A decade later, on 12 July 1870, Darwin told Hooker:
Your conclusion that all speculation about preordination [where an outcome is decided or determined beforehand23] is [an] idle waste of time is the only wise one: but how difficult it is not to speculate. My theology is a simple muddle: I cannot look at the universe as [being] a result of blind chance, yet I can see no evidence of beneficent design, or indeed of design of any kind in the details.
In other words, the problem remained unresolved. As for ‘spontaneous generations [this] seems almost as great a puzzle as preordination ….’24
That the universe is subject to natural laws with which the Creator does not interfere
Darwin wrote to Lyell on 17 June 1860 to say:
One word more upon the ‘Deification’ [deify – ‘to make godlike in character’] of Natural Selection … . No astronomer in showing how movements of Planets are due to gravity, thinks it necessary to say that the law of gravity was designed [i.e. by God, in order] that planets shd pursue the courses which they pursue. I cannot believe that there is a bit more interference by the Creator in the construction of each species, than in the course of the planets.
It is only owing to Paley & Co, as I believe, that this more special interference is thought necessary with living bodies. But we shall never agree, so do not trouble yourself to answer.25
Paley had argued that ‘the organization and adaptations of living organisms indicated the existence of an intelligent creator’.26
Here, Darwin appears to be saying that the Creator does not involve himself with determining the structure of every ‘organic being’; this structure having evolved according to ‘general laws’ – and he includes ‘natural selection’ as one of these laws.
Science and religion: shall ere the twain meet?
Darwin received a letter, on 14 December 1866, from writer and educator Mary E. Boole, in which the following searching questions were asked:
Do you consider the holding of your Theory of Natural Selection, in its fullest & most unreserved sense, to be inconsistent … with the following belief, viz:
That knowledge is given to man by the direct Inspiration of the Spirit of God.
That God is a personal and Infinitely good Being.
That the effect of the action of the Spirit of God on the brain of man is especially a moral effect.
And that each individual man has, within certain limits, a power of choice as to how far he will yield to his hereditary animal impulses, and how far he will rather follow the guidance of the Spirit Who is educating him into a power of resisting those impulses in obedience to moral motives.
The reason why I ask you is this. My own impression has always been, – not only that your theory was quite compatible with the faith to which I have just tried to give expression, – but that your books afforded me a clue which would guide me in applying that faith to the solution of certain complicated psychological problems which it was of practical importance to me, as a mother, to solve [Boole was the mother of five daughters]. I felt that you had supplied one of the missing links, – not to say the missing link, – between the facts of Science & the promises of religion. Every year’s experience tends to deepen in me that impression.
But I have lately read remarks, on the probable bearing of your theory on religious & moral questions, which have perplexed & pained me sorely.
At the same time I feel that you have a perfect right to refuse to answer such questions as I have asked you. Science must take her path & Theology hers, and they will meet when & where & how God pleases, & you are in no sense responsible, for it, if the meeting-point should be still very far off.27
In her preface to Mary Boole’s Collected Works,28 US educationist Ethel S. Dummer, gives a clue as to what may have prompted the author to write to Darwin in this way, when she describes how Boole had delivered a series of lectures to a group of London mothers ‘who, finding their religion threatened by Darwin’s new theories, sought Mrs Boole’s philosophic wisdom’ on the subject.29
Darwin’s response to Mary Boole, given on 14 December 1866, reads:
Dear Madam.
It would have gratified me much if I could have sent satisfactory answers to yr. questions, or indeed answers of any kind. … I may however remark that it has always appeared to me more satisfactory to look at the immense amount of pain & suffering in this world, as the inevitable result of the natural sequence of events, i.e. general laws, rather than from a direct intervention of God though I am aware this is not logical with reference to an omniscient Deity. Your last question seems to resolve itself into the problem of Free Will & Necessity which has been found by most persons insoluble.
P. S. I am grieved that my views should incidentally have caused trouble to your mind but I thank you for your Judgement & honour you for it, that theology & science should each run its own course & that in the present case I am not responsible if their meeting point should still be far off.30
The above correspondence reaches to the very heart of the question: is religion (in this case Christianity) compatible with Darwinism? But, instead of being drawn into furnishing a definitive answer, Darwin, who was as exemplary a scientific investigator as ever lived, evidently prefers to keep an open mind on this highly contentious subject. On the one hand, he appears to give an implicit acknowledgment that, as yet, there is no convergence of opinion (i.e. compatibility) between science and religion, whilst on the other, he declares that such a convergence cannot be ruled out at some future date – presumably when science has shed more light, not only on the mechanism of evolution, but also on that of creation itself. Or did he, privately and in his heart of hearts, secretly believe that such a reconciliation could never come about?
To conclude, the root cause of Darwin’s dilemma was that whereas his Theory of Evolution was based on a vast amount of scientific evidence, painstakingly accumulated, tested, and evaluated over many years, the doctrine of Christianity, as far as he could determine, was unable to draw on one single scientific fact to back it up.
Which holds sway: the laws of a benificent God, or the laws of nature?
In 1867, when Darwin completed his great work The Variation of Animals and Plants under Domestication (Variation), he declared to Hooker:
I finish my Book … by a single paragraph answering, or throwing doubt, in so far as so little space permits on Asa Gray’s doctrine that each variation has been specially ordered or led along a beneficial line. It is foolish to touch such subjects, but there have been so many allusions to what I think about the part which God has played in the formation of organic beings, that I thought it shabby to evade the question.31
The paragraph referred to above reads:
However much we may wish it, we can hardly follow Professor Asa Gray in his belief ‘that variation has been led along certain beneficial lines,’ like a stream ‘along definite and useful lines of irrigation’. If we assume that each particular variation was from the beginning of all time preordained, the plasticity [the quality of being easily shaped or moulded]32 of organization, which leads to many injurious deviations of structure, as well as that redundant [no longer necessary or useful; superfluous]33 power of reproduction which inevitably leads to a struggle for existence, and, as a consequence, to the natural selection or survival of the fittest, must appear to us superfluous laws of nature. On the other hand, an omnipotent and omniscient Creator ordains everything and foresees everything. Thus we are brought face to face with a difficulty as insoluble as is that of free will and predestination [predestine – to ordain in advance by divine will].34
In Variation Darwin elaborated further upon this theme. Was it conceivable, he enquired sceptically, that the
Creator … specially ordained for the sake of the breeder each of the innumerable variations in our domestic animals and plants; many of these variations being of no service to man and not beneficial, [but instead were] far more often injurious to the creatures themselves?35
H
ere, Darwin is objecting to Asa Gray’s view that variation was preordained by God along certain beneficial lines, on the grounds that a), it does not explain the existence of non-beneficial variations and b), it is a negation of his [Darwin’s] theory of evolution by natural selection.
The Reverend William Paley
In all the circumstances it is surprising that Darwin retained his fondness for the works of the Reverend William Paley, which he had studied whilst an undergraduate at Cambridge. This fondness, he revealed when, at the age of fifty, he wrote to banker, politician and naturalist Sir John Lubbock, a neighbour of his, of High Elms, Down, to say, ‘I hardly think I ever admired a book more than Paley’s natural theology [Natural Theology, or Evidence of the Existence and Attributes of the Deity, published in 1802]. I could almost formally have said it by heart.’36 The impression gained is that Darwin would dearly have loved to embrace the teachings of Paley, but reason dictated that he simply could not bring himself to do so.
* * *
Emma told Darwin, in June 1861, in respect of his chronic illness,
My heart has often been too full to speak or take any notice[.] I am sure you know I love you well enough to believe that I mind your sufferings nearly as much as I should my own & and I find the only relief to my own mind is to take it as from God’s hand, & to try to believe that all suffering & illness is meant to help us to exalt our minds & to look forward with hope to a future state.
In other words, Emma’s love for her husband had remained undimmed, despite his failure to respond to her religious overtures.
When I see your patience, deep compassion for others[,] self-command & above all gratitude for the smallest thing done to help you I cannot help longing that these precious feelings should be offered to Heaven for the sake of your daily happiness … . I often think of the words ‘Thou shalt keep him in perfect peace whose mind is stayed [i.e. fixed] on thee [a quotation from the Book of Isaiah]’.37 It is feeling & not reasoning that drives one to prayer.38
That year, in the July edition of Macmillan’s Magazine, there appeared an article written by Frances Julia Wedgwood (daughter of Emma’s brother Hensleigh and his wife Frances) entitled ‘The Boundaries of Science. A Second Dialogue’. Having read it, Darwin told its author,
I must confess that I could not clearly follow you in some parts, which probably is in [the] main part due to my not being at all accustomed to metaphysical [i.e. abstract or supernatural] trains of thought.39
In March 1869 Darwin wrote to the lawyer Vernon Lushington, in respect of French philosopher and social theorist Auguste Comte (1798–1857). Comte had founded the Sociêté Positiviste in 1848, which was devoted to the ‘Cult of Humanity’ – his philosophy being described by himself as ‘Positivism’. This asserts that the only authentic knowledge is that which can be scientifically verified, or which is capable of logical or mathematical proof. Comte’s Positivism therefore demanded a rejection of theism (the belief in a god, or gods). Said Darwin to Lushington:
No doubt the law of progress from the theological to the positive point of view, is an important one, [and] if true [is a matter] on which I cannot judge, & I shd think the attempt to reduce the social system to a science state seems important.40
Here, Darwin admits to the possibility that a law exists which requires a ‘theologically-based state’ to be replaced by ‘science-based state’. But if this is the case, then it begs the question, what place is there for God in such a world?
In January the following year, Emma, having read the proofs of Darwin’s most recent book The Descent of Man and Selection in Relation to Sex, said frankly, ‘I think it would be very interesting, but that I shall dislike it very much as again putting God further off.’41
To Huxley in September Darwin wrote, ‘God forgive me for writing so long & egotistical a letter … .’42 Did he mention God purely out of habit, or did he, after all, still retain in his mind some notion of a deity?
Darwin told Francis Abbot in November:
Now I have never systematically thought much on Religion, in relation to Science, or on morals in relation to Society, & without steadily keeping my mind on such subjects for a long period, I am really incapable of writing anything worth sending to the Index. Many years ago I was strongly advised by a friend never to introduce anything about religion – in my works, if I wished to advance science in England; & this led me not to consider the mutual bearings of the two subjects. Had I foreseen how much more liberal the world would become, I should perhaps have acted differently.43
Abbot was a US clergyman and philosopher and founder and editor of the Index, a weekly paper devoted to promoting ‘free religion’. This advocates that all dogma and reliance on scriptures or creeds should be rejected, and that it was up to the individual to seek out the truth for himself.
NOTES
1. Emma to Darwin, 21–22 November 1838. Cor.2, p. 123.
2. Gospel of St John, 13:34.
3. Emma to Darwin 23 January 1839, Cor.2, p.169.
4. Barlow, The Autobiography of Charles Darwin 1809–1882 (with original omissions restored).
5. Emma to Darwin, Darwin, Emma. Op. cit., Volume II, p. 172.
6. Image of letter, from Darwin Online, http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6070/6025646324_29000c6352_o.jpg
7. Darwin to Fox, 23 August 1841, Cor.2, p.303.
8. Darwin to Fox, 28 September 1841, Cor.2, p.305.
9. Statement by Henrietta Litchfield, née Darwin, Darwin, Emma, op. cit., Volume II, p. 173.
10. Murphy, Blanco White: Self-banished Spaniard, p.21.
11. Ibid, p.24.
12. Ibid, p.57.
13. Ibid, p.78.
14. Ibid, p.193.
15. Emma to Madame Sismondi, 27 August 1845, Darwin, Emma, op. cit., Volume II, p.96.
16. Darwin, Origin, p.450.
17. Darwin to Hooker, 1 February, Darwin Correspondence Project, Letter 7471.
18. Darwin, Francis, op. cit., Volume III, pp.368–9.
19. Oxford Dictionaries Online.
20. Sagan, ‘On the Origin of DNA’, You Tube.
21. Darwin to Abbot, 6 September, Darwin Correspondence Project. Letter 7924.
22. Darwin to Gray, 22 May, Cor.8, pp.223–24.
23. Oxford Dictionaries Online.
24. Darwin to Hooker, 12 July, Cor.18, p.209.
25. Darwin to Lyell, 17 June, Cor.8, p.258.
26. Cor.8, p.259, note 2.
27. Darwin to Boole, 13 December 1866, Darwin Correspondence Project, Letter 5303.
28. Boole, Collected Works, Volume I, pp.vii-viii.
29. Cor.14, p.425, note 2.
30. Darwin to Boole, 14 December 1866, Cor.14, pp.425–6.
31. Darwin to Hooker, 8 February, Darwin Correspondence Project, Letter 5395.
32. Oxford Dictionaries Online.
33. Ibid.
34. Darwin, Variations, Volume II, p.526.
35. Ibid, p.525.
36. Darwin to Lubbock], Cor.7, p.388.
37. Isaiah 26:3.
38. Emma to Darwin, June 1861, Cor.9, p. 155.
39. Darwin to Frances Julia Wedgwood, 11 July, Cor.18, pp.379–80.
40. Darwin to Vernon Lushington, Cor.17, p.127.
41. Darwin, Emma, op. cit., Volume II, p.196.
42. Darwin to Huxley, 21 September, Cor.19, p.591.
43. Darwin to Abbot, 16 November, Cor.19, p.686.
Chapter 31
Religions: Their Creation and Evolution
It is interesting to speculate as to what conclusions Darwin would have drawn, had he been alive today and chosen to conduct research into religion with the same rigour and objectivity as he had conducted his studies of natural history. Firstly, he would have observed that there are countless ‘species’ of religion, not only those in vogue today, but many others which are no longer practised and have become ‘extinct’.
Of the present-day religions, many appear to have been spontaneously created; whereas others have ‘evolved’
from those already in existence, sometimes as offshoots and sometimes as a result of violent schisms (a schism being a split or division between strongly opposed sections or parties, caused by differences in opinion or belief1).
Hinduism. This religion claims to be the world’s oldest, and is based on the concept of a supreme spirit – Brahman – the creative force who brought the universe into being. Depending on their particular sect, Hindus worship one or other of their three major gods: Brahma, Vishnu or Shiva. In addition, there are many thousands of personal gods which any Hindu is free to worship, if he or she so chooses.
Hindus believe that, whereas the human body is destructible, the soul is immutable and takes on different lives in a cycle of birth, death and reincarnation. The sum of a person’s actions – or ‘Karma’ – in one life, determines whether he or she will face the punishments of Hell, or enjoy Heaven as a reward for good deeds. A bad Karma might be rewarded by rebirth as a lower animal; a good Karma by rebirth into a good family with the prospect of a joyous lifetime.
Most Hindus believe that the soul of every person – the ‘atman’ – is eternal, and that the goal of life is to realize that this is identical to that of the Brahman, and to hope that, when the cycle of life and death is ended, their atman will be absorbed into the Brahman.
Ancient Egyptian religion. Egypt’s Early Dynastic Period commenced in about 3,000BC with the unification of the country, though there is evidence of religious activity even prior to this date. In excess of sixty deities existed, including the Sun god Ra; the creator god Amun; and the mother goddess Isis, one or other of which predominated at different periods of history.
Religious life centred on the pharaoh – a human being who was believed to be descended from the gods. He acted as intermediary between the gods and his people, and was obliged to make ritual offerings in order to sustain the gods, so that they might continue to maintain order in the universe.
Charles Darwin Page 27