What do you think?
Rate this book
Necessity of Atheism and Other Essays
The great Romantic poet Percy Bysshe Shelley (1792-1822), best known for such masterpieces as "Ode to the West Wind" and "Prometheus Unbound," also expressed his ideas on religious oppression in works of impassioned prose.The Necessity of Atheism and Other Essays features five anti-religious tracts by "On Christianity," "The Necessity of Atheism" (which resulted in the youthful Shelley's expulsion from Oxford in 1811), "On Life," "On a Future State," and "A Refutation of Deism." Like his great poems, these works extol the spirit of mankind and argue that Christianity, with its repressive belief system, is wholly out of keeping with human ideals and aspirations.A philosopher as well as a poet, Shelley argues that the divine attributes of God are merely projections of human powers; life everlasting cannot be empirically demonstrated, for it runs counter to all the evidence for mortality given by the natural world, which is the only world we know.During his brief life, Shelley affronted the armies of Christendom with a single-minded purpose. As Shelley observes in his dialogue "A Refutation of Deism," there can be no middle ground between accepting revealed religion and disbelieving in the existence of a deity - another way of stating the necessity of atheism.In all, these essays provide an important statement of the poet and freethinker's enlightened views on skepticism, faith, and the corruption of organized Christianity
95 pages, Hardcover
First published January 1, 1993
14 people are currently reading
938 people want to read
About the author
Percy Bysshe Shelley
1,573 books1,370 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 - 23 of 23 reviews
February 10, 2017
Shelley was not an atheist in any sense. He was, in fact, an agnostic. He did not deny the presence of a God or an omnipotent presence. He simply said it cannot be proven, so by extension it cannot be unproven. He would not believe in anything fully until he had seen it with his own two eyes; he was pragmatic enough to understand he couldn’t factualy deny a higher power either by the same logic. He also hated the systems of religion, but not religion itself. He believed that the concept of the Christian God was flawed, but the idea of a higher power was not. He rejected monotheism, but was open to alternatives; it’s his Hellenism shining through.
So Shelley, in his characteristically rash way, got himself thrown out of Oxford University by writing this paper. He had the cheekiness, and audacity, to mail it to all the heads of churches in the area and other high placed figures. Originally, it was done completely anonymously. His professors knew him to well, and when they saw it in circulation they immediately recognised the words of its young author. They gave him an ultimatum: recant his words or go. Shelley left soon after; a man’s principles are worth more than any position.
The church he saw as lecherous and corrupt; it was a dominating power that was, ultimately, self-serving; it existed for its own ends rather than faith. The higher echelons of the hierarchy could use their power to acquire wealth and luxury; they could indulge in vice and luxury, essentially, undermining the principles they profess to have. They controlled the populace with their unnatural systems and dictations; it left man in a state that was illogical and beyond the realms of what he should be. Shelley viewed it as a bastion of self-conceiting foolishness:
“If ignorance of nature gave birth to gods, knowledge of nature is made for their destruction.”
Shelley calls for a rebirth, a rejuvenation of this natural state. But what is this natural state? Well, for Shelley it was many things. Knowledge of nature meant a vegetarian diet; it meant the doctrine of free-love and an embrace of universal compassion. It meant the wisdom to govern oneself rather than being dominated by governmental powers. Shelley was very young when he wrote these words; he was radical and impassioned by his idealism. But, he believed them. His philosophy was centred on this Romantic idealisation of nature, of a return to a simpler and purer state; Shelley wanted change; he wanted an alternative the corruption of such institutions, which he believed helped to usher in the darkness that was in man’s heart. He saw the current state of man as vile and evil; he saw the world as a place continuing on this path of destruction. So he called for a radical shift in man’s politics, beliefs and character. His goals were lofty, for sure, but they were most certainly benevolent.
So Shelley, in his characteristically rash way, got himself thrown out of Oxford University by writing this paper. He had the cheekiness, and audacity, to mail it to all the heads of churches in the area and other high placed figures. Originally, it was done completely anonymously. His professors knew him to well, and when they saw it in circulation they immediately recognised the words of its young author. They gave him an ultimatum: recant his words or go. Shelley left soon after; a man’s principles are worth more than any position.
The church he saw as lecherous and corrupt; it was a dominating power that was, ultimately, self-serving; it existed for its own ends rather than faith. The higher echelons of the hierarchy could use their power to acquire wealth and luxury; they could indulge in vice and luxury, essentially, undermining the principles they profess to have. They controlled the populace with their unnatural systems and dictations; it left man in a state that was illogical and beyond the realms of what he should be. Shelley viewed it as a bastion of self-conceiting foolishness:
“If ignorance of nature gave birth to gods, knowledge of nature is made for their destruction.”
Shelley calls for a rebirth, a rejuvenation of this natural state. But what is this natural state? Well, for Shelley it was many things. Knowledge of nature meant a vegetarian diet; it meant the doctrine of free-love and an embrace of universal compassion. It meant the wisdom to govern oneself rather than being dominated by governmental powers. Shelley was very young when he wrote these words; he was radical and impassioned by his idealism. But, he believed them. His philosophy was centred on this Romantic idealisation of nature, of a return to a simpler and purer state; Shelley wanted change; he wanted an alternative the corruption of such institutions, which he believed helped to usher in the darkness that was in man’s heart. He saw the current state of man as vile and evil; he saw the world as a place continuing on this path of destruction. So he called for a radical shift in man’s politics, beliefs and character. His goals were lofty, for sure, but they were most certainly benevolent.
October 5, 2012
Brief treatment of Christianity and Atheism, many of which written when Shelley was 19 years old! The most effective is not the title essay, "The Necessity of Atheism" (half is translated from the French), but instead the last work, a Socratic dialogue between Theosophus and Eusebes regarding the veracity of supernatural claims. They discuss the evidence for God, the claims of Christ, and the major problems with the major monotheisms, all with a quick wit and razor-sharp reasoning that should avail all of us.
October 8, 2022
Note: This review deals only with the title essay: Goodreads lacked a title which included it alone.
Written in 1811 when Shelley was in his first year at Oxford and still in his late teens, this pamphlet of only four or five pages was published anonymously. Still, it supposedly excited such a furor that when called to account for it, the irrepressibly headstrong Shelley did not deny its authorship and eventually said enough in its defence to get himself expelled.
For such a tempestuous backstory, the pamphlet itself makes quite dry reading. Convoluted arguments, extraordinarily long sentences with multiple qualifiers and a general impulse it seems to impress rather to elicit any clear understanding, it has all the marks of a young writer trying to impress his audience with the maturity of his erudition.
Still, the argument is solid. He attacks belief in a Supreme Being on three fronts, each of which represents a supposed pillar for those who have faith. First, Evidence of the Senses: if anyone has seen God, then One would have to admit God exists. The implied understanding here is, I assume, that since nobody can say such, this pillar fails to support its weight. Second, Reason: since all things have a cause, to assume a supreme being which created the world in no specific time or place since it is eternal simply doesn’t make sense. ‘To suppose an eternal, omniscient Almighty Being renders the cause even more incomprehensible’. Third: Testimony: People claim to have seen God, but such claims are not only doubtful but seem to have been more than a little coerced: ‘he commanded that he should be believed, he proposed the highest rewards for faith, eternal punishments for disbelief.’ Any ‘witnesses’ operating through such a system surely should have their evidence heavily discounted.
As an atheist myself, I have little argument with Shelley’s analysis. However, one cannot help but wish that he had presented it in a longer, more readable text, which would have gone a lot further to making his point. However, given his youth impulsivity, it appears likely that it was more his willingness to defy existing structures of belief and the support they received from established authorities than to actually convince anyone of his arguments that motivated this writing.
Not bad, but it could have been so much better.
Written in 1811 when Shelley was in his first year at Oxford and still in his late teens, this pamphlet of only four or five pages was published anonymously. Still, it supposedly excited such a furor that when called to account for it, the irrepressibly headstrong Shelley did not deny its authorship and eventually said enough in its defence to get himself expelled.
For such a tempestuous backstory, the pamphlet itself makes quite dry reading. Convoluted arguments, extraordinarily long sentences with multiple qualifiers and a general impulse it seems to impress rather to elicit any clear understanding, it has all the marks of a young writer trying to impress his audience with the maturity of his erudition.
Still, the argument is solid. He attacks belief in a Supreme Being on three fronts, each of which represents a supposed pillar for those who have faith. First, Evidence of the Senses: if anyone has seen God, then One would have to admit God exists. The implied understanding here is, I assume, that since nobody can say such, this pillar fails to support its weight. Second, Reason: since all things have a cause, to assume a supreme being which created the world in no specific time or place since it is eternal simply doesn’t make sense. ‘To suppose an eternal, omniscient Almighty Being renders the cause even more incomprehensible’. Third: Testimony: People claim to have seen God, but such claims are not only doubtful but seem to have been more than a little coerced: ‘he commanded that he should be believed, he proposed the highest rewards for faith, eternal punishments for disbelief.’ Any ‘witnesses’ operating through such a system surely should have their evidence heavily discounted.
As an atheist myself, I have little argument with Shelley’s analysis. However, one cannot help but wish that he had presented it in a longer, more readable text, which would have gone a lot further to making his point. However, given his youth impulsivity, it appears likely that it was more his willingness to defy existing structures of belief and the support they received from established authorities than to actually convince anyone of his arguments that motivated this writing.
Not bad, but it could have been so much better.
January 2, 2013
(no other essays)
Shelley rebuts the common arguments over the existence of a creator-god, the after life, while condemning religion as a force of fear and ignorance.
Nothing you haven't heard before, but given that it was written 200 years ago and Shelley was expelled from the Oxford university for it, it's an interesting piece of history for atheists. Moreover, Shelley's reasoning is surprisingly enduring even when he refers to science, and of course, the whole text has the eloquence of one of the great romantic poets: "It was on this debris of nature that man raised the imaginary colossus of the Divinity"
Shelley rebuts the common arguments over the existence of a creator-god, the after life, while condemning religion as a force of fear and ignorance.
Nothing you haven't heard before, but given that it was written 200 years ago and Shelley was expelled from the Oxford university for it, it's an interesting piece of history for atheists. Moreover, Shelley's reasoning is surprisingly enduring even when he refers to science, and of course, the whole text has the eloquence of one of the great romantic poets: "It was on this debris of nature that man raised the imaginary colossus of the Divinity"
December 27, 2018
Shelley's writing speaks for itself you cannot fault the poet for his style. Philosophically he presents his arguments against religion and against a personal (Abrahamic) God. His first essay reclaims Christ as a sort of humanist philosopher who used the symbols and language of his time to illustrate to people how they should live, and that it is the church which later changed the original humanist teachings into dogma. The latter essays merely deal with all too well-known arguments against God (God-of-the-gaps, God is scientifically unprovable, God is an unnecessary explanation, the God of the Bible is evil etc.).
However, one should keep in mind that Shelly is presenting an atheist case and not necessarily an anti-theist case, there can be some room for a Spinozian conception of God. I suppose, in the end, God only knows.
However, one should keep in mind that Shelly is presenting an atheist case and not necessarily an anti-theist case, there can be some room for a Spinozian conception of God. I suppose, in the end, God only knows.
November 25, 2010
"Life and the world, or whatever we call that which we are and feel, is an astonishing thing. The mist of familiarity obscures from us the wonder of our being. We are struck with admiration at some of its transient modifications, but it is itself the great miracle."
December 21, 2017
This is probably the best reason to be kicked out of Oxford since 1811.
August 21, 2025
There is no God! This negation must be understood solely to affect a creative Deity. The hypothesis of a pervading Spirit coeternal with the universe, remains unshaken.
So starts the essay that got Percy Bysshe Shelley booted out of Oxford.
It's striking that Shelley all but affirms a pervasive Spirit while so firmly denying it might have had something to do with creating the perceptible world. Why place creation so deliberately out of spirit's bounds? You'd think a poet such as Shelley was to become would have been more comfortable with wider ranges of creative possibilities.
As the essay proceeds, Shelley identifies Reason as the stumbling block to belief in a Creator, seemingly simply because Reason finds no acceptable empirical proof to back it up. But isn't it given that Reason must eventually stumble upon its own limits, upon the vastness of what it doesn't and can't know, upon all that transcends it in both possibility and actuality? Whence comes mere human reason's authority to judge beyond its natural or appointed scope? Mustn't the author of Ozymandias have carefully weighed these questions?
So starts the essay that got Percy Bysshe Shelley booted out of Oxford.
It's striking that Shelley all but affirms a pervasive Spirit while so firmly denying it might have had something to do with creating the perceptible world. Why place creation so deliberately out of spirit's bounds? You'd think a poet such as Shelley was to become would have been more comfortable with wider ranges of creative possibilities.
As the essay proceeds, Shelley identifies Reason as the stumbling block to belief in a Creator, seemingly simply because Reason finds no acceptable empirical proof to back it up. But isn't it given that Reason must eventually stumble upon its own limits, upon the vastness of what it doesn't and can't know, upon all that transcends it in both possibility and actuality? Whence comes mere human reason's authority to judge beyond its natural or appointed scope? Mustn't the author of Ozymandias have carefully weighed these questions?
August 31, 2024
THE FAMED POET'S EARLY ESSAYS ON ATHEISM, AND AGAINST CHRISTIANITY
Shelley's publication of "The Necessity of Atheism"---or rather, his refusal to repudiate it---resulted in his expulsion from Oxford, and later in a falling-out with his father.
In the Essay on Christianity, he observes, "Jesus Christ would hardly have cited, as an example of all that is gentle and beneficent and compassionate, a Being who shall deliberately scheme to inflict on a large portion of the human race tortures indescribably intense and indefinitely protracted; who shall inflict them, too, without any mistake as to the true nature of pain---without any view to future good---merely because it is just."
In The Necessity of Atheism, he argues, "It is urged that man knows... that whatever is not eternal must have had a cause. When this reasoning is applied to the universe, it is necessary to prove that it was created: until that is clearly demonstrated we may reasonably suppose that it has endured from all eternity. We must prove design before we can infer a designer... it is easier to suppose that the universe has existed from all eternity than to conceive a being beyond its limits capable of creating it..." He adds, "this God is himself founded only on the authority of a few men who pretend to know him, and to come in his name and announce him on earth. A God made by man undoubtedly has need of man to make himself known to man."
He further states, "The all-powerful, should he not have more convincing means by which to show himself to man than these ridiculous metamorphoses, these pretended incarnations, which are attested by writers so little in agreement among themselves?... could he not convince the human mind in an instant of the things he wished to make known to it?.. No one would then be able to doubt the existence of God, of his clear will, or his visible intentions."
In his essay, "A Refutation of Deism," he says, "The supposition that God has never supernaturally revealed his will to man at any other period than the original creation of the human race, necessarily involves a compromise of his benevolence. It assumes that he withheld from mankind a benefit which it was in his power to confer. That he suffered his creatures to remain in ignorance of truths essential to their happiness and salvation." He adds sarcastically, "I will admit that one prediction of Jesus Christ has been indisputably fulfilled. 'I come not to bring peace upon earth, but a sword.' [Mt 10:34] Christianity indeed has equalled Judaism in the atrocities, and exceeded it in the extent of its desolation."
These essays are of interest not just to those studying Shelley, but also to rationalists, skeptics, freethinkers, and atheists.
Shelley's publication of "The Necessity of Atheism"---or rather, his refusal to repudiate it---resulted in his expulsion from Oxford, and later in a falling-out with his father.
In the Essay on Christianity, he observes, "Jesus Christ would hardly have cited, as an example of all that is gentle and beneficent and compassionate, a Being who shall deliberately scheme to inflict on a large portion of the human race tortures indescribably intense and indefinitely protracted; who shall inflict them, too, without any mistake as to the true nature of pain---without any view to future good---merely because it is just."
In The Necessity of Atheism, he argues, "It is urged that man knows... that whatever is not eternal must have had a cause. When this reasoning is applied to the universe, it is necessary to prove that it was created: until that is clearly demonstrated we may reasonably suppose that it has endured from all eternity. We must prove design before we can infer a designer... it is easier to suppose that the universe has existed from all eternity than to conceive a being beyond its limits capable of creating it..." He adds, "this God is himself founded only on the authority of a few men who pretend to know him, and to come in his name and announce him on earth. A God made by man undoubtedly has need of man to make himself known to man."
He further states, "The all-powerful, should he not have more convincing means by which to show himself to man than these ridiculous metamorphoses, these pretended incarnations, which are attested by writers so little in agreement among themselves?... could he not convince the human mind in an instant of the things he wished to make known to it?.. No one would then be able to doubt the existence of God, of his clear will, or his visible intentions."
In his essay, "A Refutation of Deism," he says, "The supposition that God has never supernaturally revealed his will to man at any other period than the original creation of the human race, necessarily involves a compromise of his benevolence. It assumes that he withheld from mankind a benefit which it was in his power to confer. That he suffered his creatures to remain in ignorance of truths essential to their happiness and salvation." He adds sarcastically, "I will admit that one prediction of Jesus Christ has been indisputably fulfilled. 'I come not to bring peace upon earth, but a sword.' [Mt 10:34] Christianity indeed has equalled Judaism in the atrocities, and exceeded it in the extent of its desolation."
These essays are of interest not just to those studying Shelley, but also to rationalists, skeptics, freethinkers, and atheists.
November 20, 2019
Este libro es una verdadera joyita, se nota el cuidado que se puso en la edición y selección de textos y llama la atención la impecable traducción. Fue un verdadero placer leerlo.
Está compuesto por varios textos, considerados entre los más "combativos" de Shelley. Algunos son ensayos, mientras que otros son sonetos, llamados breves, etc. que dan cuenta del compromiso político e ideológico del poeta romántico inglés en una apuesta por desmitificar la imagen angélica y etérea con que fue borroneada su figura, vida y obra durante más de un siglo posterior a su muerte. Este es el segundo libro que leo en el último tiempo dedicado a rescatar al "verdadero" Shelley, colocando bajo el foco su rebeldía contra la opresión y su lado más materialista, cuestionando el lavado de imagen al que fue sometido por sus descendientes.
Aunque muchos de los textos que componen este libro ya habían sido publicados anteriormente en español, como La defensa de la poesía y Ozymandias, entre otros, funciona a la perfección como un compendio potente debido a la unidad temática y nunca está de más releer esos textos fundamentales dentro de este marco, en especial en un contexto en que siguen plenamente vigentes.
Está compuesto por varios textos, considerados entre los más "combativos" de Shelley. Algunos son ensayos, mientras que otros son sonetos, llamados breves, etc. que dan cuenta del compromiso político e ideológico del poeta romántico inglés en una apuesta por desmitificar la imagen angélica y etérea con que fue borroneada su figura, vida y obra durante más de un siglo posterior a su muerte. Este es el segundo libro que leo en el último tiempo dedicado a rescatar al "verdadero" Shelley, colocando bajo el foco su rebeldía contra la opresión y su lado más materialista, cuestionando el lavado de imagen al que fue sometido por sus descendientes.
Aunque muchos de los textos que componen este libro ya habían sido publicados anteriormente en español, como La defensa de la poesía y Ozymandias, entre otros, funciona a la perfección como un compendio potente debido a la unidad temática y nunca está de más releer esos textos fundamentales dentro de este marco, en especial en un contexto en que siguen plenamente vigentes.
February 27, 2017
Resulta muy gratificante ver una traducción, en algunos casos actualizada, en otros completamente inédita, de los textos políticos de Shelley. En ese sentido, sin duda los mejor logrados son los más representativos, desde el que da título al compendio, hasta "Defensa de la poesía", además de sus ensayos inacabados sobre el matrimonio. Es destacable la inclusión de "Los asesinos", al ser un texto poco conocido. En atención al mensaje de los poemas, las traducciones dan poco o ningún espacio a la música y al ritmo (y, por ende, parte de la fuerza) originales, de manera que su mérito se percibe más como el de posibles acompañamientos para una posterior lectura en inglés.
La edición es preciosa, sin duda. Lamentablemente contiene una gran cantidad de erratas que, pasada la número diez, dejé de contar; considero que quienes piensen en adquirirlo, deberían tomar en cuenta este factor antes de hacerlo, pues no es un libro barato.
La edición es preciosa, sin duda. Lamentablemente contiene una gran cantidad de erratas que, pasada la número diez, dejé de contar; considero que quienes piensen en adquirirlo, deberían tomar en cuenta este factor antes de hacerlo, pues no es un libro barato.
January 1, 2022
Com uma escrita afiada e eloquente, digna de um filósofo e poeta, Shelley propõe argumentos a favor do ateísmo e objeções contra Deísmo e as religiões Abraâmicas, principalmente ao Cristianismo, os quais hoje são considerados como dados ou obsoletos (Analogia do Relojoeiro, Deus das Lacunas, Incongruências do Antigo e Novo Testamento, Deus não é uma boa hipótese, etc.) mas que em seu tempo forjaram o caminho para futuros pensadores e levaram a sua expulsão de Oxford, renúncia de seus filhos devido ao seu ateísmo e exílio. No entanto, seus escritos se tornam muito mais fascinantes quando se é considerado que Shelley viveu apenas 29 anos e, portanto, todos seus ensaios foram produzidos ainda na sua juventude.
September 16, 2022
Unbelievable at first but true, the church has been always looking for their mundane interest. Being opposed to every improvement in society, leading almost two Milenium of retrograd evolution.
As a masculine force, has been opposed to woman, maintain slavery, stopped free thinking and science development, not even being opposed to last century world wars.
As a masculine force, has been opposed to woman, maintain slavery, stopped free thinking and science development, not even being opposed to last century world wars.
April 27, 2025
"If ignorance of nature gave birth to gods, knowledge of nature is made for their destruction."
In The Necessity of Atheism, Shelley states that humans first feared and then worshipped nature, attempting to control it. Over time, we simplified things by shifting from polytheism to monotheism, creating the idea of a single god as the source of all. Shelley argues that our ignorance leads us to imagine divinity. But as we learn and understand, knowledge replaces that mysticism. Once we grasp nature’s processes, the need for gods fades away.
Whether one believes in a god or not is a complex personal choice, but we must consider how those beliefs shape not only ourselves but also our society. Choosing atheism entails accepting that we are responsible for giving meaning and purpose to life. It also involves realizing that no one is coming to save us but ourselves. We know that religion has caused its fair share of wars and conflicts throughout history. However, it has also inspired countless individuals to advocate for peace. From figures like Martin Luther King Jr., Desmond Tutu, and the Dalai Lama to everyday people in church peace groups who continue to push forward despite challenges, religion has fueled many positive efforts for social change.
I am an atheist myself, and I do not believe in any higher being. However, I understand why religions continue to flourish to this day. As Noah Harari, author of Sapiens, stated, religion doesn't have to be based on the belief in celestial beings. It can be any system of ideas, whether divine or not, that establishes ethics and laws in a society. These ideologies help create order, shape moral perspectives, and enable large-scale cooperation. Thus, in a way, 'religion' can include scientific, economic, and socio-political ideologies.
In The Necessity of Atheism, Shelley states that humans first feared and then worshipped nature, attempting to control it. Over time, we simplified things by shifting from polytheism to monotheism, creating the idea of a single god as the source of all. Shelley argues that our ignorance leads us to imagine divinity. But as we learn and understand, knowledge replaces that mysticism. Once we grasp nature’s processes, the need for gods fades away.
Whether one believes in a god or not is a complex personal choice, but we must consider how those beliefs shape not only ourselves but also our society. Choosing atheism entails accepting that we are responsible for giving meaning and purpose to life. It also involves realizing that no one is coming to save us but ourselves. We know that religion has caused its fair share of wars and conflicts throughout history. However, it has also inspired countless individuals to advocate for peace. From figures like Martin Luther King Jr., Desmond Tutu, and the Dalai Lama to everyday people in church peace groups who continue to push forward despite challenges, religion has fueled many positive efforts for social change.
I am an atheist myself, and I do not believe in any higher being. However, I understand why religions continue to flourish to this day. As Noah Harari, author of Sapiens, stated, religion doesn't have to be based on the belief in celestial beings. It can be any system of ideas, whether divine or not, that establishes ethics and laws in a society. These ideologies help create order, shape moral perspectives, and enable large-scale cooperation. Thus, in a way, 'religion' can include scientific, economic, and socio-political ideologies.
March 31, 2024
"The Necessity of Atheism" delivers thought-provoking arguments against religion. Exposing historical inconsistencies and questioning morality based on fear, it urges a shift to reason, logic and evidence. A good reference book to add to my library!
March 30, 2013
To be clear, I only read the electronic version containing the title essay, "On Life", and "On a Future State." The first one is pretty clear in its argument, the other two will need a little thought.
December 30, 2014
Just confirms my suspicions that Richard Dawkins is actually just someone from the 19th century. If someone ever tells me he's a time-traveller, I'll believe it straight away.
Want to read
April 12, 2013ebook version http://www.feedbooks.com/book/6701/th...
December 12, 2014
I liked some essays more than others.
November 2, 2007
Makes you question the big question..
April 8, 2017
Shelly's argument is more successful in debunking belief in an all powerful deity (Judeo-Christian) than in an afterlife, in general. While he does attempt to undermine belief in any form of existence after death, his arguments are not successful against a larger context--specifically that of universal consciousness as espoused in Eastern Philosophy.
February 8, 2018
"La necesidad del ateísmo" es la primera defensa pública del ateísmo en lengua inglesa. Está escrito a la limón con Thomas Jefferson Hogg y les valió ambos el honor de ser expulsados de la Universidad de Oxford por no condenar el contenido del panfleto. Sigue las ideas y argumentos de D'Holbach primer tratadista de la ilustración en defender el ateísmo, que citan en profusión, junto a W. Drummond y a Spinoza.
Displaying 1 - 23 of 23 reviews