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=hio4ZtVVLhY
At 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 words
Edited by ApostateAbe, : added link to original thread
Edited by ApostateAbe, : Punctuation