Charles Darwin, Christian?

[DisIllusion]

Hey everybody, sorry I haven't been around in a while.

I was recently arguing with one of my Christian friends, who believes in intelligent design, on the theory of Evolution. He told me to give an example on how intelligent design is false, and I naturally said Darwin. He then went on to tell me how Darwin regretted creating his theory of Evolution and was a devout Christian.

Is this true? Or is my friend just trying to feed me more rhetoric?

Any responses would be welcome, thanks. :)

[More Fire for the People]

Charles Darwin was a Christian and a member of a clergy in his early life. After his daughters death, he became an agnostic. He never publically claimed to have regretted his discovery.

[DisIllusion]

Charles Darwin was a Christian and a member of a clergy in his early life. After his daughters death, he became an agnostic. He never publically claimed to have regretted his discovery.

Do you have some sources? I'd love to throw this in my friend's face.

[Janus]

Darwin may have been a devout Christian early in his life but this quickly began fading away once he began forming his ideas on evolution aboard the HMS Beagle.

Like Hopscotch said, he never publicly showed any regret for his evolution theory nor do I think that he was conflicted at all over this. He was conflicted over whether to publish it or not for a while since his theory was still not fully complete in 1856 and he feared the reaction to his work. However, he was not conflicted due to any religious conviction but a professional one.

[Janus]

Do you have some sources? I'd love to throw this in my friend's face.
The death of his daughter Annie led him to see Christianity as futile.

Darwin in a letter to Asa Gray, which expresses his doubts about the teleological arguement.

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, and as I should wish to do, evidence of design and beneficence on all sides of us. There seems to me too much misery in the world. I cannot persuade myself that a beneficent and omnipotent God would have designedly created the Ichneumonidae with the express intention of their feeding within the living bodies of caterpillars or that a cat should play with mice... On the other hand, I cannot anyhow be contented to view this wonderful universe, and especially the nature of man, and 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."


Introduction to The Descent of Man in which he pairs religion with superstition and dogmatism.

Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge: it is those who know little, and not those who know much, who so positively assert that this or that problem will never be solved by science.

Descent of Man again. Darwin rejects the arguement that religion is innate.

Belief in God- Religion.- There is no evidence that man was aboriginally endowed with the ennobling belief in the existence of an Omnipotent God. On the contrary there is ample evidence, derived not from hasty travellers, but from men who have long resided with savages, that numerous races have existed, and still exist, who have no idea of one or more gods, and who have no words in their languages to express such an idea. The question is of course wholly distinct from that higher one, whether there exists a Creator and Ruler of the universe; and this has been answered in the affirmative by some of the highest intellects that have ever existed.

The belief in God has often been advanced as not only the greatest, but the most complete of all the distinctions between man and the lower animals. It is however impossible, as we have seen, to maintain that this belief is innate or instinctive in man. On the other hand a belief in all-pervading spiritual agencies seems to be universal; and apparently follows from a considerable advance in man's reason, and from a still greater advance in his faculties of imagination, curiosity and wonder. I am aware that the assumed instinctive belief in God has been used by many persons as an argument for His existence. But this is a rash argument, as we should thus be compelled to believe in the existence of many cruel and malignant spirits, only a little more powerful than man; for the belief in them is far more general than in a beneficent Deity. The idea of a universal and beneficent Creator does not seem to arise in the mind of man, until he has been elevated by long-continued culture.

Letter expressing agnotisticism by Darwin.

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.

However, Darwin didn't totally oppose religion and wasn't an atheist.

Further quotes by Darwin concerning his views on religion from his autobiography.

"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 eyewitness; --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. The fact that many false religions have spread over large portions of the earth like wild-fire had some weight with me. Beautiful as is the morality of the New Testament, it can hardly be denied that its perfection depends in part on the interpretation which we now put on metaphors and allegories." (p.86)

"Thus disbelief crept over me at a very slow rate, but at last was 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." (p.87)

"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)

"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 had 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)

"At the present day (ca. 1872) 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 favor of the existence of one God, or of many Gods, or as with the Buddists of no God...This argument would be a valid one if all men of all races had the same inward conviction of the existence of one God: but we know that this is very far from being the case. Therefore I cannot see that such inward convictions and feelings are of any weight as evidence of what really exists." (p.91)

"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 as 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)

In case your friend uses this example, the claim that Darwin converted before his deathbed is a myth.

[DisIllusion]

Niiice. Thanks a lot Janus. This ought to be good. :lol:

[Intelligitimate]

The origin of the myth that Darwin recanted evolution on his deathbed comes from the liar Lady Hope. Darwin's own daughter had this to say about that liar:

"Lady Hope was not present during his last illness, or any illness. I believe he never even saw her, but in any case she had no influence over him in any department of thought or belief. He never recanted any of his scientific views, either then or earlier. We think the story of his conversion was fabricated in the U.S.A. . . . The whole story has no foundation whatever."

The Lady Hope Story (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/hope.html).

[Goatse]

Most people were Christians back in those days.

Einstein was a Christian to start with.

[violencia.Proletariat]

You DON'T have to give evidence to prove intelligent design is wrong. Look at the stickied burden of proof thread in this forum. Intelligent design is not a science, you cant test it, there is absolutely NO evidence of it. If your friend still babels on just punch him in the mouth. :lol:

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by [email protected] 13 2006, 05:43 PM
Einstein was a Christian to start with.
I would rather surmise Einstein, prior to his adolescence, was a practicing Jew. :lol:

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/223.gif

[Publius]

Most people were Christians back in those days.

Einstein was a Christian to start with.

Einstein was Jewish to start with.

[Zingu]

Who gives a fuck if he regretted/rejected those ideas or not? If Marx said all of his ideas were wrong, does that make them wrong?


Its a matter of the idea that is in question, not the person. Refutting a person does not refute the idea.

[DisIllusion]

Its a matter of the idea that is in question, not the person. Refutting a person does not refute the idea.

Well, it would seem hypocritical if the founder would disown his own ideology. Imagine "God" coming down one day, to the delight of all the Christians, and saying something like "Hey, sorry guys, but I don't really like religion, so just go back to your normal godless lives." and then proceeding to turn into nothing. However awesome this may be, you can imagine the impact it would make on religion as a whole.

[encephalon]

Einstein was Jewish to start with.

Not quite true.. his family converted to christianity before Einstein was remotely conscious, for business reasons. They were Jewish in genes and perhaps some of the traditions, but not in religion.

In any case, according to Einstein himself, he stopped believing it at the ripe old age of ten. Calling a prepubescent child a christian is like calling a kid that reads the hobbit and imagines himself in the midst of middle earth Bilbo Baggins.

[Dream Brother]

True Einstein was historically jewish but his family did convert to christianity.. despite this theres not much to say Einstein was a practicing member as he got older.

All that being said, Einstein is considered one of the last classical physicists. His work helped usher in a new era of post-englightenment which moves away from simple empiricism back once more to metaphysics and combining the two. The least refined of these being reflected in alot of new age beliefs and spirituality, but.. I guess in alot of ways merely confirmed what buddhists felt all along.

Charles Darwin on the other hand was a practising christian... untill a family grievance (Edit: sorry didn't see this already covered) and as a result could no longer hold onto his faith as he once did. Despite this his work was not actively geared as a critique of christianity.. rather empiricists since then have used it since to do just that.

Argueably Neitzsche perhaps one of the greatest critiques of christianity condemned this, he agreed with Darwin's ideas but he too.. an early pre-enlightenment philosopher decided this alone did not disprove an existance of god.. or rather.. well yeah if you know Neitzsche you'll know his arguements.

[Goatse]

Originally posted by [email protected] 13 2006, 10:56 PM

Most people were Christians back in those days.

Einstein was a Christian to start with.

Einstein was Jewish to start with.

When I said to start off with, I mean, just before he stopped being an idiot... not when he was born.

[Ol' Dirty]

He was a devout Cristian in his early years, but he conflicted with his religion often.

[bezdomni]

Your friend is making an ad hominem attack.

Tell him that.

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by Dream Brother
His work helped usher in a new era of post-enlightenment which moves away from simple empiricism back once more to metaphysics and combining the two. The least refined of these being reflected in a lot of new age beliefs and spirituality, but.. I guess in a lot of ways merely confirmed what Buddhists felt all along.

One of the most venomous libels ever to appear on this board! :angry:

To imply that Einstein was in any way "responsible" for new age metaphysical bullshit is a vicious attack on one of the greatest and most rational thinkers in human history.

You seem to be intent on really plumbing the depths, "Dream Brother".

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif

[Zak]

Originally posted by [email protected] 13 2006, 11:02 PM
Who gives a fuck if he regretted/rejected those ideas or not? If Marx said all of his ideas were wrong, does that make them wrong?


Its a matter of the idea that is in question, not the person. Refutting a person does not refute the idea.
WELL SAID

Fucking great statment. Alot of people on this board need to hear it.

[Zak]

Originally posted by redstar2000+Mar 15 2006, 04:07 AM--> (redstar2000 @ Mar 15 2006, 04:07 AM)
Dream Brother
His work helped usher in a new era of post-enlightenment which moves away from simple empiricism back once more to metaphysics and combining the two. The least refined of these being reflected in a lot of new age beliefs and spirituality, but.. I guess in a lot of ways merely confirmed what Buddhists felt all along.

One of the most venomous libels ever to appear on this board! :angry:

To imply that Einstein was in any way "responsible" for new age metaphysical bullshit is a vicious attack on one of the greatest and most rational thinkers in human history.

You seem to be intent on really plumbing the depths, "Dream Brother".

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif [/b]
Science requires a degree of faith. "Metaphysical bullshit" as you put it is just the adaptation of Eastern philosophy that has been around for thousand of years into western terms.

Practiconers in the west often miss the point completely.

There is just a lot of weird and wacky shit that happens on a quantum level that seems a lot like eastern philosophy.

The dialects would be a great example of this mixing of continuum-like philosophy with logical proofs.

[Publius]

Science requires a degree of faith.

If you're doing it wrong.



"Metaphysical bullshit" as you put it is just the adaptation of Eastern philosophy that has been around for thousand of years into western terms.

So what?



There is just a lot of weird and wacky shit that happens on a quantum level that seems a lot like eastern philosophy.

I must admit, both my knowledge of quantum mechanics and eastern philosophy is rather basic, I see absolutely no similarity between the two.

[Zak]

Originally posted by [email protected] 26 2006, 04:11 PM



There is just a lot of weird and wacky shit that happens on a quantum level that seems a lot like eastern philosophy.

I must admit, both my knowledge of quantum mechanics and eastern philosophy is rather basic, I see absolutely no similarity between the two.
Read "The Zen of Physics"

What I'm talking about when I say science requires a degree of faith is that a scientist must rely on the works of other scientists. He has to trust the validity of their work. I didn't mean faith in gods or anything like that.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Oh for fuck's sake. All that wierd activity you get on the quantum level is cancelled out on the macro level.


What I'm talking about when I say science requires a degree of faith is that a scientist must rely on the works of other scientists. He has to trust the validity of their work. I didn't mean faith in gods or anything like that.

That's not faith, that's relying on the ability of others to apply the scientific method properly, which in itself is not an act of faith.

[TC]

You have to remember the Academic climate of the UK at the time Darwin was working. During the time he was developing his theory of the five universities in England, four of them including Cambridge required people who associated with them to adhere to Church of England dogma. Darwin was very aware that that much of what he was doing was risky in terms of being considered blasphemous and he obviously wanted to stay on the right side of British academia (those long voyages take a lot of grant money!).



incidentally, Einstein's parents sent him to catholic school, he was never a practicing jew only from a family with jewish roots.

[STI]

The scientific community is such that nobody has to take the words or findings of other scientists "on faith". If somebody presents results which are dubious, other scientists can and do reproduce the experiments which produced that result and, even further, criticize flaws in specific experiments if need be.

[Zak]

Originally posted by [email protected] 27 2006, 06:31 PM
Oh for fuck's sake. All that wierd activity you get on the quantum level is cancelled out on the macro level.

Really? Some how I think the fair citizens of Hiroshima would disagree that the effects on a quantum level were "cancelled out on the macro level."

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Originally posted by Zak+Apr 2 2006, 07:59 AM--> (Zak @ Apr 2 2006, 07:59 AM)
[email protected] 27 2006, 06:31 PM
Oh for fuck's sake. All that wierd activity you get on the quantum level is cancelled out on the macro level.

Really? Some how I think the fair citizens of Hiroshima would disagree that the effects on a quantum level were "cancelled out on the macro level." [/b]
Nuclear fission and fusion takes place at the atomic level, and atoms are quite a bit larger than quanta. Atoms are fuzzy but definately "macro" objects.

:rolleyes: ignoramus.

[Zak]

Originally posted by [email protected] 2 2006, 08:48 AM
Nuclear fission and fusion takes place at the atomic level, and atoms are quite a bit larger than quanta. Atoms are fuzzy but definately "macro" objects.

:rolleyes: ignoramus.
http://physics.about.com/od/quantumphysics/

"Quantum mechanics describes how the very small particles like electrons and atoms behave in ways contrary to most intuition. "

About.com seems to disagree.....

[Zak]

So does wikipedia....

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_physics

"Quantum mechanics is a fundamental branch of theoretical physics that replaces Newtonian mechanics and classical electromagnetism at the atomic and subatomic levels."

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

A nuclear reaction is nothing like the counter-intuitive stuff explained in Quantum Theory. It's certainly nothing like anything the New Age loons would have you believe happens above the quantum level.

[Eoin Dubh]

Originally posted by Hopscotch [email protected] 13 2006, 12:37 AM
Charles Darwin was a Christian and a member of a clergy in his early life. After his daughters death, he became an agnostic. He never publically claimed to have regretted his discovery.
I heard that Darwin hooked up with the Unitarians after writing "The origin of species"........don't know if that is true, though.

[Disciple of Prometheus]

Originally posted by [email protected] 13 2006, 10:59 PM
You DON'T have to give evidence to prove intelligent design is wrong. Look at the stickied burden of proof thread in this forum. Intelligent design is not a science, you cant test it, there is absolutely NO evidence of it. If your friend still babels on just punch him in the mouth. :lol:
Course they can prove it, everyone knows all they have to do is fire up the "god-o-meter," lol. I agree creationism, and (un)-intelligent design are both pseudo-sciences and shouldn't even be considered in schools, let alone in laboratories. Furthermore why does Darwin's religion matter? If he was buddhist or muslim, would that change his research, findings, or theories? No, so it doesn't really matter, look at his writings, not the man behind them.