A renowned logician, mathematician and philosopher, Bertrand Arthur William Russell considered religion simply a pile of superstitions devoid of any rationality. He always maintained that religion is based first and foremost 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.” So Russell used his writing as a means to vent. In the following years he wrote numerous essays; one that perhaps struck me the most was “Is there a God?” Reconciling faith with science and logic has always been problematic. With advances in the world of science and the emergence of philosophy, some people have begun to see science and religion as two mutually exclusive entities. In an age where such a great disparity between logic, science and religion prevailed, Russell's article only served to widen this gap; however, it also posed some crucial questions that every company must answer if it wants to succeed. Blind faith in a set of rituals is not good. It is only after questioning one's 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 based on sound reasoning, some logical errors sometimes detract from his otherwise logical claims against theism. In this essay, written in 1952, Russell begins by providing a brief history of the evolution of the monotheistic tradition of the Jews and how Islam and Christianity followed suit. He then goes on to refute many of the arguments that theologians present when faced with the burden of proving that Go... middle of paper ...... believes that God does not exist due to a lack of evidence for His existence, but this lack of evidence does not necessarily imply the non-existence of God. Neutrinos, particles that move at speeds faster than the speed of light, have recently been discovered. Does this mean neutrinos didn't 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 imply that the “burden of proof” falls only on theists would be wrong. Atheists equally share the burden of proof and therefore should provide concrete reasons to disprove the existence of God and not simply rely on insufficient evidence as the cause of non-existence. Works Cited Russell, Bertrand, John Greer. Slater and Peter Kollner. "Is there a God?" Bertrand Russell's collection of papers. London: Routledge, 1997. 543-48. Press.