EXCERPT…
For someone who has had more impact on religious thinking than anyone else born in the last 200 years, Darwin wrote very little about religion. Mankind is famously absent from The Origin of Species and his only book to engage with Christianity in any detail (excluding his posthumously published Autobiography) is TheVoyage of the Beagle, in which he writes at some length and wholly positively about the work of missionaries in the South Pacific.
The reasons for his reticence are complex. Darwin did not want to upset his wife, who was devout. He did not want to upset public opinion in any way that might retard the reception of his theory. He generally approved of the religious influence on society.
One of his friends from his time on the Beagle was 2nd lieutenant Bartholomew James Sulivan, who was and remained a supporter of Christian mission. He and Darwin stayed friends and corresponded about missionary work in South America right up until Darwin’s death in 1882, with Darwin being so impressed by what he heard that, later in life, he not only made regular small donations to the South American Missionary Society but even asked to be made an honorary member.[7]
Closer to home, when James Fegan, a local evangelist, requested use of a room in Downe village in 1880 to bring his tent revival meetings indoors, Darwin not only granted permission but told him:
“Your services have done more for the village in a few months than all our efforts for many years…Through your services I do not know that there is a drunkard left in the village.”[8]
Perhaps most significantly, Darwin was a scientist, not a theologian or philosopher. “Dr Pusey [the Oxford divine] was mistaken in imagining that I wrote the Origin [of Species] with any relation whatever to Theology,” Darwin once told the botanist Nicholas Ridley. [9] He was driven by a desire to understand and explain the natural world better, not to destroy, still less ridicule, people’s religious faith.
Couldn’t agree more about legalism. This is something that struck me as problematic when I was growing up in the church. When you read the red letters in the NT there is very little about rules and specifics of what a proper Christian should do. It was much more about changing your outlook on life than following rules.
I also got a unique look at Protestantism while growing up. My Dad was part of a gospel trio that toured around to different Protestant churches in the area. This means I went to Sunday School in almost every Protestant church in the area at least one Sunday. Boy was that an eye opener. Some didn’t have communion. Some didn’t even have baptism!!! EGADS!! Then there were the Lutherans . . . that was different.
What I learned is that what one congregation twisted themselves into knots over was completely ignored by another congregation. And they were all devout Christians. Maybe . . . just maybe . . . we should relax a little bit when it comes to certain points of theology.
I think these so called “Christians” are the real nonbelievers and blasphemers, because they simply have made “God” into a tool of rhetoric for their own power over others giving themselves, as the mouths of God, the right to take judgement and salvation upon themselves to dispense to others. Real believers in God would know that God is the only judge and author of salvation who is quite capable of speaking for Himself.
Yes I believe the Bible is the word of God but that would mean believers would simply point to the Bible so people can hear from God themselves and not take the Bible as license judge and condemn people in its name as Jesus objected that the Pharisees were doing.
… like myself as I said in the very next sentence.
This is exactly why i said in the O.P that, prior to my reading of the news story and comment from Darwins great great grandson, i thought most believed that Darwin was agnostic.
that’s because i was responding to the claim that Muslims and Jews are not athiestis, unfortunately, straw plucking has resulted in an out of context quote here.
When it comes to theists being agnostic, i would argue that’s not really possible. The theist claims to have knowledge of God because our Creator has chosen to reveal Himself through his Word.
How can one therefore claim to be theist and deny the revelation of the intelligence behind that world view? I hope the point im making here is clear enough…i suppose another way of putting it might be an agnostic theist is a logical fallacy.
i want to ensure i agree in person with this point. That must have been very hard St Roymond.
I hope that in the years since you have been able to reconcile that your willingness to share a passion with others came from the heart and that i think is reflective of exactly the model Christ demonstrated in his ministry. Whilst we all thrash out theology and doctrines here, I’m fairly sure that underneath all of this, we are all of the same belief “do unto others as you would have them do unto you”…feed the poor, heal the sick, help those in need…kindness, compassion, gentleness (I’m pretty crap at living by the fruits of the spirit but i do believe in them)
Agnostics would count that as a belief, not knowledge. From what I understand, knowledge would be something that is objectively verifiable. What you are describing is a subjective revelation (i.e. faith). That’s not to say that one is true and one is false, just that they are different from one another.
Agnostic Christians don’t deny that. They just don’t mischaracterize it as an objectively demonstrable fact.