a future life to redress the balance of life here on earth. So they say that there must be a God, and there must be Heaven and Hell in order that in the long run there may be justice. That is a very curious argument. If you looked at the matter from a scientific point of view, you would say, "After all, I only know this world. I do not know about the rest of the universe, but so far as one can argue at all on probabilities one would say that probably this world is a fair sample, and if there is injustice here the odds are that there is injustice elsewhere also." Supposing you got a crate of oranges that you opened, and you found all the top layer of oranges bad, you would not argue, "The underneath ones must be good, so as to redress the balance." You would say, "Probably the whole lot is a bad consignment"; and that is really what a scientific person would argue about the universe. He would say, "Here we find in this world a great deal of injustice, and so far as that goes that is a reason for supposing that justice does not rule in the world; and therefore so far as it goes it affords a moral argument against deity and not in favor of one." Of course I know that the sort of intellectual arguments that I have been talking to you about are not what really moves people. What really moves people to believe in God is not any intellectual argument at all. Most people believe in God because they have been taught from early infancy to do it, and that is the main reason.
Then I think that the next most powerful reason is the wish for safety, a sort of feeling that there is a big brother who will look after you. That plays a very profound part in influencing people’s desire for a belief in God.
The Character of Christ
I now want to say a few words upon a topic which I often think is not quite sufficiently dealt with by Rationalists, and that is the question whether Christ was the best and the wisest of men. It is generally taken for granted that we should all agree that that was so. I do not myself. I think that there are a good many points upon which I agree with Christ a great deal more than the professing Christians do. I do not know that I could go with Him all the way, but I could go with Him much further than most professing Christians can. You will remember that He said, "Resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also." That is not a new precept or a new principle. It was used by Lao-tse and Buddha some 500 or 600 years before Christ, but it is not a principle which as a matter of fact Christians accept. I have no doubt that the present prime minister [Stanley Baldwin], for instance, is a most sincere Christian, but I should not advise any of you to go and smite him on one cheek. I think you might find that he thought this text was intended in a figurative sense.
Then there is another point which I consider excellent. You will remember that Christ said, "Judge not lest ye be judged." That principle I do not think you would find was popular in the law courts of Christian countries. I have known in my time quite a number of judges who were very earnest Christians, and none of them felt that they were acting contrary to Christian principles in what they did. Then Christ says, "Give to him that asketh of thee, and from him that would borrow of thee turn not thou away." That is a very good principle. Your Chairman has reminded you that we are not here to talk politics, but I cannot help observing that the last general election was fought on the question of how desirable it was to turn away from him that would borrow of thee, so that one must assume that the Liberals and Conservatives of this country are composed of people who do not agree with the teaching of Christ, because they certainly did very emphatically turn away on that occasion.
Then there is one other maxim of Christ which I think has a great deal in it, but I do not find that it is very popular among some of our Christian friends. He says, "If thou wilt be perfect, go and sell that which thou hast, and give to the poor." That is a very excellent maxim, but, as I say, it is not much practised. All these, I think, are good maxims, although they are a little difficult to live up to. I do not profess to live up to them myself; but then, after all, it is not quite the same thing as for a Christian.
Defects in Christ’s Teaching
Having granted the excellence of these maxims, I come to certain points in which I do not believe that one can grant either the superlative wisdom or the superlative goodness of Christ as depicted in the Gospels; and here I may say that one is not concerned with the historical question. Historically it is quite doubtful whether Christ ever existed at all, and if He did we do not know anything about him, so that I am not concerned with the historical question, which is a very difficult one. I am concerned with Christ as He appears in the Gospels, taking the Gospel narrative as it stands, and there one does find some things that do not seem to be very wise. For one thing, he certainly thought that His second coming would occur in clouds of glory before the death of all the people who were living at that time. There are a great many texts that prove that. He says, for instance, "Ye shall not have gone over the cities of Israel till the Son of Man be come." Then he says, "There are some standing here which shall not taste death till the Son of Man comes into His kingdom"; and there are a lot of places where it is quite clear that He believed that His second coming would happen during the lifetime of many then living. That was the belief of His earlier followers, and it was the basis of a good deal of His moral teaching. When He said, "Take no thought for the morrow," and things of that sort, it was very largely because He thought that the second coming was going to be very soon, and that all ordinary mundane affairs did not count. I have, as a matter of fact, known some Christians who did believe that the second coming was imminent. I knew a parson who frightened his congregation terribly by telling them that the second coming was very imminent indeed, but they were much consoled when they found that he was planting trees in his garden. The early Christians did really believe it, and they did abstain from such things as planting trees in their gardens, because they did accept from Christ the belief that the second coming was imminent. In that respect, clearly He was not so wise as some other people have been, and He was certainly not superlatively wise.
The Moral Problem
Then you come to moral questions. There is one very serious defect to my mind in Christ’s moral character, and that is that He believed in hell. I do not myself feel that any person who is really profoundly humane can believe in everlasting punishment. Christ certainly as depicted in the Gospels did believe in everlasting punishment, and one does find repeatedly a vindictive fury against those people who would not listen to His preaching — an attitude which is not uncommon with preachers, but which does somewhat detract from superlative excellence. You do not, for instance find that attitude in Socrates. You find him quite bland and urbane toward the people who would not listen to him; and it is, to my mind, far more worthy of a sage to take that line than to take the line of indignation. You probably all remember the sorts of things that Socrates was saying when he was dying, and the sort of things that he generally did say to people who did not agree with him.
You will find that in the Gospels Christ said, "Ye serpents, ye generation of vipers, how can ye escape the damnation of Hell." That was said to people who did not like His preaching. It is not really to my mind quite the best tone, and there are a great many of these things about Hell. There is, of course, the familiar text about the sin against the Holy Ghost: "Whosoever speaketh against the Holy Ghost it shall not be forgiven him neither in this World nor in the world to come." That text has caused an unspeakable amount of misery in the world, for all sorts of people have imagined that they have committed the sin against the Holy Ghost, and thought that it would not be forgiven them either in this world or in the world to come. I really do not think that a person with a proper degree of kindliness in his nature would have put fears and terrors of that sort into the world.
Then Christ says, "The Son of Man shall send forth his His angels, and they shall gather out of His kingdom all things that offend, and them which do iniquity, and shall cast them into a furnace of fire; there shall be wailing and gnashing of teeth"; and He goes on about the wailing and gnashing of teeth. It comes in one verse after another, and it is quite manifest to the reader that there is a certain pleasure in contemplating wailing and gnashing of teeth, or else it would not occur so often. Then you all, of course, remember about the sheep and the goats; how at the second coming He is going to divide the sheep from the goats, and He is going to say to the goats, "Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire." He continues, "And these shall go away into everlasting fire." Then He says again, "If thy hand offend thee, cut it off; it is better for thee to enter into life maimed, than having two hands to go into Hell, into the fire that never shall be quenched; where the worm dieth not and the fire is not quenched." He repeats that again and again also. I must say that I think all this doctrine, that hell-fire is a punishment for sin, is a doctrine of cruelty. It is a doctrine that put cruelty into the world and gave the world generations of cruel torture; and the Christ of the Gospels, if you could take Him asHis chroniclers represent Him, would certainly have to be considered partly responsible for that.
There are other things of less importance. There is the instance of the Gadarene swine, where it certainly was not very kind to the pigs to put the devils into them and make them rush down the hill into the sea. You must remember that He was omnipotent, and He could have made the devils simply go away; but He chose to send them into the pigs. Then there is the curious story of the fig tree, which always rather puzzled me. You remember what happened about the fig tree. "He was hungry; and seeing a fig tree afar off having leaves, He came if haply He might find anything thereon; and when He came to it He found nothing but leaves, for the time of figs was not yet. And Jesus answered and said unto it: ‘No man eat fruit of thee hereafter for ever’ . . . and Peter . . . saith unto Him: ‘Master, behold the fig tree which thou cursedst is withered away.’" This is a very curious story, because it was not the right time of year for figs, and you really could not blame the tree. I cannot myself feel that either in the matter of wisdom or in the matter of virtue Christ stands quite as high as some other people known to history. I think I should put Buddha and Socrates above Him in those respects.
The Emotional Factor
As I said before, I do not think that the real reason why people accept religion has anything to do with argumentation. They accept religion on emotional grounds. One is often told that it is a very wrong thing to attack religion, because religion makes men virtuous. So I am told; I have not noticed it. You know, of course, the parody of that argument in Samuel Butler’s book, Erewhon Revisited. You will remember that in Erewhon there is a certain Higgs who arrives in a remote country, and after spending some time there he escapes from that country in a balloon. Twenty years later he comes back to that country and finds a new religion in which he is worshiped under the name of the "Sun Child," and it is said that he ascended into heaven. He finds that the Feast of the Ascension is about to be celebrated, and he hears Professors Hanky and Panky say to each other that they never set eyes on the man Higgs, and they hope they never will; but they are the high priests of the religion of the Sun Child. He is very indignant, and he comes up to them, and he says, "I am going to expose all this humbug and tell the people of Erewhon that it was only I, the man Higgs, and I went up in a balloon." He was told, "You must not do that, because all the morals of this country are bound round this myth, and if they once know that you did not ascend into Heaven they will all become wicked"; and so he is persuaded of that and he goes quietly away.
That is the idea — that we should all be wicked if we did not hold to the Christian religion. It seems to me that the people who have held to it have been for the most part extremely wicked. You find this curious fact, that the more intense has been the religion of any period and the more profound has been the dogmatic belief, the greater has been the cruelty and the worse has been the state of affairs. In the so-called ages of faith, when men really did believe the Christian religion in all its completeness, there was the Inquisition, with all its tortures; there were millions of unfortunate women burned as witches; and there was every kind of cruelty practiced upon all sorts of people in the name of religion.
You find as you look around the world that every single bit of progress in humane feeling, every improvement in the criminal law, every step toward the diminution of war, every step toward better treatment of the colored races, or every mitigation of slavery, every moral progress that there has been in the world, has been consistently opposed by the organized churches of the world. I say quite deliberately that the Christian religion, as organized in its churches, has been and still is the principal enemy of moral progress in the world.
How the Churches Have Retarded Progress
You may think that I am going too far when I say that that is still so. I do not think that I am. Take one fact. You will bear with me if I mention it. It is not a pleasant fact, but the churches compel one to mention facts that are not pleasant. Supposing that in this world that we live in today an inexperienced girl is married to a syphilitic man; in that case the Catholic Church says, "This is an indissoluble sacrament. You must endure celibacy or stay together. And if you stay together, you must not use birth control to prevent the birth of syphilitic children." Nobody whose natural sympathies have not been warped by dogma, or whose moral nature was not absolutely dead to all sense of suffering, could maintain that it is right and proper that that state of things should continue.
That is only an example. There are a great many ways in which, at the present moment, the church, by its insistence upon what it chooses to call morality, inflicts upon all sorts of people undeserved and unnecessary suffering. And of course, as we know, it is in its major part an opponent still of progress and improvement in all the ways that diminish suffering in the world, because it has chosen to label as morality a certain narrow set of rules of conduct which have nothing to do with human happiness; and when you say that this or that ought to be done because it would make for human happiness, they think that has nothing to do with the matter at all. "What has human happiness to do with morals? The object of morals is not to make people happy."
Fear, the Foundation of Religion
Religion is based, I think, primarily and mainly upon fear. It is partly the terror of the unknown and partly, as I have said, the wish to feel that you have a kind of elder brother who will stand by you in all your troubles and disputes. Fear is the basis of the whole thing — fear of the mysterious, fear of defeat, fear of death. Fear is the parent of cruelty, and therefore it is no wonder if cruelty and religion have gone hand in hand. It is because fear is at the basis of those two things. In this world we can now begin a little to understand things, and a little to master them by help of science, which has forced its way step by step against the Christian religion, against the churches, and against the opposition of all the old precepts. Science can help us to get over this craven fear in which mankind has lived for so many generations. Science can teach us, and I think our own hearts can teach us, no longer to look around for imaginary supports, no longer to invent allies in the sky, but rather to look to our own efforts here below to make this world a better place to live in, instead of the sort of place that the churches in all these centuries have made it.
What We Must Do
We want to stand upon our own feet and look fair and square at the world — its good facts, its bad facts, its beauties, and its ugliness; see the world as it is and be not afraid of it. Conquer the world by intelligence and not merely by being slavishly subdued by the terror that comes from it. The whole conception of God is a conception derived from the ancient Oriental despotisms. It is a conception quite unworthy of free men. When you hear people in church debasing themselves and saying that they are miserable sinners, and all the rest of it, it seems contemptible and not worthy of self-respecting human beings. We ought to stand up and look the world frankly in the face. We ought to make the best we can of the world, and if it is not so good as we wish, after all it will still be better than what these others have made of it in all these ages. 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. It needs a fearless outlook and a free intelligence. It needs hope for the future, not looking back all the time toward a past that is dead, which we trust will be far surpassed by the future that our intelligence can create.
Electronic colophon: This electronic edition of "Why I Am Not a Christian" was first made available by Bruce MacLeod on his "Watchful Eye Russell Page." It was newly corrected (from Edwards, NY 1957) in July 1996 by John R. Lenz for the Bertrand Russell Society.
Mi primera blasfemia
Yo tenía unos 8 años. Me encantaba recortar los personajes de los comics y pegarlos en nuevas hojas y así crear nuevas historias. Un día se me ocurrió hacer algo parecido a esto:
En mi inocencia se lo mostré a mi abuela y la reacción fue traumatizante: se puso a gritar que yo no podía profanar la imagen de Jesús. A partir de ahí me esforcé en tratar de creer en Dios y todo eso.
Por supuesto, no funcionó
Una bromita
President Clinton and the Pope died on the same day, and due to an administrative foul up, Clinton was sent to heaven and the Pope gets sent to hell. The Pope explained the situation to the devil, he checked out all of the paperwork, and the error was acknowledged. The Pope was told, however, that it would take about 24 hours to fix the problem and correct the error. The next day, the Pope was called in and the devil said his good-bye as he went off to heaven. On his way up, he met Clinton who was on his way down, and they stopped to chat.
Pope: "Sorry about the mix up."
President Clinton: "No problem."
Pope: "Well, I’m really excited about going to heaven."
President Clinton: "Why’s that? It’s not that great."
Pope: "All my life I’ve wanted to meet the Virgin Mary."
President Clinton: "Sorry, Your Holiness, You’re a day late."
