Darwin and Faith


Although folks like Richard Dawkins boldly contend that Charles Darwin made it possible for him and others to be atheists, Darwin himself was not of the same mind. Although his faith in God waxed and waned over the course of his life, eventuating in a state of agnosticism, he never claimed to be an atheist. He considered the idea of a first cause to be possible, but ultimately when it came to ultimate origins he remained agnostic. Consider this statement from his autobiography:

Another source of conviction in the existence of God, connected with the reason, and not with the feelings, impresses me as having much more weight. This follows from the extreme difficulty or rather impossibility of conceiving this immense and wonderful universe, including man with his capacity of looking far backwards and far into futurity, as the result of blind chance or necessity. When thus reflecting I feel compelled to look to a First Cause having an intelligent mind in some degree analogous to that of man; and I deserve to be called a Theist. This conclusion was strong in my mind about the time, as far as I can remember, when I wrote the 'Origin of Species;' and it is since that time that it has very gradually, with many fluctuations, become weaker. But then arises the doubt;-- can the mind of man, which has, as I fully believe, been developed from a mind as low as that possessed by the lowest animals, be trusted when it draws such grand conclusions? May not these be the result of the connection between cause and effect which strikes us as a necessary one, but probably depends merely on inherited experience? Nor must we overlook the probability of the constant inculcation in a belief in God on the minds of children producing so strong and perhaps an inherited effect on their brains not fully developed, that it would be as difficult for them to throw off their belief in God, as for the monkey to throw off its instinctive fear and hatred of a snake.

I cannot pretend to throw the least light on such abstruse problems. The mystery of the beginning of all things is insoluble by us; and I for one must be content to remain an Agnostic.


Karl Giberson in his book Saving Darwin (Harper One, 2008), which I'm just now getting started reading makes the point that Darwin was always cautious about religion. Indeed, Giberson contends that it wasn't science that challenged his faith, but rather the presence of suffering in the world and the loss of his beloved daughter that caused him the greatest distress. At the time of his writing the Origins of the Species (publ. 1859), he was at most a Deist. As Giberson notes, what bothered Darwin the most about Christianity, was the same kind of ideas that bother many of us who remain firmly in the faith. He had great difficulty with the idea of hell -- in which he could find no redeeming quality. In that I agree, and for that reason, have abandoned it. He wrestled with the reality of life and the doctrine of a loving God, but again these are not science questions their life questions that we all wrestle with. Yes, the theory of evolution counters the idea of design, but that doesn't mean that God is not a reality.

Giberson writes:

In the final analysis, one of the greatest scientists who ever lived, the architect of the worldview that countless Christians believe was inspired by Satan to destroy their faith, the thinker who did more than anyone to drive natural theology from intellectual discourse, lost his faith when his daughter died. Darwin's belief in God weathered the theological storms brought on by the Icheumonidae, the sadistic cats, and the webbed feet of the upland geese. He understood those features of the natural world could be reconciled with belief in God as creator. He is followed in this belief by the majority of theologians who have reflected on these problems and concluded that evolution by natural selection is not incompatible with belief in God as creator. (Giberson, Saving Darwin, p. 40).


His confidence in God was shattered, but one cannot say that his faith in God completely died. There is no evidence that he ever embraced atheism. He continued to support the church financially, though he did not attend services.

Yes, Darwin presents challenges to faith, but as Darwin himself understood, there is much we don't understand. And thus, we must remain humble before the creation.

Comments

Anonymous said…
This is the impression I got too, when I saw the big Darwin exhibit at the Royal Ontario Museum last year. Darwin's love and care for his wife would always have made him careful not to just chuck the faith in a big heave-ho.

This, in fact, convinced me even more that all his evidence did indeed point in the direction he thought it did. Because he would never have pushed it that way wilfully, when he could see over the years how much his conclusions distressed his wife. The only thing that kept him going in the direction he did was the evidence, and his own honesty.

This completely puts to the lie what I was taught as a fundamentalist: that Darwin came up with this theory because he wanted justification for rebelling against God. Nuh uh. The evidence does not support that.
Robert Cornwall said…
Phyl,

That's exactly the point Giberson makes. Back when he was on the Beagle his faith was pretty standard -- orthodox even. By the time he wrote the Origins he had moved toward Deism. Then, later in life he moved along toward agnosticism -- but not because of science but because of the loss of Annie.

Both Dawkins and Philip Johnson have Darwin wrong!
C Ryan said…
I am still pretty cool on Darwin.. but would you agree that Darwin's work has been hijacked on both sides to meet a certain point?

Personally..its a theory, nothing more, nothing less. As with any theories, there are holes, some pretty gaping. Did we all come from a single source or multiple? Why are humans the only creation on earth with knowledge of good and evil? The Bible presents the Tree of Life. A theory some may say.

I have heard from a fundamentalist side that Darwin regretted what he created with his theory. Not sure if thats true. Over lunch someone mentioned his book on worms out sold the infamous Orgins. My point is simply that its a theory and it seems to has been hijacked to justify all kinds of behaviors. Survival of the fittest, etc..
Chuck
Robert Cornwall said…
Chuck,

First to the idea that Darwin recanted -- that is a story that is untrue, but it's a story that continues to get passed on. When you hear it, think Obama is a secret Muslim. It's a lie that has had a lot of Christian air time.

I would agree, as I've noted in another post, that many have hijacked Darwin for any number of issues, causes -- good and evil.

As for the idea of a theory. At this time, while always being further refined and redefined, there is very little disagreement on the starting point -- a common ancestor. There may be disagreements as to how natural selection works -- but even there the debate is minor.

Popular Posts