Essay About Practical Importance And Great Need Of Rationalism

Bertrand Russell – Am I an Atheist or an Agnostic?
Join now to read essay Bertrand Russell – Am I an Atheist or an Agnostic?
Am I An Atheist Or An Agnostic?
A Plea For Tolerance In The Face Of New Dogmas
by Bertrand Russell (1947)
I speak as one who was intended by my father to be brought up as a
Rationalist. He was quite as much of a Rationalist as I am, but he died
when I was three years old, and the Court of Chancery decided that I
was to have the benefits of a Christian education.
I think perhaps the Court of Chancery might have regretted that since.
It does not seem to have done as much good as they hoped. Perhaps you
may say that it would be rather a pity if Christian education were to
cease, because you would then get no more Rationalists.
They arise chiefly out of reaction to a system of education which
considers it quite right that a father should decree that his son
should be brought up as a Muggletonian, we will say, or brought up on
any other kind of nonsense, but he must on no account be brought up to
think rationally. When I was young that was considered to be illegal.
Sin And The Bishops
Since I became a Rationalist I have found that there is still
considerable scope in the world for the practical importance of a
rationalist outlook, not only in matters of geology, but in all sorts
of practical matters, such as divorce and birth control, and a question
which has come up quite recently, artificial insemination, where
bishops tell us that something is gravely sinful, but it is only
gravely sinful because there is some text in the Bible about it. It is
not gravely sinful because it does anybody harm, and that is not the
argument. As long as you can say, and as long as you can persuade
Parliament to go on saying, that a thing must not be done solely
because there is some text in the Bible about it, so long obviously
there is great need of Rationalism in practice.
As you may know, I got into great trouble in the United States solely
because, on some practical issues, I considered that the ethical advice
given in the Bible was not conclusive, and that on some points one
should act differently from what the Bible says. On this ground it was
decreed by a Law Court that I was not a fit person to teach in any
university in the United States, so that I have some practical ground
for preferring
Rationalism to other outlooks.
Dont Be Too Certain!
The question of how to define Rationalism is not altogether an easy
one. I do not think that you could define it by rejection of this or
that Christian dogma. It would be perfectly possible to be a complete
and absolute Rationalist in the true sense of the term and yet accept
this or that dogma.
The question is how to arrive at your opinions and not what your
opinions are. The thing in which we believe is the supremacy of reason.
If reason should lead you to orthodox conclusions, well and good; you
are still a Rationalist. To my mind the essential thing is that one
should base ones arguments upon the kind of grounds that are accepted
in science, and one should not regard anything that one accepts as
quite certain, but only as probable