What do you think?
Rate this book
Η αναγκαιότητα της αθεΐας
Στην παρούσα έκδοση συμπεριλαμβάνουμε τρία κείμενα του σπουδαίου ρομαντικού ποιητή Πέρσυ Μπυς Σέλλεϋ.
Το πρώτο, "Η αναγκαιότητα της αθεΐας", δημοσιεύτηκε από τον Σέλλεϋ το 1811 και του στοίχισε την αποβολή του από το University College της Οξφόρδης. Το δεύτερο είναι ένα απόσπασμα απ’ το κείμενο "Μια αντίκρουση του Ντεϊσμού", γραμμένο το 1814, όπου ο συγγραφέας επισημαίνει πολυάριθμες λογικές πλάνες στην υπόθεση της ύπαρξης ενός "νοήμονος δημιουργού" του σύμπαντος, ενώ το τρίτο, το "Περί της μέλλουσας κατάστασης", ένα κείμενο της ίδιας περιόδου που αφορά το ζήτημα της μεταθανάτιας ζωής.
Το πρώτο, "Η αναγκαιότητα της αθεΐας", δημοσιεύτηκε από τον Σέλλεϋ το 1811 και του στοίχισε την αποβολή του από το University College της Οξφόρδης. Το δεύτερο είναι ένα απόσπασμα απ’ το κείμενο "Μια αντίκρουση του Ντεϊσμού", γραμμένο το 1814, όπου ο συγγραφέας επισημαίνει πολυάριθμες λογικές πλάνες στην υπόθεση της ύπαρξης ενός "νοήμονος δημιουργού" του σύμπαντος, ενώ το τρίτο, το "Περί της μέλλουσας κατάστασης", ένα κείμενο της ίδιας περιόδου που αφορά το ζήτημα της μεταθανάτιας ζωής.
52 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 1811
29 people are currently reading
475 people want to read
About the author
Percy Bysshe Shelley
1,613 books1,386 followersWorks of Percy Bysshe Shelley, British romantic poet, include "To a Skylark" in 1820;
Prometheus Unbound
, the lyric drama; and "Adonais," an elegy of 1821 to John Keats.
The Cenci , work of art or literature of Percy Bysshe Shelley of 1819, depicts Beatrice Cenci, Italian noblewoman.
People widely consider Percy Bysshe Shelley among the finest majors of the English language. He is perhaps most famous for such anthology pieces as Ozymandias , Ode to the West Wind , and The Masque of Anarchy . His major long visionary Alastor , The Revolt of Islam , and the unfinished The Triumph of Life .
Unconventional life and uncompromising idealism of Percy Bysshe Shelley combined with his strong skeptical voice to make an authoritative and much denigrated figure during his life. He became the idol of the next two or three generations, the major Victorian and Pre-Raphaelite Robert Browning, Alfred Tennyson, Dante Gabriel Rossetti, Algernon Charles Swinburne, as well as William Butler Yeats and in other languages, such as Jibanananda Das and Subramanya Bharathy . Karl Marx, Henry Stephens Salt, and [authorm:Bertrand Russell] also admired him. Famous for his association with his contemporaries Lord Byron, he also married Mary Shelley, novelist.
The Cenci , work of art or literature of Percy Bysshe Shelley of 1819, depicts Beatrice Cenci, Italian noblewoman.
People widely consider Percy Bysshe Shelley among the finest majors of the English language. He is perhaps most famous for such anthology pieces as Ozymandias , Ode to the West Wind , and The Masque of Anarchy . His major long visionary Alastor , The Revolt of Islam , and the unfinished The Triumph of Life .
Unconventional life and uncompromising idealism of Percy Bysshe Shelley combined with his strong skeptical voice to make an authoritative and much denigrated figure during his life. He became the idol of the next two or three generations, the major Victorian and Pre-Raphaelite Robert Browning, Alfred Tennyson, Dante Gabriel Rossetti, Algernon Charles Swinburne, as well as William Butler Yeats and in other languages, such as Jibanananda Das and Subramanya Bharathy . Karl Marx, Henry Stephens Salt, and [authorm:Bertrand Russell] also admired him. Famous for his association with his contemporaries Lord Byron, he also married Mary Shelley, novelist.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 31 reviews
August 5, 2015
"There Is No God"
This is the title of the first chapter of this treatise. (It is also the conclusion.) Shelley knew what he wanted to say and he wanted it out front, right there where you will find it easily and quickly in the simplest of words. The rest is his argument.
And what an argument. Shelley asserted that disbelief in God is not a crime, but a choice just as much as belief is. If one has reasons to believe, a disbeliever also has some to disbelieve. Obviously a disbeliever, Shelley presented familiar arguments against the existence of God. I use the term "familiar" not because Shelley lacked originality, but because his arguments had later on influenced social and political thoughts and movements that at one point in any reader's pursuit of philosophical knowledge he or she would have come across the substance of Shelley's argument. (Plus, Shelley did borrow some ideas from great thinkers such as Bacon.)
A topic that Shelley kept coming back to in his argument is the contradicting and "irrational" nature of God propagated by superstitions and ignorance. "God is himself founded only on the authority of a few man who pretend to know him." And strangely among these few men there is no "harmony in the theological opinions". For Shelley, relying merely on these people shows gross neglect of one's capacity for profound thought and understanding. And so far in Shelley's life when he wrote this treatise, what he had had been told was simply unconvincing. Just take for example the preaching that God, being God, is inconceivable. "If he is inconceivable, why occupy ourselves with him? IF HE HAS SPOKEN WHY IS THE UNIVERSE NOT CONVINCED? If the knowledge of a God is the most necessary, why is it not the most evident and clearest?"
It is amazing that Shelley was only 18 when he wrote this treatise. It is passionate, convincing, and courageous. However, for his efforts he was expelled from Oxford, branded a "radical agitator and thinker", ostracized from intellectual and political circles and refused to be published. Did this impede his artistic and creative bent? No. He continued writing prose and poetry throughout his life.
A pity it was a short life.
This is the title of the first chapter of this treatise. (It is also the conclusion.) Shelley knew what he wanted to say and he wanted it out front, right there where you will find it easily and quickly in the simplest of words. The rest is his argument.
And what an argument. Shelley asserted that disbelief in God is not a crime, but a choice just as much as belief is. If one has reasons to believe, a disbeliever also has some to disbelieve. Obviously a disbeliever, Shelley presented familiar arguments against the existence of God. I use the term "familiar" not because Shelley lacked originality, but because his arguments had later on influenced social and political thoughts and movements that at one point in any reader's pursuit of philosophical knowledge he or she would have come across the substance of Shelley's argument. (Plus, Shelley did borrow some ideas from great thinkers such as Bacon.)
A topic that Shelley kept coming back to in his argument is the contradicting and "irrational" nature of God propagated by superstitions and ignorance. "God is himself founded only on the authority of a few man who pretend to know him." And strangely among these few men there is no "harmony in the theological opinions". For Shelley, relying merely on these people shows gross neglect of one's capacity for profound thought and understanding. And so far in Shelley's life when he wrote this treatise, what he had had been told was simply unconvincing. Just take for example the preaching that God, being God, is inconceivable. "If he is inconceivable, why occupy ourselves with him? IF HE HAS SPOKEN WHY IS THE UNIVERSE NOT CONVINCED? If the knowledge of a God is the most necessary, why is it not the most evident and clearest?"
It is amazing that Shelley was only 18 when he wrote this treatise. It is passionate, convincing, and courageous. However, for his efforts he was expelled from Oxford, branded a "radical agitator and thinker", ostracized from intellectual and political circles and refused to be published. Did this impede his artistic and creative bent? No. He continued writing prose and poetry throughout his life.
A pity it was a short life.
November 8, 2013
In 1811, Percy Bysshe Shelley, then a student at University College, Oxford, published a treatise on atheism which was initially distributed as a short tract. The tract started with the following rationale:
“As a love of truth is the only motive which actuates the Author of this little tract, he earnestly entreats that those of his readers who may discover any deficiency in his reasoning, or may be in possession of proofs which his mind could never obtain, would offer them, together with their objections to the Public, as briefly, as methodically, as plainly as he has taken the liberty of doing.”
— Percy Bysshe Shelley, The Necessity of Atheism
A revised and expanded version of this tract was reprinted in 1813.
Shelley made many a claim in the document, including; “one’s beliefs are involuntary…” and that ”atheists do not choose to be so and should not be persecuted…”, and towards the end that, ““the mind cannot believe in the existence of a God.”. (See related wikipedia entry: The Necessity of Atheism…)
In opening, he considers atheism as:
“There Is No God. This negation must be understood solely to affect a creative Deity. The hypothesis of a pervading Spirit co-eternal with the universe remains unshaken.”
— Percy Bysshe Shelley, The Necessity of Atheism
For the open-minded and freethinkers who wish to read Shelley’s treatise, it can be found online: http://www.infidels.org/library/histo...
“As a love of truth is the only motive which actuates the Author of this little tract, he earnestly entreats that those of his readers who may discover any deficiency in his reasoning, or may be in possession of proofs which his mind could never obtain, would offer them, together with their objections to the Public, as briefly, as methodically, as plainly as he has taken the liberty of doing.”
— Percy Bysshe Shelley, The Necessity of Atheism
A revised and expanded version of this tract was reprinted in 1813.
Shelley made many a claim in the document, including; “one’s beliefs are involuntary…” and that ”atheists do not choose to be so and should not be persecuted…”, and towards the end that, ““the mind cannot believe in the existence of a God.”. (See related wikipedia entry: The Necessity of Atheism…)
In opening, he considers atheism as:
“There Is No God. This negation must be understood solely to affect a creative Deity. The hypothesis of a pervading Spirit co-eternal with the universe remains unshaken.”
— Percy Bysshe Shelley, The Necessity of Atheism
For the open-minded and freethinkers who wish to read Shelley’s treatise, it can be found online: http://www.infidels.org/library/histo...
October 6, 2019
A Percy Byshe Shelley se lo conoce como “el marido de Mary”, como “el amigo de Lord Byorn”, y a veces también como uno de los máximos poetas en la historia de la lengua inglesa. Con menos frecuencia todavía, se recuerda que fue también un ateo militante, y un pensador de avanza para su tiempo, el temprano siglo XIX.
Tal vez la palabra "ateísmo", pese a ser la que él mismo emplea en este texto, no sea del todo exacta. Sus ideas religiosas, tal como las expone en este panfleto de 1811, parecen corresponderse mejor con el panteísmo o el panenteísmo. De lo que no quedan dudas, en todo caso, es de que Shelley se oponía a la idea de un dios personal, al concepto de revelación y a las religiones organizadas; estos son sus argumentos más organizados, y aquellos que vale la pena repasar.
“La creencia es una pasión, cuya fuerza, como la de cualquier otra pasión, es proporcional al grado de estímulo recibido.”
Partiendo de esta premisa protoconductista, Shelley identifica tres grados de estímulo: (1) los sentidos, (2) la razón y (3) el testimonio. La gradación significa que ningún nivel debería contradecir a los anteriores. Analiza entonces la hipótesis de Dios según estos tres grados: de acuerdo a la Razón, el universo tuvo o no una causa; es más fácil presuponer lo segundo. En cuanto a la existencia en sí, Shelley habla de un “poder generativo” que no puede ser explicado recurriendo a la idea de una deidad.
Por último, no se puede creer en el Testimonio si postula la existencia de una deidad irracional. Para Shelley, la actitud característicamente irracional del Dios abrahámico consiste en pedirnos fe, cuando la fe no es un acto volitivo. Además, de los atributos que normalmente se atribuyen al creador se infiere que, aun si este existiera, la resultaría irrelevante que lo adoráramos, le temiéramos, o incluso que creyéramos en él.
Shelley defiende entonces la presunción de ateísmo: “God is an hypothesis, and, as such, stands in need of proof: the onus probandi rests on the theist”. No se ocupa, en consecuencia, de refutar la existencia de Dios, pero ofrece una explicación sobre los orígenes del pensamiento religioso. Para Shelley, “Dios” es un término amplio, que podría aplicarse a cualquier cosa, y se coloca siempre allí donde el entendimiento humano deja de ver la cadena de causas y efectos:
“Mounting from cause to cause, mortal man has ended by seeing nothing; and it is in this obscurity that he has placed his God; it is in this darksome abyss that his uneasy imagination has always labored to fabricate chimeras, which will continue to afflict him until his knowledge of nature chases these phantoms which he has always so adored.”
Básicamente, la falacia que se conoce como "god of the gaps", y que Richard Dawkins, dos siglos después, presenta como un gran descubrimiento.
En segundo lugar, Shelley aborda los mecanismos psicológicos que rigen el pensamiento religioso. En primer lugar, sostiene que está basado en un principio de autoridad, sostenido por la imitación de los padres y la aceptación acrítica de los sacerdotes. Agrega también que “la esencia de la ignorancia es darle importancia a las cosas que no la tienen (…) cada uno, al pelear por Dios, pelea de hecho por los intereses de su propia vanidad”.
De la misma forma, Shelley argumenta que todas las esperanzas en una vida futura son nada más que una expresión de deseo, pues el hombre, como todos los organismos, posee un “espíritu enemistado con la nada y la disolución”.
Por último, Shelley se pregunta por qué Dios no se muestra, por qué no desenmascara a los que mienten en su nombre (necesariamente tiene que haberlos, tienen que ser la mayoría, puesto que casi todas las revelaciones excluyen a las demás).
Si es que Dios habló alguna vez a la humanidad, “¿por qué el universo no está convencido?”
Tal vez la palabra "ateísmo", pese a ser la que él mismo emplea en este texto, no sea del todo exacta. Sus ideas religiosas, tal como las expone en este panfleto de 1811, parecen corresponderse mejor con el panteísmo o el panenteísmo. De lo que no quedan dudas, en todo caso, es de que Shelley se oponía a la idea de un dios personal, al concepto de revelación y a las religiones organizadas; estos son sus argumentos más organizados, y aquellos que vale la pena repasar.
“La creencia es una pasión, cuya fuerza, como la de cualquier otra pasión, es proporcional al grado de estímulo recibido.”
Partiendo de esta premisa protoconductista, Shelley identifica tres grados de estímulo: (1) los sentidos, (2) la razón y (3) el testimonio. La gradación significa que ningún nivel debería contradecir a los anteriores. Analiza entonces la hipótesis de Dios según estos tres grados: de acuerdo a la Razón, el universo tuvo o no una causa; es más fácil presuponer lo segundo. En cuanto a la existencia en sí, Shelley habla de un “poder generativo” que no puede ser explicado recurriendo a la idea de una deidad.
Por último, no se puede creer en el Testimonio si postula la existencia de una deidad irracional. Para Shelley, la actitud característicamente irracional del Dios abrahámico consiste en pedirnos fe, cuando la fe no es un acto volitivo. Además, de los atributos que normalmente se atribuyen al creador se infiere que, aun si este existiera, la resultaría irrelevante que lo adoráramos, le temiéramos, o incluso que creyéramos en él.
Shelley defiende entonces la presunción de ateísmo: “God is an hypothesis, and, as such, stands in need of proof: the onus probandi rests on the theist”. No se ocupa, en consecuencia, de refutar la existencia de Dios, pero ofrece una explicación sobre los orígenes del pensamiento religioso. Para Shelley, “Dios” es un término amplio, que podría aplicarse a cualquier cosa, y se coloca siempre allí donde el entendimiento humano deja de ver la cadena de causas y efectos:
“Mounting from cause to cause, mortal man has ended by seeing nothing; and it is in this obscurity that he has placed his God; it is in this darksome abyss that his uneasy imagination has always labored to fabricate chimeras, which will continue to afflict him until his knowledge of nature chases these phantoms which he has always so adored.”
Básicamente, la falacia que se conoce como "god of the gaps", y que Richard Dawkins, dos siglos después, presenta como un gran descubrimiento.
En segundo lugar, Shelley aborda los mecanismos psicológicos que rigen el pensamiento religioso. En primer lugar, sostiene que está basado en un principio de autoridad, sostenido por la imitación de los padres y la aceptación acrítica de los sacerdotes. Agrega también que “la esencia de la ignorancia es darle importancia a las cosas que no la tienen (…) cada uno, al pelear por Dios, pelea de hecho por los intereses de su propia vanidad”.
De la misma forma, Shelley argumenta que todas las esperanzas en una vida futura son nada más que una expresión de deseo, pues el hombre, como todos los organismos, posee un “espíritu enemistado con la nada y la disolución”.
Por último, Shelley se pregunta por qué Dios no se muestra, por qué no desenmascara a los que mienten en su nombre (necesariamente tiene que haberlos, tienen que ser la mayoría, puesto que casi todas las revelaciones excluyen a las demás).
Si es que Dios habló alguna vez a la humanidad, “¿por qué el universo no está convencido?”
October 28, 2016
Of the many ways to approach atheism, there's Christopher Hitchens's journalistic approach - "this is what religion does" - and then there's Shelley's logical approach - "this is belief, this is God, there are three reasons why people start believing, this is why they are erroneous". Needless to say, after sending out the initial essay, Shelley was rusticated from Oxford U for refusing to deny authorship.
The extended and revised 1813 version is copyright-free and accessible on Feedbooks.
I was listening to another debate on censoring free speech - at Oxford U, no less - when Brendan O'Neill went up (against, ofc) and proceeded to mention it as a part of a series of essays and poems and world-changing theories that were initially perceived as offensive. Compared to what one is subjected to nowadays, the essay is very abstract and very compact. It is a siege, rather than a voluble rhetoric assail. Going back to Hitchens (his brother was on the debate, too!), his is definitely a more accessible work, but The Necessity of Atheism is definitely worth reading as an example of vigorous reasoning on the subject.
I am constantly amazed - though maybe I shouldn't be - at how many interesting things one can discover by chance, and yet be unable to find as part of everyday discussion or recommendations. Shelley got me at tracing the reasoning of two contending views.
Let us trace the reasoning which in one and the other have conducted to these two opinions, and endeavor to discover what we ought to think on a question of such momentous interest. Let us analyze the ideas and feelings which constitute the contending beliefs, and watchfully establish a discrimination between words and thoughts. Let us bring the question to the test of experience and fact; and ask ourselves, considering our nature in its entire extent, what light we derive from a sustained and comprehensive view of its component parts, which may enable us to assert, with certainty,, that we do or do not live after death.
The extended and revised 1813 version is copyright-free and accessible on Feedbooks.
I was listening to another debate on censoring free speech - at Oxford U, no less - when Brendan O'Neill went up (against, ofc) and proceeded to mention it as a part of a series of essays and poems and world-changing theories that were initially perceived as offensive. Compared to what one is subjected to nowadays, the essay is very abstract and very compact. It is a siege, rather than a voluble rhetoric assail. Going back to Hitchens (his brother was on the debate, too!), his is definitely a more accessible work, but The Necessity of Atheism is definitely worth reading as an example of vigorous reasoning on the subject.
I am constantly amazed - though maybe I shouldn't be - at how many interesting things one can discover by chance, and yet be unable to find as part of everyday discussion or recommendations. Shelley got me at tracing the reasoning of two contending views.
January 21, 2020
Read for uni
"In fact, even while admitting the existence of the theological God, and the reality of his
so discordant attributes which they impute to him, one can conclude nothing to authorize the conduct or the cult which one is prescribed to render him. Theology is truly the sieve
of the Danaides. By dint of contradictory qualities and hazarded assertions it has, that is
to say, so handicapped its God that it has made it impossible for him to act. If he is infinitely good, what reason should we have to fear him? If he is infinitely wise, why
should we have doubts concerning our future? If he knows all, why warn him of our
needs and fatigue him with our prayers? If he is everywhere, why erect temples to him? If he is just, why fear that he will punish the creatures that he has, filled with weaknesses?
If grace does everything for them, what reason would he have for recompensing them? If he is all-powerful, how offend him, how resist him? If he is reasonable, how can he be angry at the blind, to whom he has given the liberty of being unreasonable? If he is immovable, by what right do we pretend to make him change his decrees? If he is inconceivable, why occupy ourselves with him? IF HE HAS SPOKEN, WHY IS THE UNIVERSE NOT CONVINCED? If the knowledge of a God is the most necessary, why is it not the most evident and the clearest."
I'm shooketh.
I love my dissertation.
"In fact, even while admitting the existence of the theological God, and the reality of his
so discordant attributes which they impute to him, one can conclude nothing to authorize the conduct or the cult which one is prescribed to render him. Theology is truly the sieve
of the Danaides. By dint of contradictory qualities and hazarded assertions it has, that is
to say, so handicapped its God that it has made it impossible for him to act. If he is infinitely good, what reason should we have to fear him? If he is infinitely wise, why
should we have doubts concerning our future? If he knows all, why warn him of our
needs and fatigue him with our prayers? If he is everywhere, why erect temples to him? If he is just, why fear that he will punish the creatures that he has, filled with weaknesses?
If grace does everything for them, what reason would he have for recompensing them? If he is all-powerful, how offend him, how resist him? If he is reasonable, how can he be angry at the blind, to whom he has given the liberty of being unreasonable? If he is immovable, by what right do we pretend to make him change his decrees? If he is inconceivable, why occupy ourselves with him? IF HE HAS SPOKEN, WHY IS THE UNIVERSE NOT CONVINCED? If the knowledge of a God is the most necessary, why is it not the most evident and the clearest."
I'm shooketh.
I love my dissertation.
February 13, 2023
Shelley succintly reviews the main arguments of his time for the irrationality of belief, but his reasoning falters at the following step: the deity allegedly commanded to be believed (1); we can only command voluntary actions (2); belief is not an act of volition (3); therefore the deity is irrational. The author neglects that a command can be so forceful that it can directly affect our involuntary actions—e.g. beliefs—circumventing our will to act in that manner. This is especially the case when the command comes attached with great promises and threats. It would not be irrational for a being confident in its authority to use his persuasive power to attain its goals. In fact, it's a trick parents routinely use to try to influence the behavior of their children, who sometimes begrudgingly obey. Of course, the zero hypothesis is that all such commands are ultimately devised by humans.
For a more nuanced and painstaking argument it would be more rewarding to refer to Shelley's source, Paul Henri Thiry d'Holbach.
For a more nuanced and painstaking argument it would be more rewarding to refer to Shelley's source, Paul Henri Thiry d'Holbach.
January 4, 2017
At that time the content was so shocking to the authorities that he was rusticated for refusing to deny authorship, together with his friend and fellow student, Thomas Jefferson Hogg. A revised and expanded version was printed in 1813.
-Within the classical Atheism what I really like is the absence of a scientific and philosophic development as we it have now ! what I mean is that mostly classic atheists argued philosophically not with science - of course for the lack of a better method-(Hume's empiricism for example) but now most atheists don't bother with the philosophy of the Atomists or the Aristotelian Idea of morality simply because they say we have better answers now ... While this is true and I agree , It doesn't mean that we have to abandon the classic approach (dating back to 9 century BC). Some of the contemporary atheists have a reflection of Classic atheism in themselves: Prof.Peter Millican, A.C Grayling and my favorite Michael Martin (whose books are a must read for any atheist or agnostic).
-Within the classical Atheism what I really like is the absence of a scientific and philosophic development as we it have now ! what I mean is that mostly classic atheists argued philosophically not with science - of course for the lack of a better method-(Hume's empiricism for example) but now most atheists don't bother with the philosophy of the Atomists or the Aristotelian Idea of morality simply because they say we have better answers now ... While this is true and I agree , It doesn't mean that we have to abandon the classic approach (dating back to 9 century BC). Some of the contemporary atheists have a reflection of Classic atheism in themselves: Prof.Peter Millican, A.C Grayling and my favorite Michael Martin (whose books are a must read for any atheist or agnostic).
July 18, 2021
Un tratado corto, muy corto, pero muy denso. ¡Qué aburrido, por favor! (iba a decir por Dios, pero no quiero que Shelley se remueva en su tumba jejeje).
Se trata de un ensayo en el que el autor declara como lo natural es ser ateo; que la gente se "inventó" la idea de un dios creador por desconocimiento de las causas reales de lo que sucedía y que más tarde se mantiene por tradición; que en mundo racional y con conocimientos científicos, la superstición no tiene cabida. Es el teísmo el que debe demostrar la existencia de dios y no al revés.
Se trata de un ensayo en el que el autor declara como lo natural es ser ateo; que la gente se "inventó" la idea de un dios creador por desconocimiento de las causas reales de lo que sucedía y que más tarde se mantiene por tradición; que en mundo racional y con conocimientos científicos, la superstición no tiene cabida. Es el teísmo el que debe demostrar la existencia de dios y no al revés.
September 16, 2018
Sono venuta a conoscenza di questo testo che Shelley scrisse a 19 anni tramite l'ultimo romanzo che ho letto di Mary Wollstonecraft. Fu proprio a causa di questo breve scritto ritenuto scandaloso che Shelley venne cacciato da Oxford. Un saggio interessante quanto di spiccata attualità.
"Infatti, persino ammettendo l'esistenza del Dio della teologia e la realtà dei suoi attributi così discordanti che gli vengono attribuiti, non si può concludere nulla che autorizzi la condotta o il culto che ci viene prescritto di rendergli".
"Infatti, persino ammettendo l'esistenza del Dio della teologia e la realtà dei suoi attributi così discordanti che gli vengono attribuiti, non si può concludere nulla che autorizzi la condotta o il culto che ci viene prescritto di rendergli".
January 25, 2021
As both an atheist as a fan of Shelley, I really had to read this one. This essay was written more than 200 years ago, and it is quite crazy to think that nowadays, so many people worldwide continue to engage in a rhetoric that Shelley dismounted completely in merely a couple of pages. For his essay on atheism, Percy Shelley was expelled from Oxford University, and refusing to deny authorship of the work, he was never re-admitted. Shelley was a denigrated figure during his lifetime and quite a long time after that as well, due to his forward thinking, progressiveness and courage to question and challenge the status quo. He was a very unique individual for the 20th century: continuously seeking intellectual stimulation (which resulted in his marriage to Mary Wollstonecraft, as well as his friendship with Lord Byron, Leigh Hunt and John Keats), a promoter of idealism, peace, social justice, vegetarianism and non-violence. He inspired figures such as Gandhi, Karl Marx and W.B. Yeats, and had music composed by Sergei Rachmaninoff based on his poems.
Anyways, all the context is important for culturally and socially grounding this piece of criticism toward organised religion in particular - Shelley does not singularily hit out at Christianity, but on a more general level. Whule his arguments lack some of the empirical evidence that humankind has since been able to provide, the structuring of his rationale is extremely on point and intriguing. He first presents the three base degrees of excitement: the senses, thinking and the experience of others, and intersects each of these with the idea of a creative deity. He defines God as a hypothesis, which by definition needs demonstration if it is to be proven valid. In his representation as infinite, eternal and incomprehensible, the concept violates every law of the universe that we have grown to otherwise accept, and through a lack of physical proof, remains an unproven hypothesis. He very interestingly shows that God has historically been selected as the cause for any action or reaction that has at a certain point in history defied explanation, and that through education, the pool of such things narrows more and more.
"If ignorance of nature gave birth to gods, knowledge of nature is made for their destruction".
He then proceeds to delve in the social aspects of religious devotion - passed from generation to generation, given the fact that it will always be easier to accept the judgement of others. He looks at how religion generally forbids closer examination of matters, and how primitive practices such as kneeling (which has remained ever so popular 200 years later) perpetuated themselves through the ages due to submission to higher authorities and their 'profound wisdom'.
"A God made by man undoubtedly has need of man to make himself known to man".
Beyond the social interpretation of the above quote, it also provides a dig at the idea of an all-knowing, all-powerful entity. Shelley then asks why God is incapable of convincing the human mind of his existence, showing himself onto everyone and becoming equally understandable to all beings on Earth - presumably, all of it being his creation. He then provides a few contradictions as food for thought: for instance, why God is infinitely wise but has doubts regarding the future, and if he is all-knowing, why would we need to articulate prayers in order to communicate with him.
He then looks at life in general from the standpoint that nothing exists but as it is perceived, and that selves are social constructs devoid of exclusive sense normally attached to them as a given. And later, when talking about the prospect of life after death, he labels thought and the self as a by-product of physical organs, which at the point of death stop their functioning. He asks why thought should be looked at differenly than all other things, and thus exempted froom subjection to the same natural laws that anything physical is. And while nothing about an afterlife can be infered from natural laws, neither can it be infered from the presumption of the existence of God.
Shelley concludes by pointing out the mistaake of alleging the possibility of an opinion as proof of its truth. He shows just how easy it is to form any proposition that is sufficiently well constructed as to possess a faint inner logic with no apparent contradiction of itself, and treat it as a vindication.
"They persuade, indeed, only those who desire to be persuaded."
Anyways, all the context is important for culturally and socially grounding this piece of criticism toward organised religion in particular - Shelley does not singularily hit out at Christianity, but on a more general level. Whule his arguments lack some of the empirical evidence that humankind has since been able to provide, the structuring of his rationale is extremely on point and intriguing. He first presents the three base degrees of excitement: the senses, thinking and the experience of others, and intersects each of these with the idea of a creative deity. He defines God as a hypothesis, which by definition needs demonstration if it is to be proven valid. In his representation as infinite, eternal and incomprehensible, the concept violates every law of the universe that we have grown to otherwise accept, and through a lack of physical proof, remains an unproven hypothesis. He very interestingly shows that God has historically been selected as the cause for any action or reaction that has at a certain point in history defied explanation, and that through education, the pool of such things narrows more and more.
"If ignorance of nature gave birth to gods, knowledge of nature is made for their destruction".
He then proceeds to delve in the social aspects of religious devotion - passed from generation to generation, given the fact that it will always be easier to accept the judgement of others. He looks at how religion generally forbids closer examination of matters, and how primitive practices such as kneeling (which has remained ever so popular 200 years later) perpetuated themselves through the ages due to submission to higher authorities and their 'profound wisdom'.
"A God made by man undoubtedly has need of man to make himself known to man".
Beyond the social interpretation of the above quote, it also provides a dig at the idea of an all-knowing, all-powerful entity. Shelley then asks why God is incapable of convincing the human mind of his existence, showing himself onto everyone and becoming equally understandable to all beings on Earth - presumably, all of it being his creation. He then provides a few contradictions as food for thought: for instance, why God is infinitely wise but has doubts regarding the future, and if he is all-knowing, why would we need to articulate prayers in order to communicate with him.
He then looks at life in general from the standpoint that nothing exists but as it is perceived, and that selves are social constructs devoid of exclusive sense normally attached to them as a given. And later, when talking about the prospect of life after death, he labels thought and the self as a by-product of physical organs, which at the point of death stop their functioning. He asks why thought should be looked at differenly than all other things, and thus exempted froom subjection to the same natural laws that anything physical is. And while nothing about an afterlife can be infered from natural laws, neither can it be infered from the presumption of the existence of God.
Shelley concludes by pointing out the mistaake of alleging the possibility of an opinion as proof of its truth. He shows just how easy it is to form any proposition that is sufficiently well constructed as to possess a faint inner logic with no apparent contradiction of itself, and treat it as a vindication.
"They persuade, indeed, only those who desire to be persuaded."
January 17, 2024
Intresante overvejlers om religion og hvad en gud kræver. Jeg kan ikke sige at jeg altid er helt enig med ham men Percy Shelley formulerer sig godt, og har solide argumentere, som han bygger godt op.
July 1, 2013
Shelley wrote this brief tract when he was around eighteen years of age. It shows his stunning intellectual precocity and his gifts with the English language.
He was kicked out of University College at Oxford for writing this piece, and refusing to disown it. It's understandable, given the nature of the work. While well written and devoid of vulgarities, Shelley went a step too far by the standards of the day in giving a good argument against the existence of a deity.
I give this one four stars for its lack of Latin and French translations. Shelley uses quotes from a number of sources in these languages, and given I lack the polymathic abilities of a nineteenth century scholar, I was somewhat handicapped. A more modern version with footnotes might be in order.
He was kicked out of University College at Oxford for writing this piece, and refusing to disown it. It's understandable, given the nature of the work. While well written and devoid of vulgarities, Shelley went a step too far by the standards of the day in giving a good argument against the existence of a deity.
I give this one four stars for its lack of Latin and French translations. Shelley uses quotes from a number of sources in these languages, and given I lack the polymathic abilities of a nineteenth century scholar, I was somewhat handicapped. A more modern version with footnotes might be in order.
August 5, 2016
Shelley's essays (in addition to "The Necessity of Atheism", this edition includes "On Life" and "On a Future State") are at times somewhat superficial and one-sided, but he makes valid points, rather bold and advanced for the time they were written.
December 16, 2024
Saggi che spiccano non tanto per l'originalità delle argomentazioni, che traggono spunto da pensatori a lui precedenti (Bacon, tra gli altri) e che trattano riflessioni ampiamente sviluppate in seguito, quanto per il coraggio di esprimerle in età così giovanile, e al prezzo di essere espulso da Oxford.
Così comunicava la notizia a suo padre, in data 29 marzo 1811:
"Carissimo padre,
Sarete sicuramente venuto a conoscenza della sventura che si è abbattuta su di me e sul mio amico Mr. Hogg; mi addolora fortemente essere privato dei vantaggi che Oxford avrebbe potuto offrirmi, soprattutto se penso alla grande comprensione che voi avete sempre mostrato nei confronti dei miei errori e delle mie pene, comprensione che ora, temo, dovrà crescere grandemente.
Questo è ciò che successo: sapete bene che l’esercizio della ragione, seppure in questo caso non abbia richiesto un grande sforzo, mi ha indotto a non credere alle scritture.
Io e il mio amico abbiamo scoperto con sorpresa (benché ciò possa apparire strano) che le prove dell’esistenza di un Dio, man mano che procedevamo con l’analisi, risultavano lacunose.
Abbiamo quindi dato corpo ai nostri dubbi a riguardo, organizzandoli in modo sistematico sotto forma di “La Necessità dell’Ateismo”, credendo di ricevere una risposta soddisfacente, o insoddisfacente, da coloro che hanno fatto della Divinità l’oggetto dei loro studi.
Sapete come siamo stati trattati? Non come avrebbe richiesto la nostra condotta franca, candida e corretta: nessuno dei nostri argomenti sono stati confutati pubblicamente, e ciò ha dimostrato la debolezza della loro causa, ribadita pubblicamente dalla mia espulsione e da quella del mio amico.
Debbo necessariamente menzionare il fatto che all’inizio soltanto io sono stato sospettato. Sono stato convocato dinanzi al Consiglio e, avendo rifiutato di rinnegare la pubblicazione, sono stato espulso. Il mio amico, Mr. Hogg, ha insistito nel condividere la mia sorte; il risultato è che siamo stati espulsi entrambi.
So benissimo che, grazie alla vostra sensibilità, sarete solidale con le mie disgrazie. Spero che il
vostro dolore sarà alleviato dal sapere che, per quanto mi riguarda, sono perfettamente indifferente
alle azioni tiranniche e violente di Oxford. (...)"
Tra i saggi, credo il più rilevante possa dirsi il Dialogo fra due credenti, Eusebio, che crede nella rivelazione, e Teosofo, esponente della teologia razionale. La ragione porta inevitabilmente all’ateismo, quindi
l’unico modo per ammettere che dio esista è la rivelazione.
Piacevole lettura, probabilmente facilitata dal fatto di sposare il suo pensiero e le sue idee.
Così comunicava la notizia a suo padre, in data 29 marzo 1811:
"Carissimo padre,
Sarete sicuramente venuto a conoscenza della sventura che si è abbattuta su di me e sul mio amico Mr. Hogg; mi addolora fortemente essere privato dei vantaggi che Oxford avrebbe potuto offrirmi, soprattutto se penso alla grande comprensione che voi avete sempre mostrato nei confronti dei miei errori e delle mie pene, comprensione che ora, temo, dovrà crescere grandemente.
Questo è ciò che successo: sapete bene che l’esercizio della ragione, seppure in questo caso non abbia richiesto un grande sforzo, mi ha indotto a non credere alle scritture.
Io e il mio amico abbiamo scoperto con sorpresa (benché ciò possa apparire strano) che le prove dell’esistenza di un Dio, man mano che procedevamo con l’analisi, risultavano lacunose.
Abbiamo quindi dato corpo ai nostri dubbi a riguardo, organizzandoli in modo sistematico sotto forma di “La Necessità dell’Ateismo”, credendo di ricevere una risposta soddisfacente, o insoddisfacente, da coloro che hanno fatto della Divinità l’oggetto dei loro studi.
Sapete come siamo stati trattati? Non come avrebbe richiesto la nostra condotta franca, candida e corretta: nessuno dei nostri argomenti sono stati confutati pubblicamente, e ciò ha dimostrato la debolezza della loro causa, ribadita pubblicamente dalla mia espulsione e da quella del mio amico.
Debbo necessariamente menzionare il fatto che all’inizio soltanto io sono stato sospettato. Sono stato convocato dinanzi al Consiglio e, avendo rifiutato di rinnegare la pubblicazione, sono stato espulso. Il mio amico, Mr. Hogg, ha insistito nel condividere la mia sorte; il risultato è che siamo stati espulsi entrambi.
So benissimo che, grazie alla vostra sensibilità, sarete solidale con le mie disgrazie. Spero che il
vostro dolore sarà alleviato dal sapere che, per quanto mi riguarda, sono perfettamente indifferente
alle azioni tiranniche e violente di Oxford. (...)"
Tra i saggi, credo il più rilevante possa dirsi il Dialogo fra due credenti, Eusebio, che crede nella rivelazione, e Teosofo, esponente della teologia razionale. La ragione porta inevitabilmente all’ateismo, quindi
l’unico modo per ammettere che dio esista è la rivelazione.
Piacevole lettura, probabilmente facilitata dal fatto di sposare il suo pensiero e le sue idee.
July 23, 2023
By the word death, we express that condition in which natures resembling ourselves apparently cease to be that which they are. We no longer hear them speak, nor see them move. If they have sensations and apprehensions, we no longer participate in them. We know no more than that those external organs, and all that fine texture of material frame, without which we have no experience that life or thought can subsist, are dissolved and scattered abroad. The body is placed under the earth, and after a certain period there remains no vestige even of its form. This is that contemplation of inexhaustible melancholy, whose shadow eclipses the brightness of the world. The common observer is struck with dejection of the spectacle. He contends in vain against the persuasion of the grave, that the dead indeed cease to be. The corpse at his feet is prophetic of his own destiny. Those who have preceded him, and whose voice was delightful to his ear; whose touch met his like sweet and subtle fire: whose aspect spread a visionary light upon his path -- these he cannot meet again. The organs of sense are destroyed, and the intellectual operations dependent on them have perished with their sources. How can a corpse see or feel?
Alright - this not only gave me a painful headache (it's really dense!) but also blew my mind. I've ended up savouring every paragraph and heavily contemplating the implications.
Will be re-reading again soon - a lot of things to cite for my own tractatus right now as well.
This desire to be forever as we are; the reluctance to a violent and unexperienced change, which is common to all the animated and inanimate combinations of the universe, is, indeed, the secret persuasion which has given birth to the opinions of a future state.
Alright - this not only gave me a painful headache (it's really dense!) but also blew my mind. I've ended up savouring every paragraph and heavily contemplating the implications.
Will be re-reading again soon - a lot of things to cite for my own tractatus right now as well.
This desire to be forever as we are; the reluctance to a violent and unexperienced change, which is common to all the animated and inanimate combinations of the universe, is, indeed, the secret persuasion which has given birth to the opinions of a future state.
November 29, 2017
Let's be clear. I'm not endorsing the conclusion, but rather the quality and historical interest of the argument. And it's not the positions that are so interesting. One would be hard pressed to find ideas in this little treatise that have not been rehearsed or, indeed, elevated to articles of faith for modern secularism and scientism. Nevertheless, the young Shelley shows his mettle in the sustained force and rhetorical flourish of his disputation, culminating in a veritable fusillade of the incoherencies of Christian theology.
However, the most striking, and historically salient, aspect of the analysis is Shelley's epistemology itself. True to his romantic idealism, Shelley locates rational method not in the opinions of others or communal assent. Nor does he reach atheism by way of science. Instead, it is the heroic intellectual labor of the solitary genius that rends the veil of Religion and exposes the charlatans. Quite unlike modern scientism, Shelley's is ultimately a paradoxical atheism of sensibility rather than of sense.
However, the most striking, and historically salient, aspect of the analysis is Shelley's epistemology itself. True to his romantic idealism, Shelley locates rational method not in the opinions of others or communal assent. Nor does he reach atheism by way of science. Instead, it is the heroic intellectual labor of the solitary genius that rends the veil of Religion and exposes the charlatans. Quite unlike modern scientism, Shelley's is ultimately a paradoxical atheism of sensibility rather than of sense.
December 6, 2024
Is there life after death? That is, sort of intellectual preservation after cessation of bodily (or vital) functions? Shelley answers this by considering the opposite: Was there life before birth? He responds in the negative, arguing that what we mean by being alive, that is, hearing, seeing, recollecting, pondering, breathing, etc., involves the presence of certain biological processes and structures, without which one wouldn’t be able to perform that which we ascribe to living things. And if death is the cessation of those essential biological processes and structures, then there is no life after death.
Famously, it would be like asking—after extinguishing a fire—whether it still existed? Well, no, because it only existed because of a combinaison of things allowed it to exist, but once those are gone, the fire no longer is.
Famously, it would be like asking—after extinguishing a fire—whether it still existed? Well, no, because it only existed because of a combinaison of things allowed it to exist, but once those are gone, the fire no longer is.
September 11, 2025
It was short but a tough red for me because of the language. If I understood it correctly he argues
• Traditional arguments for God’s existence (such as design, first cause, or revelation) are unconvincing or circular.
• The responsibility lies with those claiming God exists to provide demonstrable evidence. Without this, atheism (or at least suspension of belief) is the rational stance.
An interesting read and amazing to think he was expelled from University for writing this.
• Traditional arguments for God’s existence (such as design, first cause, or revelation) are unconvincing or circular.
• The responsibility lies with those claiming God exists to provide demonstrable evidence. Without this, atheism (or at least suspension of belief) is the rational stance.
An interesting read and amazing to think he was expelled from University for writing this.
June 20, 2022
An eloquent argument against religion by one of the most illustrious atheists. There are surely responses against Shelly (this pamphlet is 200 years old after all) but it remains a powerfully persuasive work.
April 25, 2025
A piece of text that invokes a lot of questions. Percy deserves special applause for coming up with such logical arguments despite the deep rooted beliefs in that era. The language used is a bit difficult to read. Had to focus hard to complete it.
Read
December 31, 2021Jude 1:22
November 21, 2022
As belief is a passion of the mind, no degree of criminality is attachable to disbelief.
April 10, 2024
This was an absolute banger, Percy.
If ignorance of nature gave birth to gods, knowledge of nature is made for their destruction.
If ignorance of nature gave birth to gods, knowledge of nature is made for their destruction.
May 31, 2024
What amazes me about the book is when it was written.
These day's you won't get kicked out of University for being an Atheist.
These day's you won't get kicked out of University for being an Atheist.
January 3, 2025
Couldn't really follow a lot of this. I guess it's npt his fault he wrote it 250 years ago
April 16, 2025
"reason is founded on the evidence of our senses"
November 6, 2025
loved this essay, and love shelley ! reading the part where he talked about death was particularly emotional, especially knowing how tragically his life ended...
"By the word death, we express that condition in which natures resembling ourselves apparently cease to be that which they are. We no longer hear them speak, nor see them move. If they have sensations and apprehensions, we no longer participate in them. [...] The body is placed under the earth, and after a certain period there remains no vestige even of its form. This is that contemplation of inexhaustible melancholy, whose shadow eclipses the brightness of the world. The common observer is struck with dejection of the spectacle. He contends in vain against the persuasion of the grave, that the dead indeed cease to be. The corpse at his feet is prophetic of his own destiny. [...] The organs of sense are destroyed, and the intellectual operations dependent on them have perished with their sources. How can a corpse see or feel? its eyes are eaten out, and its heart is black and without motion. [...] Such are the anxious and fearful contemplations of the common observer, though the popular religion often prevents him from confessing them even to himself."
also, while reading this i found out he wasn't only a skilled poet: his writing is incredible in prose as well !
"Let us recollect our sensations as children. What a distinct and intense apprehension had we of the world and of ourselves! [...] We less habitually distinguished all that we saw and felt, from ourselves. They seemed, as it were, to constitute one mass. There are some persons who, in this respect, are always children. Those who are subject to the state called reverie, feel as if their nature were dissolved into the surrounding universe, or as if the surrounding universe were absorbed into their being. They are conscious of no distinction."
since i'm not religious i didn't need convincing or anything but i loved how persuasive and firm he sounded while talking about god here, sucks that he was too ahead of his time
If he is infinitely good, what reason should we have to fear him? If he is infinitely wise, why should we have doubts concerning our future? If he knows all, why warn him of our needs and fatigue him with our prayers? If he is everywhere, why erect temples to him? If he is just, why fear that he will punish the creatures that he has filled with weaknesses? If grace does everything for them, what reason would he have for recompensing them? If he is all-powerful, how offend him, how resist him? If he is reasonable, how can he be angry at the blind, to whom he has given the liberty of being unreasonable? If he is immovable, by what right do we pretend to make him change his decrees? If he is inconceivable, why occupy ourselves with him? IF HE HAS SPOKEN, WHY IS THE UNIVERSE NOT CONVINCED?
"By the word death, we express that condition in which natures resembling ourselves apparently cease to be that which they are. We no longer hear them speak, nor see them move. If they have sensations and apprehensions, we no longer participate in them. [...] The body is placed under the earth, and after a certain period there remains no vestige even of its form. This is that contemplation of inexhaustible melancholy, whose shadow eclipses the brightness of the world. The common observer is struck with dejection of the spectacle. He contends in vain against the persuasion of the grave, that the dead indeed cease to be. The corpse at his feet is prophetic of his own destiny. [...] The organs of sense are destroyed, and the intellectual operations dependent on them have perished with their sources. How can a corpse see or feel? its eyes are eaten out, and its heart is black and without motion. [...] Such are the anxious and fearful contemplations of the common observer, though the popular religion often prevents him from confessing them even to himself."
also, while reading this i found out he wasn't only a skilled poet: his writing is incredible in prose as well !
"Let us recollect our sensations as children. What a distinct and intense apprehension had we of the world and of ourselves! [...] We less habitually distinguished all that we saw and felt, from ourselves. They seemed, as it were, to constitute one mass. There are some persons who, in this respect, are always children. Those who are subject to the state called reverie, feel as if their nature were dissolved into the surrounding universe, or as if the surrounding universe were absorbed into their being. They are conscious of no distinction."
since i'm not religious i didn't need convincing or anything but i loved how persuasive and firm he sounded while talking about god here, sucks that he was too ahead of his time
If he is infinitely good, what reason should we have to fear him? If he is infinitely wise, why should we have doubts concerning our future? If he knows all, why warn him of our needs and fatigue him with our prayers? If he is everywhere, why erect temples to him? If he is just, why fear that he will punish the creatures that he has filled with weaknesses? If grace does everything for them, what reason would he have for recompensing them? If he is all-powerful, how offend him, how resist him? If he is reasonable, how can he be angry at the blind, to whom he has given the liberty of being unreasonable? If he is immovable, by what right do we pretend to make him change his decrees? If he is inconceivable, why occupy ourselves with him? IF HE HAS SPOKEN, WHY IS THE UNIVERSE NOT CONVINCED?
July 12, 2014
First: The edition is a little rough; paging is broken up by what appears to the the original print pagination; there are also a few minor typographical errors, but nothing (that seems) to change the intended meaning.
On arguments are nothing new to a modern reader on religion and atheism, but it is worthwhile to read to see a historical snapshot in the evolution of such ideas.
On arguments are nothing new to a modern reader on religion and atheism, but it is worthwhile to read to see a historical snapshot in the evolution of such ideas.
January 12, 2015
A short read but a big point - " every reflecting mind must acknowledge that there is no proof of the existence of a Deity". There was no 'I' before birth and there is nothing when I cease. Shelley knew the score. It's a pity for the world that more refuse to recognize that God is nothing more than an unproven hypothesis.
January 16, 2014
This guy was way ahead of his time and died far too young. Quick and well argued justification for atheism.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 31 reviews