I haven’t read much Bertrand Russell. I came across his essay, Why I Am Not a Christian, when I was in my mid-twenties. Interesting and provocative. What intrigues me is that he, an atheist, uses the terms “heaven” and “spirit” in this quote. This is just a quote for thought, not a gauntlet thrown to start a debate about the merits or demerits of atheism, Christianity, or other religions.
That which exists through itself is called The Eternal. The Eternal has neither name nor shape. It is the one essence, the one primal spirit. Essence and life cannot be seen. They are contained in the light of heaven. The light of heaven cannot be seen. It is contained in the two eyes.
–Bertrand Russell
[update 12/13/05: The quote here is not, as far as I could tell, from the essay I mention. I found the quote on a random search and remembered the essay.]
Interesting, revealing, and surprising… I have read a bit of Russell, but not this selection. He was a most enigmatic thinker and person, often seeming to be self-contradictory. His aetheism is no secret, but these references to “The Eternal”…? Guess I need to read the entire essay and get it in context.
Actually, the quote isn’t from that essay. I just happened across it. So it would be interesting to read what essay it’s from. The context would help, I’m sure.
Sounds pretty Taoist/Daoist to me:
The tao that can be described
is not the eternal Tao.
The name that can be spoken
is not the eternal Name.
The nameless is the boundary of Heaven and Earth.
The named is the mother of creation.
Taking one perspective, one might suggest he was saying that heaven is something contained wholly within your own experience. The Eternal, heaven — simply labels for ideas.
Doesn’t seem to be contradictory to an atheist belief system, but then again, that may just be the way my brain is processing it. And admittedly, I’m only passingly familiar with Bertrand Russell.
Sounds like Aristotle or, later, Thomas Aquinas.
Absolute and contingent being.
Why I am not a Christian was expanded into book length by Russell. I have it on a shelf somewhere. I don’t remember this specific quote, but my guess is that he was attempting to define the “other side” so that he could marshall his arguments against it. Agree with him or not, Russell did try to be fair in his argumentation.