|
Author
|
Topic: How Darwin caused atheism
|
ApostateAbe
Member (Idle past 4646 days) Posts: 175 From: Klamath Falls, OR Joined: 02-02-2005
|
|
Message 31 of 122 (601417)
01-20-2011 11:51 AM
|
Reply to: Message 18 by nwr
01-20-2011 1:42 AM
|
|
Re: History of atheism
nwr writes: There's a Wikipedia entry on the History of atheism which is probably good background reading for this thread. As of the time of this post, that wiki page doesn't even mention Darwin. 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.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 18 by nwr, posted 01-20-2011 1:42 AM | | nwr has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 33 by nwr, posted 01-20-2011 12:02 PM | | ApostateAbe has replied | | | Message 36 by Iblis, posted 01-20-2011 12:15 PM | | ApostateAbe has not replied | | | Message 39 by Dr Jack, posted 01-20-2011 12:31 PM | | ApostateAbe has replied |
|
ApostateAbe
Member (Idle past 4646 days) Posts: 175 From: Klamath Falls, OR Joined: 02-02-2005
|
|
|
Message 32 of 122 (601421)
01-20-2011 12:01 PM
|
Reply to: Message 23 by sfs
01-20-2011 10:02 AM
|
|
sfs writes:
I'd like you to support the historical claim that Darwin was responsible for a substantial increase in atheism.
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.
sfs writes: quote:
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.
I didn't suggest that you needed a degree in history to do the research, just that you actually offer some historical evidence. If Dennett did the research, great, present that. So far, based on what you've given us, I have no idea at all whether Darwin had a great deal to do with increasing atheism or nothing at all. OK, my apologies.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 23 by sfs, posted 01-20-2011 10:02 AM | | sfs has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 40 by sfs, posted 01-20-2011 12:43 PM | | ApostateAbe has replied |
|
nwr
Member Posts: 6409 From: Geneva, Illinois Joined: 08-08-2005 Member Rating: 5.3
|
Re: History of atheism
ApostateAbe writes: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.
Let's remember that Dawkins and Dennett are primarily concerned with evolution, and only secondarily concerned with atheism. (Well, Dennett is primarily concerned with philosophy and cognitive science and secondarily concerned with evolution, so his concern with atheism is tertiary.)
Jesus was a liberal hippie
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 31 by ApostateAbe, posted 01-20-2011 11:51 AM | | ApostateAbe has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 35 by ApostateAbe, posted 01-20-2011 12:12 PM | | nwr has seen this message but not replied |
|
ApostateAbe
Member (Idle past 4646 days) Posts: 175 From: Klamath Falls, OR Joined: 02-02-2005
|
|
|
Message 34 of 122 (601425)
01-20-2011 12:09 PM
|
Reply to: Message 15 by nwr
01-19-2011 11:44 PM
|
|
nwr writes: I agree with several others. We could use some evidence here. Without evidence, we are engaging in speculation. As far as speculation goes, I would think that Copernicus, Galileo and Newton were more important for giving us reasons to question religion. Before big-bang cosmology, you could use panspermia as a possible explanation of the source of life. It is still a possibility, of course, but if the universe has a finite history then panspermia loses some of its explanatory power. Fundies like to blame Darwin, but I'll remain skeptical until there is good evidence to support that view.
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.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 15 by nwr, posted 01-19-2011 11:44 PM | | nwr has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 37 by nwr, posted 01-20-2011 12:20 PM | | ApostateAbe has not replied | | | Message 47 by subbie, posted 01-20-2011 4:09 PM | | ApostateAbe has replied |
|
ApostateAbe
Member (Idle past 4646 days) Posts: 175 From: Klamath Falls, OR Joined: 02-02-2005
|
|
|
Message 35 of 122 (601426)
01-20-2011 12:12 PM
|
Reply to: Message 33 by nwr
01-20-2011 12:02 PM
|
|
Re: History of atheism
nwr writes: ApostateAbe writes: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.
Let's remember that Dawkins and Dennett are primarily concerned with evolution, and only secondarily concerned with atheism. (Well, Dennett is primarily concerned with philosophy and cognitive science and secondarily concerned with evolution, so his concern with atheism is tertiary.)
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.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 33 by nwr, posted 01-20-2011 12:02 PM | | nwr has seen this message but not replied |
|
Iblis
Member (Idle past 3914 days) Posts: 663 Joined: 11-17-2005
|
Re: History of atheism
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. Not really, someone just has to be willing to do the work rather than just, wish it done.
How can there be no mention of Charles Darwin and "The Origin of Species"? Surely its publication was one of the key events in the evolution (sorry) of atheism. By suggesting a process for the diversity of life that did not require a God Darwin hammered the final nail into God's coffin. Almost every debate today on theism/atheism consists at least half on the theory of evolution and the theists objections to it. This article is not complete without a big section on Darwin. Not to mention the 150 years of science since that have confirmed his theory and made atheism more obvious and acceptable to more people than ever in human history. 96.54.55.67 (talk) 07:22, 7 April 2010 (UTC) The article is not semi-protected, feel free to contribute  . AzureFury (talk | contribs) 17:17, 7 April 2010 (UTC) Talk:History of atheism - Wikipedia
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 31 by ApostateAbe, posted 01-20-2011 11:51 AM | | ApostateAbe has not replied |
|
nwr
Member Posts: 6409 From: Geneva, Illinois Joined: 08-08-2005 Member Rating: 5.3
|
ApostateAbe writes: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 would agree that the advance of science is an important part of the growth of atheism. However, I don't like the expression "eliminated the need for God". I would be more inclined to the view that the advance of science has encouraged skepticism, and skepticism leads to the questioning of religion.
Jesus was a liberal hippie
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 34 by ApostateAbe, posted 01-20-2011 12:09 PM | | ApostateAbe has not replied |
|
ApostateAbe
Member (Idle past 4646 days) Posts: 175 From: Klamath Falls, OR Joined: 02-02-2005
|
|
|
Message 38 of 122 (601432)
01-20-2011 12:30 PM
|
Reply to: Message 27 by Iblis
01-20-2011 11:02 AM
|
|
Re: good for the goose
Iblis writes: I said "work", not "talking shit". I seriously expected you to actually clarify, something along the lines of focusing on the diversity of life, in good agreement with things like Dennet's point about the weird-headed bird. But no, you are really doing it. Holy crap!
The only event separating abiogenesis from Darwinian evolution is the chemical synthesis of the first self-replicating molecule First of all, it's not that fucking simple. Crystals are full of self-replicating molecules, and no one who can be taken seriously considers them life, not even me. But let's skip ahead just as if you had bothered to be clear, because I don't have the patience to wait for that unlikely event to ever happen anymore. Let's act as if you had said "imperfectly replicating molecules in competition for resources". Fine. I for one am perfectly happy to consider proteinoids, catalytic liposomes and stacked NAs as life. They reproduce, they mutate, they compete, they evolve. That ought to be all I need, right? But no, I'm not allowed to stop where chemistry has done its job. I have to care about crap like the RNA world, which is essentially biology cleverly reverse-engineering itself, because I have to get all the way to a full cell before any creationist or non-biochemist biologist will admit I have "life". This board is full of biologists who are perfectly willing to concede that abiogenesis is doubtful, mere speculation, irrelevant. What they are really saying is, it's chemistry, ergo, not their problem. As for creationists, I can't even get them to admit that freestanding RNA viruses or ricketsia are "life". A lot of them are doubtful about bacteria and particularly archaea. I have one buddy, a church elder, who disputes whether fucking ferns are life because they don't "bear seed". Now, at this late date, Darwin tends to get a mention in reference to abiogenesis because of his "warm pond" speculation. But this was in a private letter, unpublished, not Origin of Species or Descent of Man.
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.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 27 by Iblis, posted 01-20-2011 11:02 AM | | Iblis has not replied |
|
Dr Jack
Member Posts: 3514 From: Immigrant in the land of Deutsch Joined: 07-14-2003 Member Rating: 8.3
|
Re: History of atheism
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. Well, Darwin wasn't (publicly) an atheist - although he stopped going to church - contributed nothing to atheist philosophy, and didn't advocate for atheism so it's not clear what place he would have in such an article.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 31 by ApostateAbe, posted 01-20-2011 11:51 AM | | ApostateAbe has replied |
|
sfs
Member (Idle past 2552 days) Posts: 464 From: Cambridge, MA USA Joined: 08-27-2003
|
ApostateAbe writes:
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.
There are quite a few steps in your argument that I would want to see supported, including ones you don't mention above. For example, when did atheism actually start to increase? (Note: this cannot be answered simply by listing atheists or theist, whenever they lived.) How widely accepted was Darwin's theory of natural selection among philosophers during the period you're talking about? Among others? Was belief in God primarily justified by appeal to the argument from design? Was it primarily motivated by that argument? Did Marx and Nietzsche become atheists because of Darwin?
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 32 by ApostateAbe, posted 01-20-2011 12:01 PM | | ApostateAbe has replied |
|
ApostateAbe
Member (Idle past 4646 days) Posts: 175 From: Klamath Falls, OR Joined: 02-02-2005
|
|
|
Message 41 of 122 (601438)
01-20-2011 1:00 PM
|
Reply to: Message 39 by Dr Jack
01-20-2011 12:31 PM
|
|
Re: History of atheism
Mr Jack writes: 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. Well, Darwin wasn't (publicly) an atheist - although he stopped going to church - contributed nothing to atheist philosophy, and didn't advocate for atheism so it's not clear what place he would have in such an article. 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.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 39 by Dr Jack, posted 01-20-2011 12:31 PM | | Dr Jack has not replied |
|
ApostateAbe
Member (Idle past 4646 days) Posts: 175 From: Klamath Falls, OR Joined: 02-02-2005
|
|
|
Message 42 of 122 (601441)
01-20-2011 1:35 PM
|
Reply to: Message 40 by sfs
01-20-2011 12:43 PM
|
|
sfs writes: ApostateAbe writes:
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.
There are quite a few steps in your argument that I would want to see supported, including ones you don't mention above. For example, when did atheism actually start to increase? (Note: this cannot be answered simply by listing atheists or theist, whenever they lived.) How widely accepted was Darwin's theory of natural selection among philosophers during the period you're talking about? Among others? Was belief in God primarily justified by appeal to the argument from design? Was it primarily motivated by that argument? Did Marx and Nietzsche become atheists because of Darwin?
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.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 40 by sfs, posted 01-20-2011 12:43 PM | | sfs has not replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 43 by jar, posted 01-20-2011 1:38 PM | | ApostateAbe has replied |
|
jar
Member (Idle past 412 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: 04-20-2004
|
claims are nice.
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. And if I had a hypothesis that the sharpest increase was in June of 1849 or May of 1803 or November of 1917 what data is available to test each?
Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 44 by ApostateAbe, posted 01-20-2011 1:49 PM | | jar has seen this message but not replied |
|
ApostateAbe
Member (Idle past 4646 days) Posts: 175 From: Klamath Falls, OR Joined: 02-02-2005
|
|
|
Message 44 of 122 (601443)
01-20-2011 1:49 PM
|
Reply to: Message 43 by jar
01-20-2011 1:38 PM
|
|
Re: claims are nice.
jar writes:
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. And if I had a hypothesis that the sharpest increase was in June of 1849 or May of 1803 or November of 1917 what data is available to test each? 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 - Wikipedia They 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.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 43 by jar, posted 01-20-2011 1:38 PM | | jar has seen this message but not replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 51 by Taq, posted 01-20-2011 9:31 PM | | ApostateAbe has replied |
|
Modulous
Member Posts: 7801 From: Manchester, UK Joined: 05-01-2005
|
I would agree. At least somewhat. One of the biggest influences on a person's acceptance of evolution is their religion. We suggest that a person's religion has 'blinded' them on a fairly regular basis around here, for instance (how many atheists question it?). Some people feel that compromising their religion will lead to the whole house of cards coming down. It isn't necessarily so, but nevertheless... One of leading factors in atheism is educational attainment (strong correlation with a rise in education and a decline in belief). Furthermore - one of the leading professions for atheism is biology, though I don't have the exact figures to hand. So what's going on? Clearly education in general shifts people towards atheism. This could arise from learning to ask pressing questions, becoming more critical etc. But biology as a leading factor? I'm sure seeing the failings of the human body and horrific diseases might convince some medicine students that the problem of evil is a biggie. But I think evolution, the cornerstone of biology, really is a factor an order of magnitude at least stronger that other equally common things.
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. Two massive brutal and bloody wars? The transistor? Expanded travel and communications? The rise of the media? The 1960s? (When atheism started it's rise) Vietnam? To be honest - that period was so revolutionary socially, economically as well as intellectually we can't rule out the sheer shock of it all was itself a factor.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 1 by ApostateAbe, posted 01-19-2011 7:37 PM | | ApostateAbe has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 46 by ApostateAbe, posted 01-20-2011 2:29 PM | | Modulous has seen this message but not replied |
|
™ Version 4.2