Atheism was easier before modern science

[Percivale]

Before modern science, it seems it would have been much easier to be an atheist. People used to believe the universe was eternal, until science discovered the Big Bang, so the Cosmological argument wouldn't have been as strong in the past. People used to believe in spontaneous generation; that maggots automatically appear in decaying meat and mice in straw, until science disproved that, which you'd think makes a creator more necessary now than one would have thought then. Science has discovered that the universe is much more complex than previously thought. Even the problem of evil would have been a more powerful argument against theism in the past, before science began solving many of the specific evils in daily life, giving hope that more will be solved in the future. A problem without a solution is bigger than if there is one.

Science undermines religion mainly because religion tends to be allied with tradition, and science introduces change, through new technologies and new understandings of the world. Religions' alliance with tradition is not a necessary one though, and new religions have always challenged tradition in much the same ways that science does. Science may also challenge specific religions beliefs, but a religion having some details wrong does not mean religion's main thesis is wrong.

 

[True Scotsman]

Before modern science, it seems it would have been much easier to be an atheist. People used to believe the universe was eternal, until science discovered the Big Bang, so the Cosmological argument wouldn't have been as strong in the past. People used to believe in spontaneous generation; that maggots automatically appear in decaying meat and mice in straw, until science disproved that, which you'd think makes a creator more necessary now than one would have thought then. Science has discovered that the universe is much more complex than previously thought. Even the problem of evil would have been a more powerful argument against theism in the past, before science began solving many of the specific evils in daily life, giving hope that more will be solved in the future. A problem without a solution is bigger than if there is one.

Science undermines religion mainly because religion tends to be allied with tradition, and science introduces change, through new technologies and new understandings of the world. Religions' alliance with tradition is not a necessary one though, and new religions have always challenged tradition in much the same ways that science does. Science may also challenge specific religions beliefs, but a religion having some details wrong does not mean religion's main thesis is wrong.

The big bang theory does not say that there was nothing before the big bang. It says the universe was once much hotter and much, much more dense and then it expanded and cooled to form the first atoms and then stars and galaxies. It says that all the matter and all the energy was in one state and then it changed to another state and that that state is still changing.

I don't see how science falsifying a theory makes a creator more necessary. I don't see why complexity as such necessitates a creator. Any creator would necessarily be even more complex and would therefor need a creator, and that creator a creator until you would have an infinite regress. You've got to start with something that is eternal. Makes perfect sense to start with what we know exists, the universe as a whole, and not go outside the totality to something that is unknowable and unintelligible for an explanation. Any explanation would necessarily reference something that exists. Therefor no progress has been made to explain existence, which is why the question is fallaciously complex.

 

[Chesterton]

Yes, what you say is true, and don't forget the "spookiness" of quantum mechanics. Science is on my side.

 

[Percivale]

You've got to start with something that is eternal. Makes perfect sense to start with what we know exists, the universe as a whole, and not go outside the totality to something that is unknowable and unintelligible for an explanation.

This is exactly why the Big Bang weakens atheism. Until it was discovered, one had the option of seeing what we know exists, the universe, as what is eternal. Now, however, one must posit either an 'unknowable and unintelligible' multiverse or something of the sort, or an equally unknowable Creator. The advantage of the Creator is that he explains a wide variety of other phenomena, from religious experience to the origin of life, that all have to be explained independently otherwise.

 

[Davian]

Before modern science, it seems it would have been much easier to be an atheist.

What's so hard about being an atheist?

People used to believe the universe was eternal, until science discovered the Big Bang, so the Cosmological argument wouldn't have been as strong in the past.

Wow. It is not strong even now.

People used to believe in spontaneous generation; that maggots automatically appear in decaying meat and mice in straw, until science disproved that, which you'd think makes a creator more necessary now than one would have thought then.

Why?

Science has discovered that the universe is much more complex than previously thought. Even the problem of evil would have been a more powerful argument against theism in the past, before science began solving many of the specific evils in daily life, giving hope that more will be solved in the future. A problem without a solution is bigger than if there is one.

Or, religion is about creating a problem for which said religion is the only solution.

Science undermines religion mainly because religion tends to be allied with tradition, and science introduces change, through new technologies and new understandings of the world.

Or, religion tends to make unfalsifiable, untestable claims that are of no scientific significance.

Religions' alliance with tradition is not a necessary one though, and new religions have always challenged tradition in much the same ways that science does. Science may also challenge specific religions beliefs, but a religion having some details wrong does not mean religion's main thesis is wrong.

lol. Religionists not being able to demonstrate the existence of deities is a lot more than "having some details wrong".

 

[Davian]

This is exactly why the Big Bang weakens atheism.

It cannot weaken a position that does not require defence.

Until it was discovered, one had the option of seeing what we know exists, the universe, as what is eternal. Now, however, one must posit either an 'unknowable and unintelligible' multiverse or something of the sort, or an equally unknowable Creator.

Or, one can say, "I don't know".

The advantage of the Creator is that he explains a wide variety of other phenomena, from religious experience to the origin of life, that all have to be explained independently otherwise.

Great. Let's see this "explanation for the origin of life" that you allude to, so we can have it added to the science books, and finally have all of that explained.

 

[Davian]

Yes, what you say is true, and don't forget the "spookiness" of quantum mechanics. Science is on my side.

What "side" is that?

 

[quatona]

Before modern science, it seems it would have been much easier to be an atheist.

Good thing you used the qualifier "it seems"!

 

[GrowingSmaller]

Science: "It-did-it." Religion "did it?". Science "Yes it did."

 

[True Scotsman]

This is exactly why the Big Bang weakens atheism. Until it was discovered, one had the option of seeing what we know exists, the universe, as what is eternal. Now, however, one must posit either an 'unknowable and unintelligible' multiverse or something of the sort, or an equally unknowable Creator. The advantage of the Creator is that he explains a wide variety of other phenomena, from religious experience to the origin of life, that all have to be explained independently otherwise.

It does not follow that we must posit a multiverse. We can say that we don't know. That is the correct answer, because we don't. We don't have a unified theory yet. The Big Bang takes us from the expansion of the universe forward. It has a singularity there at the beginning but that is because of the limitations of theories we have. Scientists are working on a unified theory. Loop quantum gravity shows a lot of promise. It does tell us what was there that expanded and it is not a singularity. Loop quantum gravity says that the universe contracted before the big bang and that spacetime can only contract so far before it bounces back. What was there right before the big Bang was something called a plank star. But the theory is very young and really hasn't been confirmed. It may be later this year as scientists are waiting on data concerning gravitational waves that the theory predicts will be found from the expansion. Maybe it is more accurate to call it the loop quantum gravity hypothesis.

If a creator is equally unknowable with a multivers then neither of those things explains anything. We don't just get the pick the one that makes us feel better.

So we don't know, we are working on it. And that gap in knowledge does not give one permission to just make up an answer that seems to explain everything and just go with it because scientists can't answer these questions yet.

But even as the theory stands now, scientist say that time began with the expansion so that means that the universe has existed for all of time. It is eternal. There was something there at time zero. Loop quantum gravity does say that there was time before the expansion because spacetime cannot be infinitely small. Time slows but does not stop.

It is not harder to be an atheist now intellectually. It probably is easier to be an atheist socially now than it was a couple of hundred years ago. The fact remains that there is no objective evidence of any gods. None. Regardless of what scientists have discovered about the big bang. And when or if scientist find evidence that confirms loop quantum gravity, I think it will be harder to be a theist. Because we will have a better understanding and a natural understanding of what caused the big bang (big bounce?)

 

[Eudaimonist]

Before modern science, it seems it would have been much easier to be an atheist.

I'd think that it would be the opposite. Without modern science, the ancients would have had a much more difficult time explaining the world.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[bhsmte]

Before modern science, it seems it would have been much easier to be an atheist. People used to believe the universe was eternal, until science discovered the Big Bang, so the Cosmological argument wouldn't have been as strong in the past. People used to believe in spontaneous generation; that maggots automatically appear in decaying meat and mice in straw, until science disproved that, which you'd think makes a creator more necessary now than one would have thought then. Science has discovered that the universe is much more complex than previously thought. Even the problem of evil would have been a more powerful argument against theism in the past, before science began solving many of the specific evils in daily life, giving hope that more will be solved in the future. A problem without a solution is bigger than if there is one.

Science undermines religion mainly because religion tends to be allied with tradition, and science introduces change, through new technologies and new understandings of the world. Religions' alliance with tradition is not a necessary one though, and new religions have always challenged tradition in much the same ways that science does. Science may also challenge specific religions beliefs, but a religion having some details wrong does not mean religion's main thesis is wrong.

Well, I guess people take the hard route, because the non-believing crowd has been growing the world over, for many decades.

 

[True Scotsman]

This is exactly why the Big Bang weakens atheism. Until it was discovered, one had the option of seeing what we know exists, the universe, as what is eternal. Now, however, one must posit either an 'unknowable and unintelligible' multiverse or something of the sort, or an equally unknowable Creator. The advantage of the Creator is that he explains a wide variety of other phenomena, from religious experience to the origin of life, that all have to be explained independently otherwise.

Also, I want to say something about multiple universes. Even if there are multiple universes, and I don't know how this could ever be confirmed, they would still be included in the sum total of what exists, which is how I inform the concept universe. The concept universe, as I inform it, is synonymous with "existence". I don't separate existence into different categories since I see no rational reason to do this. "existence" or "universe" or "nature", is the totality of what exists. Given this concept of existence, the question of what or who created the universe is nonsensical. Existence is an absolute. It can't come into or go out of existence. It is. If one begins with this starting point instead of "nothing", then these questions simply cease to matter.

From my Objectivist perspective, it doesn't matter how it all got here, existence exists and it is what it is independent of anyone's conscious activity. It is an objective absolute.

 

[talquin]

This is exactly why the Big Bang weakens atheism. Until it was discovered, one had the option of seeing what we know exists, the universe, as what is eternal. Now, however, one must posit either an 'unknowable and unintelligible' multiverse or something of the sort, or an equally unknowable Creator. The advantage of the Creator is that he explains a wide variety of other phenomena, from religious experience to the origin of life, that all have to be explained independently otherwise.

That's an argument from ignorance.

"I don't know what caused it, so therefore it must have been God"

 

[Chesterton]

What "side" is that?

The theistic side. (Put down the popcorn and pay attention, Dav. )

 

[Davian]

The theistic side. (Put down the popcorn and pay attention, Dav. )

How can the scientific side be on the theistic side? Since when do gods show up scientifically?

 

[Chesterton]

How can the scientific side be on the theistic side?

If done well, the quest for truth will tend to point towards the truth.

Since when do gods show up scientifically?

They don't.

 

[Davian]

If done well, the quest for truth will tend to point towards the truth.

Since when do gods show up scientifically?

They don't.

"Men occasionally stumble over the truth, but most of them pick themselves up and hurry off as if nothing had happened." —Winston Churchill

 

[Paradoxum]

.

 

[Percivale]

I'd think that it would be the opposite. Without modern science, the ancients would have had a much more difficult time explaining the world.

eudaimonia,

Mark

It's true science has provided alternate explanations for things the old polytheistic religions attributed to gods, like thor causing thunder. But those explanations went out of style long before modern science. The world religions that exist today did not use those mythological explanations the way the old animism and polytheism did. The things that religions like Christianity attribute to God, like the origin of the universe, are things that science has not answered yet, as several people have said on this thread.

Metaphysical truths often cannot be proven scientifically, but that does not make them false or mean there can be no evidence for them. People who say there is no evidence for God's existence should rephrase that and say they have not personally come across evidence. Those who have witnessed miracles do have evidence.

It does seem that the amount of scientific evidence or how well a belief explains the world philosophically is not the main thing affecting people's beliefs. Technology has great impact on our culture, and will continue to change things, sometimes for the better, sometimes for the worse.