THE GUARDIAN: “Two centuries on, it is timely to recall Shelley’s argument for the non-existence of God.
As an Oxford undergraduate in the early 19th century, Percy Bysshe Shelley developed an argument for the non-existence of God. He entitled it The Necessity of Atheism, and 2011 is the bicentenary of his being expelled from the university for printing it.
The argument itself is simple. If you have seen or heard God, then you must believe in God. If you haven’t, then the only possible reasons to believe in God are reasonable argument or the testimony of others. The main argument given for believing in a deity – that the universe must have had a first cause – is not persuasive because there is no reason to believe either that the universe must have had a first cause or that this cause, if it existed, was a deity. The testimony of others – a third-rate source of knowledge in any case – is invariably contrary to reason. This is not least because it reports God as commanding belief, which would be irrational of God, given that belief is involuntary and not an act of will. So there is no reason to believe in God.
It is not a particularly shocking argument these days, but remembering this Shelley anniversary is important for other reasons.
Atheists today are too often castigated as materialistic calculators whose lack of spirituality sucks their universe empty of all beauty. Remembering Shelley’s atheism gives us an opportunity to counter this stereotype and to reflect on the aesthetic of enchantment with which a non-theistic world-view can be associated. The works of Shelley join the novels, poems, songs, sculptures, paintings, architecture and plays of generations of godless artists in exposing the straw man of the desiccated rationalist for what it is, and showcasing a humanist vision of life.
More timely is a remembrance of the social and political consequences of Shelley’s argument. In The Necessity of Atheism he reminds us of the mistake that people make when they think that “belief is an act of volition, in consequence of which it may be regulated by the mind” and the way that “continuing this mistake they have attached a degree of criminality to disbelief of which in its nature it is incapable”. We cannot pillory someone for their disbelief – it is not an area in which choice operates.
Today in Britain, non-religious people are not thrown out of universities because they don’t believe in God, but in other parts of the world many suffer this fate – and worse. There are still places where it is illegal to declare yourself as non-religious on your identity papers or official records.”
Read more at The Guardian (Thanks Annette M)
"
Amen.
God was created by Man to assist him in his politics, morality and spirituality.
It will be found that societies that believe in God do better in the long term than societies that do not believe in God.
God is therefore an instrument of good government that we are not using to best advantage because God is cheaper than CCTV and all sorts of intrusive totalitarian THOUGHTCRIME legislation.
@Claire Khaw, April 7, 2011 at 10:10 am
“It will be found that societies that believe in God do better in the long term than societies that do not believe in God.”
By whom will that be found? ‘Cause I tend to disagree… Though my knowledge about buddhism and war-history isn’t great, I believe theistic (especially mono-theistic) religions do quite some harm in comparison to non-theistic societies. Not considering the biblical stories of Sodom an Gomorrah of course since this isn’t the most objective source.
Claire Khaw: The God as a social control mechanism theory? I think it’s the other way around, actually. God is the rationalisation of moral and social instincts that humans have always had.
But even if you buy into the ‘God as social control’, how would you propose society ‘use it to best advantage’? You can’t force people to believe in God. Religion (the rituals and movements of a certain faith) can be mechanically performed even by nonbelievers, but the belief that you assume is neccesary to govern behaviour is something that needs to come from within the individual.
And I think there will always be individuals that are too inquisitive to believe what they are told to believe.
I’m dislexic and can’t read the title of this article and I’m trying to tell my friend about this. What are Atheism and Aesthetic? I kind of get the main idea of the article but I think I might be missing abit….
Once you have seen the light (of science) & realise how ridiculous religion is & delusional so many people are in their faith in ‘god’ you will never look back. I am a very moral, good, kind, sensitive person who is 99% sure there is no god. There’s a common view out there that without religion we’d all behave selfishly & without morals. Evil atheists! In my opinion, religion gives people hope in an after life because we want to believe were more than just star stuff & a mere speck in the grand scheme of our beautiful universe! But unfortunately not to question faith, leads to lazy & dangerous thinking.
well, it could have been his atheism…but dumping his wife & running off with a teenager & then getting her pregnant might have factored into it too…
I hope one day all people are self directed and wise, it is a terrible thing that we must control one another to the extent we would wish someone thought exactly the way we do, I do hope that one day people in all countries will be respected and encouraged, irrespective of their interpretation of reality.
@Kirsty
Atheism is the belief of no god or spiritual being.
Aesthetics is having a sense of beauty or appeal about something. That isn’t a great explanation so I’ll quote from my dictionary:
–adjective
– pertaining to a sense of the beautiful or to the science of aesthetics.
– having a sense of the beautiful; characterized by a love of beauty.
–noun
– a philosophical theory or idea of what is aesthetically valid at a given time and place.
@Claire Khaw
I’d like to see some kind of statistical proof backing up your claim that “societies that believe in God do better in the long term than societies that do not believe in God”
I think Shelly’s arguement has a lot of truth in it and it was a bold move for him to take considering the controversy which is still present to this day.
“It will be found that societies that believe in God do better in the long term than societies that do not believe in God.”
Could you give an example of a society that doesn’t believe in god and which has had a ‘long term’ by which to judge?
In the short to medium term, compare the least religious societies today with the most religious. Holland or Sweden or Canada for example compared to Yemen, Afghanistan or the US Bible Belt.
@Shrapnel: Thank you that makes a lot more sence
i like cheese… :0
Societies that promote family values supported by marriage tend to do better than societies that do not.
The West is now in decline simply because it no longer promotes family values.
The result is that you get a declining society consisting mostly of single mums and badly parented illegitimate children.
Do you liberal atheists REALLY think you are really doing better now than you did before, with the way the EU and America are going?
What I get confused with is the amount of gods. Nature is beautiful and why we need to worship either the sun or a made up invisable man is beyond me. We should be happy with our existance and see what we have and what we can do ourselves. Nothing should be handed over to the credit of something not even there. People should take responsibility and be happy for what they achieve themselves. At least that would be my ideal.
@Claire Khaw What is the basis for your argument? What makes you think that religion is necessary for the promotion of family values?
And which societies would you hold up as currently a good example?
Claire Khaw: Yes, I do.
Only a few decades ago, many women died from badly performed back-alley abortions, because a subset of religious people had decided that embryos have more rights than the women that carry them. Did you know that in several US states, doctors weren’t allowed to treat the dying victims of these practices unless they revealed the name of the abortionist? Gangrene causes a fairly nasty death — you die of massive multi-organ failure, but stay conscious until the very end.
Only a few decades ago, people who were attracted to their own gender were forced to live in secret, and often committed suicide. A few more decades back, and it was the state that murdered them.
Only a few decades ago, victims of rapist priests were afraid to speak out.
Yes, we are doing better now.
had no idea this essay even existed. thanks for bringing it to our attention.
“We cannot pillory someone for their disbelief”
Wot, not even if that constitutes the assertion of infallible knowledge? Rather than simply manifesting belief of something, as being incontrovertible fact. Since all they are in possession of, is a form of alternate belief.
Is any understanding of reality 100% accurate?
If yes, then it should be able to provide a correct answer to any question presented to it.
If no, then which part or parts of that understanding of reality are inaccurate?
@ Claire Khaw: Do you have any links to research to justify your claim?
Those of you who are atheists are probably younger than people who can remember an age when marriage was taken seriously.
You cannot miss what you never knew.
You will probably have heard of the saying that a liberal is a Conservative who hasn’t yet been mugged enough times.
There is no way that a country with our basket case leaders and basket case people could have acquired an empire that spanned the world now, is there?
We now have imbecilic leaders thinking that bombing Libya will turn it into a better country with happier citizens, and that doing so will somehow help them get re-elected and that the rest of the world will admire and respect the members of the North Atlantic Terrorist Organisation.
I rest my case
Claire: I’m young, married, take it seriously, and am a devout atheist. Marriage and religion are two completely separate concepts.
As for the leadership of the nation, I think you’ll find that Cameron is religious (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Cameron#Faith) and Blair had his moments (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tony_Blair#Religious_faith). Brown is quieter on the matter but almost certainly Church of Scotland (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gordon_Brown#Religion).
How does that fit in with “imbecilic leaders”? I’m not arguing with the fact that “lets bomb them” is unlikely to make things great, but implying that it a nation losing its religion is the cause for those actions is somewhat naive. I’ll take logical atheism (which can still have morals) over religion, thanks.
@Claire Khaw – I just thought they were bombing Libya so we can keep our houses nice and warm with oil.
@Claire Khaw I am a young atheist who takes marriage seriously, I am 26 with a wife and son. I never have and never will cheat on my wife so I would say I have pretty strong family values. I am a liberal who grew up in a bad area and was mugged plenty of times but that is not important. You keep on making different claims with out backing them up. first you said we need god’s to keep us in line, then you said the west was failing because it does not promote family values (is that why courtiers like china have such a good human rights record?) and then your last post was a mesh mash of b.s. you are so wrong on so many levels its unbelievable. If you have a valid point to make please make it, if not could you please just stop rambling on? You have made several posts but never made a point!
Morality: doing what’s right, no matter what you are told.
Religion: doing what you are told, no matter what is right.
Take note, Claire.
A “DEVOUT ATHIEST” . . . Bit of an oxymoron isn’t it?
Religion is a form of social control, and I am saying that society needs to be socially controlled.
Jack, I think you would struggle to defend your view that *all* that is religious is wrong and all that is liberal and atheistic is right.
Most people are not by inclination philosophers or saints,and God is cheaper than CCTV.
I am just being practical and economical.
It seems a bit of a waste not to use the most powerful idea conceived by man as Western society declines into chaos.
@spiderabc1:
My point is that bombing Libya has made the price of oil go up. As I said earlier, “imbecilic”.
Claire, religion is only a form of social control as long as it can impose sanctions. And the history of religious social control is not exactly uplifting. You have still not produced a single piece of evidence to back up your claim.
Claire Khaw: My question still stands. How should society enforce belief? There’s always going to be people who think for themselves and find the idea of a God fairly ridiculous when looking at all we know today. You can enforce religion, but if people are to be controlled by fear of God, you need belief and not religion.
And another question: As you used the fact that Britain no longer rules an empire spanning the globe as an example of secular decline, would it be correct to assume that you see colonialism as a good thing? I think decolonialisation shows an increase in morality, not a decline. It’s fairly immoral to hijack someone else’s country for your own ends, don’t you think?
I can see that I am talking to a bunch of young atheist liberals here.
Liberals have their own totalitarian THOUGHTCRIME legislation in the form of anti-discrimination legislation which includes hate crime and speech crime.
I would argue that the Koran is a good enough guide for mankind, whether one believed in God or not.
Obviously, a country strong enough to spread its own language, legal system, values etc probably has something to teach the world.
On the other hand an emasculated, declining, debased and decadent civilisation that tries to spread its toxic values will be rightly laughed at and derided.
Claire, does it surprise you that the people commenting on the blog of a fairly outspoken atheist are themselves largely atheistic? Like usually attracts like, after all. I wouldn’t call myself a liberal, by the way — in my country, that’s what the right-wing capitalists call themselves. I’m more of a moderate socialist/environmentalist.
religion only worked as a social control when we burned people at the stake; and even then was hardly successful. i think you need to have a serious look at your argument again claire, firstly, if religion forms the role of social control, then the people in charge of the religion become “gods” if you will… now thats a settling thought isnt it.
Claire,
Thought we were heading down that road.
I would argue that the Koran is a good enough guide for mankind, whether one believed in God or not.
Go ahead. Argue it.
You have made no argument so far, just increasingly wild assertions.
@Don:
I make that assertion and invite you to disprove it, Don.
You can only disprove it by reading the Koran and telling me me which Koranic principles you would not like to see as law.
@Jacob:
You do not need God for propaganda. Most people are mostly stupid enough to believe most lies if there are enough people who believe in the same lies.
@Claire Khaw: Here is just one example of a law from the Koran which is absolutely horrific; And (as for) the male thief and the female thief, cut off (from the wrist joint) their (right) hands as a recompense for that which they committed, a punishment by way of example from Allâh. And there are plenty of other laws which are just as appalling to be found in the Koran. Like what is to be done to apostates; “Whoever changed his (Islamic) religion, then kill him”. Anyway the perfect example to show that religion is bad, but Islam especially, is the Taliban. They use Islam and the Koran to guide their vicious totalitarian régime. So don’t tell me that the Koran and religion are good things, and if you do try please provide the evidence. Again all you have done is make claims ith no proof.
@Gavin:
Both verses need to be considered as regards manual amputation.
005.038
YUSUFALI: As to the thief, Male or female, cut off his or her hands: a punishment by way of example, from Allah, for their crime: and Allah is Exalted in power.
005.039
YUSUFALI: But if the thief repents after his crime, and amends his conduct, Allah turneth to him in forgiveness; for Allah is Oft-forgiving, Most Merciful.
On the question of apostasy, “Whoever changed his (Islamic) religion, then kill him” that you quoted is not in the Koran.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apostasy_in_Islam
Qur’an
“The Qur’an states that God (in Arabic, Allah) despises apostasy, with severe punishment to be imposed in the hereafter, but not mentioning explicitly any earthly penalty for apostates.”
If you send instructions to someone, should you be blamed if your instructions were not read properly or were deliberately ignored?
Gavin, I think that like Mosaic law, Koranic law is partly meant as a lighter alternative to the horrific punishments of the day. Like ‘an eye for an eye’, which was originally meant as ‘don’t take MORE than an eye for an eye’.
But religious law as a whole tends to be bizarre in this day and age, as it was made by an early agricultural (Mosaic) or a semi-nomadic tribal (Koranic) people. One can argue that principles such as ‘thou shalt not kill’ are good ideas, but those are merely common sense and have been around since prehistoric (and pre-religious) times. Mosaic principles like the prohibition on eating aquatic animals that aren’t fish (I like my crustaceans, thank you), or the decree that sex with a menstruating woman shall be punished with exile or death, are ridiculous now.
If you send instructions to someone, should you be blamed if your instructions were not read properly or were deliberately ignored?
If you are the omniscient Supreme Being giving the ultimate instructions for life, law and morality, then yes.
Don, even the Supreme Being cannot do anything about our Free Will to either follow his instructions or ignore them.
You seem not to understand that we have no right to expect perfection in *this* life and are using the fact that we suffer injustice as a reason not to believe in God.
If God made us do everything as He says, then there would be no need for him to sit in judgment on us, would there?
No, these things are sent to try us.
Berber Anna, it made sense not to eat pork and shellfish in an age before refrigeration. As for not having sex with menstruating women, I think it was to give them a monthly holiday.
Claire, it made sense to eat fresh meat in an age before refrigeration (be it mutton, fish or shellfish). None of them go bad straight after the kill. I don’t get the shellfish thing, but the pork thing is because trichinosis used to be fairly common in the Middle East. The menstruating women thing was not so much a break for the women, as it was a way for the temple to claim a tithe (in order to fulfill cleansing requirements after menses, a sacrifice had to be offered to the temple priests).
My point was that these rules make no sense today, just as many religious rules — simply because the commonly used religious tomes were written in times very different to our own. That’s one of the reasons that I don’t see religion as a proper way to control behaviour. It’s old rules.
Are you saying, Berber Anna, that society does *not* need to be controlled??
@Claire Khaw, it should not matter if the thief repents, cutting off someone’s’ hand is despicable in that situation. And do you really think an eternity in hell is fit punishment for not believing in a god? You made it look like as if it were much better than killing someone of unbelief. Yes an all powerful, all knowing entity is responsible for miscommunications, and no it does not have to affect free will. The god can know before a person is born what that person will do. Therefore god can just make sure they are not born, allowing someone who will not abuse a text for personal gain to be born. Society is a form of social control; the inclusion of a holy text over complicates matters and allows for evil to be done in its name. Such as burning and drowning innocent women and flying planes into buildings. I get the feeling that this is going no where and we are all just banging our heads against walls, if we can not agree to disagree (or at least agree that Claire is wrong ) I will invoke Godwin’s law and bring an end to this. I don’t want to, but I am sure we could all find better things to do with our precious time.
Claire: No, I’m saying that it needs to be controlled by laws that can be updated by government, upheld by independant judges and enforced by police. You know, the trias politica. I think that’s a much better idea than depending on people’s belief in the stories and laws of an ancient people, that haven’t been updated for centuries and don’t work in this modern age.
http://www.islamreligion.com/articles/661/ seems fair enough to me on the point of “There is no compulsion in belief.” It is clearly an eternal rule as well ie that there should be no thoughtcrime legislation.
Are you people even aware of how much thoughtcrime legislation there is in our so-called liberal society??
God is cheaper than CCTV and less intrusive than thoughtcrime laws.
The universe was enclosed by neurotronic flay
and srinted mild costumes to ascetain the way
but though the krinkles sellotape the artic meddling wind
all above the corridors the weapons funly ling…over
turbule rythms ..as low it were an in/g
Some people believe that there is a God who is eternal. Some people believe that there are eternal laws of science.
In whichever way belief is defended, belief remains a belief.
One belief-system (God) has been merely replaced by another belief-system (laws of science).
A joke:
In olden-golden days the saying was: When there was nothing, there was God. When there will be nothing again, there will still be God.
But then came the scientists and changed everything. The above saying also changed to this: When there was nothing, there were quantum laws. When there will be nothing again, there will still be quantum laws.
These quantum laws are spaceless, timeless, changeless, all-pervading, eternal, unborn, uncreated and immaterial. Only that these laws lack consciousness. In every other respect they are just like God.
These quantum laws are spaceless, timeless and immaterial, because when there was no space, no time and no matter, there were still these quantum laws. (Alexander Vilenkin’s model)
These quantum laws are all-pervading, because these laws act equally everywhere.
These quantum laws are scientists’ God.
Amen.
N.B. Scientists will have a nervous break-down if some day they come to know that quantum laws are not eternal.
Udaybhanu,
Interesting perspective. But scientific laws lack agency.
N.B. Scientists will have a nervous break-down if some day they come to know that quantum laws are not eternal.
I seriously doubt that. More probably they will say, ‘Wow, that’s interesting. Let’s figure out what questions to ask next. Can we get funding for this?’
Science thrives on propositions being shown to be wrong. Demonstrate to a scientist that the proposition upon which they have built their career is wrong and they wil shake your hand. Demonstrate the same thing to a religious person and they will want you burned at the stake.