I’ve at last
done my obligatory “pilgrimage” to Down
House where the great naturalist Charles Darwin lived, worked and
eventually died. Here’s the essential evidence that I was there:
My lasting
impression of Down House is one of incongruity: Here, set in the idyll of an
English Country Garden, surrounded by beautiful countryside, was a peaceful and
largely happy home and yet Darwin, through his evolutionary theoretical filter,
saw his setting as a place of continuous and endless strife:
It may be said that natural selection is daily and
hourly scrutinizing, throughout the world, every variation, even the slightest;
rejecting that which is bad, preserving and adding up all that is good;
silently and insensibly working, wherever and whenever opportunity offers, at
the improvement of each organic being in relation to its organic and inorganic
conditions of life. (Origin of Species 1859)
Search, find,
reject and select! Darwin’s own poor health, and of course the death of his
daughter Anna, would no doubt have help confirm his belief that life is a
struggle and one that doesn't always end happily. It is also incongruous that
Darwin’s ideas have led to much ideological strife, strife that Darwin himself would
likely have shunned. Darwin’s diminishing personal faith over the course of his
life has been well documented, although I'm left with the feeling that as a man
given to restrained expression he would always have regarded out-and-out atheism with a measure of reserve; there is room for doubt about Darwin’s doubts
right up until his death.
In 1860 shortly
after writing the Origin of Species Wiki tells us:
In one 1860 letter to Gray, Darwin expressed his
doubts about the teleological argument which claimed nature as evidence of god,
though he was still inclined to vaguely believe in an impersonal God as first
cause:
“With respect to the theological view of the question;
this is always painful to me.— I am bewildered.– I had no intention to write
atheistically. But I own that I cannot see, as plainly as others do, & as I
[should] wish to do, evidence of design & beneficence on all sides of us.
There seems to me too much misery in the world. I cannot persuade myself that a
beneficent & omnipotent God would have designedly created the Ichneumonidæ
with the express intention of their feeding within the living bodies of
caterpillars, or that a cat should play with mice. Not believing this, I see no
necessity in the belief that the eye was expressly designed. On the other hand
I cannot anyhow be contented to view this wonderful universe & especially
the nature of man, & to conclude that everything is the result of brute
force. I am inclined to look at everything as resulting from designed laws,
with the details, whether good or bad, left to the working out of what we may
call chance. Not that this notion at all satisfies me. I feel most deeply that
the whole subject is too profound for the human intellect. A dog might as well
speculate on the mind of Newton.— Let each man hope & believe what he can.”
I interpret that
to mean Darwin entertained an intellectual conflict over religion. This
conflict was none other than the age old problem of suffering and evil: On the one
hand Darwin couldn't see the work of an omnipotent loving deity in the
haphazard and sometimes repugnant designs of nature and yet on the other hand
this didn't sit well with an intuitive sense of the wonder at the universe and
the enigma of man's conscious cognition. Darwin wonders if this conflict might be
resolved by recourse to the concept of a deistical God who as "first cause" designed laws to
modulate the operation of chance (A combination I refer to as Law and Disorder). But in the end he
appears to throw his up hands and declare that he thinks the whole subject of
ultimate origins to be beyond man’s intellect.
Thirteen years later
(1873) in a letter to a correspondent at the University of Utrecht Darwin
writes (See Wiki again):
I may say that the impossibility of conceiving that
this grand and wondrous universe, with our conscious selves, arose through
chance, seems to me the chief argument for the existence of God; but whether
this is an argument of real value, I have never been able to decide. I am aware
that if we admit a first cause, the mind still craves to know whence it came
from and how it arose. Nor can I overlook the difficulty from the immense
amount of suffering through the world. I am, also, induced to defer to a
certain extent to the judgment of many able men who have fully believed in God;
but here again I see how poor an argument this is. The safest conclusion seems
to me to be that the whole subject is beyond the scope of man's intellect; but
man can do his duty
Here we find Darwin
still facing a similar intuitive contradiction: On the one hand there is the
wondrous universe beheld by the conscious sentience of man, facts which he
feels are the chief argument for the existence of God (Although Darwin now
expresses uncertainty as to the robustness of this argument). On the other hand
set against this is a world full of suffering. Darwin also sees problems with
the “first cause argument” for God, a view I would certainly share. However, Darwin shows respect for those who
find that they can believe, in spite concluding (once again) that the whole issue is probably
beyond the mind of man. For myself, I applaud Darwin for his self-awareness and
studied detachment from the problems he faced.
In 1879 and 1882,
just before his death in 1882 the same Wiki article says:
Though reticent about his religious views, in 1879 he
responded that he had never been an atheist in the sense of denying the
existence of a god, and that generally "an Agnostic would be the more
correct description of my state of mind."[7] He went as far as saying that
[in 1882] "Science has nothing to do with Christ, except insofar as the
habit of scientific research makes a man cautious in admitting evidence. For
myself, I do not believe that there ever has been any revelation. As for a future
life, every man must judge for himself between conflicting vague
probabilities."
The same old
Darwin reserve is apparent here. His view that there has never been any revelation
is consistent with a deistical concept of God. Presumably by “revelation” Darwin
means some kind of special revelation
(such as Christ); after all, Darwin’s previous statements (as quoted) are evidence
of an intuitive sense of God’s cosmic presence, an intuition which could be
construed as a form of general revelation.
Darwin’s slow slide
into unbelief gives every impression of being entirely genuine; he really can’t
find it within himself to form a strong conviction about the existence of God
in general and the truth of Christianity in particular. The apparent genuineness and innocence
of Darwin’s encroaching disbelief conflicts with fundamentalist opinion that
accuses those who don’t follow fundamentalist proprietary observances of conscious
rebellion against the Truth of God.*
It is ironic
that the concept of one-off-creation-deism
expressed by Darwin in 1860 is in fact not so far removed from the punctuated-deism of the likes of the Intelligent
Design movement expressed by, say, V J Torley. Like Torley, Darwin is a dualist
in that his theology takes for granted a “natural processes” vs. “Divine
intervention” dichotomy. In this
theology processes guided by law and disorder are thought to proceed all but autonomously; at least when God isn't “intervening”.
The difference is that, unlike Darwin, Torley sees God coming back every now and then to
do his miraculous stuff. As I've said so many times before I'm moving further and further away from
this Western dualist theology, a theology which stresses God’s eminence at the expense
of His immanence.
Given my doubts about Darwin’s implicit dualist theology, not to mention my reserve about his legacy, it is perhaps only appropriate that
I was blocked from entering the Darwin equivalent of the holy of holies; When I tried to do Darwin’s sacred
and famous Sandwalk where all Darwin pilgrims get their picture taken and where
Darwin did much of his evolutionary thinking I found the way was barred:
The trees on the Sandwalk were in need of some urgent tree surgery! In fact one of
the trees on the Sandwalk had become so dangerous that it had been cut down
completely:
***
There is an ambiguity
in the Genesis Eden story as to whether the Tree Life and the Tree of the Knowledge
of Good and Evil are one and the same (See here). For fundamentalists Darwin’s Tree
of Life is the Tree of Knowledge of Evilution, but for atheists it really is the Tree of Life! So, the
theological ambiguity about the Tree of Life may be a rather fitting parable to
ponder for our times!
Trees, it seems,
can be dangerous things and a bit of drastic tree surgery on Darwin’s
tree(s) might not be a bad thing! Even so, according to Mega-church Pastor Rick
Warren**: “In God’s garden of grace, even
broken trees bear fruit”. Time will tell.
Further photos from my “pilgrimage” can be seen here:
Further photos from my “pilgrimage” can be seen here:
Footnotes:
* Some fundamentalists
misread Romans 1 as a passage about atheism when in fact a more careful reading
reveals that it’s about Roman idolatry. But there is a rationale behind the fundamentalist’s
belief that atheists are nasty people willfully covering up God’s existence in bad conscience: For if there were such a thing as an innocent and genuine atheism that in itself would
not justify the automatic entry of atheists into eternal torment. But in fundamentalism's view atheism is a sign of a wilful sinful state that is enough to qualify for hell; therefore fundamentalists are likely to see atheists as people of bad conscience.
** Rick Warren is not popular among fundamentalists.
** Rick Warren is not popular among fundamentalists.
3 comments:
sir,i just saw ur blog.so i just started to read ur blog.i hope it will help me.
i have also a blog.
its basilthankachan.com
it deals with an idea of problem solving or formulizing problem solving.pls check.
Hi Basil, Thanks for the visit and the link to your blog; I'll check it out!
Ok, Sir.. Thank you. its an amateur blog. i post my random thoughts and further thinkings on it. kind of experimental space for me..its been updated. i am trying to make it better
Post a Comment