The ground for taking ignorance to be restrictive of freedom is that it causes people to make choices which they would not have made if they had seen what the realization of their choices involved.

It appears, then, that ethics, as a branch of knowledge, is nothing more than a department of psychologyand sociology.

Bertrand Russell would not have wished to be called a saint of any description; but he was a great and good man.

Why should you mind being wrong if someone can show you that you are?

A prevalent fallacy is the assumption that a proof of an afterlife would also be a proof of the existence of a deity. This is far from being the case. If, as I hold, there is no good reason to believe that a god either created or presides over this world, there is equally no good reason to believe that a god created or presides over the next world, on the unlikely supposition that such a thing exists.

I saw a Divine Being. I'm afraid I'm going to have to revise all my various books and opinions.

If 'god' is a metaphysical term, then it cannot be even probable that a god exists. For to say that 'God exists' is to make a metaphysical utterance which cannot be either true or false. And by the same criterion, no sentence which purports to describe the nature of a transcendent god can possess any literal significance.