How Darwin caused atheism

In another thread (The evolution of hell: how rhetoric changes religion), I inadvertently started a dispute about whether the theory of evolution allowed atheism to thrive in the late 19th century and 20th century. Many other members took issue with it, and I fought with them, hijacking my own thread. An administrator clamped down on those shenanigans, so I started this new thread, and you can fight me here.I didn't anticipate that this point would be such a contentious issue, but I suspect that many of us want atheism to be entirely independent from the theory of evolution, because we do not want to affirm the accusations of creationists. But, maybe they are at least in part correct. It is not that theory of evolution is fundamentally atheistic--no, the theory does not directly say anything about God, and there are millions of people who believe in both God and evolution--but, by explaining life without God, the theory of evolution still allowed the rise of atheism, especially among the philosophers, scientists and serious thinkers of our time.To me, the connection is very straightforward. Before Darwin, there was no very good way to explain life except with the gods. This made atheism a seemingly unreasonable position. After Darwin, life had a very good explanation without the gods. Therefore, Darwin's theory allowed atheism to rise, and we see it in the influence and popularity of such figures as Marx, Nietzsche, Ingersoll and Freud, we see it in the coining of the term, "agnostic," by TH Huxley and its widespread acceptance among scientists and the public. Before Darwin, we had belief in deism among philosophers--the belief in a creator God who remains distant from human society. After Darwin, there were no well known deists left. The belief was replaced by atheism.This isn't just a belief peculiar to me and creationists.Jonathon Miller hosted a television series titled, "Atheism: A Rough History of Disbelief." In it, he interviewed the philosopher of religion (and champion of atheism) Daniel Dennett. Miller thought the interview was so interesting that he wanted to release more of it to the public than what was included in the original showing, and it found its way on YouTube. Here is the link:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hio4ZtVVLhYAt 4:56, Jonathan Miller asked Dennett: Q: So, if Darwin had not produced this dangerous idea, do you think that the development of infidelity, atheism or disbelief (or however one wants to call it) would have been delayed?Dennett answered: A: I suppose that's a historical question that one should do very careful research on, and I haven't. But, it seems very plausible to me that it was Darwin that broke the dam. Because, before Darwin, there really wasn't a good answer to the question, "How did this come to be, how did this bird with this wonderful wig, how did it come into existence, if not by some divine act of creation?" The rhetorical question, "What else could it be?" had no answer. That was what William Paley had said. And I think it is important to realize that Paley's argument from design is actually very very powerful. It challenges any thinker to come up with an alternative. And Darwin called his bluff. He didn't deny the Paley argument. He said, "I'm going to meet it head on. Yes, there's fantastic design in the biosphere, and I'm going to show how to get that design without a designer."This is also my own opinion. If you disagree, then I would like to know your argument. Some people think there were a lot of atheists who were simply in the closet. If so, then explain how such a proposition is more probable than an actual shift in belief. Otherwise, it would help to explain an alternative for specifically what caused the rise of atheism in the late 19th century and the 20th century. If you think that atheism did not rise in that time period, then give me examples of some names of prominent people who were probably atheists before Darwin, and explain. For example, if you somehow think that the Biblical scholar and Catholic monk William of Ockham was actually an atheist, then you will very much need to explain.Thanks.Edited by ApostateAbe, : left out a few wordsEdited by ApostateAbe, : added link to original threadEdited by ApostateAbe, : Punctuation

Done.

Yeah, I know. There are a small handful of points where I disagree with the "E" side and I find more reasonable argument on the "C" side, and the point about abiogenesis supposedly being a separate issure from the theory of evolution is one of them. The only event separating abiogenesis from Darwinian evolution is the chemical synthesis of the first self-replicating molecule, which certainly does not require God by any stretch of the imagination. After the first such molecule reproduces, then neo-Darwinism carries it all of the rest of the way to the modern tree of life. I think the "E" side tends to push abiogenesis outside of the theory of evolution primarily because there is such a lack of data and so much speculation, but abioegenesis really is so intimately tied to the theory of evolution that it would be very misleading to separate them. More importantly, to propose--that the theory of evolution leaves room for God to explain abiogenesis and therefore the theory of evolution has no significant effect on disbelief in God--would be hair-brained, at least in my opinion. There seems to be so much bone-headed groupthink that goes on in the activist defenses of the ToE that the side of me who is arrogant prick really shows whenever I talk about it.

Yes, you are right. Dennett used an analogy of a breaching dam, which I think is a good illustration. The sciences of geology, physics, astronomy and so on would each put significant cracks in the dam, but it was the theory of evolution that struck at the heart of religion and removed almost all scientific requirements for the gods. Newton separated the natural from the supernatural. Lyell replaced the creation of the planet Earth. Darwin replaced creation of life, including the human species, and then there was hardly anything left for God to explain. I have mentioned some of my differences with the activist defenders of the ToE, and there is another difference which relates to this point. The assertion is sometimes made that the proposition of creationism or intelligent design must stand on its own, independent of the weaknesses of the theory of evolution. But, the way science is done in reality is to choose the explanation that explains the evidence the best. It is a system of competition. It is not a pass/fail system where there is no scientific theory if no theory scores well. Creationism really was accepted among the most qualified biologists before Darwin's theory of evolution (and for a short time after).

Dennett is kinda the authority on the interplay between the theory of evolution and atheism (wrote the book on it), though he is not a historian, and being a historian is what would be required to do "very careful research." I don't know for sure if there was ever a historical study to answer the question on whether or not Darwin "broke the dam" for atheism, though historians really don't do it so differently from how the rest of us do it, except of course they would be a lot more thorough--examining all the evidence available, putting all explanations on the table, and choosing the explanation that fits best.I have made some specific historical claims, and you can just ask me which of them you would like me to prove if you like. Yeah, I don't go through the trouble of proving every claim and assumption.If you think this is an issue that requires only a thorough historical study by qualified researchers, then never you mind. Such an opinion does not matter so much to me.

Yeah, that is weird. The two most pronounced modern figures of atheism draw a very strong connection, but apparently the editors of the Wikipedia find the connection small or irrelevant.

What I need are the specifics of which claim you want me to prove. You see, I made a series of claims which I propose leads to the conclusion that Darwin's theories allowed an increase in atheism. Here is what I said:

quote:

---

Before Darwin, there was no very good way to explain life except with the gods. This made atheism a seemingly unreasonable position. After Darwin, life had a very good explanation without the gods. Therefore, Darwin's theory allowed atheism to rise, and we see it in the influence and popularity of such figures as Marx, Nietzsche, Ingersoll and Freud, we see it in the coining of the term, "agnostic," by TH Huxley and its widespread acceptance among scientists and the public. Before Darwin, we had belief in deism among philosophers--the belief in a creator God who remains distant from human society. After Darwin, there were no well known deists left. The belief was replaced by atheism.

---

There are a bunch of claims there, and all of them I take to be common knowledge, but, if there is any single claim that you disagree with, then I would like to know. Maybe you find something wrong with the whole of the argument, and that would also be appropriate to mention. Thanks. OK, my apologies.

OK, would you say that the combined science of Newton, Kepler, Galileo, Copernicus, Lyell Darwin and so on provided a good accumulation of explanatory science that essentially eliminated the need for God? I find the idea plausible that Darwin was merely one of the last of a series of influences on the growth of atheism, though I certainly wouldn't say that his impact was equal. The theories of Newton and so on explained the heavens and the earth, but the theory of Darwin spoke very simply and strongly about the heart of human origins and what human life is really all about, in addition to all life on Earth, of course. Dennett made the point that the thing which made Darwinism such a "dangerous idea" is how easy to understand it really is. You don't need math, and anyone can understand it. It struck down the most popular argument for God, and there was hardly anything left to be explained by God.

Yes, so maybe they are inclined to believe that the theory of evolution had such a primary impact on the emergence of atheism only because they have a bias in favor of how important the theory of evolution really is. Maybe the opinions of people who are primarily concerned with the sociology of atheism would be more important authorities on the matter.

Iblis, I am sorry I wrote so abrasively. I don't think the issue is so much whether the theory of evolution covers abiogenesis, nor whether the first self-replicating (and mutating) molecular system is "life," but the issue is whether or not the existence of the theory of evolution leaves so much room for God that it has little effect on how much of a population believes in God. My position is that, no, it does not, and I explained why: all it takes is the chemical synthesis of the first self-replicating molecule, though I was sloppy with my wording, and I should have said that all it takes is the self-replicating mutating molecular system that is at the root of the entire tree of life (and "life" in this case can be defined as anything that replicates and mutates, subject to Darwinian evolution). Abiogenesis can be overblown by the skeptics of evolution, and maybe it really does belong outside the ToE (though not in my opinion), but it certainly does not require God.

I was actually referring to Richard Dawkins and Daniel Dennett, both of whom are quoted to the effect that there is a strong connection between Darwin's theory and the rise of atheism. But, yeah, Darwin himself would be another good test case--nobody knew the theory better than himself. He wrote in 1860 a letter that expresses very strong doubts about God. Here is the excerpt:

quote:

---

With respect to the theological view of the question; this is always painful to me. I am bewildered. I had no intention to write atheistically. But I own that I cannot see, as plainly as others do, & as I shd wish to do, evidence of design & beneficence on all sides of us. There seems to me too much misery in the world. I cannot persuade myself that a beneficent & omnipotent God would have designedly created the Ichneumonid with the express intention of their feeding within the living bodies of caterpillars, or that a cat should play with mice. Not believing this, I see no necessity in the belief that the eye was expressly designed. On the other hand I cannot anyhow be contented to view this wonderful universe & especially the nature of man, & to conclude that everything is the result of brute force. I am inclined to look at everything as resulting from designed laws, with the details, whether good or bad, left to the working out of what we may call chance. Not that this notion at all satisfies me. I feel most deeply that the whole subject is too profound for the human intellect. A dog might as well speculate on the mind of Newton. Let each man hope & believe what he can.

​

Certainly I agree with you that my views are not at all necessarily atheistical. The lightning kills a man, whether a good one or bad one, owing to the excessively complex action of natural laws,a child (who may turn out an idiot) is born by action of even more complex laws,and I can see no reason, why a man, or other animal, may not have been aboriginally produced by other laws; & that all these laws may have been expressly designed by an omniscient Creator, who foresaw every future event & consequence. But the more I think the more bewildered I become; as indeed I have probably shown by this letter.

​

Most deeply do I feel your generous kindness & interest.

​

Yours sincerely & cordially | Charles Darwin

---

It could be argued that his doubts had nothing to do with the theory of evolution, but I think an unexpressed implication is that his theory of evolution explains very well why the Ichneumonid nests within the living bodies of caterpillars.

OK, let's start with "When did atheism actually start to increase?" My hypothesis is that the sharpest increase in the number of atheists was in 1860, the year after the publication of On the Origin of Species, or shortly thereafter. There were no systematic surveys of religion in the 19th century (they started in the early 20th century), so without listing names of people, it really would be very difficult for me to provide conclusive evidence for the inference that atheism grew in the late 19th century. It would be a historical conclusion based on the lives of people, the same as any other historical conclusion. Since you don't want names, maybe you can give me an example of the sort of evidence that would be appropriate.

You could not. If I had to prove that the sharp increase in atheists were at the exact year of 1860, then my position would be a lot tougher, because it would be impossible. I don't want the burden of such a narrow gap of time, but I am willing to show evidence of a predominance of atheists in the late 19th century.Go to this page:Lists of atheists - WikipediaThey have just about every significant atheist that significantly affected society sorted by name alphabetically and more lists by profession. A rough survey shows that almost all of them were active in the late 19th century and the 20th century. It is a list of names, which sfs said wasn't good enough, but it is the way historical conclusions are made.

The rise of the media may be the best competing hypothesis. I think the winning point may be the dying off of deism in the late 19th century. Deism has wound up with it the liberalism, the skepticism, and the the lack of religion that atheism has. The difference is that deism has the explanation of a creator god, and atheism does not.Edited by ApostateAbe, : bad writing

Maybe what you mean to say is that the gods do not explain something like life nearly as well as something scientific. In modern times, it is easy to denounce any "explanations" that involve the gods as essentially no different in quality as no explanations at all. But, before the modern scientific theories, explanations that had God were taken very seriously, because they were the only (and often the seemingly best) explanations available. That is why seemingly all of the scientists before Darwin accepted belief in God to explain life.Another misleading fallacy, I think, is to use the modern philosophies of science to project backward to infer what seemed reasonable in centuries past. Before the modern era, there was no methodological naturalism, no Popper's doctrine of falsifiability and no nonoverlapping magesteria. God was actually a central part of science. For better or for worse, scientists very often doubled as theologian. Newton, it could be argued, was more of a theologian than a scientist. His theory of God was as revolutionary as his theories of science and mathematics. The most popular argument for God remains the teleological argument (intelligent design) as it applies to life, and the theory of evolution effectively struck down that argument. It does not follow that everyone will accept that argument, because decisions of religious belief among the wider population are only in small part influenced by the best explanations of science. However, among the most intelligent people, those in the upper echelons of intellect, non-belief in God is the predominant position. An activist defender of the ToE is anyone who spends a significant amount of time defending the theory of evolution against the skeptics. I am one of them, so are you, and there are very many of them among activists who denounce religion and promote atheism.Edited by ApostateAbe, : mistake