?

Log in

No account? Create an account

Previous Entry | Next Entry

This is one of the best-argued cases for atheism I have read (speaking as a non-atheist). Millennia before Dawkins, Hitchens, or even Bertrand Russell, Lucretius argued the nature of the universe from first principles, concluding vigorously that there is no God and no afterlife, just matter made of atoms. There is no tedious sniping at current beliefs (apart from a rather funny bit towards the end about why Jupiter does not hurl thunderbolts; and he has a go also at the beliefs of Heraclitus and Empedocles about elements), just an explanation in detail of the philosophy of Epicurus and how that helps us understand the way the world around us works. As with all such books, it is tempting to give the author marks out of ten for the accuracy of his scientific explanations as compared to our current understanding, but that would be a mistake; it is amazing how far Lucretius got given his starting point. It reminded me a bit of Bill Bryson's A Short History of Nearly Everything, but is of course much shorter; also Lucretius, writing in 55 BC or thereabouts, had two millennia less of scientific research to fit in. Unfortunately he doesn't appear to have finished it; the text ends rather abruptly after a description of the effects of plague.

I first heard of De Natura Rerum when I attended a lecture in Cambridge in about 1987 explaining its links with Alexander Pope's Essay on Man, part of a series of lectures from different academics on the Enlightenment which I skipped physics practicals to attend on wet Thursday afternoons, despite the lack of course credits (this in itself was a signal that my future did not lie in astrophysics). I wonder who the lecturer was? I suppose I should now complete the circle by reading the Pope poem.

Top LibraryThing Unsuggestion: Shopaholic Takes Manhattan by Sophie Kinsella

Comments

( 2 comments — Leave a comment )
gmh
Feb. 12th, 2010 01:54 am (UTC)
One of the books that set me on my way of thinking; I read it in full in my first year at university.

Given the limitations of science and the mental dominance of the Stoic school, what Lucretius managed to construct on the work of earlier atomists is nothing short of amazing; it gives the lie to the old joke about Romans being entirely engineering-oriented.

Granted, it's a non-mathematical treatment; but you've got a single text two thousand years old that deals in basic genetics, evolution, conservation of momentum, all of them discussed without resorting to divine explanations.
gareth_rees
Feb. 12th, 2010 12:42 pm (UTC)
no tedious sniping at current beliefs

To be fair, just as science has made some progress towards understanding the universe in the last 2,000 years, so religion has made some progress in coming up with systems of belief that are not easily falsified.

When your god is a womanizer who lives on Mount Olympus and hurls thunderbolts, there's not much that needs to be said against him. But when he's an ineffable, insubstantial being that moves in mysterious ways, is beyond our understanding, etc, then deconversion is going to have to be more of a psychological than an evidential process.
( 2 comments — Leave a comment )

Latest Month

October 2019
S M T W T F S
  12345
6789101112
13141516171819
20212223242526
2728293031  

Tags

Powered by LiveJournal.com
Designed by yoksel