Talk:The Necessity of Atheism

Untitled

I've got a couple questions working on this page. The pamphlet was published in two versions, a short, 1811 version, and an expanded, 1813 version. The Wikisource link is to the 1813 version, while the External Links section has two links, one to the 1813 version, and another to the 1811 version, though this is labeled as 1880. Is it necessary to have an external links section if wikisource has the document? If not, then I think deleting the 1st external link from the article would make sense. Now, would it be possible, or prudent, to add the original document to wikisource as well, so that both versions, which I should mention are highly distinct, are contained there? :—GarethChantler 17:17, 8 Sep 2008

The 'representative quote' is actually from Systeme de la Nature, by Baron d'Holbach, which Shelley quotes himself in the essay. The article currently seems to indicate that Shelley wrote these words, which is incorrect. 209.189.225.226 22:43, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

OK, I have removed it. But I’ll reprint it here so that it’s not lost: it is rather a good quote!

"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?"

—Ian Spackman 15:37, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

This quatation was made most public in this publication. please add a citation for you assertion.--Procrastinating@^talk2me 13:30, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

The reference is Shelley's own work (at least the version cited in the article). Here is the relevant text, from http://www.infidels.org/library/historical/percy_shelley/necessity_of_atheism.html:

"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. -- Systame de la Nature. London, 1781."

Note that this contains the same quotation being attributed to Shelley in the article, except that it is now given in context, including Shelley's own attribution of the quote to Baron d'Holbach. It was a much longer quote in Shelley's work -- at least the online version says it was translated from French, and it wasn't clear to me where Shelley ended and d'Holbach began, since I'm not familiar with either work other than this online version of Shelley, but Shelley's placement of "Systame de la Nature. London, 1781" right after the part we've been attributive to Shelley suggests Shelley is attributing this to d'Holbach. A series of other quotations follow it in Shelley's piece. The wikipedia article led me to read the online version of Shelley, and I was looking forward to getting to the wikipedia quote, but it seems here that Shelley was quoting somebody else. I have no other knowledge of this topic, so if the online version is wrong, that's another matter. Hopefully somebody knows something about this, but with the information we've got in these references, the quote is not Shelley. 209.189.225.226 23:17, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

I have located the quote in d'Holbach, reading the text up on Project Gutenberg (http://www.gutenberg.org/dirs/etext05/8son210.txt). Note that this is translated from d'Holbach's French, so it doesn't match up with the online version word for word:

"If their gods are infinitely good, wherefore should we dread them? If they are infinitely wise, what reason have we to disturb ourselves with our condition? If they are omniscient, wherefore inform them of our wants, why fatigue them with our requests? If they are omnipresent, of what use can it be to erect temples to them? If they are lords of all, why make sacrifices to them; why bring them offerings of what already belongs to them? If they are just, upon what foundation believe that they will punish those creatures whom they have filled with imbecility? If their grace works every thing in man, what reason can there be why he should be rewarded? If they are omnipotent, how can they be offended; how can we resist them? If they are rational, how can the enrage themselves against blind mortals, to whom they have left the liberty of acting irrationally? If they are immutable, by what right shall we pretend to make them change their decrees? If they are inconceivable, wherefore should we occupy ourselves with them? If the knowledge of these systems be the most necessary thing, wherefore are they not more evident, more consistent, more manifest?"

On the other hand, the part in all caps seems to be Shelley's own insertion, unless the Project Gutenberg translation of d'Holbach left that line out.209.189.225.226 23:38, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

What you're talking about here is the Note to "There is no God" in Queen Mab (1813), not The Necessity of Atheism as published in 1811. The former is, obviously, a revised and expanded version of the latter. Having reminded ourselves of that, the Note to Queen Mab includes a long quotation - in French in the original - attributed to d'Holbach. If you look at the reprint of the 1813 note to Queen Mab which appears under the heading of "The Necessity of Atheism" in the 1915 edition of "The Selected Prose Works of Shelley" [1], you can see that the long putative d'Holbach quote begins after a quote from Bacon and continues for several pages, ending with the paragraph that includes the capitalised text and the citation to The System of Nature. Shelley's own words then resume with "The enlightened and benevolent Pliny...". However, it seems that Shelley was not quoting in a straightforward way, and so I'll dig out a citation which explains what he did do --Dannyno (talk) 09:10, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

WikiProject class rating

This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as stub, and the rating on other projects was brought up to Stub class. BetacommandBot 13:52, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Other work same name

The Necessity of Atheism by David Marshall Brooks (1902) http://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/20248

Confusion about editions

The article is misleading as currently written. The original essay was indeed published in 1811 as a pamphlet. But the 1813 revised and expanded version was not published as a pamphlet, but as a footnote to the phrase "There is no God!" in Shelley's poem, "Queen Mab; a philosophical poem, with notes". I think this needs making clearer, so I will do some work to make it so. It would also be helpful to indicate which reprints are of the 1811 original, and which of the 1813 footnote, so I will try and do that too. --Dannyno (talk) 15:22, 7 January 2017 (UTC)