Atheism and evolution...

[NathanielFisher]

I'm an atheist and this is the argument I use in favour of atheism:

Evolution shows that nature has created humans and all living creatures not a theist God. This shows that there's no need for a theist God. This is an argument in favour of naturalism and atheism.

What are the theist and Christian responses to this sort of argument made by Dawkins?


"I suspect the reason is that most people ... have a residue of feeling that Darwinian evolution isn't quite big enough to explain everything about life. All I can say as a biologist is that the feeling disappears progressively the more you read about and study what is known about life and evolution. I want to add one thing more. The more you understand the significance of evolution, the more you are pushed away from the agnostic position and towards atheism. Complex, statistically improbable things are by their nature more difficult to explain than simple, statistically probable things.
-- Richard Dawkins, from The New Humanist, the Journal of the Rationalist Press Association, Vol 107 No 2"

What would be your main argument/evidence against a thiestic God?

[Whitney]

Evolution by natural selection is an explaination of how life managed to change after life already started.  When dawkins speaks of evolution in the manner quoted he must be referring to something else; namely abiogenesis.  Natural Selection is about as close to fact as science gets while abiogenesis is not nearly as solid yet.

Even if abiogenesis were as much of a fact as natural selection; that still wouldn't answer why there is something rather than nothing...and as long as there is no explanation for existence itself that leaves room for people to honestly entertain the possibility of a god.  However, I'd argue that just because it's possible doesn' t mean it is probable nor does it justify belief.

From what I have read of Dawkins, he's not of the opinion that it is possible to prove god doesn't exist....he just doesn't think there is a reason to believe in one and that most religious views of a god are quite silly.

[fester30]

Most people, whether theist or atheist, do not understand the details of how evolution really works.  Atheists who don't understand it I imagine would just accept what the scientific community at large agrees upon.  Theists who don't understand it, however, often think they do and will give misguided arguments such as "The second LAW of thermodynamics says everything is decaying, the THEORY of evolution says everything is evolving, and last time I checked a law overrides a theory!"  

Okay so they misunderstand entropy.  We laugh, but it's so much more than that.  These are often the same people that read a hacked email from one climate scientist to another about tricks they do with the numbers and suddenly that becomes evidence of a huge conspiracy to make up global warming.  These people who don't understand science but hear one or two things in the news are dangerous because they vote.

Your argument for atheism isn't likely to have any impact on a theist, as one could just say that God chose to use evolution as his method of creating.  They use this argument because... as pointed out above they don't understand it like Mr. Dawkins does.

[NathanielFisher]

Thanks for the responses.

fester30  -- Ken Miller is a Christian who understands evolution.

Whitney -- Yes but evolution is what created all of the different life forms after abiogenesis.

[xSilverPhinx]

I seriously think it's a problem to use evolutionary theory as an argument in favour of atheism. It has nothing to do with religion but the religious will often see it as the equivalent of a creation myth, just as fantastic, unsupported and imaginary as their own. Evolution is the creation myth of the atheist religion and so it's proofs can be interpreted in anyway they please to fit a worldview.  

Science can't prove or disprove the supernatural anyway...it has no access to it if it exists, and to say that evolutionary theory disproves god and thus leads to atheism is false.

[Whitney]

Whitney -- Yes but evolution is what created all of the different life forms after abiogenesis.

So? How does that relate to god not existing; a deist would say god kick started it (even many liberal Christians are okay with the idea of god using abiogenesis and evolution as creation tools).

[The Magic Pudding]

So? How does that relate to god not existing; a deist would say god kick started it (even many liberal Christians are okay with the idea of god using abiogenesis and evolution as creation tools).

That attitude is hell of a lot less disturbing than the young earth weirdness.
I suppose you have to argue the truth as you see it, but telling theists that science disproves their god seems to make some cling to an extreme view.  Some days I think it's OK to allow them some wriggle room, at least until the young earthers go away.

[xSilverPhinx]

That attitude is hell of a lot less disturbing than the young earth weirdness.
I suppose you have to argue the truth as you see it, but telling theists that science disproves their god seems to make some cling to an extreme view.  Some days I think it's OK to allow them some wriggle room, at least until the young earthers go away.

I think it's about choosing battles. Scientific fact make disprove what they think about their gods but it doesn't cut off the supernatural from their lives or whatever purpose they want to see in their beliefs. if learning and growing is all about enhancement and pursuit of knowledge, then why can't some people apply that to their gods and philosophies?  The problem is with those who feel they have to reject part of reality in order to preserve their beliefs...not with science and what it proves and disproves.

YEC are on a whole different level: they want to push their scientific/historical/geological delusions which have been disproven into schools. Talk about a huge step back.

[NathanielFisher]

Whitney -- Yes but evolution is what created all of the different life forms after abiogenesis.

So? How does that relate to god not existing; a deist would say god kick started it (even many liberal Christians are okay with the idea of god using abiogenesis and evolution as creation tools).

A God that created human beinga would seem unlikely.

xSilverPhinx -- I don't think evolution disproves God. It just makes a God that created humans seem unlikely.

What would be your main argument/evidence against a thiestic God?

[xSilverPhinx]

I don't think evolution disproves God. It just makes a God that created humans seem unlikely.

It disproves the creation account in genesis, with god creating mankind in his image out of dirt in one go. The point I was making is that you have be careful to not say that science disproves the supernatural. Many out there already rely too much on black-and-white thinking and false dichotomies to think deeper about what you're saying, so how you word it can be harmful to your cause.

[Wilson]

Whitney's absolutely correct.  Evolution is not an argument against religion, against belief in God.  It's an argument against biblical truths, however.  It's an argument against all Judeo/Christian/Muslim holy books.

The mystery is how that first living cell came about.  Most of us here believe that there's a logical non-supernatural explanation.  Personally I suspect that life isn't all that rare throughout the universe - that given the right conditions, it will spontaneously arise.  But I don't know that for a fact.  We just can't rule out the possibility that an intelligent entity created the universe and perhaps even started life on Earth.  I think the likelihood of that is very small, but it's not impossible.  So we can't prove the non-existence of God.  The best we can say is that He is extremely unlikely.

[Whitney]

What would be your main argument/evidence against a thiestic God?

Why would I need to actively disprove a god?  I don't believe because there is no evidence of one not because I magically became able to search the whole universe and peer back into history and know that no gods ever existed.

[NathanielFisher]

Thanks for the responses.

[JoeBobSmith]

 

[xSilverPhinx]

What would be your main argument/evidence against a thiestic God?

Depends on what they mean when they're talking about 'god'. You could think that you disproved one thing but then their 'god' simply morphs into a different thing than your argument is addressing and the belief stays safe. They move the goalposts a lot.

You can't disprove the feelings they associate with 'god'. You can try and make them question whether they know that those really have to do with god in the way that they think it does...might make some think a bit about it.

As for their god with which they fill gaps, those can be disproven through educating them.

You can try and disprove the claims they make about their personal gods with logic, but don't bother stretching it if they don't get it quickly, something's happening in their heads to prevent that and you'll find yourself throwing the same argument at them over and over again only to have them half answer it every time.

Sometimes it can blur into weirdness. They attribute their whole existence to their particular version of god, and you can't prove to them that they don't exist in order to prove that their god is not possible.

Personally I think that making them aware of the cognitive traps (such as biases, and beliefs in the general broadest sense) that lead to false beliefs can go a long way. Many times even smart people don't see how badly they're thinking.  But you have to realize that with most they want to believe and they actively search for god in everything and that truth value doesn't matter. You won't go far with those.