CHARLES DARWIN: AGNOSTIC/ATHEIST: Antony Flew Corrected (article by Robert Nordlander)

[Alex]

(From the UUA Humanists List ([e-mail]):  "Charles Darwin: Trailblazer for Humanity is an article I wrote on Darwin and Atheism in 2009, recycled from a much earlier article in The American Rationalist. CHARLES DARWIN: AGNOSTIC/ATHEIST: Antony Flew Corrected is some cannibalization from this article in an unpublished piece re Antony Flew."  Robert Nordlander)



CHARLES DARWIN: AGNOSTIC/ATHEIST: Antony Flew Corrected 
by Robert Nordlander
August 1, 2009

Writing in his recent book There is a God, Antony Flew comforts himself with quotations from leading personages in science that tend to support a belief in theism. His recent decision to renounce his hitherto principled championing of atheism in academia and public forums for a form of theism he describes as "deism" suggests that those quotations may not accurately convey the conclusions of the people quoted, endorsing a theistic reality because of the fact of our existing universe. I cannot address the theistic beliefs he attributes to Albert Einstein, Max Planck, Erwin Schroedinger et al. But I can speak to the theism that he attributes to Charles Darwin. Flew inflicts upon his readers the erroneous notion that Charles Darwin was in some sense a "scientific creationist" with the following quotation:

"[Reason tells me of the] extreme difficulty or rather impossibility of conceiving this immense and wonderful universe, including man with his capability of looking far backwards and far into futurity, as the result of blind chance or necessity. When thus reflecting I feel compelled to look at a first cause having an intelliegent mind in some degree analogous to that of man; and I deserve to be called a theist." (There is a God, p. 106)

It is certainly true that Antony Flew did not wish to convey the idea that Darwin was a "scientific creationist" in the sense that the term is used today; he did not wish to convey the idea that Darwin was a biblical literalist, who believed that the Israelite deity created the universe in six days some six thousand years ago. The idea that Professor Flew succeeded in conveying was that Darwin was a Deist (although that term was not used), a person who believed in a supernatural creative God that created the universe but whose functioning was automatic, not requiring any personal interference on the part of this God to keep it going. Professor Flew succeeded in conveying this erroneous view of Darwin's religious beliefs by only quoting one partial paragraph of Darwin on this subject.

The truth of the matter is that the thesis of Professor Flew is valid only for the younger Darwin. The mature Darwin, writing his autobiography, had abandoned, it would appear, all of his earlier beliefs in deity and supernaturalism in particular. I would like to prove the truth of this thesis by quoting quite extensively from the 1958 Norton edition of The Autobiography of Charles Darwin.

Professor Flew failed to note a passage a few paragraphs removed from the one he quoted in The Autobiography wherein Darwin acknowledged that the officers of the Beagle laughed at him "for quoting the Bible as an unanswerable authority on some point of morality." Unfortunately, Professor Flew failed to point out that Darwin's thoughts on religion were gradually changing even at this stage in his philosophical development, for he penned the following in his Autobiography:

(all quotations below are from The Autobiography of Charles Darwin)

"I had gradually come by this time, to see that the Old Testament from its manifestly false history of the world, with the Tower of Babel, the rainbow as a sign, etc., etc., and from its attributing to God the feelings of a revengeful tyrant, was no more to be trusted than the sacred books of the Hindoos, or beliefs of any barbarian." (p. 85)

Having disposed of the Old Testament as a basis for theistic belief, Darwin turned his artillery on that part of The Bible favored by Christians, the New Testament:

"By further reflecting that the clearest evidence would be requisite to make any sane man believe in the miracles by which Christianity is supported,—that the more we know of the fixed laws of nature the more incredible do miracles become,—that the men at that time were ignorant and credulous to a degree almost incomprehensible by us,—that the Gospels cannot be proved to have been written simultaneously with the events,—that they differ in many important details, far too important as it seemed to me to be admitted as the usual inaccuracies of eye-witnesses;—by such reflections as these, which I give not as having the least novelty or value, but as they influenced me, I gradually came to disbelieve in Christianity as a divine revelation." (p. 86)

Thus Darwin disposed of Christianity as divine revelation on intellectual grounds. He also took occasion to condemn Christianity on moral grounds.

"Thus disbelief crept over me at a very slow rate, but was at last complete. The rate was so slow that I felt no distress, and have never since doubted even for a single second that my conclusion was correct. I can indeed hardly see how anyone ought to wish Christianity to be true; for if so the plain language of the text seems to show that the men who do not believe, and this would include my Father, Brother and almost all my best friends, will be everlastingly punished. And this is a damnable doctrine." (p. 87)

Professor Flew could have quoted Darwin's nostalgic recollections of having read William Paley's Natural Theology during his student days at Cambridge. In his Autobiography, Darwin does not show the nostalgia of his Cambridge days to prevent him from refuting the theological concept that was made very popular by Paley and his immortal watch, the argument from "design."

"Although I did not think much about the existence of a personal God until a considerably later period of my life, I will here give the vague conclusions to which I have been driven. The old argument of design in nature, as given by Paley, which formerly seemed to me so conclusive, fails, now that the law of natural selection has been discovered. We can no longer argue that, for instance, the beautiful hinge of a bivalve shell must have been made by an intelligent being, like the hinge of a door by man. There seems to be no more design in the variability of organic beings and in the action of natural selection, than in the course which the wind blows. Everything in nature is the result of fixed laws." (p. 87)

The argument from "design" is viewed from another angle by Darwin.

"That there is much suffering in the world no one disputes. Some have attempted to explain this in reference to man by imagining that it serves for his moral improvement. But the number of men in the world is as nothing compared with that of all other sentient beings, and these often suffer greatly without any moral improvement. A being so powerful and so full of knowledge as a God who could create the universe, is to our finite minds omnipotent and omniscient, and it revolts our understanding to suppose that his benevolence is not unbounded, for what advantage can there be in the sufferings of millions of the lower animals throughout almost endless time? This very old argument from the existence of suffering against the existence of an intelligent first cause seems to me a strong one; whereas, as just remarked, the presence of much suffering agrees well with the view that all organic beings have been developed through variation and natural selection." (p. 90)

So it would appear that a benevolent deity would not have designed so much misery and suffering into the animal kingdom—which included humanity. That being the case, there is no intelligent first cause.

Darwin even went to the trouble to discuss the mystical experience as an argument for the existence of a personal deity.

"At the present day the most usual argument for the existence of an intelligent God is drawn from the deep inward conviction and feelings which are experienced by most persons. But it cannot be doubted that Hindoos, Mahomadans and others might argue in the same manner and with equal force in favour of the existence of one God, or of many Gods, or as with the Buddists of no God. ...Therefore I cannot see that such inward convictions and feelings are of any weight as evidence of what really exists." (pp. 90-91)

Professor Flew made use of Darwin's Autobiography most selectively. He quoted Darwin out-of-context, giving the erroneous impression that Darwin thought that the cosmological argument advanced by theologians over the centuries for the existence of a deity was a valid argument.

It should be noted that this reflecting on the origin of things which occasioned Darwin to consider himself a theist represented only a stage in the evolution of his thinking, which becomes obvious as we allow Darwin to continue the discussion.

Darwin discussed his theism in the following words:

"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 animal, 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 yet fully developed, that it would be as difficult for them to throw off their belief in God, as for a monkey to throw off its instinctive fear and hatred of a snake." (p. 93)

Summing up his review of the cosmological argument on behalf of a god, Darwin came to his definitive conclusion.

"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." (p. 94)

One can see that Darwin's agnosticism is of the species of atheism and not of the species of theism. That Darwin qualifies to be counted in the camp of atheism is made obvious when he discusses the question of how a person is to live who lacks belief in a personal deity and the prospect of personal immortality.

"A man who has no assured and ever present belief in the existence of a personal God or of a future existence with retribution and reward, can have for his rule of life, as far as I can see, only to follow those impulses and instincts which are the strongest or which seem to him the best ones. ...If he acts for the good of others, he will receive the approbation of his fellow men and gain the love of those with whom he lives; and this latter gain undoubtedly is the highest pleasure on this earth." (p. 94)

One suspects that Professor Flew was working in extreme haste when he wrote There Is a God. It is a pity that his sloppy or disingenuous research represented more of an attempt to salvage the prestige of Charles Darwin, among others, for the cause of theism rather than a sober scholarly attempt to tell us in an objective manner what the definitive views on religion of Charles Darwin really were. This essay on my part represents an attempt to correct the erroneous theistic opinion attributed to Charles Darwin by Professor Flew. Darwin's mind contained the searching thoughts of an intellect in development and growth. This theistic affirmation by Darwin did not represent his final thoughts on the subject. It is to be hoped that by allowing Darwin to speak for himself, as it were, the erroneous picture of Darwin's alleged theistic religiosity will have received more than a few corrective strokes.

One has to wonder if Antony Flew would want to be considered an atheist based on his life-long championship of atheism because someone chose to misrepresent him by ignoring his later espousal of deism. This, unfortunately, is what he has done to the memory of Charles Darwin in his book There Is a God.

END



Charles Darwin: Trailblazer for Humanity 
by Robert Nordlander
2009

February 12, 2009 marks 200 years since the birth of Charles Darwin, the genius who endowed the world with scientific insights that marked the beginning of the end of reliance on one particular sacred book as the exclusive source of knowledge.

Charles Darwin, whose monumental discoveries gave the biological sciences a firm foundation from which conclusions could be made regarding the origins of all living things, is regarded today by some people as responsible for the misfortunes humanity has experienced in the twentieth century.

What got Darwin in trouble with those who regarded the opening chapters of the Book of Genesis as being something more than a poetic speculation on the origins of things was his conclusion about the origin of the thuman species. This observation from The Descent of Man pretty well sums up the question of human origins very succinctly as Darwin saw it:

"Man is descended from a hairy, tailed quadruped, probably arboreal in its habits....

"For my part I would as soon be descended from a baboon...as from a savage who delights to torture his enemies...treats his wives like slaves...and is haunted by the grossest superstitions."

The evolution of Darwin's religious and philosophical beliefs, which flowed from his scientific research and his personal experiences in life, ought to be of interest to thinking human beings everywhere, as it may aid them in the quest for truth. His comment on the Old Testament would have warmed the heart of Thomas Paine:

"I had gradually come, by this time, to see that the Old Testament from its manifestly false history of the world, with the Tower of Babel, the rainbow as a sign, etc., etc., and from its attributing to God the feelings of a revengeful tyrant, was no more to be trusted than the sacred books of the Hindoos, or the beliefs of any barbarian." (Autobiography, p. 85)

Having disposed of the Old Testament as a basis for theistic belief, Darwin turned his artillery on that part of The Bible favored by Christians, the New Testament:

"By further reflecting that the clearest evidence would be requisite to make any sane man believe in the miracles by which Christianity is supported,—that the more we know of the fixed laws of nature the more incredible do miracles become,—that the men at that time were ignorant and credulous to a degree almost incomprehensible by us,—that the Gospels cannot be proved to have been written simultaneously with the events,—that they differ in many important details, far too important as it seemed to me to be admitted as the usual inaccuracies of eye-witnesses;—by such reflections as these, which I give not as having the least novelty or value, but as they influenced me, I gradually came to disbelieve in Christianity as a divine revelation." (Ibid., p. 86)

Thus Darwin disposed of Christianity as divine revelation on intellectual grounds. He also took occasion to condemn Christianity on moral grounds.

"Thus disbelief crept over me at a very slow rate, but was at last complete. The rate was so slow that I felt no distress, and have never since doubted even for a single second that my conclusion was correct. I can indeed hardly see how anyone ought to wish Christianity to be true; for if so the plain language of the text seems to show that the men who do not believe, and this would include my Father, Brother and almost all my best friends, will be everlastingly punished. And this is a damnable doctrine." (Ibid., p. 87)

Darwin goes on in his Autobiography to discuss theism:

"Although I did not think much about the existence of a personal God until a considerably later period of my life, I will here give the vague conclusions to which I have been driven. The old argument of design in nature, as given by Paley, which formerly seemed to me so conclusive, fails, now that the law of natural selection has been discovered. We can no longer argue that, for instance, the beautiful hinge of a bivalve shell must have been made by an intelligent being, like the hinge of a door by man. There seems to be no more design in the variability of organic beings and in the action of natural selection, than in the course which the wind blows. Everything in nature is the result of fixed laws." (Ibid., p. 87)

The argument from "design" is viewed from another angle by Darwin.

"That there is much suffering in the world no one disputes. Some have attempted to explain this in reference to man by imagining that it serves for his moral improvement. But the number of men in the world is as nothing compared with that of all other sentient beings, and these often suffer greatly without any moral improvement. A being so powerful and so full of knowledge as a God who could create the universe, is to our finite minds omnipotent and omniscient, and it revolts our understanding to suppose that his benevolence is not unbounded, for what advantage can there be in the sufferings of millions of the lower animals throughout almost endless time? This very old argument from the existence of suffering against the existence of an intelligent first cause seems to me a strong one; whereas, as just remarked, the presence of much suffering agrees well with the view that all organic beings have been developed through variation and natural selection." (Ibid., p. 90)

So it would appear that a benevolent deity would not have designed so much misery and suffering into the animal kingdom—which included humanity. That being the case, there is no intelligent first cause.

Darwin even went to the trouble to discuss the mystical experience as an argument for the existence of a personal deity.

"At the present day the most usual argument for the existence of an intelligent God is drawn from the deep inward conviction and feelings which are experienced by most persons. But it cannot be doubted that Hindoos, Mahomadans and others might argue in the same manner and with equal force in favour of the existence of one God, or of many Gods, or as with the Buddists of no God. …Therefore I cannot see that such inward convictions and feelings are of any weight as evidence of what really exists." (Ibid., pp. 90-91)

Darwin, having acknowledged his atheism as far as a personal god is concerned, dubbed himself an agnostic as far as the ultimate origin of things were concerned:

"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." (Ibid., p. 94)

And how should an atheist/agnostic live his life? Charles Darwin gave the following prescription:

"A man who has no assured and ever present belief in the existence of a personal God or of a future existence with retribution and reward, can have for his rule of life, as far as I can see, only to follow those impulses and instincts which are the strongest or which seem to him the best ones. …If he acts for the good of others, he will receive the approbation of his fellow men and gain the love of those with whom he lives; and this latter gain undoubtedly is the highest pleasure on this earth." (Ibid., p. 94)

END



The Autobiography of Charles Darwin is availabe at:
http://darwin-online.org.uk/EditorialIntroductions/Freeman_LifeandLettersandAutobiography.html



------------------------------------

Some responses at the UUA Humanists List ([e-mail]):

Thanks for the articles.  I especially liked Darwin's comments on religion.  With a wife who was a devout Christian and himself having formerly been a Christian, his change to disbelief was likely not an easy thing for him.  He seems not to have been a very combative man, but his integrity required that he honestly face his own thoughts, even if they flew in the face of theism.
Doug Long

I understood that Darwin's wife was a Unitarian. Daughter of Josiah Wedgwood II and his wife Elizabeth "Bessie". Her grandfather Josiah Wedgwood had made his fortune in pottery, and like many others who were not part of the aristocracy they were nonconformists, belonging to the Unitarian church. Probably what we would consider today as a Christian Unitaran.
Bob Nienhuis

I did some reading about Darwin a few years ago in preparation for a sermon on his birthday, and as I recall, he understood very well the controversy that would ensue when he introduced his theory and data.  The Wedgewoods were indeed movers and shakers, and Unitarians were Christians back then.  But Darwin didn't want to be seen as a radical even after he lost any vestige of Christianity after his ten-year-old daughter died (even though he began to agree with his grandfather, Erasmus, that Unitarianism was just a "feather bed to catch a falling Christian.")  He originally asked his wife to make sure that his findings not be published until after his death, and he allowed publication of Origin only when he realized that Wallace had independently arrived at the same conclusions.  Much of the info in my sermon was from Desmond and Moore's book Darwin: The Life of a Tormented Evolutionist.
Pat Mohr

And just as Darwin evolved away from Christianity so did many Unitarians. Leaving first the Trinity, then the Divinity, and as result of their search, many found that Christian mythology was used to justify such inhumane injustices such as slavery, that they evolved away and toward Humanism. Unitarians have long evolved away from religion and not with it.
Gary King