Bertrand Russell on Confidence and Evidence
Bertrand Russell was a philosopher, logician, and mathematician.
I want to consider two quotes attributed to him. The purpose is to identify the voice of devotion, especially as it relates to the words of men who ask to be taken seriously.
Bertrand Russell was asked what he would say to God after he died. The question was something along the lines of, "Why didn't you believe in me?"
And Bertrand Russell responded:
"Not enough evidence, God. Not enough evidence."
I want to consider two quotes attributed to him. The purpose is to identify the voice of devotion, especially as it relates to the words of men who ask to be taken seriously.
Bertrand Russell was asked what he would say to God after he died. The question was something along the lines of, "Why didn't you believe in me?"
And Bertrand Russell responded:
"Not enough evidence, God. Not enough evidence."
In my opinion Bertrand Russell was making a very strong equivocation ... one so common that it is hardly noticable in our world today. When Bertrand Russell said "evidence" what he really meant was "external evidence".
If he would have responded more clearly, I could easily picture God asking, "Did you want to believe I was here, Bertrand? That I was right here around you all along?"
But of course, this question is totally irrelevant and biased in the mind of a mathematician or philosopher.
Suppose the question is asked, "Does 1 / x converge as x approaches infinity?". To a mathematician it may be of some significance to ask if "he thinks" it converges. Intuitions are occasionally valuable to mathematicians. To ask if "he wants" it to converge is outright heresy.
As Soren Kierkegaard is quick to point out in Philosophical Fragments a mathematician can say 'true' things all the time about formulas - by definition their truth has nothing to do with the mathematician.
But falling in love is totally different.
If you approach a man and ask, "Do you, sir, love this woman?" An analytical philosopher or mathematician might start out saying, "Well, the nature of women ..." Or "The essence of love is ...". But the question, "Do you, sir, love this woman?" Is not a question about the nature or attributes of women or love.
The question is about something inside the man. Isn't the question about believing to God identical to the love question?
Blaise Pascal -a mathematician himself- once noted that a convert who became a Christian on the basis of classical proofs was likely to be enthusiastic at first but soon to start checking and rechecking his logic. He concluded such a basis was often shaky at best.
And this brings us to the next quote from Bertrand Russell:
"The trouble with the world is that the stupid are cocksure and the intelligent are full of doubt."
Bertrand Russell's observation lends itself to the age-old paradox that fools fall in love while the shrewd and crafty often become worse than criminals.
Why are the intelligent so full of doubt? Perhaps because they have so many ideas that as soon as they accept a view, a new idea comes along and pulls them in a different direction.
Why are the fools so confident? Perhaps because there is little to distract them from considering primarily what they want.
In some ways this latter quote is a sad reflection on who Bertrand Russell was. He was in some sense an intelligent man full of doubt. Perhaps his intelligence afforded him many things, but it could not -by his own admission- give him the clarity of a fool.
Jesus praised God because He had hidden His good things from the wise and learned and revealed them to little children. Children don't need college degrees to "find out" if they love their parents.
Devotionally speaking, a person need not consult with philosophers and mathematicians to discover what his longings are: the true priorities deep inside him.
This is the evidence God wants us to find, and the only evidence which demands a verdict.
Labels: Angst, The System
4 Comments:
Great post BB. I find it so true the idea the more we know the less we know, it's such an oxymoron but it's true - knowledge doesn't make us better people - it just can't for some reason. But the true effects of loving others - for some reason that does and it requires no real thought - we just do it - yet in this we become what we always hoped for - a better person. I guess Christ's teachings that way - if followed they make me a more well-rounded person and very sincere - but examining them does nothing but lead to debate after debate - and in the end - debate isn't put food on the table for the poor.
Great post!
"The question is about something inside the man. Isn't the question about believing to God identical to the love question?"
If not identical, then very similar, I would say. BTW, I just finally finished Brothers Karamazov! Excellent! And quite pertinent to this post's subject.
What I want to know is... where did this notion come from that doubt is the way of superior people? The only answer I can think of is that those who doubt naturally seem to investigate more, thereby learning more about the world. But are they really "learning" anything? I mean, if we let doubt take the reigns fully, what is left of knowledge at all? Everything begins to slide toward faith, in one form or another. It seems to me that most proud "doubting" intellectuals who look down upon stupid "believers" are themselves deceived... they do not doubt enough, but somehow arrived at a middle-point, in which they doubt what they like, but take on absolute faith what is, say, socially acceptable to believe within the academic community.
I have wondered this before... what is there to the idea of "objective knowledge" except that these sorts of things are supported by evidence that many have access too? What is the objectivist stance except a refusal to believe anything that one doesn't think one can convince everyone else of (given that they are as even-minded as himself)? Doesn't this reflect a herd-mentality? Isn't this the very thing that such "intellectuals" scoff at? I mean, if I won't believe anything unless the rest of the pack -- at least, those members of the pack that think like I do, those of us in our little "special," "talented" group -- can nod their heads in affirmation, what kind of man am I?
Often men who scoff at the simple commoners depend directly upon those commoners for their own greatness... a greatness only realized by those commoners' cheers and applause.
Great post... thanks for steering me over to it... now I have to go send links to it to a few friends :)...
I see that I am about 2 years behind on commenting here but…
On the issue of “Why are the intelligent so full of doubt?...”
I wonder if G. K. Chesterton did not hint at the answer in referring specifically to “sceptics” in “The Suicide of Thought” from his book Orthodoxy:
“But the new rebel is a Sceptic, and will not entirely trust anything. He has no loyalty; therefore he can never be really a revolutionist. And the fact that he doubts everything really gets in his way when he wants to denounce anything. For all denunciation implies a moral doctrine of some kind; and the modern revolutionist doubts not only the institution he denounces, but the doctrine by which he denounces it. Thus he writes one book complaining that imperial oppression insults the purity of women, and then he writes another book (about the sex problem) in which he insults it himself. He curses the Sultan because Christian girls lose their virginity, and then curses Mrs. Grundy because they keep it. As a politician, he will cry out that war is a waste of life, and then, as a philosopher, that all life is waste of time. A Russian pessimist will denounce a policeman for killing a peasant, and then prove by the highest philosophical principles that the peasant ought to have killed himself. A man denounces marriage as a lie, and then denounces aristocratic profligates for treating it as a lie. He calls a flag a bauble, and then blames the oppressors of Poland or Ireland because they take away that bauble. The man of this school goes first to a political meeting, where he complains that savages are treated as if they were beasts; then he takes his hat and umbrella and goes on to a scientific meeting, where he proves that they practically are beasts. In short, the modern revolutionist, being an infinite sceptic, is always engaged in undermining his own mines. In his book on politics he attacks men for trampling on morality; in his book on ethics he attacks morality for trampling on men. Therefore the modern man in revolt has become practically useless for all purposes of revolt. By rebelling against everything he has lost his right to rebel against anything.”
Just a thought.
aDios,
Mariano
Post a Comment
<< Home