Freethought & Rationalism Archive

notMichaelJackson · 02-13-2003, 12:53 PM

How did atheists explain the formation of the world without an understanding of evolution?

Pascal created his famous "Pascal's Wager" (supposedly) to refute atheists in the 1600s. The theory of evolution began with Lamark in the 1700s. Atheists also existed before the 1600s. How did they handle Christians when asked "How did the world come to be without God?"

Non-praying Mantis · 02-13-2003, 12:58 PM

Simple! This way:

[sticking fingers in ears]

LA LA LA LA LA! LA LA LA LA LA!

[removes fingers from ears]

NPM

Shadowy Man · 02-13-2003, 01:07 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by notMichaelJackson

Atheists also existed before the 1600s. How did they handle Christians when asked "How did the world come to be without God?"

They didn't have to answer that question because before Hubble the universe was in a steady-state condition. It had always existed. It never "came to be".

braces_for_impact · 02-13-2003, 01:23 PM

Actually, I haven't time to get into specifics, but many before Charles Darwin believed that the earth and all it's creatures could have been a product of natural processes. I believe the first mention I remember about it was in ancient Greece...

lpetrich · 02-13-2003, 01:42 PM

I'm sure that another favorite theory was spontaneous generation; there seemed to be an enormous quantity of evidence for it.

In response to a 17th-cy. spontaneous-generation skeptic, a certain Alexander Ross wrote:

Quote:

So we may doubt whether in cheese and timbers worms are generated, or if beetles and wasps in cow-dung, or if butterflies, locusts, shell-fish, snail, eels, and such life be procreated of putrefied matter, which is to receive the form of that creature to which it is by formative power disposed. To question this is to question reason, sense, and experience. If he doubts this, let him go to Egypt, and there he will find the fields swarming with mice begot of the mud of the Nylus (Nile), to the great calamity of the inhabitants.

Likewise, according to Jan Baptista van Helmont (early 17th cy.),

Quote:

for if you press a piece of underwear soiled with sweat together with some wheat in an open mouth jar, after about 21 days the odor changes and the ferment coming out of the underwear and penetrating through the husks of the wheat, changes the wheat into mice. But what is more remarkable is that mice of both sexes emerge (from the wheat) and these mice successfully reproduce with mice born naturally from parents� But what is even more remarkable is that the mice which came out were not small mice� but fully grown.

Doubting Didymus · 02-13-2003, 03:09 PM

Hume tried very hard, but I don't think he quite appreciated the complexity of organisms as much as say, Paley did.

I know for a fact that I would have a very very troubleing time in life if darwin (and wallace, and everyone else) had not formulated their theory. The best I could do is say "I don't know, but I'm sure it isn't the gos you describe". That would not be intellectually satisfying.

Out of interest, why do you ask?

Phanes · 02-13-2003, 04:02 PM

Seems a bit of a weird question - it's not like all theists consider(ed) the various creatures in the world the product of individual special creation by God(s). Atheists and theists both have probably used most of the same explanations for life on earth. The only difference is that theists usually brought everything back to God(s), while atheists thought the (natural) processes existed on their own.

WinAce · 02-13-2003, 04:12 PM

Is there a reason I overlooked for invoking an unevidenced Borg Cube in an asteroid field (a god) to 'explain' a 747 in a junkyard (life)?

Either complexity requires a designer, in which case you get an infinite regress, or you accept that somewhere along the line it can just be. Unfortunately for theism, if life is 35 feet above the line, a being capable of creating it will be 10 times farther

Doubting Didymus · 02-13-2003, 04:19 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by WinAce
Is there a reason I overlooked for invoking an unevidenced Borg Cube in an asteroid field (a god) to 'explain' a 747 in a junkyard (life)?

Either complexity requires a designer, in which case you get an infinite regress, or you accept that somewhere along the line it can just be. Unfortunately for theism, if life is 35 feet above the line, a being capable of creating it will be 10 times farther

Still, without a plausible explaination yourself, it is not exactly the most fulfilling intelectual position.

RufusAtticus · 02-14-2003, 07:08 AM

Lucretius was the Ancient Roman equivalent of an atheist. He and other epicurians believed that only natural forces controled the world. It's interesting that his 2 thousand year old work, De rerum naturum, is a tretise on the atomic nature of the world.

02-13-2003, 12:53 PM	#1
notMichaelJackson Banned Join Date: Dec 2002 Location: IL Posts: 552	Atheism before Evolution? How did atheists explain the formation of the world without an understanding of evolution? Pascal created his famous "Pascal's Wager" (supposedly) to refute atheists in the 1600s. The theory of evolution began with Lamark in the 1700s. Atheists also existed before the 1600s. How did they handle Christians when asked "How did the world come to be without God?"

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

02-13-2003, 12:58 PM	#2
Non-praying Mantis Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2001 Location: Roanoke, VA, USA Posts: 2,646	Simple! This way: [sticking fingers in ears] LA LA LA LA LA! LA LA LA LA LA! [removes fingers from ears] NPM

02-13-2003, 01:23 PM	#4
braces_for_impact Veteran Member Join Date: Apr 2002 Location: In a nondescript, black helicopter. Posts: 6,637	Actually, I haven't time to get into specifics, but many before Charles Darwin believed that the earth and all it's creatures could have been a product of natural processes. I believe the first mention I remember about it was in ancient Greece...

02-13-2003, 03:09 PM	#6
Doubting Didymus Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: East Coast. Australia. Posts: 5,455	Hume tried very hard, but I don't think he quite appreciated the complexity of organisms as much as say, Paley did. I know for a fact that I would have a very very troubleing time in life if darwin (and wallace, and everyone else) had not formulated their theory. The best I could do is say "I don't know, but I'm sure it isn't the gos you describe". That would not be intellectually satisfying. Out of interest, why do you ask?

02-13-2003, 04:02 PM	#7
Phanes Regular Member Join Date: Jan 2003 Location: Tallahassee Posts: 127	Seems a bit of a weird question - it's not like all theists consider(ed) the various creatures in the world the product of individual special creation by God(s). Atheists and theists both have probably used most of the same explanations for life on earth. The only difference is that theists usually brought everything back to God(s), while atheists thought the (natural) processes existed on their own.

02-13-2003, 04:12 PM	#8
WinAce Beloved Deceased Join Date: Feb 2002 Location: Carrboro, NC Posts: 1,539	Is there a reason I overlooked for invoking an unevidenced Borg Cube in an asteroid field (a god) to 'explain' a 747 in a junkyard (life)? Either complexity requires a designer, in which case you get an infinite regress, or you accept that somewhere along the line it can just be. Unfortunately for theism, if life is 35 feet above the line, a being capable of creating it will be 10 times farther

02-14-2003, 07:08 AM	#10
RufusAtticus Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2001 Location: NCSU Posts: 5,853	Lucretius was the Ancient Roman equivalent of an atheist. He and other epicurians believed that only natural forces controled the world. It's interesting that his 2 thousand year old work, De rerum naturum, is a tretise on the atomic nature of the world.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.