Lewis and Chesterton's responses to Russel were orders of magnitude more important and interesting.  Russel's empiricism falls on it's own sword. To use the example Charles used if you say "I only believe what can be observed by science" you've contradicted yourself because the statement you just made cannot be proven or observed by science. It's like saying "there's no such thing as Truth" you again saw off the branch on which you sit. Is your statement true or not?  Charles may be a great programmer but philosophy isn't his forte.