Replies

I think my analysis works just as well if we change it to read "religion implies mysticism" rather than "religion is mysticism", and that's rather easier to derive from the text, although I agree it's a mess in terms of clarity of meaning. But no matter what, "religion never remains for long altogether untouched by mysticism" means that religion and mysticism are always connected somehow - where there is religion, there will always be mysticism, is the only way to read "religion never remains...untouched by mysticism". Whether that's because mysticism is seen as a component of religion, as your analysis suggests, or because it's a consequence of religion, as mine suggests, really matters not - either way, it's a fallacy. That's why I liked your approach, because it covers the other of the two possible interpretations that I see. And with some minor tweaking, your approach will cover the final route of escape - rather than suggesting that mysticism is a component of religion as you have done, suggesting that religion is a component of mysticism will also lead one into fallacious reasoning, the explication of which is left as an exercise for the reader... ;)

8. Mr. Stace says that my writings are "extremely obscure," and this is a matter as to which the author [Russell speaking in the third person about himself] is the worst of all possible judges. I must therefore accept his opinion. [Ding, ding, ding!] As I have a very intense desire to make my meaning plain, I regret this.
— BERTRAND RUSSELL, "Reply to Criticisms," in P. A. Schilpp. ed., The Philosophy of Bertrand Russell (Evanston, IL: The Library of Living Philosophers), p. 707

Russell is obviously being silly here, effecting a most uncharacteristic humility. He is sarcastically accepting the criticism of someone he may well regard as a fool, merely because it would be -- to his critics -- arrogant for Russell to point out the great clarity of his writings, and presumably the large number of people who would agree with that assessment. (Personally, I've always found Russell to be extremely clear in his prose.)

Anyway, he's pretending to accept a conclusion for the reason that he is too ignorant to judge whether it may in fact be right or wrong. This is probably an Argument Ad Ignorantiam, but I'm not certain of this. It's fairly common, as when people refuse to examine a matter, saying: "Who am I to judge?"