On Russells Argument Against The First-Cause Argument Report Examples

In 1927, the philosopher Bertrand Russell gave a speech titled “Why I Am Not a Christian” in which he exposes the reasons why he does not share this belief. In the first part, he analyzes and criticizes different arguments for the necessity of the existence of God, including the First-Cause Argument. In summary, this argument argues that everything must be caused and that this causation must have a first cause, which is God. While there are some obvious flaws in this argument, the present text will not analyze them, but Russell’s response to it. While he raises some convincing points, his criticism of first causation has limited validity because it contradicts his reliance on science, which poses the Big Bang as a beginning.
One of the problems that Russell has with the first-cause argument is that it tends to infinity or at least a dead end: one may always ask for the causation of the agent that was proposed as to cause the prior element. “There is no reason to suppose that the world had a beginning at all. The idea that things must have a beginning is due to the poverty of our imagination.” The idea in this quote comes into contradiction with his apologetic stance with respect to science, which he posits should overtake religion to form a greater, more reasonable world. The annulations of the questions for a first cause occur in Jewish religion and philosophy, like that of J. S. Mill, whom he cites, but not in science, which is interested in the beginnings of time: biology and physics try to study this. The latter discipline especially is trying to understand the beginnings of the universe, of which the current theory is the Big Bang. Thus, by discarding the questions for the beginning, he holds a philosophical stance and even a religious one, but parts ways from science, where he believes thoughts should lead to.
Thus, while facing an argument that is simple at face value, he is derailed out of the path he sees as correct. While trying to criticize this argument, which he says is the easiest to understand and even dismisses, he ends up going against what science is about. While he does successfully argue against the main issue at stake, his philosophical stance suffers from collateral damage.