Le Boyle Lectures e il confronto tra ortodossia e irreligiosità nel Settecento inglese

This work aims to answer two fundamental questions. The first one is the following: from the point of view of philosophical historiography and intellectual history, is it worthwhile to offer a comprehensive reconstruction of the Boyle Lectures? The answer is certainly positive, since the Boyle Lectures have received little consideration, even though the most important studies on irreligion in early modern England have often taken some of these lectures as an essential point of reference.  Once the need for a comprehensive reconstruction of the Boyle Lectures is recognized, a second question arises: is it possible, both through an investigation of the context of the birth and development of the Boyle Lectures, and through an analysis of their content, to offer an historical interpretation of the meaning of the notions of “atheism” and “deism” in England between the late seventeenth and the first half of the eighteenth century? Assuming that the Boyle Lectures primarily express the concerns of the Anglican clergy in the post-revolutionary period, the answer to this question is positive too. In fact, to understand the nature and public impact of the various forms of irreligion, it is necessary to take into account the interests and needs of the counterpart, that is the Anglican clergy. Therefore, this work is based on the conviction that in this period of the English history – the first half of the eighteenth century – the main forms of irreligion were highly relevant in relation to the fears they generated towards the apologists for ecclesiastical orthodoxy. In this sense, the reconstruction of the birth and development of the Boyle Lectures has great value not only in itself, but also because, by looking at the words of the Anglican preachers, it is possible to recognize the value that the labels of “atheism” and “deism” had in this historical period, often revealing a picture irreducible to the famous opposition between Newtonian and Radical Enlightenment.