Darwin,Atheism and Religion
1) does Theology cancels Darwin Evoltutionary Theory and vice versa?
2) Is an atheist as as result of Darwin's Evolution?
in other word would there be Atheism if there was no Darwinism?
3) Is Religion the root cause/drive to Darwin's thinking of Evolution?
it may never try
but when it does it sigh
it is just that
good
it fly
Originally Posted by cacian
1 - Theological theories that afirms something contrary to it is canceled by Darwin Natural Selection Theory. No theology can really cancel his theory however and some do not even care about it.
2 - Atheism predates Darwin.
3 - No, Darwin was never very religious. He had friends who worked with evolutin before him and even his greatfather. Also, his family had a genetic disease due to the marriage among cousins and this affect and killed one of his daughters. Trying to understand it was a big impulse for his research.
I think I agree with JCamillo's answers. Atheism comes long before Darwin and the sort of materialistic atheism that I'm opposed to probably had its high point around 1800 when it most agreed with deterministic scientific theories.
I don't see why evolution should be a problem for religion except for those that insist on a literal interpretation of Genesis. Personally, I think we have all been around the block many times incarnated as many different species. Evolution fits in nicely with that.
I see.
Would say however that the three are somehow linked?
it may never try
but when it does it sigh
it is just that
good
it fly
Thank you for that.
About Darwin and Religion.
I meant it the other way like this.
Wasn't Darwin out to prove that Religion/or the concept of God did not exist hence his theory on Evolution.
it may never try
but when it does it sigh
it is just that
good
it fly
No, the concept of evolution does proof or disproof God and has roots even in some religious stories. And evolution was a well accepted fact before Darwin, he just went to investigate it. His theory (natural selection) only showed that there was natural cause behind the living organisms variety and it was not a product of a designer.
Darwin became atheist more as result of his research and pain due the loss of a daughter, as he saw less and less of God's actions in the world.
It does suprise me that Darwin blamed god for a genetic mismatch.
He of all people should have understood that same blood mixing is bound to fail eventually.
I thought he was a scientist where does he get off blaming God.
That does not make senseto me.
Youwould have thought he would have devoted his time trying to work genes and why they fail betwneen humans rather trying to prove some kind of evolution that does not help or improve the state of humans genes and their progress.
It is just a thought.
it may never try
but when it does it sigh
it is just that
good
it fly
As for (1), theism and evolution are obviously compatible. Of course, certain particular theologies - southern fundamentalist baptism, for instance - are not compatible with evolution. Too bad for them.
About (2), both atheism and evolutionary theory antedate Darwin.
Your last question (3) is debatable - if I understand what you're asking. Nobody's completely unpartisan. And Darwin's theories may have had ulterior anti-theistic motives - but this in no way alters the truth or falsity thereof. At any rate, Darwin was (or became) anti-theistic. He wrote such things as: "I have lately read Morley’s Life of Voltaire & he insists strongly that direct attacks on Christianity . . . produce little permanent effect: real good seems only to follow from slow & silent side attacks.— I have been talking on this head with Litchfield, & he strongly concurs."
http://www.darwinproject.ac.uk/entry-9105
He didnt blame God and I didnt said he did. He just saw his wife praying every night and nothing happening and considered that maybe it was because there was nobody hearing. Even so, there is no reason to believe that Darwin became atheist due a single motive in his life.
And he obviously knew that same blood mixing was a problem, after all, it is much thanks to him that we have this notion. Because after all, he dedicated all his life to study the mechanims that explained the transmition of traits between living beings and what could cause to failures an this became much of his theory. You know, the very theory he was famous for?
Last edited by JCamilo; 12-18-2011 at 02:28 PM.
I would have been atheist without Darwinism. It doesn't make sense to base belief on something that was said to have happened in an illiterate culture in a desert, especially when the Chinese were already well established and had a rich, documented history and written language that said nothing of Christianity. That doesn't mean I would be a Buddhist either. I don't know. No one has presented sufficient evidence for such fantastical claims for ANY theology. Darwin is one scientist in a long line of people documenting, exploring, and questioning science. If he hadn't made certain advances, someone else would have.
Atheists who remain atheists don't retain anger at a god. That's nonsensical. My motivating factor for not swallowing theism is that it sounds cultish, judgmental, and absurd. It flies in the face of reason. People can try to rationalize it, but it can't ever be in line with reasoning in the physical reality we exist in.
How does theism sound cultish, judgemental, and absurd? I can understand some religions sounding this way. But theism? There are many species in the genus, and some are areligious, some purely philosophical, and so on.
You're generalising again. No doubt, some religions are irrational, in whole or in part. But philosophical theism is not irrational - or if it is, it has never been demonstrated to be. That doesn't mean it's true. But it's not irrational.It flies in the face of reason. People can try to rationalize it, but it can't ever be in line with reasoning in the physical reality we exist in.
I did not specifically say it was irrational. Of course people can rationalize it. Some of those rationalizations are sick and breed hatred and judgement of others. I said theism is unREASONable in our physical reality. There is fact, as we know it, and there is not fact. There is a god, or there is no god.
"Exceptional claims demand exceptional evidence." Hitchens again.
A thought I just had: It doesn't make sense to consider atheism as a reaction to any religion, because atheism actually predates all religions. It's the other way around; before there were belief systems, there weren't any.
You must be the change you wish to see in the world. -- Mahatma Gandhi
The traditional, historical definition of an atheist is one who ascribes to the proposition, "There is no God." If we re-define atheism as merely a lack of belief, then rocks and trees are atheists. But rocks and trees are not atheists. Therefore, etc.
Last edited by Climacus; 12-18-2011 at 03:41 PM.
A person can exist without knowledge of a god. It's still atheism. It certainly isn't theism. Let's not be silly.
There is theism or atheism. It's pretty cut and dry at this point.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
