Christianity and Sex,
A Free Man's Worship
excerpted from the book
Why I Am Not a Christian
and other essays on religion and
related subjects
by Bertrand Russell
Touchstone, 1957, paper
Has Religion Made Useful Contributions
to Civilization?
p24
My own view on religion is that of Lucretius. I regard it as a
disease born of fear and as a source of untold misery to the human
race.
p25
As soon as absolute truth is supposed to be contained in the sayings
of a certain man, there is a body of experts to interpret his
sayings, and these experts infallibly acquire power, since they
hold the key to truth. Like any other privileged caste, they use
their power for their own advantage. They are, however, in one
respect worse than any other privileged caste, since it is their
business to expound an unchanging truth, revealed once for all
in utter perfection, so that they become necessarily opponents
of all intellectual and moral progress.
***
p26
Christianity and Sex
The worst feature of the Christian religion,
however, is its attitude toward sex-an attitude so morbid and
so unnatural that it can be understood only when taken in relation
to the sickness of the civilized world at the time the Roman Empire
was decaying. We sometimes hear talk to the effect that Christianity
improved the status of women. This is one of the grossest perversions
of history that it is possible to make. Women cannot enjoy a tolerable
position in society where it is considered of the utmost importance
that they should not infringe a very rigid moral code. Monks have
always regarded Woman primarily as the temptress; they have thought
of her mainly as the inspire of impure lusts. The teaching of
the church has been, and still is, that virginity is best, but
that for those who find this impossible marriage is permissible.
"It is better to marry than to burn," as St. Paul brutally
puts it. By making marriage indissoluble, and by stamping out
all knowledge of the ars amandi, the church did what it could
to secure that the only form of sex which it permitted should
involve very little pleasure and a great deal of pain. The opposition
to birth control has, in fact, the same motive: if a woman has
a child a year until she dies worn out, it is not to be supposed
that she will derive much pleasure from her married life; therefore
birth control must be discouraged.
The conception of Sin which is bound up
with Christian ethics is one that does an extraordinary amount
of harm, since it affords people an outlet for their sadism which
they believe to be legitimate, and even noble. Take, for example,
the question of the prevention of syphilis. It is known that,
by precautions taken in advance, the danger of contracting this
disease can be made negligible. Christians, however, object to
the dissemination of knowledge of this fact, since they hold it
good that sinners should be punished. They hold this so good that
they are even willing that punishment should extend to the wives
and children of sinners. There are in the world at the present
moment many thousands of children suffering from congenital syphilis
who would never have been born but for the desire of Christians
to see sinners punished. I cannot understand how doctrines leading
to this fiendish cruelty can be considered to have any good effects
upon morals.
It is not only in regard to sexual behavior
but also in regard to knowledge on sex subjects that the attitude
of Christians is dangerous to human welfare. Every person who
has taken the trouble to study the question in an unbiased spirit
knows that the artificial ignorance on sex subjects which orthodox
Christians attempt to enforce upon the young is extremely dangerous
to mental and physical health, and causes in those who pick up
their knowledge by the way of "improper" talk, as most
children do, an attitude that sex is in itself indecent and ridiculous.
I do not think there can be any defense for the view that knowledge
is ever undesirable. I should not put barriers in the way of the
acquisition of knowledge by anybody at any age. But in the particular
case of sex knowledge there are much weightier arguments in its
favor than in the case of most other knowledge. A person is much
less likely to act wisely when he is ignorant than when he is
instructed, and it is ridiculous to give young people a sense
of sin because they have a natural curiosity about an important
matter.
Every boy is interested in. trains. Suppose
we told him that an interest in trains is wicked; suppose we kept
his eyes bandaged whenever he was in a train or on a railway station;
suppose we never allowed the word "train" to be mentioned
in his presence and preserved an impenetrable mystery as to the
means by which he is transported from one place to another. The
result would not be that he would cease to be interested in trains;
on the contrary, he would become more interested than ever but
would have a morbid sense of sin, because this interest had been
represented to him as improper. Every boy of active intelligence
could by this means be rendered in a greater or less degree neurasthenic.
This is precisely what is done in the matter of sex; but, as sex
is more interesting than trains, the results are worse. Almost
every adult in a Christian community is more or less diseased
nervously as a result of the taboo on sex knowledge when he or
she was young. And the sense of sin which is thus artificially
implanted is one of the causes of cruelty, timidity, and stupidity
in later life. There is no rational ground of any sort or kind
for keeping a child ignorant of anything that he may wish to know,
whether on sex or on any other matter. And we shall never get
a sane population until this fact is recognized in early education,
which is impossible so long as the churches are able to control
educational politics.
Leaving these comparatively detailed objections
on one side, it is clear that the fundamental doctrines of Christianity
demand a great deal of ethical perversion before they can be accepted.
The world, we are told, was created by a God who is both good
and omnipotent. Before He created the world He foresaw all the
pain and misery that it would contain; He is therefore responsible
for all of it. It is useless to argue that the pain in the world
is due to sin. In the first place, this is not true; it is not
sin that causes rivers to overflow their banks or volcanoes to
erupt. But even if it were true, it would make no difference.
If I were going to beget a child knowing that the child was going
to be a homicidal maniac, I should be responsible for his crimes.
If God knew in advance the sins of which man would be guilty,
He was clearly responsible for all the consequences of those sins
when He decided to create man. The usual Christian argument is
that the suffering in the world is a purification for sin and
is therefore a good thing. This argument is, of course, only a
rationalization of sadism; but in any case it is a very- poor
argument. I would invite any Christian to accompany me to the
children's ward of a hospital, to watch the suffering that is
there being endured, and then to persist in the assertion that
those children are so morally abandoned as to deserve what they
are suffering. In order to bring himself to say this, a man must
destroy in himself all feelings of mercy and compassion. He must,
in short, make himself as cruel as the God in whom he believes.
No man who believes that all is for the best in this suffering
world can keep his ethical values unimpaired, since he is always
having to find excuses for pain and misery.
p33
... The natural impulse of the' vigorous person of decent character
is to attempt to do good, but if he is deprived of all political
power and of all opportunity to influence events, he will be deflected
from his natural course and will decide that the important thing
is to be good. This is what happened to the early Christians;
it led to a conception of personal holiness as something quite
independent of beneficent action, since holiness had to be something
that could be achieved by people who were impotent in action.
Social virtue came therefore to be excluded from Christian ethics.
To this day conventional Christians think an adulterer more wicked
than a politician who takes bribes, although the latter probably
does a thousand times as much harm. The medieval conception virtue,
as one sees in their pictures, was of something wishy-washy, feeble,
and sentimental. The most virtuous man was the man who retired
from the world; the only men of action who were regarded as saints
were those who wasted the lives and substance of their subjects
in fighting the Turks, like St. Louis.
p42
... the most important source of religion is fear; this can be
seen in the present day, since anything that causes alarm is apt
to turn people's thoughts to God. Battle, pestilence, and shipwreck
all tend to make people religious. Religion has, however, other
appeals besides that of terror; it appeals especially to our human
self-esteem. If Christianity is true, mankind are not such pitiful
worms as they seem to be; they are of interest to the Creator
of the universe, who takes the trouble to be pleased with them
when they behave well and displeased when they behave badly. This
is a great compliment. We should not think of studying an ants'
nest to find out which of the ants performed their formicular
duty, and we should certainly not think of picking out those individual
ants who were remiss and putting them into a bonfire. If God does
this for us, it is a compliment to our importance; and it is even
a pleasanter compliment if he awards to the good among us everlasting
happiness in heaven. Then there is the comparatively- modern idea
that cosmic evolution is all designed to bring about the sort
of results which we call good-that is to say, the sort of results
that give us pleasure. Here again it is flattering to suppose
that the universe is controlled by a Being who shares our tastes
and prejudices.
p43
Righteousness and unrighteousness must be taken together; it is
impossible to stress the one without stressing the other also.
Now, what is "unrighteousness" in practice? It is in
practice behavior of a kind disliked by the herd. By calling it
unrighteousness, and by arranging an elaborate system of ethics
around this conception, the herd justifies itself in wreaking
punishment upon the objects of its own dislike, while at the same
time, since the herd is righteous by definition, it enhances its
own self-esteem at the very moment when it lets loose its impulse
to cruelty. This is the psychology of lynching, and of the other
ways in which criminals are punished. The essence of the conception
of righteousness, therefore, is to afford an outlet for sadism
by cloaking cruelty as justice.
p44
... the three human impulses embodied in religion are fear, conceit,
and hatred. The purpose of religion, one may say, is to give an
air of respectability to these passions, provided they run in
certain channels. It is because these passions. make, on the whole,
for human misery that religion is a force for evil, since it permits
men to indulge these passions without restraint, where but for
its sanction they might, at least to a certain degree, control
them.
p45
The church's conception of righteousness is socially undesirable
in various ways first and foremost in its depreciation of intelligence
and science. This defect is inherited from the Gospels. Christ
tells us to become as little children, but little children cannot
understand the differential calculus, or the principles of currency,
or the modern methods of combating disease. To acquire such knowledge
is no part of our duty, according to the church. The church no
longer contends that knowledge is in itself sinful, though it
did so in its palmy days; but the acquisition of knowledge, even
though not sinful, is dangerous, since it may lead to pride of
intellect, and hence to a questioning of the Christian dogma.
Take, for example, two men, one of whom has stamped out yellow
fever throughout some large region in the tropics but has in the
course of his labors had occasional relations with women to whom
he was not married; while the other has been lazy and shiftless,
begetting a child a year until his wife died of exhaustion and
taking so little care of his children that half of them died from
preventable causes, but never indulging in illicit sexual intercourse.
Every good Christian must maintain that the second of these men
is more virtuous than the first. Such an attitude is, of course,
superstitious and totally contrary to reason. Yet something of
this absurdity is inevitable so long as avoidance of sin is thought
more important than positive merit, and so long as the importance
of knowledge as a help to a useful life is not recognized.
The second and more fundamental objection
to the utilization of fear and hatred in the way practiced by
the church is that these emotions can now be almost wholly eliminated
from human nature by educational, economic, and political reforms.
The educational reforms must be the basis, since men who feel
hate and fear will also admire these emotions and wish to perpetuate
them, although this admiration and wish will probably be unconscious,
as it is in the ordinary Christian. An education designed to eliminate
fear is by no means difficult to create. It is only necessary
to treat a child with kindness, to put him in an environment where
initiative is possible without disastrous results, and to save
him from contact with adults who have irrational terrors, whether
of the dark, of mice, or of social revolution. A child must also
not be subject to severe punishment, or to threats, or to grave
and excessive reproof. To save a child from hatred is a somewhat
more elaborate business. Situations arousing jealousy must be
very carefully avoided by means of scrupulous and exact justice
as between different children. A child must feel himself the object
of warm affection on the part of some at least of the adults with
whom he has to do, and he must not be thwarted in his natural
activities and curiosities except when danger to life or health
is concerned. In particular, there must be no taboo on sex knowledge,
or on conversation about matters which conventional people consider
improper. If these simple precepts are observed from the start,
the child will be fearless and friendly.
On entering adult life, however, a young
person so educated will find himself or herself plunged into a
world full of injustice, full of cruelty, full of preventable
misery. The injustice, the .cruelty, and the misery that exist
in the modern world are an inheritance from the past, and their
ultimate source is economic, since life-and-death competition
for the means of subsistence was in former days inevitable. It
is not inevitable in our age. With our present industrial technique
we can, if we choose, provide a tolerable subsistence for everybody.
We could also secure that the world's population should be stationary
if we were not prevented by the political influence of churches
which prefer war, pestilence, and famine to contraception. The
knowledge exists by which universal happiness can be secured;
the chief obstacle to its utilization for that purpose is the
teaching of religion. Religion prevents our children from having
a rational education; religion prevents us from removing the fundamental
causes of war; religion prevents us from teaching the ethic of
scientific co-operation in place of the old fierce doctrines of
sin and punishment. It is possible that mankind is on the threshold
of a golden age; but, if so, it will be necessary first to slay
the dragon that guards the door, and this dragon is religion.
***
What I Believe
p58
Love at its fullest is an indissoluble combination of the two
elements, delight and well-wishing. The pleasure of a parent in
a beautiful and successful child combines both elements; so does
sex love at its best. But in sex love, benevolence will only exist
where there is secure possession, since otherwise jealousy will
destroy it, while perhaps actually increasing the delight in contemplation.
Delight without well-wishing may be cruel; well-wishing without
delight easily tends to become cold and a little superior. A person
who wishes to be loved wishes to be the object of a love containing
both elements, except in cases of extreme weakness, such as infancy
and severe illness. In these cases benevolence may be all that
is desired. Conversely, in cases of extreme strength, admiration
is more desired than benevolence: this is the state of mind of
potentates and famous beauties. We only desire other people's
good wishes in proportion as we feel ourselves in need of help
or in danger of harm from them. At least, that would seem to be
the biological logic of the situation, but it is not quite true
to life. We desire affection in order to escape from the feeling
of loneliness, in order to be, as we say, "understood."
This is a matter of sympathy, not merely of benevolence; the person
whose affection is satisfactory to us must not merely wish us
well but must know in what our happiness consists. But this belongs
to the other element of the good life-namely, knowledge.
p65
Current morality is a curious blend of utilitarianism and superstition,
but the superstitious part has the stronger hold, as is natural,
since superstition is the origin of moral rules. Originally, certain
acts were thought displeasing to the gods and were forbidden by
law because the divine wrath was apt to descend upon the community,
not merely upon the guilty individuals. Hence arose the conception
of sin as that which is displeasing to God. No reason can be assigned
as to why certain acts should be thus displeasing; it would be
very difficult to say, for instance, why it was displeasing that
the kid should be seethed in its mother's milk. But it was known
by Revelation that this was the case. Sometimes the Divine commands
have been curiously interpreted. For example, we are told not
to work on Saturdays, and
Protestants take this to mean that we
are not to play on Sundays. But the same sublime authority is
attributed to the new prohibition as to the old.
It is evident that a man with a scientific
outlook on life cannot let himself be intimidated by texts of
Scripture or by the teaching of the church. He will not be content
to say "such-and-such an act is sinful, and that ends the
matter." He will inquire whether it does any harm or whether,
on the contrary, the belief that it is sinful does harm. And he
will find that, especially in what concerns sex, our current morality
contains a very great deal of which the origin is purely superstitious.
He will find also that this superstition, like that of the Aztecs,
involves needless cruelty and would be swept away if people were
actuated by kindly feelings toward their neighbors. But the defenders
of traditional morality are seldom people with warm hearts, as
may be seen from the love of militarism displayed by church dignitaries.
One is tempted to think that they value morals as affording a
legitimate outlet for their desire to inflict pain; the sinner
is fair game, and therefore away with tolerance!
Let us follow an ordinary human life from
conception to the grave and note the points where superstitious
morals inflict preventable suffering. I begin with conception,
because here the influence of superstition is particularly noteworthy.
If the parents are not married, the child has a stigma, as clearly
undeserved as anything could be. If either of the parents has
venereal disease, the child is likely to inherit it. If they already
have too many children for the family income, there will be poverty,
underfeeding, overcrowding, very likely incest. Yet the great
majority of moralists agree that the parents had better not know
how to prevent this misery by preventing conception. * To please
these moralists, a life of torture is inflicted upon millions
of human beings who ought never to have existed, merely because
it is supposed that sexual intercourse is wicked unless accompanied
by desire for offspring, but not wicked when this desire is present,
even though the offspring is humanly certain to be wretched. To
be killed suddenly and then eaten, which was the fate of the Aztec's
victims, is a far less degree of suffering than is inflicted upon
a child born in miserable surroundings and tainted with venereal
disease. Yet it is the greater suffering which is deliberately
inflicted by bishops and politicians in the name of morality.
If they had even the smallest spark of love or pity for children
they could not adhere to a moral code involving this fiendish
cruelty.
At birth, and in early infancy, the average
child suffers more from economic causes than from superstition.
When well-to-do women have children, they have the best doctors,
the best nurses, the best diet, the best rest and the best exercise.
Working-class women do not enjoy these advantages, and frequently
their children die for lack of them. A little is done by the public
authorities in the way of care of mothers, but very grudgingly.
At a moment when the supply of milk to nursing mothers is being
cut down to save expense, public authorities will spend vast sums
on paving rich residential districts where there is little traffic.
They must know that in taking this decision they are continuing
a certain number of working-class children to death for the crime
of poverty. Yet the ruling party is supported by the immense majority
of ministers of religion, who, with the Pope at their head, have
pledged the vast forces of superstition throughout the world to
the support of social injustice.
In all stages of education the influence
of superstition is disastrous. A certain percentage of children
have the habit of thinking; one of the aims of education s to
cure them of this habit. Inconvenient questions are met with "hush,
hush" or with punishment. Collective emotion is used to instill
certain kinds of belief, more particularly nationalistic kinds.
Capitalists, militarists, and ecclesiastics co-operate in education,
because all depend for their power upon the prevalence of emotionalism
and the rarity of critical judgment. With the aid of human nature,
education succeeds in increasing and intensifying these propensities
of the average man.
Another way in which superstition damages
education is through its influence on the choice of teachers.
For economic reasons, a woman teacher must not be married; for
moral reasons, she must not have extramarital sexual relations.
And yet everybody who has taken the trouble to study morbid psychology
knows that prolonged virginity is, as a rule, extraordinarily
harmful to women, so harmful that, in a sane society, it would
be severely discouraged in teachers. The restrictions imposed
lead more and more to a refusal, on the part of energetic and
enterprising women, to enter the teaching profession. This is
all due to the lingering influence of superstitious asceticism.
At middle- and upper-class schools the
matter is even worse. There are chapel services, and the care
of morals is in the hands of clergymen. Clergymen almost necessarily
fail in two ways as teachers of morals. They condemn acts which
do no harm and they condone acts which do great harm. They all
condemn sexual relations between unmarried people who are fond
of each other but not yet sure that they wish to live together
all their lives. Most of them condemn birth control. None of them
condemn the brutality of a husband who causes his wife to die
of too frequent pregnancies.(I knew a fashionable clergyman whose
wife had nine children in nine years. The doctors told him that
if she had another she would die. Next year she had another and
died. No one condemned him; he retained his benefice and married
again.)So long as clergymen continue to con- done cruelty and
condemn innocent pleasure, they can only do harm as guardians
of the morals of the young.
Another bad effect of superstition on
education is the absence of instruction about the facts of sex.
The main physiological facts ought to be taught quite simply and
naturally before puberty at a time when they are not exciting.
At puberty, the elements of an unsuperstitious sexual morality
ought to be taught. Boys and girls should be taught that nothing
can justify sexual intercourse unless there is mutual inclination.
This is contrary to the teaching of the church, which holds that,
provided the parties are married and the man desires another child,
sexual intercourse is justified, however great may be the reluctance
of the wife. Boys and girls should be taught respect for each
other's liberty; they should be made to feel that nothing gives
one human being rights over another, and that jealousy and possessiveness
kill love. They should be taught that to bring another human being
into the world is a very serious matter, only to be undertaken
when the child will have a reasonable prospect of health, good
surroundings, and parental care. But they should also be taught
methods of birth control, so as to insure that children shall
only come when they are wanted. Finally, they should be taught
the dangers of venereal disease, and the methods of prevention
and cure. The increase of human happiness to be expected from
sex education on these lines is immeasurable.
It should be recognized that, in the absence
of children, sexual relations are a purely private matter, which
does not concern either the state or the neighbors. Certain forms
of sex which do not lead to children are at present punished by
the criminal law: this is purely superstitious, since the matter
is one which affects no one except the parties directly concerned.
Where there are children, it is a mistake to suppose that it is
necessarily to their interest to make divorce very difficult.
Habitual drunkenness, cruelty, insanity, are grounds upon which
divorce is necessary for the children's sake quite as much as
for the sake of the wife or husband. The peculiar importance attached,
at present, to adultery is quite irrational. It is obvious that
many forms of misconduct are more fatal to married happiness than
an occasional infidelity. Masculine insistence on a child a year,
which is not conventionally misconduct or cruelty, is the most
fatal of all.
Moral rules ought not to be such as to
make instinctive happiness impossible. Yet that is an effect of
strict monogamy in a community where the numbers of the two sexes
are very unequal. Of course, under such circumstances, the moral
rules are infringed. But when the rules are such that they can
only be obeyed by greatly diminishing the happiness of the community,
and when it is better they should be infringed than observed,
surely it is time that the rules were changed. If this is not
done, many people who are acting in a way not contrary to the
public interest are faced with the undeserved alternative of hypocrisy
or obloquy. The church does not mind hypocrisy, which is a flattering
tribute to its power; but elsewhere it has come to be recognized
as an evil which we ought not lightly to inflict.
p72
Christianity arose in the Roman Empire among populations, wholly
destitute of political power, whose national states had been destroyed
and merged in a vast impersonal aggregate. During the first three
centuries of the Christian Era the individuals who adopted Christianity
could not alter the social or political institutions under which
they lived, although they were profoundly convinced of their badness.
In these circumstances, it was natural that they should adopt
the belief that an individual may be perfect in an imperfect world,
and that the good life has nothing to do with this world. What
I mean may become plain by comparison with Plato's Republic. When
Plato wanted to describe the good life, he described a whole community,
not an individual; he did so in order to define justice, which
is an essentially social conception. He was accustomed to citizenship
of a Republic, and political responsibility was something which
he took for granted. With the loss of Greek freedom comes the
rise of Stoicism, which is like Christianity, and, unlike Plato,
in having an individualistic conception of the good life.
p74
The good life involves much besides virtue-intelligence, for instance.
And conscience is a most fallacious guide, since it consists of
vague reminiscences of precepts heard in early youth, so that
it is never wiser than its possessor's nurse or mother. To live
a good life in the fullest sense a man must have a good education,
friends, love, children (if he desires them), a sufficient income
to keep him from want and grave anxiety, good health, and work
which is not uninteresting. All these things, in varying degrees,
depend upon the community and are helped or hindered by political
events. The good life must be lived in a good society and is not
fully possible otherwise.
p76
To build up the good life, we must build up intelligence, self-control,
and sympathy. This is a quantitative matter, a matter of gradual
improvement, of early training, of educational experiment. Only
impatience prompts the belief in the possibility of sudden improvement.
The gradual improvement that is possible and the methods by which
it may be achieved are a matter for future science.
***
A Free Man's Worship
p107
A strange mystery it is that nature, omnipotent but blind, in
the revolutions of her secular hurryings through the abysses of
space, has brought forth at last a child, subject still to her
power, but gifted with sight, with knowledge of good and evil,
with the capacity of judging all the works of his unthinking mother.
In spite of death, the mark and seal of the parental control,
man is yet free, during his brief years, to examine, to criticize,
to know, and in imagination to create. To him alone, in the world
with which he is acquainted, this freedom belongs; and in this
lies his superiority to the resistless forces that control his
outward life.
The savage, like ourselves, feels the
oppression of his impotence before the powers of nature; but having
in himself nothing that he respects more than power, he is willing
to prostrate himself before his gods, without inquiring whether
they are worthy of his worship. Pathetic and very terrible is
the long history of cruelty and torture, of degradation and human
sacrifice, endured in the hope of placating the jealous gods:
surely, the trembling believer thinks, when what is most precious
has been freely given, their lust for blood must be appeased,
and more will not be required. The religion of Moloch-as such
creeds may be generically called-is in essence the cringing submission
of the slave, who dare not, even in his heart, allow the thought
that his master deserves no adulation. Since the independence
of ideals is not yet acknowledged, power may be freely worshiped
and receive an unlimited respect, despite its wanton infliction
of pain.
But gradually, as morality grows bolder,
the claim of the ideal world begins to be felt; and worship, if
it is not to cease, must be given to gods of another kind than
those created by the savage. Some, though they feel the demands
of the ideal, will still consciously reject them, still urging
that naked power is worthy of worship. Such is the attitude inculcated
in God's answer to job out of the whirlwind: the divine power
and knowledge are paraded, but of the divine goodness there is
no hint. Such also is the attitude of those who, in our own day,
base their morality upon the struggle for survival, maintaining
that the survivors are necessarily the fittest. But others not
content with an answer so repugnant to the moral sense will adopt
the position which we have become accustomed to regard as specially
religious, maintaining that, in some hidden manner, the world
of fact is really harmonious with the world of ideals. Thus man
created God, all-powerful and all-good, the mystic unity of what
is and what should be.
p109
When we have realized that power is largely bad, that man, with
his knowledge of good and evil, is but a helpless atom 1' in a
world which has no such knowledge, the choice is again presented
to us: Shall we worship force, or shall we worship goodness?
p109
Let us admit that, in the world we know, there are many things
that would be better otherwise, and that the ideals to which we
do and must adhere are not realized in the realm of matter. Let
us preserve our respect for truth, for beauty, for the ideal of
perfection which life does not permit us to attain ...
Why
I Am Not A Christian
Index of Website
Home
Page