Do atheists think that evolution theory proves that there is no God?

[logician]

I have read “The God Delusion”, “The End of Faith”, “God is Not Great” and “Breaking the Spell”. And there are no arguments in any of them that prove the statement you have made. At best you can show that Dawkins, Hitchens, and other writers on atheism agree with your position, but that is not evidence. You still have not supported your position.


I might suggest you read Kenneth Miller’s “Finding Darwin'sGod”

You must have been speed reading Dawkins, the entire Chapter 4 in "The GOD Delusion" "Why there almost certainly is no god" uses evolution as the counter to ID etc. to make the assertion that the probability of a creator, intervening god (ID?) is next to zero. Strange how people miss these things.

 

[Storm]

OK, make the argument.

 

[fantome profane]

You must have been speed reading Dawkins,

No, just the opposite. I read his book very carefully and applied critical analysis to his arguments. Some of his arguments are very good, some not so good. I disagree with some of Dawkins conclusions. I know that is sacrilege to some people, but let’s not make this another thread about Dawkins.

Please understand that I do not believe in an intervening creator deity. I don’t believe in such a thing because there is no evidence for such a thing (that I am aware of). But not because evolution has somehow proved that it is impossible. There is a difference between saying something is not necessary and saying that it is not possible.

I think Storm is being quite reasonable to ask crystalonyx to substantiate his position with more than just “Dawkins said so.” If you want to make the argument, please by all means go ahead and do so. But don't try to tell me it is true just because Dawkins says it is true.

 

[Autodidact]

Well it's been a while, but as I recall, the distinguishing feature is altered functioning in the occipital parietal lobe, specifically the area that regulates your awareness of your body's spatial boundaries and orientation.

If you're interested in the topic, I highly recommend Why God Won't Go Away: Brain Science and the Biology of Belief, by Dr.s Newberg and D'Aquili, two pioneers in the field. Obviously, they explain it better than I.

That sounds very interesting, Storm, I'll reserve it at the library. Thanks.

But...nuerotheology?!? Do they really call it that?

 

[Storm]

Yeah, the name is weird. Not that I can think of a better one....

 

[crystalonyx]

I think the argument goes more or less as follows:

Evolution is a much more elegant solutiuon than ID, which is a heavy-handed magic-wand solution that most thinking people reject. This removes the need of an interfering god in how we came about, the creator aspect really being superflous to the whole issue. Thus we are left with either no god, or an impersonal non-interfering god which really amounts to the same thing.

 

[Storm]

I think the argument goes more or less as follows:

Evolution is a much more elegant solutiuon than ID, which is a heavy-handed magic-wand solution that most thinking people reject.

ID is only one, rather aberrant, minority theory regarding God. It is rejected by theologians as well as science.

This removes the need of an interfering god in how we came about, the creator aspect really being superflous to the whole issue.

That does not mean that such a GOd does not exist, merely that the diversity of life can be explained without one. It can also be explained with one, without contradicting science, as in theistic evolution.

Thus we are left with either no god,

No, we're not.

or an impersonal non-interfering god which really amounts to the same thing.

Drivel.

 

[crystalonyx]

1.ID is only one, rather aberrant, minority theory regarding God. It is rejected by theologians as well as science.


That does not mean that such a GOd does not exist, merely that the diversity of life can be explained without one. It can also be explained with one, without contradicting science, as in theistic evolution.


2.No, we're not.


3.Drivel.

1. Theistic evolution is a contradiction in terms, as theistic implies god's personal interference in the process, which is definitely not the case in evolution.

2. First possibility.

3. ANother possibility.

Best possibility is no god exists, given the current evidence.

 

[Apex]

ID is only one, rather aberrant, minority theory regarding God. It is rejected by theologians as well as science.


That does not mean that such a GOd does not exist, merely that the diversity of life can be explained without one. It can also be explained with one, without contradicting science, as in theistic evolution.


No, we're not.


Drivel.

It wont let me frubal you. :sorry1:

 

[Storm]

1. Theistic evolution is a contradiction in terms, as theistic implies god's personal interference in the process, which is definitely not the case in evolution.

Really? Prove it. Please cite the evidence that there is no God guiding evolution.

Best possibility is no god exists, given the current evidence.

No, that's your opinion, unsupported by the evidence, and biased by your preexisting worldview, atheism.

 

[Storm]

It wont let me frubal you. :sorry1:

It's the thought that counts. :hug:

 

[crystalonyx]

Really? Prove it. Please cite the evidence that there is no God guiding evolution.

No, that's your opinion, unsupported by the evidence, and biased by your preexisting worldview, atheism.

THe onus is on you to prove that a supposed god guides evolution, but first you must prove it exists. Therefore, you have 2 proofs to provide.

I won't hold my breath.

 

[Apex]

THe onus is on you to prove that a supposed god guides evolution, but first you must prove it exists. Therefore, you have 2 proofs to provide.

I won't hold my breath.

So, what your are saying is, you can say anything is proven false. But when asked for proof, you reply with "please prove it true first" otherwise it must, by default, be false. Is that your logic (or lack there of)?

 

[Storm]

THe onus is on you to prove that a supposed god guides evolution, but first you must prove it exists. Therefore, you have 2 proofs to provide.

I won't hold my breath.

Ah, no, you made the assertion, and thus took up the BoP. I have not claimed a fact, merely challenged your assertion of one.

Shifting the burden might work on beginners, but I won't fall for it.

 

[reeferreaper]

Evolution was the first topic that made me question religion. I have read an unbelievable amount of books on the topic of evolution, and I am in the process of a MS in Microbiology.

I read every page of the Bible, front to back...then I decided that god wasn't real.

Evolution wasn't really the primary cause, just one of the MANY MANY MANY MANY MANY MANY pieces of the puzzle.

 

[Storm]

See, that's reasonable.

Out of curiosity, did you ascribe to YEC or something similar?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Nothing wrong with Dawkins saying that, but is it scientific? If 'God' is wholly dependent on young-earth dogma then maybe it is.

Are there any other areas of thought where, at the time, God was accepted as the best answer to the questions at hand?

Which leads to me to your second sentence, and you know, before evolution there was old-earth geology, so evolution was not the beginning of this.

Yes, but these generally traced themselves back to God. Lamarck and others recognized the variation in life over time, but didn't translate this into the idea of speciation through natural selection. The main mechanism suggested to account for the history of life was the hand of God in one form or another.

In fact, it was very popular before Darwin to believe in an old earth and the bible, but with the advent of evolution it became popular to denigrate bible believers as 'flat earthers' and so partly gave rise to the very modern reaction we now know as 'creationism', especially the young earth kind.

I don't agree that creationism is a modern phenomenon.

Like it or not, atheists early enthusiasm about evolution partly helped create the conflict, unlike the earlier old-earth geologists who weren't so militant. Bottom line? Many atheists do think that evolution disproves God (although not necessarily in a scientific way) and have long been keen to mention evolution and dieties in the same breath (or book chapter). This kind of thing is a comfort to a great many people who don't want religion to be true, just as religion is a comfort to many who don't want death to be the end etc.

Which atheists think that evolution disproves God?

If something is disproven but not in a scientific way, then it's not actually disproven.

I'm sorry, but I don't understand this sentence. Are you talking about theories regarding the evolution of religion?

Chock that up to a brain fart on my part. Here's what I meant to say:

Evolution introduced the idea that explanations for the history of life that did not explicitly invoke God could be acceptable.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Really? Prove it. Please cite the evidence that there is no God guiding evolution.

That would be hard to do.

It would be much easier to present some evidence (note: not proof, but evidence) that no God is guiding evolution to create creatures like us... though I know that's not what you asked for.

 

[Storm]

I don't agree that creationism is a modern phenomenon.

Not general Creationism, no. YEC, and its ilk, yes. It's a thoroughly modern theory of Biblical interpretation.

Biblical Literalism: Constricting the Cosmic Dance, by Conrad Hyers

One of the ironies of biblical literalism is that it shares so largely in the reductionist and literalist spirit of the age. It is not nearly as conservative as it supposes. It is modernistic, and it sells its symbolic birthright for a mess of tangible pottage. Biblical materials and affirmations--in this case the symbolism of Creator and creation--are treated as though of the same order and the same literary genre as scientific and historical writing. "I believe in God the Father Almighty" becomes a chronological issue, and "Maker of heaven and earth" a technological problem.​

I don't insist you read the article, of course, but I do recommend it. The analysis of Genesis greatly increased my appreciation of that particular work.

Which atheists think that evolution disproves God?

crystalonyx, for one.

Chock that up to a brain fart on my part. Here's what I meant to say:

Evolution introduced the idea that explanations for the history of life that did not explicitly invoke God could be acceptable.

Ah, I thought that might be it.

 

[Storm]

That would be hard to do.

It would be much easier to present some evidence (note: not proof, but evidence) that no God is guiding evolution to create creatures like us... though I know that's not what you asked for.

Personally, I don't think even that can be done. Care to try, just as a thought experiment?