Atheists: What if there were no evolution?

Question

Dawkings once said [i dont remember where], that the theory of evolution made life safer for atheists. He said that it was possible before Darwins theory for an atheist to have reasonable basis for his beliefs [yeah, right]. But that after the theory of evolution atheists could really have an "ideological fullfilment" [again, yeah right].

A]Atheists, please forgive if im twisting What Dawkings said, ah i couldnt find the quotation, still i'm pretty sure i got most of it right [correct me if i got it wrong ok].

Do you agree with the statement? How do you feel towards the theory of evolution and how it afects your beliefs?

B]How would you feel if it was proven beyond doubt that there is no evolution, how would your beliefs be altered? I know its not a reasonable possible thing to happen, still try this mental exercise: You wake up one day and scientist have just proven beyond doubt more than 1000 confirmed examples of irredutible complexity or something.

As always id like to state clearly that i respect your opinions, and they interest me [otherwise i wouldnt be asking]

I know the milions of reasons why evolution is an aceppted and stablished theory, still i ask you again to make the mental exercise of thinking about what would change in your lives if it were to be unvalidated.

Everybody else is also invited to awnser, i’d be very happy with all diferent perspectives

Thanks

Paz de cristo

-
"didnt read the details but in your case there probably wasn't any."
Lol - you're an ignorant

Yoda Green- sorry, i'm pretty sure that if he didn't write these exact words he leaves the line of though clear in his books (i asked politely to be corrected in case i was wrong)

wow, a lot of you guys didn't read the details! I can tell

1)Im not an creationist, i leave it clear in the details to the question.

2)the question nowere mention God. Some of you just prefered to insult me than to awnser, whats with that? I'll surely remember that next time someone claims atheists are smarter.

3)YES it is a hypothetical question, cmon imagination people!!! its not hard!! (argh, i bet its all nintendo's fault)

I'm still stunned, seriously, where in my question did you get that i'm a creationist? That i don't have an open mind?

When i first came to R&S i though very highy of atheists here. I'm sad to say that is not the case anymore.

-read the details. And see what your awnser makes you look like...

Answer 1

That's difficult. The hypothetical question is really hard for me to grasp, because no evolution to me would mean that we're all still bacteria.

Ultimately to me evolution just throws off the ancient scriptures. The belief that there isn't a god isn't directly tied to evolution, but evolution had a big effect on my not believing in organized religions. It's really hard to say what I'd think if evolution never occurred.

Answer 2

I think that the -ism in atheism is going to someone's head. I suppose it's why that it's not completely wrong to call atheism a religion. People are adding beliefs to it. Atheism is just a name for a belief system (though calling a single statement a system is pushing it). The only commonality in atheism is this one statement: "There are no deities and there is no independently measurable and observable evidence of deities." Everything else is gravy.

Dawkins quote there, or as accurate as you've got it, has nothing to do with atheism itself and everything to do with a reaction to the dominance of religion.

Atheism doesn't provide ideological fulfillment. It's a statement of negation. Ideological fulfillment, if any is needed, comes from elsewhere. "Safer" is also an interesting word because it indirectly states that it's dangerous to be an atheist and atheists need some sort of ideology beyond the disbelief in god. This is not so. Any need of that sort doesn't stem from atheism, but from theism that demands more than "god doesn't exist."

Both "safer" and "ideological fulfillment" also imply that "god doesn't exist" isn't enough. There must be a basis for this belief, something to hold up as "proof" or at least as really strong evidence that atheism is "right" and theism is "wrong." Theists have their scriptures and a long history of belief and social indoctrination to support them. Atheists have nothing other than a single statement and the equally single validation: "there is no observable and measurable evidence of god's existence."

Evolutionary theory is seductive as a sort of "proof" that god doesn't exist. Most religions have a creation myth that's contrary to evolutionary theory. This is why religion finds evolution threatening. It's easy to compare the observable and measureable evidence that evolutionary theory has been tested against, time and time again, and passed to the creation myth in whatever religion the atheist is in conflict with and say "here, this is proof that you're wrong and I'm right."

The problem? A creation myth does not equal a deity. A creation myth is only one part of religion. Evolutionary theory is not proof that god does not exist, it is only proof that the creation myth is wrong, and, therefore all other myths, stories, instructions, etcetera in the religion's scriptures can no longer be held up as truth because god says its true.

If you disprove a scripture, do you disprove the existence of a deity or do you simply disprove that religion's conceptualization of a deity?

The disproof of a religion is the ideological fulfillment for individuals, not for atheism. You always feel fulfilled when you're proven right. Breaking the Church's hold over the government and weakening its grip on social norms and mores is what makes "life safer for atheists." Evolutionary theory is a part of that because it helps atheists, as well as theists, test scriptures. It does not, however, help atheist ideology because the ideology requires no bolstering or help. It's very, very simple.

There is no god; there is no observable or measurable evidence that god exists. This is atheism. Nothing else is required.

Answer 3

An interesting question - which would have benefited if you'd left out the snide little [yeah right]s.

First take note that there were plenty of atheists long before the discovery of evolution, who were able to recognise the obvious holes in Christianity from first principles, and the way that gods have always been wish-fulfilment fantasies.

They had, of course, no theories for where the universe, life and man had come from; they just knew a crazy proposition when they saw it.

See the URL below for a extraordinary thesis on the nonsense of religion, written by a 18th-century Catholic priest!

Let us suppose that some serious flaws in evolution came to light. I think the response would depend on what those flaws were.

If they were strong evidence of some external interference in the development of life on Earth, then I imagine there would be huge excitement at this sign of extraterrestrial intelligence at work. This doesn't imply supernatural influence in itself, though.

If this hypothetical refutation of evolution really did include direct, irrefutable evidence of divine intervention, it would probably be the most exciting and amazing discovery in history. I'd be utterly delighted - what an amazing area of study!

In fact, however, the case for evolution is way past the point where it can possibly be overturned. It's now an established fact, and you should put the dreams of a Creationist revolution out of your mind.

CD

Answer 4

You're pretty condescending, but I'll answer in case someone else has an open mind.

First, there are thousands of gods we all agree were fabricated. I can reasonably assume you think thousands are fiction, whether you believe in one or none. People have a habit for inventing explanations, since they really want them and feel uncomfortable with the unknown. This is evidenced by what we try to pack into the "god box"... what's after death, what makes us sick, where did we come from, how should we behave... unknowns. Science does it one better, though. Science admits to not knowing, and only asserts things with ample evidence to do so. Science is also better because it is not motivated to lie. Religion is.

Religions have an incredible history of horrible misuse. Before science fleshed out the theory of evolution, atheists who understood the farce of religion couldn't answer many of these questions, and simple minded theists saw that as a weakness in the whole philosophy, and saw atheists as a living insult to their way of life and values. That was a very dangerous situation for atheists. They were demonized. They were killed.

There is still anger about atheism in the world today...they are more hated than people of opposing religions or of opposing systems of government. But with the heaviest guage proof that science recognizes, short of a Law, atheists today can slap creationism in the face.

Answer 5

The principle of evolution is a tautology: what survives, survives. It's quite difficult to disprove a tautology.

Anyway,
A) an atheist obviously cannot believe in the biblical story of creation, therefore the presence of an alternative theory was support for atheism

B) showing that certain mechanisms of evolution don't work as described in a theory would falsify these aspects of the theory. A new theory would have to be put forward that integrates all known aspects. In fact, that's what science is all about. Scientists are trying to improve our knowledge, every day. And every day a scientific theory is overthrown and replaced with something else. Nothing wrong with that.

Answer 6

then someone went to an awful lot of trouble to make it look like evolution did occur

however my atheism isn't based on agreeing with the theory of evolution. I only have a very basic understanding of the subject and I was an atheist before I was taught it in school. Atheism is the lack of a belief in a god.

If scientists did have evidence indicating that the theory of evolution was incorrect then they'd have formed another theory to explain it. However you might want to bear in mind that the ToE has been around for quite a while now and they keep finding evidence to support it

Answer 7

I am an atheist because the bible (and all other religions that make claims that there is an all-powerful being that manipulates the universe around humanity) doesn't make sense.

Since I don't accept the bible's explanation for why things are the way they are, I look to science for explanation. If evolution were proven not to be true, I would be interested in other theories, but I would still not believe in God. Just because one theory may be proven wrong, does not make another right.

Answer 8

Most atheists simply approach everything with scrutiny and skepticism. So yes, if evolution was proven wrong, it would make them start to consider God or religion. But as they have approached the world with skepticism, religion has long been proven to not provide adequate answers as to the world, and science has been very successful. So your question is completely hypothetical. Most atheists accept things as they are logically derived from things like the scientific method, which is why they don't believe in God in the first place. Also, the entire part of evolution could never be proven wrong, as much of it has already been proven correct. For example, it has long been proven that a gene pool can and does change over time.

Answer 9

1) Any knowledge of science gives us more reason to accept reality. The more we know, the less we need god for. 200 years ago, we didn't know much, but that still didn't make god a reasonable choice. Now it's much less so.

2) Sorry, but evolution has been proven beyond reasonable - or even unreasonable - doubt. If there were no evolution, we wouldn't be here arguing about it. I really doubt your last example happening, since there's never been a single decent example of irriducable complexity . Look up the Kitzmiller vs Dover trial for more details.

Answer 10

I'd say more generally, that with each passing year more and more is learned about the world around us, and less seems magic. So, the fewer things that seem magic, the less need there is for a god who commands and controls the laws of nature at his will.

Pretty easy to understand why people thought lightning bolts were being tossed from the clouds by gods... 2000 years ago. But, now we understand a lot more about weather.

In fact, short of 'what caused the big bang'?, I'd say that most of the big questions that were formerly attributed to 'god' have been answered.

Yes- this makes it easier to claim that I'm an atheist in a world of believers.