Charles Darwin views on God religion and religious belief from his autobiography and letters
During these two years [OCTOBER 1936 to January 1839] I was led to
think much about religion. Whilst on board the Beagle I was quite
orthodox, and I remember being heartily laughed at by several of the
officers (although themselves orthodox) for quoting the Bible as an
unanswerable authority on some point of morality. I suppose it was the
novelty of the argument that amused them. But I had gradually come by this
time, i.e., 1836 to 1839, to see that the Old Testament from its
manifestly false history of the world, with the Tower of Babel, the
rainbow at sign, &c., &c., 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. The
question then continually rose, before my mind and would not be
banished, is it credible that if God were now to make a revelation to the
Hindoos, he would permit it to be connected with the belief in Vishnu,
Siva, &c., as Christianity is connected with the Old Testament? This
appeared to me utterly incredible.
By further reflecting that the
clearest evidence would be requisite to make any sane man believe in the
miracles by which Christianity is supported, (and 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
uncomprehensible 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 eyewitnesses; 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 be hardly denied that its
perfection depends in part on the interpretation which we now put on
metaphors and allegories.
But I was very unwilling to give up
my belief; I feel sure of this, for I can well remember often and often
inventing day-dreams of old letters between distinguished Romans, and
manuscripts being discovered at Pompeii or elsewhere, which confirmed in
the most striking manner all that was written in the Gospels. But I found
it more and more difficult, with free scope given to my imagination, to
invent evidence which would suffice to convince me. 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 of my friends, will be
everlastingly punished.
And this is a damnable doctrine.
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 from 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. But I have discussed this subject
at the end of my book on the 'Variations of Domesticated Animals and
Plants,' and the
argument there given has never, as far as I can see, been answered.
But passing over the endless beautiful adaptations which we
everywhere meet with, it may be asked how can the generally beneficent
arrangement of the world be accounted for? Some writers indeed are so much
impressed with the amount of suffering in the world, that they doubt, if
we look to all sentient beings, whether there is more of misery or of
happiness; whether the world as a whole is a good or bad one. According to
my judgment happiness decidedly prevails, though this would be very
difficult to prove. If the truth of this conclusion be granted, it
harmonizes well with the effects which we might expect from natural
selection. If all the individuals of any species were habitually to suffer
to an extreme degree, they would neglect to propagate their kind; but we
have no reason to believe that this has ever, or at least often occurred.
Some other considerations, moreover, lead to the belief that all sentient
beings have been formed so as to enjoy, as a general rule, happiness.
Every one who believes, as I do, that all the
corporeal and mental organs (excepting those which are neither
advantageous nor disadvantageous to the possessor) of all beings have been
developed through natural selection, or the survival of the fittest,
together with use or habit, will admit
that these organs have been formed so that their possessors may compete
successfully with other beings, and thus increase in number. Now an animal
may be led to pursue that course of action which is most beneficial to the
species by suffering, such as pain, hunger, thirst, and fear; or by
pleasure, as in eating and drinking, and in the propagation of the
species, &c., or by both means combined, as in the search for food.
But pain or suffering of any kind, if long continued, causes depression
and lessens the power of action, yet is well adapted to make a creature
guard itself against any great or sudden evil. Pleasurable sensations, on
the other hand, may be long continued without any depressing effect; on
the contrary, they stimulate the whole system to increased action. Hence
it has come to pass that most or all sentient beings have been developed
in such a manner, through natural selection, that pleasurable sensations
serve as their habitual guides. We see this in the pleasure from exertion,
even occasionally from great exertion of the body or mind, (in the
pleasure of our daily meals, and especially in the pleasure derived from
sociability, and from loving our families). The sum of such pleasures as
these, which are habitual or frequently recurrent, give, as I can hardly
doubt, to most sentient beings an excess of happiness over misery,
although many occasionally suffer much. Such suffering is quite compatible
with the belief in Natural Selection, which is not perfect in its action,
but tends only to render each species as successful as possible in the
battle for life with other species, in wonderfully complex and changing
circumstances.
That there is much suffering in the world no one
disputes. Some have attempted to explain this with 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 they 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 suffering 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.
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 Buddhists of no
God. There are also many barbarian tribes who cannot be said with any
truth to believe in what we call God: they believe indeed in spirits or
ghosts, and it can be explained, as Tyler and Herbert Spencer have shown,
how such a belief would be likely to arise.
Formerly I was
led by feelings such as those just referred to (although I do not think
that the religious sentiment was ever very strongly developed in me), to
the firm conviction of the existence of God, and of the immortality of the
soul. In my Journal I wrote that whilst standing in the midst of the
grandeur of a Brazilian forest, "it is not possible to give an adequate
idea of the higher feelings of wonder, admiration, and devotion, which
fill and elevate the mind." I well remember my conviction that there is
more in man than the mere breath of his body. But now the grandest scenes
would not cause any such convictions and feelings to rise in my mind. It
may be truly said that I am like a man who has become colour-blind, and
the universal belief by men of the existence of redness makes my present
loss of perception of not the least value as evidence. 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. The state of mind which
grand scenes formerly excited in me. and which was intimately connected
with a belief in God, did not essentially differ from that which is often
called the sense of sublimity; and however difficult it may be to explain
the genesis of this sense, it can hardly be advanced as an argument for
the existence of God, any more than the powerful though vague and similar
feelings excited by music.
With respect to
immortality, nothing
shows me (so clearly) how strong and almost instinctive a belief it is, as
the consideration of the view now held by most physicists, namely, that
the sun with all the planets will in time grow too cold for life, unless
indeed some great body dashes into the sun, and thus gives it fresh life.
Believing as I do that man in the distant future will be a far more
perfect creature than he now is, it is an intolerable thought that he and
all other sentient beings are doomed to complete annihilation after such
long-continued slow progress. To those who fully admit the immortality of
the human soul, the destruction of our world will not appear so dreadful.
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.
Interestingly, Darwin’s firm agnosticism expressed in the Autobiography appeared to weaken during the final years of
his life. In an 1879 letter addressed to James Fordyce, he wrote:
What my own (religious) views may be is a question of no consequence to any one but myself. But, as you asked,
I may state that my judgment often fluctuates. . . . In my most extreme fluctuations I have never been an Atheist
in the sense of denying the existence of a God. I think that generally (and more and more as I grow older), but
not always, that an Agnostic would be the more correct description of my state of mind. (F. Darwin 1888, I: 304;).
|
|