블로그 이미지
영어소리~ 듣고~ 말하고~ 읽고~ 쓰고~ 생각하는~ 영어호흡 블로그
Sunny in New York

☞ Translate to English

☞ 영어로 쓰인 글을 한글로 보기


        1 2 3
4 5 6 7 8 9 10
11 12 13 14 15 16 17
18 19 20 21 22 23 24
25 26 27 28 29 30  
  • 2,192,867total
  • 456today
  • 188yesterday
2011.12.04 12:19 다시태어나기

Bertrand Russell "Why I'm Not a Christian"(1959)

위 동영상 내용

Why are you not a Christian? Because I see no evidence whatever for any of the Christian dogmas, I've.. examined all the stock arguments in favor of the existence of God, and none of them seem to be logically valid. Do you think there is a practical reason for having um, a religious belief, for, for many people? Well there can't be a practical reason for believing what isn't true. That's quite, just I, rule it out, that's impossible. Either the thing is true or it isn't. If it is true, you should believe it and if it isn't, you shouldn't. And if you can't find out whether it's true or it isn't, you should suspend judgement. But you can't.. it seems to me, fundamental dishonesty and fundamental treachery to intellectual integrity, to hold a belief because it's useful and not because you think it's true. Well I was thinking of those people who find that um, some kind of religious code helps them to live their lives, it gives them a very strict set of rules, the rights and the wrongs. Yes but there's no ************ many of them do harm than good. And it, they would probably be able to find a rational morality that they could live by, if they drop this irrational, traditional ******** that comes down from savage ages. But are we uh, perhaps, the ordinary person, perhaps isn't strong enough to find this own personal ethic, they have to have something imposed upon them from outside? Oh I don't think that's true and what is imposed on you from outside is of no value whatever. It doesn't count. Well you ****** as a Christian. When did you decide that you did not want to remain a believer in the Christian ethic? I never decided that I didn't want to remain a believer. I decided.. between the ages of 15 and 18, I spent.. almost all my spare time thinking about Christian dogmas and trying to find out whether there was any reason to believe them, and by the time I was 18, I discarded the last of them.

you think that, that gave you an extra strength in your life? Well, I don't know, no I shouldn't say so. Neither, neither it's a strength nor the opposite. I mean, I was just engaged in the pursuit of knowledge. As you um, approach, the uh, end of life, do you have any fear of some kind of afterlife, or do you feel that, that is just, that is absolutely... Oh no, I think that's nonsense. There is no afterlife? None whatever. Do you have any fear of something that uh.. is common amongst atheists and agnostics, who have been atheists or agnostics all their lives, who are converted just before they die, to a form of, of religion? Well you know it doesn't happen nearly as often as  religious people think it does, because religious people, most of them, think that it's a virtuous act to tell lies about the death bids of agnostics and such. Matter of fact, it doesn't happen very often.

Bertrand Russell's Message to the Future

위 동영상 내용

One last question. Suppose Bertrand Russell, this film were to be looked at by our descendants, like a dead sea scroll in a thousand years time. What would you think is worth telling that generation about the life you've lived and the lessons you've learned from it?

I should like to say two things. One, intellectual and one, moral. The intellectual thing I should want to say to them is this. When you are studying any matter, or considering any philosophy, ask yourself only what are the facts, and what is the truth that the facts bear out?

Never let yourself be diverted either by what you wish to believe or by what you think would have beneficent social effects if it were believed. but look only and solely at what are the facts? That is the intellectual thing that I should wish to say.

The moral thing I should wish to say to them is very simple. I should say, love is wise, hatred is foolish. In this world, which is getting more and more closely interconnected, we have to learn to tolerate each other, we have to learn to put up with the fact that some people say things that we don't like. We can only live together in that way. But if we are to live together and not die together, we must learn a kind of charity and a kind of tolerance which is absolutely vital to the continuation of human life on this planet.

Why I Am Not a Christian

(왜 나는 크리스찬이 아닌가?-러셀)

Why I Am Not a Christian is a 1927 essay by the British philosopher Bertrand Russell hailed by The Independent as "devastating in its use of cold logic",[1] and listed in the New York Public Library's list of the most influential books of the 20th century.[2]

Originally a talk given March 6, 1927 at Battersea Town Hall, under the auspices of the South London Branch of the National Secular Society, it was published that year as a pamphlet and was later published, with other essays, in the book, Why I Am Not a Christian: And Other Essays on Religion and Related Subjects (ISBN 0-671-20323-1).

Russell begins by defining what he means by the term Christian and sets out to explain why he does not "believe in God and in immortality" and why he does not "think that Christ was the best and wisest of men", the two things he identifies as "essential to anybody calling himself a Christian". He considers a number of logical arguments for the existence of God, including the cosmological argument, the natural-law argument, the teleological argument and moral arguments following what he describes as "the intellectual descent that the Theists have made in their argumentations". He also goes into specifics about Christian theology, alleging defects in Jesus's teaching and his moral character, in particular because Jesus believed in hell and everlasting punishment. He argues ad absurdum against the "argument from design", and favors Darwin's theories:

“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.[3]”

Russell also expresses doubt over the historical existence of Jesus and questions the morality of religion: "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."[3] Russell concludes:
“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....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.[3]" "종교란, 내 생각에,  그 저변에 두려움(공포)이  깔려있다고 봅니다. 종교란 부분적으로 잘 모르는 것에 대한 무서움이고,  당신이 지은 죄를 싸고 돌아줄 형님을 갖고 싶어하는 것과 비유할 수 있습니다. 나은 세상은 지식, 친절, 용기가 필요하지, 과거에 대한 애석한 동경이나 아주 오래전 무지한 사람들에 의한 자유로운 지성의 구속을 필요로 하는 것이 아닙니다."

Bertrand Arthur William Russell, 3rd Earl Russell (1872 – 1970) was a British philosopher, logician, mathematician, historian, and social critic.[2] At various points in his life he considered himself a liberal, a socialist, and a pacifist, but he also admitted that he had never been any of these things in any profound sense.[3] He was born in Monmouthshire, into one of the most prominent aristocratic families in Britain.[4]

Russell led the British "revolt against idealism" in the early 1900s. He is considered one of the founders of analytic philosophy along with his predecessor Gottlob Frege and his protégé Ludwig Wittgenstein, and is widely held to be one of the 20th century's premier logicians.[2] He co-authored, with A. N. Whitehead, Principia Mathematica, an attempt to ground mathematics on logic. His philosophical essay "On Denoting" has been considered a "paradigm of philosophy."[5] His work has had a considerable influence on logic, mathematics, set theory, linguistics, computer science (see type theory and type system), and philosophy, especially philosophy of language, epistemology, and metaphysics.

Russell was a prominent anti-war activist; he championed free trade and anti-imperialism.[6][7] Russell went to prison for his pacifism during World War I.[8] Later, he campaigned against Adolf Hitler, then criticised Stalinist totalitarianism, attacked the United States of America's involvement in the Vietnam War, and was an outspoken proponent of nuclear disarmament.[9] One of his last acts was to issue a statement which condemned Israeli aggression in the Middle East.[10]

In 1950, Russell was awarded the Nobel Prize in Literature, "in recognition of his varied and significant writings in which he champions humanitarian ideals and freedom of thought."[11]

From Wikipedia

러셀, 왜 나는 크리스찬이 아닌가?
전에 읽었던 책 생각이 나서 올려본다. 관심 있는 분은 읽어 보고, 저자가 직접 말하는 것을 들어보면 좋을 것 같다. 위에서 말한 자유로운 지성의 구속은 지성인의 관심을 끌만하다. 사람들은 자신이 믿는 것에 대해 강한 믿음을 갖고 있어서, 크리스찬이 이 책을 읽고 이런 이야기를 들어도 자신의 신념은 바뀌지 않는다.
이 책을 읽은 뒤라도~ 믿는 사람의 믿음은 더 강해지며, 믿지 않는 사람은 더 강하게 믿지 않게 된다.

atheist"신이 존재하지 않는다."고 믿는 사람이다.
atheist : someone who denies the existence of god
atheism: the theory or belief that God does not exist.

러셀이 죽어서야 신이 있는지 없는지 알았을 텐데, 불행히도 우리는 죽은자와는 대화할 수가 없다.
세상은 왜 이리 재미있게 만들어진 것일까?

그의 말대로라면 알 수 없었을까?

atheist 소리내어 발음해보자. 


아래 글은 Bible - 신약성경 순서 영어로 읽기에 이어지는 글입니다. 

크리스찬이라면 Bible - 신약성경 순서 영어로 읽기을 읽은 뒤에 와서 다음을 읽으세요.

답부터 보면 문제가 흥미롭지 못하기 때문입니다,

제가 들은 답


'선택을 받아야 되는 것'에 대하여

posted by Sunny in New York

posted by Sunny in New York

댓글을 달아 주세요