(As Jamil was, in the "Speak up please" comments below...
It was on this day in 1811 that 18-year-old
Percy Bysshe Shelley was expelled from Oxford University because he refused to deny authorship of a pamphlet called
The Necessity of Atheism... (WA,
continues)
“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?”
― Percy Bysshe Shelley, The Necessity of Atheism and Other Essays
g'r
WOW! I had no knowledge of this: the pamphlet or Shelley's atheism. Will check out the links you provide and return with comments. Thanks for sharing!
ReplyDeleteThe tract's remarks about belief are interesting:
ReplyDelete"The mind is active in the investigation, in order to perfect the state of perception which is passive; the investigation being confused with the perception has induced many falsely to imagine that the mind is active in belief, that belief is an act of volition, in consequence of which it may be regulated by the mind."
What's the history of the idea that belief is an act of volition? Who among our class, I wonder, thinks that we--or they--can will ourselves to believe something? I suspect that some people feel that way about theism, that their belief in God is voluntary. I'm also reminded a bit of encouragements to take a leap of faith, although I'm sure these two things are different.
It's interesting to read the argument that, since our perception of agreement or disagreement in ideas and subsequent belief happens "automatically," God would be irrational for commanding us to believe when a perception of agreement did not occur or rewarding/punishing us for something over which we have far less control than typically assumed. I certainly feel like I cannot sincerely believe in God. And would think it rather unfair to be punished for not believing in something that to me is so clearly, well, unbelievable!
Also, this:
"1st, The evidence of the senses. -- If the Deity should appear to us, if he should convince our senses of his existence; this revelation would necessarily command belief; -- Those to whom the Deity has thus appeared, have the strongest possible conviction of his existence."
This is where I struggle with Dana's dismissal of theism/theists as irrational. For those who have had direct and compelling experiences of supernatural realties, it can be rational to have such beliefs, right? Maybe we're working with different understandings of rationality???