It's widely believed that Charles Darwin lost his faith when he discovered evolution. And many contemporary atheists proclaim themselves followers of Darwin in this sense. Michael Shermer, for instance, writes that he abandoned Christianity when he learned about evolution; finally he could see how there could be design--or the appearance of design--without a designer. Richard Dawkins writes that it was Darwin who finally made it possible to be an "intellectually fulfilled atheist."
In reality Darwin's atheism had little to do with his discovery of evolution. First of all Darwin was never a very devout Christian. He was raised as a nominal Anglican. It says something about Anglicanism in Britain that a lukewarm Christian like Darwin actually considered becoming a clergyman. What turned Darwin against Christianity, however, was two things.
First, several of his children either died or has chronic illnesses. This was probably heriditary, as Darwin himself suffered for most of his life from one ailment or the other. When Darwin's daughter Annie died at a young age, however, Darwin was inconsolable. Usually a man of the stiff upper lip, Darwin could not stop himself from weeping even in public. Darwin blamed God for Annie's untimely death. This was several years before Darwin published his Origin of Species.
After Annie's death, Darwin began to reflect morbidly on mortality, and during his process he recalled that his own famous grandfather Erasmus Darwin, as well as several other family members and friends, were unbelievers. Since Darwin saw them as good and respectable people, he angrily fulminated against the doctrine of eternal damnation, asking what kind of a God would consign good people to hell just because they refused to accept Christianity? The thought of all these people in hell filled Darwin with such revulsion that he completely jettisoned Christianity.
At the same time Darwin recognized that his theory of evolution was quite compatible with Christianity. When the American biologist Asa Gray wrote Darwin to say that his theory of evolution demonstrated how God created species, Darwin congratulated Gray for being the first one to see the point. In England, the preacher-poet Charles Kingsley argued for the compatibility with evolution and Christianity, and Darwin encouraged his efforts.
True, evolution is inconsistent with the six-day account of creation, but since the earliest days of Christianity, Christian writers like Augustine have had no problem with interpreting the first book of Genesis allegorically. After all the Hebrew word can mean "day" but it can also mean "period" or "epoch." Only a small segment of Christians--mostly fundamentalists--are uncompromisingly wedded to the six-day account.
Evolution, however, says nothing about who or what created the universe. Evolution doesn't even say anything about how life got started. Evolution merely describes how one life form gave rise to another. Somewhat comically writers like Dawkins and Daniel Dennett argue that evolution is a kind of master key that unlocks the universe. It isn't hard to see that atheism is getting in the way of clear reasoning here. If you doubt this, go to Youtube and watch again my debate with Daniel Dennett. Unfortunately I cannot also direct you to my debate with Dawkins, since Timorous Richard doesn't want to get into the arena with me.
Darwin lost his faith over the "problem of evil," an issue that has been coming up in my recent debates, and one that I intend to address in future blog postings. It's time to set at rest, however, the old myth that evolution is a scientific refutation of theism in general or Christianity in particular. Darwin himself knew it was not so, even if his dimmer acolytes haven't figured that out yet.
Reader Comments ( Page 5 of 86)
61. 56. GHB.....you should watch "What the BLEEP" if you haven't already....definitely supports the "we are one" theory
Strados at 11:38AM on May 5th 2008
-------------------
Funny you should mention that, strados. I posted this earlier today on the previous DD blog:
+++++++++++++++++++++++
601. Another one I like to tell is the Candace Pert story.
She was in this movie "What the Bleep Do We Know?"
The movie is ABOUT precisely this type of "Big Mind" speculation in the first place. So it's really a double coincidence.
So I'm watching it one night with my wife, and see this neuroscientist, Candace Pert, give a lecture in the movie about neuropeptides and their role in brain chemistry and how they influence the body.
Next day I bring my mom and her sister, my Aunt Marie, to the hospital. Aunt Marie needed a small outpatient procedure. (she's fine)
So I get to the waiting room in a hospital that I'd never been in before. I have some time to kill. I look around at the magazines laying about the room. I see a few smithsonians amongst the Good Housekeepings and Woman's Days. I pick one up. I thumb through it and STOP at a familiar face.
Candace Pert. There's an article in that very Smithsonian by her, all about neuropeptides. Very similar to what I'd heard her say just the previous night in the movie.
Here's the kicker.
The copy of the Smithsonian that I picked up that day in the waiting room was sixteen years old. Someone must have brought it in from their home.
(I actually stole it and still have it as a keepsake)
Sixteen Years Old. But with Candace Pert in it for me to find.
Goddess, are THESE the type of coincidences that you're thinking of, that we all get but just don't notice? Because I'd say that I'd CERTAINLY have noticed ANY of these before I started getting them seven years or so ago.
And I've got many, many more... Too many to count. The time I was thinking about tiramisu in a restaurant while my wife was in the restroom. When she got back I told her that I'd been wanting tiramisu but didn't order it because I didn't need the calories and we were on a tight budget anyhow. I just got through telling her this, no more than twenty seconds go by, and the woman bartender walks over to where we were sitting, puts a slice of tiramisu in front of ME and says "Do either of you want this? It's the last piece and we need to get rid of it or it'll go bad by tomorrow..." She hadn't even been around for my conversation with my wife, either.
Godless Heathen Brian at 7:59AM on May 5th 2008
+++++++++++++++++++
Godless Heathen Brian at 11:42AM on May 5th 2008
62. Aw come on! You're not ALL idiots are you?
It doesn't matter, it doesn't matter, it doesn't matter, it doesn't matter, it doesn't matter....
You're all bickering while Mr. Al Gore is Melting the Ozone Layer with Green Houses and Carbon Offsets! If we don't wake up soon, gas will be $8.50/gal and the price of corn will make bread cost more than electricity! You don't want to drive by candlelight and grow your own milk do you?!!! Th1nkF1rst@aim.com
Th1nkF1rst at 12:00PM on May 5th 2008
63. shiningstarxport will be quickly forgotten.
I can swear a cuss real good.
Mokele Mbembe at 11:46AM on May 5th 2008
64. "What The BLEEP" is worth watching, but there's a lot of crap in it too. The Ramptha thing... Not credible. It makes the film look like a lunatic fringe effort.
"I Heart Huckabee's" is another film, this time very funny, and it presupposes the Big Mind thing, but doesn't talk overtly about it. Great movie. Dustin Hoffman, Lilly Tomlin, Mark Wahlberg, Jason Schwartzman, and Jude Law... If you're rigid and dogmatic, you'll HATE this film. :-)
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0356721/
Godless Heathen Brian at 11:49AM on May 5th 2008
65. I think "How Darwin Lost His Faith" is easily summed up in three words.
He got smarter.
Because once you're smart enough to really understand the bible, you're automatically not a christian anymore.
Godless Heathen Brian at 11:56AM on May 5th 2008
66. LOL...my last blog was long...to prove my point...
that person...has a book that is in just about every country and every language...
DID you check out how old he is?????GOOGLE him...
God says:
I keep reading and hearing your crys for answers...
my ?
Will you hear the answers when they come?
If... you believe in GOD then you also believe in EVIL...
well...the time is here...
soon the evil your devil lucy his/her self will have what you all have claimed for centurys will happen...
he will control the earth...
but it will not be enough...
Why do you think this Roths child explores...why do you think they are now funding space stuff...to go back to the moon...no
the REAL plan ...if you are ready to hear this ok...if not...
you can one day think of me ...look up to the sky/heaven...
claim
Jesus/God...you came to us...you warned us...you gave us truth and yet ...we humans went on with daily life...and now...due to earthquakes and violant storms and waves coming up on our shore are killing our nations...
MEANWHILE:
The Roth children are on a plane (It will be like an ARK he we'll take two of each species that we wants to save)...ok one that can travel out side our atmosphere...
if you don't believe me...
did you read what my last blog said to you...
HE StUDY"S HOW TO GROW FOOD WITHOUT EARTH!!!!!
Come on here...look at the weather...don't you think with all the power they have they don't know more than you.....
I will give you more if you want...
Maybe just maybe...God is working through me...
By the way
none of you are wrong.....
Pati at 12:07PM on May 5th 2008
67. Hey, PROFESSOR X is back!
With the child's version of science. Yet agian.
I bet you write your diary in crayon.
Godless Heathen Brian at 12:01PM on May 5th 2008
68. The time I was thinking about tiramisu in a restaurant while my wife was in the restroom. When she got back I told her that I'd been wanting tiramisu but didn't order it because I didn't need the calories and we were on a tight budget anyhow. I just got through telling her this, no more than twenty seconds go by, and the woman bartender walks over to where we were sitting, puts a slice of tiramisu in front of ME and says "Do either of you want this? It's the last piece and we need to get rid of it or it'll go bad by tomorrow..." She hadn't even been around for my conversation with my wife, either.
Godless Heathen Brian at 7:59AM on May 5th 2008
I loved that story...reminds me of a few of mine...
Pati at 12:27PM on May 5th 2008
69. Dinesh seemingly made Pascal's wager (see the fifteen part video of him loosing the debate to Daniel Dennet on you tube here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iw7J15TeDG4).
He claims that his life, and the life of anyone making Pascals wager, would be different and thus better by taking the wager. That a life of delusional god beliefs and faith would be better than a life being connected to reality.
He claims to not be able to prove that god exists or that god does not exist.
How then can he claim to know anything else about god?
Dinesh claims that it's not that god punishes non-believers by casting them into hell, but that the non-believers choice to not belief in god is what will end up keeping the non-believer caged in hell. How was this knowledge obtained? How can Dinesh and those of his particular virulent variant of Christianity know that this is the case? They just postulate it? God told one of them? How do they know?
So, now we have to "believe" in the possibility that god exists as if it's really true and certain.
Then we have to believe that if we don't believe in god we'll lock ourselves in hell for all eternity.
These really are two wild and wacky beliefs. Two of Dinesh D'Souza's Delusions if you will.
There are many more.
If you can't prove that god exists you can't prove any aspects of god.
It's all speculation on Dinesh's part. There in is the problem and the core of the reason that there are thousands, if not tens of millions or even many billions of different religions and belief systems. Every variant of religion speculates differently about god and thus there are all kinds of belief systems some agreeing and others conflicting.
One particularly funny part of Dinesh D'Souza's presentation in the video is when he reveals that he is no different that the purveyors of other religions by saying that only his "true Cristian tradition" X is true. This demonstrates that he rejects other's delusions, oh pardon me, others conjectures and speculations about their idea of god and that ONLY his religious tradition, which he calls the "true Christian tradition" is the true one.
He then goes on to say that when confronted with N conflicting religious traditions, using an example of 10, that it is irrational to choose none of them.
Seemingly his assertion that it's irrational to choose none is because god is the easier answer than none.
I find this remarkable, thus I remark on it here and elsewhere. Really, the possibility that god exists, which isn't provable, and in the minds of many which isn't disprovable either, is a simplier solution than to conclude using logic that if the ten belief systems conflict that certainly about the possibilty of gods existence is more rational which logic is irrational.
I just don't see how he gets there. Logic, which we know a lot about, and which we know is proven to exist is - in his mind - irrational while a unproven to exist god is the rational choice in that instance? What?
In fact I was impressed with Dinesh D'Souza more so with the conversation with Daniel Dennet than with the other videos such as the one with Hitchens. In this Dennet video Dinesh clearly shows his training and professionalism as an old time well versed Catholic preacher/priest. I've seen his ilk before as I grew up attending church each week.
His arguments are not that much different, maybe formatted for debate form rather than homily form, but essentially the same. Even if refined in some cases it's baseless religious dogma that he presents.
In fact you can see him actively attempting to bring people into the fold by expliciting using the tried and true tactics of old time tent preachers - although without the typical hooting and hollering.
For example, with a number of the questioners at the end he asks them if he can ask them a few questions as a way of answering their question/statements. They all haplessly said yes. Dinesh then proceeded to ask very leading questions which lead to a yes answer haplessly provided - as expected. However, watching the answers on youtube with the ability to rewind and see it again plus the knowledge of such tricks it was immediately apparent what he's up to.
Again, and again Dinesh D'Souza uses a pattern of confusion and obfuscation in his line of reasoning; if you can call it that. It's more of a line of thoughts strung together to draw the conclusion that he wants. Look for this pattern and you'll see how masterfully he plays the questioner into his conclusion, rather than having a real dialog where the outcome isn't known and isn't distorted.
Again and again Occam's razor surfaces with God being the simple answer.
Many be god is the complex answer, couldn't that be possible Dinesh? Oh, it's a possibilty that can't be proven or disproven can it Dinesh? That means that it must be true, God is the more complex answer thus there is no god. That's the type of reasoning that Dinesh uses and it is a logical fallacy.
The reason that god is actually the more complex answer takes more than the type of twisted logical fallacy that Dinesh attempts to use all the time (and gets away with till now). God is the more complex answer because for god to exist there needs to be a much more complex universe with extra layers and details that wouldn't be needed in a universe without a god. Think about it for a moment as if you were the inteligent designer designing an entire universe right it's beginning and that you choose to put in a god but your friend choose to not put in a god for his experiment. The two designs would be different wouldn't they? You bet. The one with god would need, for example, a means whereby god can communicate with the poor hapless souls upon which god will inflict wisdom from god upon. The universe that has not god doesn't need this design function point. Hmm.. already just one feature on the request list for god - the ability to talk to his followers - has created a big difference in the two realities being constructed. Oops, god is more complex as this speculative example will continue to demonstrate. Not only is god more complex god as a solution is infinitely more complex than no god since each aspect of god requires at least one or more function points in the universe with god. Since there are thousands of religions on earth and humans have enumerated thousands of "aspects" of god there are a lot more function points for the godverse verses the universe without god.
Each time Dinesh invokes god as his solution for another question about reality he takes himself further and further away from objective reality by building up the reliance upon the possibility that god exists. Recall that there isn't proof that god exists thus it's just a possibility but wow can Dinesh and his "true christian faith tradition" sure can stack up a lot of stuff upon that possibility that god exists - and it sure sounds in the end like Dinesh accepts it as true that god isn't just a possibility but a fact. This means that he's violating the notion that god is a possibility without proof. It is the mental idea of "belief" that allows him to make this faithful leap from the realm of possiblity to reality of gods existence being a certainty for him. Although he does disclaim this it's disingenuously since he does act consistent with god being a fact and not with god simply being a possibility.
Dinesh D'Souza is clearly a well practiced debater and religious preacher with con man skills as good as the best of them. He might not have the posh of the rest but he's just as every bit dangerous to anyone gullible to accept belief and faith without skepticism.
Let's look at one of Dinesh D'Souza's central premises: everything needs a cause including the universe and that that cause is god. Dinesh's reasoning, which you can hear in length on the video, is faulty with regards to the theory of the big bang where time began with space. Since time was created at the same time as space causation was also created with the big bang, time and space. Another flaw is that that notion of causation is a human linguistic and logic construct. Does anyone know of any proof that exists that "causation" is actually proven to be an axiomatic characteristic of objective reality as existence, identity and consciousness are? Maybe causation is implied by existence or maybe not. However that's a big assumption that Dinesh makes about the creation of the universe and all of existence.
As an aside Dinesh, it's irrelevant who thought of the big bang type idea of time AND space forming at the same time (no pun intended) as it's NOT proof of god's existence and it's certainly not proof of the possibility that god can exist.
Underlying Dinesh D'Souza's demeanor seems to be a confident projection that god exists. You can see it in all of his arguments as they are so shaped beyond logical limits that even the worlds best contortionists couldn't perform those twists and turns as readily.
He is right about one thing in his entire talk: believing in god does seem to be a choice for many people, as it clearly is in his case, although it seems possible that Dinesh's god delusions are inherent to his biology.
He did talk briefly about "non-scientific" issues of being human, such as "spirituality", that "science can't address". Actually he is mistaken about that as the science of ontology - the study of being without supernatural forces - which makes use of the scientific methods does address any human spirituality issues without the need to resort to supernatural notions. It is possible to be a human being and be grounded in reality while being "spiritual", more as the runner had "spirit" and finished the race by pushing herself hard against the odds and pain of an injury.
It's hard using certain words since they either originated from religious traditions or have been so high jacked that one must define them carefully first to exclude supernatural meanings.
Overall while Dinesh D'Sousa presents as a professional preacher who is well educated and well versed in his rethoric regarding belief about god, ultimately he is still a preacher spreading his word to those who will listen and fall for his con job - an excellently performed con if I don't say so myself. Fortunately there are those of us who can see through the tired tricks and whacked out delusions by using our own critical thinking skills in our attempt to get closer to reality - the true human spiritual pursuit other than connecting with other living beings by making a difference in their lives.
There is a log more analysis, though that's it for now.
I invite you to comment Dinesh. It seems to be something that is lacking from your blog, actual comments by you.
Peter at 12:06PM on May 5th 2008
70. "The World Economic Forum (WEF) is a Geneva-based foundation whose annual meeting of top business leaders, national political leaders (presidents, prime ministers and others), and selected intellectuals and journalists is usually held in Davos, Switzerland. There are also regional meetings throughout the year. It was founded in 1971 by Klaus M. Schwab, a business professor in Switzerland" Pati
Hi Pati,
I've been to 3 such forums. Quite interesting. There is a lot of evil in those rooms. I work better next to evil instead of ignoring it.
The question you really need to ask, is who or what is behind Rothschild. The "Plan" has been in effect since the 15 hundreds. This certainly isn't recent.
I'll drop some hints:
What Company, Person, or Institution was represented most at the forums I attended?
The Catholic Church
You Say Rothschild, but he and his family are just puppets, be it higher up puppets.
Botts at 12:08PM on May 5th 2008
71. How is Al Gore the bad guy? I don't get it. He's pretty innoccuous. Now GWB, THERE'S an asshole!
Godless Heathen Brian at 12:08PM on May 5th 2008
72. The Catholic Church, that Old One, the Father of Lies, enemy of all that is good and pure.
I'm with you botts....
The Old evil is still present in it's offshoot branches, albeit in dilute form. And to differing degrees. The modern neocon fundie type is just as pernicious as the original. And just as seeking of world domination. Hell, maybe they're in league, for all I know.
Godless Heathen Brian at 12:14PM on May 5th 2008
73. This is probably the most important question every human should ask...and this statement should be plastered in any media possible...
THIS IS YOUR FUTURE:
Say the space program (THE NEW ARK) makes it into space before yellowstone erupts....Should we as humans feel excited that life will continue once our planet blows...that at least some form of human speieces will survive...
if so...you will be sending Lucifer/satan/evil...up into your heaven...
do you think that's what God wants?
Quess who's planning space vactions?
quess who can afford to go?
Pati at 12:28PM on May 5th 2008
74. Very good,very good article.I have often wondered if evolutionists understood what prompted Darwin to embrace evolution.Darwin could not understand how a Good and Loving God could permit his daughter's misfortune?Therefore,blamed God for all his problems.Apparently Darwin forgot about Satan and the Fallen Angels?I hope everyone reads your article.WELL DONE!
Stephen Chizmar at 12:17PM on May 5th 2008
75. "HE StUDY"S HOW TO GROW FOOD WITHOUT EARTH!!!!!"
In the mountains of Switzerland, they have constructed inside some of the mountains, literal cities and neighborhoods in case of such an event like War.
They can grow crops without sunlight needed.
They have an underground transportation system that you can't even imagine.
When shit hit's the fan, I know where me and my family are going.
Thank goodness I have legal papers and have residence there.
Botts at 12:20PM on May 5th 2008