How Darwin caused atheism

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

The problem of course, which you have so far ignored, is that gods don't explain any of those things, and gods aren't needed because of them. Gods were conceived because of human inability to explain things they didn't understand, that much is true. But it doesn't follow from that that gods actually explained the things they were conceived to explain.Obviously, the ToE doesn't strike down the most popular argument for gods, since most people who believe in gods also understand that evidence supports the ToE.Also, I'm still waiting to hear what you consider an "activist defender of the ToE."

---

Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. -- Thomas Jefferson

​

We see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat

​

It has always struck me as odd that fundies devote so much time and effort into trying to find a naturalistic explanation for their mythical flood, while looking for magical explanations for things that actually happened. -- Dr. Adequate

​

...creationists have a great way to detect fraud and it doesn't take 8 or 40 years or even a scientific degree to spot the fraud--'if it disagrees with the bible then it is wrong'.... -- archaeologist

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

I would agree with this metaphor as it relates to atheism as a socially acceptable (or tolerated) position. Since the beginning of the Enlightenment Western culture had steadily moved towards secularism resulting in secular, representative states like the US. The Church was losing power as a voice of reason with science playing a small but active role. The Deist movement of the time was atheism with a theistic hangover, for all intents and purposes. It was a bit like Intelligent Design. While ID is religion dressed in the clothes of science, Deism was atheism dressed in the clothes of religion.The Enlightenment marked the point when the reservoir behind the dam of Church dogma started to fill. If it weren't for the Age of Enlightenment would Darwin have even considered trying to disprove the prevailing dogma of the fixity of species? If it weren't for the preceding geologic revolution led by Lyell would Darwin have come up with his theory on the evolution of species? If Darwin were subject to the Inquisition would he have even dared to write down his ideas? Science and Reason pulled the drapes aside and exposed the Wizard of Oz, and there was no going back for many people.

If only they were skeptics. Skeptics can be convinced. Personally, I see myself as defending Reason from Superstition.

It would be impossible to get any good estimates from that time period to begin with. Atheism was not tolerated like it is today. You might as well try to estimate the prevalence of homosexuality in the early 1900's by citing polls where people openly admitted that they were gay.

I'm one of those odd ducks who says what he means. Gods don't explain anything. As I described above, "Goddit" isn't an explanation, it's an excuse for not looking for an explanation. You need to square that with the fact that most religious people acknowledge that the ToE is the best explanation for life on this planet.I think you will find that these discussions would progress faster if you actually respond to the points others make rather than simply quoting them, then reasserting the same error that they are trying to correct. Just a thought. And thus, you have refuted your own point. Well done.

---

Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. -- Thomas Jefferson

​

We see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat

​

It has always struck me as odd that fundies devote so much time and effort into trying to find a naturalistic explanation for their mythical flood, while looking for magical explanations for things that actually happened. -- Dr. Adequate

​

...creationists have a great way to detect fraud and it doesn't take 8 or 40 years or even a scientific degree to spot the fraud--'if it disagrees with the bible then it is wrong'.... -- archaeologist

... didn't the Enlightenment start just after Darwin published "On the Origin of Species"?

---

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

No, in the 17th century. About the time Theophrastus was published, and the dam was opened for atheism.By most accounts the Enlightenment ended before Darwin was born, with the rise of Napoleon.

No, it was quite a bit earlier.From Wiki:

The Age of Enlightenment (or simply the Enlightenment) is the era in Western philosophy, intellectual, scientific and cultural life, centered upon the 18th century, in which reason was advocated as the primary source for legitimacy and authority. It is also known as the Age of Reason.[1] The enlightenment was a movement of science and reason.

While I completely agree with you, I think it is important to look at the historical context. 2,000 years ago there was no viable way to even look for an explanation for such things as the makeup of matter, the ancestry of species, etc. We live in an age now where the mysteries of nature are easily solved. We can go to Radio Shack, pick up a few parts, and construct experiments that would have stunned Newton.So what does one do when no explanation is even in sight? What if nature really did seem inexplicable in almost every way? What would you have believed in such a time?

Not at all. Darwin, and modern science for that matter, was a product of the Enlightenment. His grandfather Erasmus was a noted figure of the Enlightenment.

There are some skeptics who absolutely cannot be convinced, but they still fit the common definition of "skeptic," and it is the name they give themselves. I know that the defenders of the ToE don't prefer that word to describe the "C" side, and, yeah, it is another peculiarity of that large echo chamber. The defenders of the ToE overlap strongly with the skeptics of religion, they have appropriated the word and they prefer it to describe someone who is critical for a good reason and will change his or her mind when the evidence is sufficient. I prefer the more generic definition. It is more useful when the point does not relate to who is reasonable and who isn't.I have argued religion a lot, and there are a lot of self-described skeptics who refuse to grant any probability to the claim that Jesus existed as any more than myth. I think it is a very unreasonable position, but I will still call them "skeptics," though I have formerly used the phrase, "hyperskeptics," because they are more likely to misinterpret the title of "skeptic" as a compliment that describes someone who is perfectly reasonable, as atheists tend to do.

OK, I am done with you.

His Grandfather? Wow. So it's likely Darwin might have grown up in a skeptical environment?

---

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!