Renowned logician, mathematician and philosopher, Bertrand Arthur William Russell considered religion to be a simple set of superstitions devoid of any rationality. He always maintained that religion is above all based on fear (Bertrand). Russell's liberal and rationalist approach may be surprising considering the conservative environment in which he grew up. “The atmosphere was one of frequent prayer, emotional repression and formality.” Russell therefore used his writing as a way to let off steam. Over the next few years he wrote numerous essays; The one that perhaps stood out the most was “Is There a God?” » Reconciling faith with science and logic has always been problematic. With the advancement of the scientific world and the emergence of philosophy, some people began to view science and religion as two mutually exclusive entities. At a time when there was such a great disparity between logic, science, and religion, Russell's article only widened that gap; however, it also posed some crucial questions that any society must answer to succeed. Blind faith in a set of rituals is of no use. It is only after questioning one's own faith that one develops a better understanding of it. In his essay, Russell questions the existence of a supreme being. Although his arguments are engaging and grounded in sound reasoning, certain logical fallacies sometimes demerit his otherwise logical assertions against theism. In this essay, written in 1952, Russell begins by giving a brief history of the evolution of the monotheistic tradition of Jews and Jews. how Islam and Christianity followed suit. He then goes on to refute many of the arguments presented by theologians when faced with the burden of proving that Go...... middle of article ......s believe that God does not exist because of the lack of evidence in favor of his existence but this lack of evidence does not necessarily imply the non-existence of God. Neutrinos, particles that travel at speeds greater than the speed of light, have recently been discovered. Does this mean that neutrinos did not exist before this? No. Just because there wasn't enough evidence for the existence of neutrinos doesn't mean they didn't exist. So to suggest that the “burden of proof” falls solely on theists would be a mistake. Atheists also share the burden of proof and therefore must give concrete reasons to disprove the existence of God and not rely solely on insufficient evidence to justify their non-existence. Works Cited Russell, Bertrand, John Greer. Slater and Peter Kollner. “Is there a God?” The Collected Papers of Bertrand Russell. London: Routledge, 1997. 543-48. Print.