Does believing in evolution by natural selection lead one to the position of atheism?

There has been much ink spilled over whether or not the logical conclusion of buying into evolutionary theory forces one to abandon their belief in the traditional notion of God. While the majority of scientists do not believe in a god (National Academy of Sciences has a 93% rate of disbelief in the everyday traditional God) it is still very possible for a scientist of be productive in her field while holding separate her belief in the supernatural. Stephen J. Gould, one of the most famous American proponents of evolutionary theory, and a disbeliever himself, proposed that science and religion cover separate domains, with science covering the empirical realm and religion covering that which concerns ultimate meaning and moral value. I am not sure why religion should be given a free pass on having explanations with respect to ultimate meaning or morals, but this is his claim, not mine. While I find little value in this claim of Gould's, there are many who hold his statements dearly.

Why would believing in evolution by natural selection lead of to the position of atheism?

The first thing that needs to be covered is what is meant by the term atheism? Atheism, here, is not being used is the very strong sense of stating that there is no possibility of the existence of a god in any way what-so-ever. It is logically impossible to demonstrate the complete absence of something. Bertrand Russell has explained this so well in his “teapot argument”. Russell’s teapot points to the fact that if somebody were to claim that there were a teapot orbiting the sun that was so small even our most powerful telescopes could not spot it, nobody could say with 100% certainty that it is not true. Atheism, being used here, is in this sense. They way we are all a-teapotists, a-unicornists, or a-zeusists. The proper term may be agnosticism, but agnosticism tends to give the image of “sitting on the fence.” None of us a-unicornists are sitting on the fence with respect to the existence of unicorns, but we cannot say with 100% certainty that unicorns do not exist entirely (perhaps in a science-fictionesque alter dimension).

Often, but not exclusively, people will turn to belief in a god because they feel the complexity of life needs an explanation. People feel that the intricacies of life are just too complex to have just sprung into existence. Seeing how complex things such as a watch or an airplane require a creator and do not just collect together out of randomness; this logic is extended to the most complex things people know of, themselves and their experiences.

Quote: “…although atheism might have been logically tenable before Darwin, Darwin made it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist.”
-Richard Dawkins, The Blind Watchmaker

What the theory of evolution by natural selection does is offer a mechanism that explains how complexity can emerge without the helping hand of a creator. Natural selection, incidentally the opposite of random, is the most parsimonious explanation of how complexity can come about through the cumulative process of preservation. Small changes in simple things can marginally increase their complexity and these small changes, cumulatively adding up over time, can add up to create extremely complex objects. Natural selection offers a natural explanation for design, without having to posit an even more complex designer.

But it is not just accepting evolutionary theory that moved me in the direction of atheism. It was seeing the method that was used to arrive at Darwin’s theory and all of its explanatory power. In learning about evolutionary theory, I found myself standing firmly under the umbrella of the best method I have ever seen for determining what is true. This method is the scientific method. In utilizing the scientific method, one learns to value, among other things, empirical observation, replication, parsimony, and falsification. For me, and many others, if follows that when you turn these principles on to concepts of god, it becomes difficult to maintain such beliefs.

So what do you think? Does accepting a scientific theory such as evolution by natural selection or accepting the scientific method as a valid tool to arrive at what is true lead one to the position of atheism as described above? Do the science-based methods cover everything in existence and faith-based methods cover something else? Even if you don't know or are undecided, your thoughts and comments are welcome.

Yes

Your thoughtful reply got me thinking (And since picking out fly shit is something I enjoy, I might as well reply to myself. Hey, I enjoy it. ). Believing in evolution or the ability of the scientific method to tell us what is not true does not necessarily prevent people from believing in a god or deity. It just makes it difficult for them to maintain their beliefs in the traditional god. When faced with the logical dilemmas that arise, people tend to redefine what they believe. What was once the inerrant word of God becomes parables or metaphor. What once was the all mighty creator becomes a deity in the form of the laws of the universe or something along those lines.

People have the tendency to push god back to just beyond the scientific horizon of what is known or testable. This of course tends to violate several of the tenants of the scientific method. At some level, it is difficult to place blame on this variety of “intellectual dishonesty.” Considering how deep seated some of these beliefs are held, you should expect to see some fancy rationalization going on. Humans are expert rationalizers when it comes to justifying their beliefs.

The difficulty I have with this lies in Sam Harris’ argument on how the moderate believers create a safe haven for the fanatical believers. If there were only religious nuts and no moderates, the dangerous varieties of religion would be quickly eradicated. Religious moderation tends to prevent any critical statements made about the religious aspect of the dangers fanatics bring to the table. As Harris so plainly states of the moderates “We cannot say that fundamentalists are crazy, because they are merely practicing their freedom of belief; we cannot even say that they are mistaken in religious terms, because their knowledge of scripture is generally unrivaled. All we can say, as religious moderates, is that we don't like the personal and social costs that a full embrace of scripture imposes on us. This is not a new form of faith, or even a new species of scriptural exegesis; it is simply a capitulation to a variety of all-too-human interests that have nothing, in principle, to do with God.”

Skyhook Wrote:So what do you think?

Master of all he survey's AKA ProAss® Wrote:yes

Skyhook Wrote:Your thoughtful reply got me thinking...

You write thirteen hundred words, i write one, and yet we both end up in the same place. But while you were pouring your heart into something you already know the answer too, I was failing the 'batin challenge three times over.

I suppose to some people, when they see a round cylinder with one end enclosed and one open, semi porous constructed of a 21'st century oil based synthetic material holding what appears to be a fluid with boiling point around 100 C and a freezing point of 0 C in its liquid form with trace elements of chlorine and fluoride. When contacting the rods and cones in my sight enabling organs, I detect a distinct spike in the magenta receptors coupled with very little in the manner of data with my scent detectors.

Others may chose to sit there and think on that item, how many ounces, what else it will hold, where it came from, who else has drank from it, how it was cleaned, how many molecules, impurities, atoms, protons, strings ect.....

And yet others will call it a red cup of water

All correct.

When you speak of our brains only really being designed to pick up things on our wavelength, our here and now, our micro/macro state of being, i think you're onto something.

Agreed. We all know my stance and Ass' stance. I write that much for a couple of reasons. The second reason is in hopes of stimulating someone's mind who has not already traveled down that path of thought. The first reason is because I enjoy writing on such topics. Perhaps a little like someone who likes to jog around Lake Hefner in the evenings.

Of course we can just call it a red cup and be done with it. That would be the prudent thing to do if we are trying to concisely describe it. I view one aspect of this board as a place for me to blog and discuss the intricacies of fly shit and any I hope that some of the flies that happens to check out my web get a kick out of what I have to say. And even if they don't, I will continue to post on the finer details of what interests me. I might even accidentally inspire someone to put some of their thoughts out there for the rest of us to consider.

There is a serious debate going on about whether or not evolution or science leads people to atheism. I am just interested in what all the members think about this. If you think atheism is a bad thing, this might be of interest to you. If you think theism is a good thing and evolutionary thinking might threaten it, this might be of interest to you. If you think "ZOMG, LOL in my pants, im n ur hedz" you might interested in "...a time when reading wasn't just for fags. And neither was writing."

Perhaps what you should be asking is, "does having faith in god prevent one from understanding evolution?"

As many of you know, I was once on the the other side of this issue. In high school i was a "goody two shoes," a prude, or whatever you want to call it. I was vice president of FFC, friends for christ, and I argued for creationism in science class. I even wrote a persuasive paper over creationism vs evolution, guess which side I was persuading? Yes, that was me, you should have known me back in those days. Thank goodness I reached the age of reasoning and grew up out of that.

Anyway, to answer my own question, yes, faith inhibited my willingness to fulling understand evolution. I feel that I had an understanding of science but when it came to that one issue, I was ready to defend my ideology. Especially since my teacher was a self proclaimed agnostic. I wanted to save his soul, in fact, that is what jesus would do. Yes, I wore the WWJD bracelets too. How endearing.

I would say that believing in evolution doesn't necessarily lead one to become atheist. In fact, it was the other way around for me. Once I let go of my faith, I was able to fully comprehend the concepts of evolution. I was no longer threatened by the idea. I no longer believed that understanding it lead to a life of damnation. So, for me, becoming atheist led me to "believe" or understand evolution. Letting go of something so intense as faith is a difficult process to overcome. Yet it is the most liberating thing I have accomplished in my life thus far. I am sure that Skyhook remembers one of our earliest conversations in which I called him the devil because he forced me to think for myself instead of regurgitating bible babble that I had just heard. I believe the topic at the time was more on jesus, not evolution.

When I talk to faith based people and ask their opinion on evolution, I hear the same familiar tunes that I once sang myself. I think that if one has faith, even when presented with evidence to the contrary, the faith is what makes it unbelievable. What is ironic, to me, is faith itself has no evidence. It is just a feeling, it is just "faith" for a lack of better terminology. To believe whole heartedly in something 'just because' and completely ignore the more rationale scientific based information is what faith is all about.

I cannot specifically say which came first, atheism or belief in evolution. There is some gray area there. they seem to coincide with each other. I don't think you can be faith based and believe in evolution, they simply require belief in one more than the other. Otherwise, you are not really faith full or you don't really understand evolution. Can't have both.

For those of you on the board that disagree, please help me understand your rationale. I know there are some believers on here, and some evolutionist on here. But does anyone claim to understand and believe in both? It is certainly a category that people put themselves in, I would just like more hands on personal input on the subject matter. So, if you are up to the challenge, please help me see how they these two ideologies can coexist.

This all boils down to our need to explain where we came from, what we're doing, and where we're going.

For some, the Bible offers a nice neat explanation of how things came to be (creation by a diety), along with a purpose (serving god), and a goal (getting into heaven for eternity).

You can't believe in creation without believing in god, and you have no incentive to believe in god without believing in heaven. This is the formula that has worked for humans for the last thousand years or so.

Darwins "dangerous" idea lead to another explanation, (one i believe is supported by facts) on where we came from. It greatly reduces gods role in creating life down to the initial spark, but after you get that spark, evolution does a nice job of explaining how things came to be. Now with having the first part of the three headed question answered, you only need believe in a god for purpose and heaven, but once one reduces gods role in how things came to be this far, it's far easier to live without his divine guidance, and use the same tools relied upon to support evolution and apply those to other areas of our life. Once you get this far, the second tier of the three headed question diminishes greatly, as you embrace logic and reason without invoking the supernatural, this "purpose" that we seek takes a back seat to this life that we live.

So if you go from depending on magic, supernatural, god to explain how things came to be to relying on the scientific method, logic and reason, god's role is diminished sooooooooooo greatly that in the end, it's not the same god, it's not the same religion, it's just not the same story.

The holy bribe that is an afterlife is also brought to question, as you begin to question everything at this point. If they lied about the beginning, and it's pretty clear the purpose of serving something that didn't do anything near what they told you it did, the afterlife becomes alot closer to wishful thinking.

With that being said....

There is something to be said for those who continue to embrace the tradition that is faith in spite of what they know to be true on an intellectual level. Look around, we live in a Christian nation, and it doesn't take genius to figure out that the path of least resistance in this country is to subscribe to this on some level.

The hook and I sat around one night and discovered a pretty substantial divide in our approach to life.

Say there's a box in the middle of the room, and you don't know whats inside. The only thing that can be guaranteed is that inside the box, is something that will be greatly upsetting. Skyhook couldn't think of any reason at all why he wouldn't man up and look inside the box, as any information is good information. While I said that if there's absolutely no chance that the contents of the box will bring me joy, and its guaranteed to bring me sadness, I just may elect to remain in the dark on the box's contents.

If you're brought up believing in an afterlife, and it is a very real driving force in your life, and you wholeheartedly believe in it. I can't think of anything more upsetting than finding out that it is almost certainly a fairy tale. I understand that holding a belief of eternal life is dangerous to those of us that don't believe, due to their willingness to die for a cause, or them not taking this life as seriously as we would like them to. But this is an internal personal individual struggle, and they don't usually weight in what a heretic thinks when the eternal soul is on the line.

An aside, Skyhook, that box can be opened at 2girls1cup

does anyone else feel that they have had, heard, or read this same conversation about a hundred times?

mabye that is the reason for the lack of participation. I have heard all of this from you before. I am glad you like writing about this topic. I read it every time you write it. please do not assume that I haven't "already traveled down that path of thought" just because I don't post responses.

Sky, have you ever considered writing a book on the subject? I know there are many books already out there, but I would imagine you could come up with an original perspective that would be quite interesting.

As I am sure everybody could guess, the caricature of the discussion that took place between Ass and I didn’t go exactly the way he tells it, at least from my point of view. The box we were talking about was the box that sits on top of your shoulders. For simplification’s sake, I am sure we boiled it down to some type of box with unknown contents. But there was no reason to suspect that its contents were greatly upsetting or the contents had absolutely no chance of bringing joy. Those remained possibilities, but nothing could be guaranteed as we were discussing the unknown.

One of the many reasons why I think it is a good idea to look under the skull to find out the inner workings of how our brain operates is because I have never felt any type of serious disappointment in “removing the magic” out of anything. I have always found naturalistic explanations to be more fulfilling that magical ones. In terms of explanation, finding out what is in that box has always brought me more joy than a mere narrative about the contents.

I think it is a myth that explaining something in naturalistic terms serves to diminish it in some way. Ass may believe that some things are better left to magic, but his actions generally do not support this belief. Otherwise, why would he not take “the path of least resistance?” The option is still on the table; you can be born again or “saved” at any point in your life.

Letting go of the afterlife story and replacing it with a more naturalistic one does not have to be as devastating as it is made out to be. I think the myth of devastation serves more as a propagation feature of the belief than it does as an actual description of reality. I have personally never heard of anyone who has dropped the afterlife story and found life to be unbearable without it. Once you let go, you realize the drop is not far at all. All you had to do was stand up. With the afterlife story out of the way, you are then left considering your legacy in more realistic terms. Since the reality of the situation is that you will not live forever, the only way you can continue after death is through the artifacts you produced while still alive. I see nothing impoverished in this view.

I have considered writing a book on subjects such as this one. But writing a book is difficult and I tend to be lazy at times. A while back, I decided that if I were to ever write a book, I need to, at the very least, start writing something. In the spirit of learning to crawl before you learn to walk, I thought writing several essays would be an excellent way to gather my thoughts. And here we are. I try to put out at least one decent essay as a post per week. I do have a lofty long term goal of taking these thoughts and organizing them, surveying what else is out there, and writing a book.

I agree that taking the magic out of things usually makes it more interesting. learning the slight of hand behind the magic trick is more enjoyable than being amazed by the trick.

Quote:As I am sure everybody could guess....

Was this slight really necessary?

No, but neither was the caricature. I am sorry for the slight. Can we still be friends?

I'm sorry my memory of conversations two years ago isn't as vivid as yours, and ......

Never mind

Sometimes I feel like I'm part of a paraplegic dodgeball team rolling around getting beaned by Roger Clemens and the Yankees

I build straw men, and you beat dead horses

The horse may be dead to you, but there are many who still ride upon it.

I am with DO on this (about 5 posts before) and ASS to some extent.
As someone who is into conducting research in Biology, the subject of evolution comes up quite often. Furthermore, the division between religion and science is also a topic of which is discussed. I think these topics are interesting and worthy of conversation. But sometimes it gets old talking about the same thing we all pretty much agree upon. Skyhook, I can remember a time when Billy, ProAss, and I all lived in that stupid house next to the stupid train. You and I had a discussion about the fun of discussing topics like evolution and religion, I said something to the degree of "it's more challenging to argue with someone that doesn't share the same ideology". We then began to argue about what was more challenging. Obviously, I have changed my position and do think that the more challenging discussion is between the fine details. But it is also the one that loses luster the ten millionth time we talk about it. My point is that yes, these topics are fun and interesting to talk about. But they do get boring after we have discussed them many times over. That is the reason for my lack of posting in the science and religion areas.

Personally, I would love discussing evolution if we were all collecting data and testing hypotheses associated with with the subject. Unfortunately, we are not.

So we've got two people surveying, one person answering yes, and two people tired of the subject?

If everybody is bored with the thoughts I put out, take a page out of CarbonMade's play book and step up to the plate.

She already took sex, what else is there?

PZ Myers weighed in on this topic through his blog a couple days ago.

What should a scientist think about religion?

Quote:...As I was puzzling over how to answer such an odd question, I realized why I thought it was odd. The scientist and atheist positions are the same. It doesn't matter which hat I'm wearing, the answers won't change.

What should a scientist expect from an idea? That it be a reasonable advance in knowledge; that it be built on a foundation of evidence; that it be testable; that it should lead to new and useful questions and ideas. If we look at religion from that perspective, it doesn't help. At best, the hypothesis of the supernatural and/or a supreme being is vague, unfounded, and inapplicable in any practical fashion—deistic views, for instance, are so abstract and so carefully divorced from risk of challenge that they represent an empty hypothesis, and the most flattering thing you can say about them is that they're harmless. At worst, religion is confused, internally contradictory, and in conflict with evidence from the physical (and near as we can tell, only) world...
-PZ Myers, What should a scientist think about religion?

Contrary to what a few people have posted in this thread, I think this topic is still very much alive and well. There are more people who value science/evolution and hold a theistic POV than those who value sci/evo and hold an atheistic view.