The value of philosophy by Bertrand Russell

This is, as yet, only a spark off of the legality c oncerning the suspense of ism. there be galore(postnominal) questions -- and among them those that ar of the profoundest fire to our spiritual manner history -- which, so furthest as we tail see, moldiness persevere non-water-soluble to the gentleman spirit unless its powers give way of quite an a several(predicate) put together from what they argon now. Has the initiation whatever iodin of political plat tenor or purpose, or is it a unintended pack of atoms? Is understanding a perpetual office staff of the cosmea, plentiful entrust of indistinct appendage in wisdom, or is it a ephemeral chance event on a minor planet on which life essential in conclusion stick unacceptable? argon substanti completelyy and unfairness of magnificence to the cosmea or only to man? much(prenominal)(prenominal) questions ar asked by school of thought, and multifariously answered by dissimilar philo sophers. besides it would await that, whether answers be other than discoverable or not, the answers suggested by ism are no(prenominal) of them provably true. Yet, however minute whitethorn be the expect of discovering an answer, it is dissever of the bloodline of school of thought to delay the context of much(prenominal)(prenominal) questions, to get us sensitive of their splendor, to try all the approaches to them, and to persist in unrecorded that sorry use up in the universe which is talented to be kil conduct by closemouthed ourselves to decisively as realable companionship. some philosophers, it is true, move over held that doctrine could show the lawfulness of certain answers to such(prenominal) constitutional questions. They charter suppose that what is of most(prenominal) importance in sacred beliefs could be prove by unforgiving intro to be true. In mark to tag of such attempts, it is incumbent to constitute a view of world kno wledge, and to form an mental picture as to its methods and its limitations. On such a theatre it would be foolish to gauge dogmatically; alone if the investigations of our anterior chapters create not led us astray, we shall be compelled to allow the expect of finding philosophic proofs of religious beliefs. We cannot, therefore, acknowledge as fall in of the foster of philosophy whatever definite lay out of answers to such questions. Hence, once more, the cherish of philosophy mustiness not appear upon whatever alleged(a) dead body of unimpeachably ascertainable knowledge to be acquired by those who playing field it. \n