How Darwin caused atheism

Hi, Abe.If you'll permit me to take a side trip for this post, I'd like to make a couple simple observations. I agree that there's a lot of connection between evolution and abiogenesis. Mechanistically, they don't differ all that much: whatever caused the transition between "non-life" and "life" almost certainly happened via what could arguably be called a "random mutation," so it would seem to fit the mechanistic definition of "evolution" just fine.Where they diverge is in the fact that one of them (evolution) could happen even if the other (abiogenesis) didn't. Thus, they're not dependent on each other. However, proponents of abiogenesis are, without exception, also proponents of evolution. So I'm sure that at least some proponents have philosophically or ideologically linked the two such that they rather are dependent on each other. Still, I doubt it's the typical case, so I'm not sure that it's particularly relevant.----- Yeah, I know I've personally taken part in "ToE activism" on multiple occasions. I think it's more an artifact of having a lot of evolutionists on this site, so the posts against evolution tend to get better coverage.-----Also, I don't think you're arguing that Darwin caused atheism: you're arguing that Darwin enabled atheism.Intuitively, it makes perfect sense. Man's status as a special creation of God being arguably the most important dogma of most religions, it seems perfectly reasonable to think that a theory that challenges the specialness of man would be the most important reason for people to reject most religions.But, beyond simple intuitiveness, I don't have much to suggest that it is the actuality of things. I think it would make an interesting volunteer survey: "what is the most common reason why atheists decided to become atheists"? Does anyone know if this has been done?Edited by Bluejay, : Why are there three ways to spell "site"?

---

-Bluejay (a.k.a. Mantis, Thylacosmilus)Darwin loves you.

Joseph Stalin became an atheist after reading The origin of species:

quote:

---

God's not unjust, he doesn't actually exist. We've been deceived. If God existed, he'd have made the world more just... I'll lend you a book and you'll see.

---

Joseph Stalin - WikiquoteNow, unless someone can bring other examples involving other scientific theories, this seems to point that the ToE has a much bigger impact then the vast majority of theories.

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.

---

Jesus was a liberal hippie

I agree, ToE has helped people become Atheists. It's not particularly unique in that. Science, in general, has helped people become Atheists because it has whittled away at the body of things people can point to and say "God did this". It has also promoted a healthy scepticism of absurd claims - have a read through the lists of Catholic saints and have a giggle at the miracles they "performed" to get sainted. It's a giggle. And, finally, it's offered a far better way to understand the world than a bunch of stuff some people made up.

I'm surprised no one in this thread, or the previous one as far as I can see, has brought up Richard Dawkins on the connection between Darwin's work and atheism. In a response to an article in the Guardian in 2009, when Darwin was everywhere, he wrote ... So at least Dawkins seems to agree with Abe.TTFN,WK

The majority of Atheists I know (and that's probably more than the average) say that it was reading the Bible that caused them to become Atheists.

---

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

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.

I'd like you to support the historical claim that Darwin was responsible for a substantial increase in atheism.

quote:

---

Yeah, I don't go through the trouble of proving every claim and assumption.

---

But it would be nice if you supported your central claim.

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.

Long before Darwin there was Jainism, Buddhism, The Vedas of Ceylon, Taoism, folk like Epicurus ...

---

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

I think it's a mistake to lump Mysticism and Atheism even though technically correct by a literalist derivation of the term Atheist.

But the idea and actual support of there being no God or Gods is not something new. Look at Psalm 14 as an indication.

---

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

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! 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.

Atheism is an inevitable logical conclusion of skepticism, which had existed thousands of years before Darwin published his work.You also have to keep in mind of the period we're talking about. Relatively right before Darwin's time, people were still being persecuted for plasphemy for godsake. And relatively around Darwin's time, for the first time in history religion started having less influence on the states. It was a perfect timing for competing ideas to emerge without being squashed by the church.I'd say that atheism would still exist and thrive even if there is no theory of evolution.

And Hitler was a catholic. In fact, the church never excommunicated a single member of the third reich. So what?

Sure.There were Atheists before Darwin. Long, long before. But I don't think that's really the question posed - did Darwin, by discovering evolution, increase the number of Atheists? In my view, yes, he did. He's not alone in that, all historical science challenges mythical notions of creation; and all current science challenges the need for the supernatural. But Darwin, in explaining humanity, struck a blow to the heart of the need for religion.