Do you agree with bertrand Russell here when he said?

Question

Ministers of religion like other men are subject to mass hysteria,and mass hysteria can be produced in a politically ignorant population whenever it is likely to further the interestes of important groups of rich men.
You will be induced to die quietly by being told that you are dying for a noble cause ,but you will really be dying to make certain rich and powerful men more rich and powerful

Answer 1

I'm afraid I do agree, yes

Answer 2

Ooh, that's a bit cutting but right in most cases. Always had a nice turn of phrase did old Bertie... And so relevant today with the NATO and the US currently engaged in wars.

There are exceptions of course. What could have been more noble than the defeat of Nazism? Of course, not dying in the process would be better but you get my point.

Answer 3

Bertrand Russell had a few causes which he believed in really passionately, and pacifism was one of them. I think that here he believes he is clever enough to somewhat distort the truth so as to convince ordinary people to take a more anti-war attitude. Unfortunately he does not realise that by exaggerating like this, he has descended to the same level as the people he is accusing of deception.

Answer 4

Richard Dawkins addressed the priority by asserting that jointly because it quite is regionally misguided to have self belief interior the *absolute* impossibility of God, God is not extra probably than fairies. In prepare this makes it particularly real looking for somebody to furnish the God hypothesis no credence by any potential, jointly as leaving open the tiny and particularly no longer likely *logical* possibility that god and fairies exist. confusing atheists could usually be completely specific - as i'm - that there is not any God. they are beneficial sufficient of this to, working example, take no steps to circumvent the the two no longer likely possibility of eternal damnation. If a topic arose the place my existence depended on the existence or otherwise of a deity, i could have not any hesitation or qualms approximately staking it on no god present. it quite is not basically the shortcoming of data FOR a deity - to a rational guy or woman there is various convincing data against a god's existence. A universe or international wherein a deity existed could be predicted to be appreciably diverse from the international we see. further, God's meant characteristics - of the Abrahamic deity in specific - are actually not something like those of a real looking, universe-springing up superbeing. they are, on the different hand, precisely the characteristics of an imaginary deity as envisaged by primitive Bronze Age human beings. CD

Answer 5

No, I do not agree. This was said a long time ago and people today are more politically educated and politically active - they question, argue, dispute and protest more now than ever they did in Bertrand Russell's time - just think of the demo's every time groups like G8 meet. It may have been true when he said it, but I do not think it is true today.

Answer 6

I agree people join movements that they put their hearts and souls into. Movements that they are willing to endure martydom for. Once people believe enough that they are willing to die for these cause, the "higher ups", or politicians, can step up and take the credit to further themselves as the "makers" of whatever the subject may be.

Answer 7

Yes. Good thinker, Bertrand.

Answer 8

Yes

Answer 9

Are you sure it was Bertrand Russell who said that? That sounds more like something George W. would say.

Answer 10

Yes.

Answer 11

I suppose so. But this does not mean there are no noble causes.