In human affairs, we can see that there are forces making for happiness, and forces making for misery. We do not know which will prevail, but to act wisely we must be aware of both.
Bertrand Russell, preface to What I Believe (1925)
Dr. Alan Tuffery is a life-long humanist, a former university lecturer, a dilettante and writer on matters related to humanism.
This short book — just 42 pages — was written in a hurry in 1925 when Bertrand Russell was cash-strapped and became a best seller. The book is written in Russell’s characteristically bracing, lucid style and bears up well, apart from the use of the masculine pronoun throughout and ‘man’ for ‘mankind’ or ‘human’, but that is a mark of his times. The book is a crisp reminder of why unbelievers have rejected religious thinking and anticipates much later humanist thinking. It is these qualities that make it a foundational work whose centenary is worth marking.
Russell’s stated aim is to try ‘to say what I think of man’s place in the universe, and of his possibilities in the way of achieving the good life.’ Not bad in 42 pages…
Russell’s stated aim is to try ‘to say what I think of man’s place in the universe, and of his possibilities in the way of achieving the good life.’ Not bad in 42 pages when you consider the countless tomes churned out by theologians and philosophers. (Of course, Russell had digested much of the philosophical thinking of the previous 2000 years.)
Unsurprisingly, given the advances in knowledge over the last century, some of his factual knowledge is gloriously out of date. For example, Chapter 1 summarises the state of knowledge about the universe and he considers that the physical sciences are almost complete and ‘therefore uninteresting’. This is just plain wrong, as shown by the startling daily findings, revealed by methods which were inconceivable a century ago, in both the minute world of quantum physics and the unimaginably extensive spheres of cosmology and astronomy.
On other matters Russell is much closer to modern humanist thinking, which shows his clarity and originality. On life after death he writes, ’We cannot suppose that an individual’s thinking survives bodily death since that destroys the organisation of the brain…’. Of gods he writes, ‘…they lie outside the region of even probable knowledge, and therefore there is no reason to consider any of them.’ The soul is simply ‘a metaphysical superstition’. Such pithy conclusions shine a light in the dark for those struggling with the conflicts generated by compulsory religion, so that they need not waste any more time considering such matters.
On our place in nature he says that humans are ‘tiny parasites of this insignificant planet’ and any excess of self-importance is ‘best corrected by a little astronomy’ to remind us of the indifference of nature. At the same time we humans are the ‘ultimate and irrefutable arbiters of value … there is no outside standard to show us that our valuation is wrong.’
‘The good life is inspired by love and guided by knowledge.’ Love is the more fundamental, since it inspires knowledge. Russell explores the meanings of love which encompass pure delight in contemplation and pure benevolence (what we might call altruism); it includes ‘delight and well-wishing’.
For Russell, morality arises from human desires about ends, and disapproval and approval are important drivers of our behaviour and desires. Similarity of desires leads to greater harmony. This accords with the ideas of humanist thinkers such as Auguste Comte (1798–1857), Julian Huxley (1887–1975) and Steven Pinker (1954–). Personal relations are not matters for institutional interference and the effects of superstition, sin and punishment are pernicious.
To build up the good life, we must build up intelligence, self-control and sympathy. For individuals to live a good life they must live in a good society, one which is tolerant of diverse views.
Individual salvation ‘becomes impossible as soon as we escape from a very narrow conception of the good life’ — that virtues consist in an obedience to the will of God. To build up the good life, we must build up intelligence, self-control, and sympathy. For individuals to live a good life they must live in a good society, one which is tolerant of diverse views. Again, this seem very modern and points us to the importance of individual and group action to maintain open societies.
The final chapter deals with the role of science to improve our lot, by removing fear, that main driver of malevolence, and envy. That fits modern views of inequality, leading to envy and alienation from society. His solution is to improve the lot of the envious, the worse off — a very humanist view.
This little book deserves a place on every humanist’s bookshelf and offers a refreshing restorative in confusing times.