Might the religious inclination of man be evolutionary? If it were, then the religious inclination couldn't be any less an aspect of human nature than the inclination to hunt and gather. Perhaps the atheist might admit that the religious inclination, as such, extends from a more fundamental tendency evolved by man: the thirst for the infinite. Even so, how such tendencies became dominant in human history would seem to be an important question to resolve before casting one's lot with Christopher Hitchens. I wish this explained why there seem to be so many people who are reading his book without becoming atheists. I suspect that there are more agnostics in his audience than believers; they enter into and emerge from his thought experiment as agnostics.
Alan Jacobs' thought experiment, on the other hand, looks at both sides of the proposition that religious belief is the outcome of human evolution. If the religious inclination of man is not evolutionary, then evolution is neither true about everything nor is it the basis for an intellectual position that can become "dominant." As he states it, "if the evolutionary account of religious belief that many atheists are now promoting is correct, then atheists don't have much of a future." Yet, if the account is incorrect, then atheism has a future; and judging from history, the future of atheism is as dark as its past. I recommend a reading of his article; the thought experiment is worth at least a few moments of consideration.
There are many, under the guise of humility, who flee from these questions for solace in agnosticism. Pope Benedict XVI comments on this "new form of intellectual devotion:
"Of its nature, the question of God cannot forcibly be made an object of scientific research in the strict sense of that term, and this means that the declaration of 'scientific atheism' is an absurd claim - yesterday, today, or tomorrow. This, however, makes it all the more urgent to know whether the question of God does surpass the limits of human capabilities as such, so that agnosticism would in fact be the only correct attitude for man: the acknowledgement, appropriate and honest, 'devout' in the profound meaning of that word, of that which eludes our grasp and our field of vision, a reverence vis-a-vis something that is inaccessible to us. Might this not be the new form of intellectual devotion: to leave aside whatever lies beyond our grasp and be content with what we are permitted to know?"
[source: Christianity and the Crisis of Cultures
, p. 85-86]The "absurd claim" of "scientific atheism" to which he refers is often accompanied by the same "atheistic science" that is, unfortunately, often behind the evolutionary claims exposed by Stephen Webb in a contribution to the First Things blog:
"One cannot help but suspect that if evolutionary theory looks absurd, simplistic, and circular when applied to something as complex as religion, then it might look the same way when applied to biological organisms.
.
.
.
If evolution is true about everything, then we are doomed to live in a world without truth, beauty, and goodness. If we are not doomed, then evolution is not true about everything. And if evolution is not true about everything, then there is good reason to think that it is not true about anything."
Again, in fleeing from atheism, many embrace agnosticism as a new form of intellectual devotion. In response, Pope Benedict XVI helps us to focus on the most important point:
'But in it's essence, agnosticism is much more than a theory: what is at stake here is the praxis of one's life. When one attempts to 'put it into practice' in one's real field of action, agnosticism slips out of one's hands like a soap bubble; it dissolves into thin air, because it is not possible to escape the very option it seeks to avoid. When faced with
the question of God, man cannot permit himself to remain neutral. All he can say is Yes or No - without ever avoiding all the consequences that derive from this choice even in the smallest details of life."
[source: Christianity and the Crisis of Cultures
, p. 89] Human history demonstrates the consequences that derive from both choices. Over the centuries, the intellectual devotion of some could have been more influenced by Pascal than by Darwin. As Bejamin Wiker has said, "It seems Darwin's doctrine of survival produced within the man a struggle that made him ever less fit." [Source: Architects of the Culture of Death
, p. 85] So too with mankind.
Relevant Reading:
An Idiot’s Guide to Evolution
The Future of Atheism