In those times (and of course all times earlier) there could be serious consequences for "lack of belief". How many 'would-have' were it not for these potentials ?

No, I don't think so, because the kind of 'god' they supposed was never a PERSONAL deity, and never defined as an entity which answered prayers, etc., But rather was usually a pantheistic ideal, encompassing everything.
It was more an agnostic "something," rather than magnified into a single point apart from everything else.

As for Jefferson, after reading some of his letters I’d say no, Darwin’s theory would not have changed his position. Jefferson was deeply skeptical of Biblical stories and myths, yet leaned toward the idea of a higher consciousness, and he admired some of the teachings of Jesus. There is nothing simple-minded about such a position, either then or now.

Richard Dawkins can think whatever he likes, but his opinions are no more valid than anyone else’s on that puzzling question to which no one alive has the answer. What difference does it matter whether a person believes or disbelieves? The truth is that the underlying basis for reality can not be understood in ordinary human terms.The only rational response is abject bewilderment, along with awe and reverence.

I suppose Dawkins thinks that all the matter and energy in the universe along with space and time and the laws and constants of physics all sort of popped into existence in a single moment just as an accident. Boy, what a sucker! Talk about simple-mindedness!

Why does it matter? They aren’t here to be of any concern. They lived in a much more naive and idealistic age with great unrealisable dreams.

It would be good if Dawkins wrote excellent science for the masses as he used to instead of his relentless pillorying of Religion