It’s from his autobiography. You can peruse that part of his life online, but this is the full context of that sentence:
as I did not then in the least doubt the strict & literal truth of every word in the Bible, I soon persuaded myself that our Creed must be fully accepted. It never struck me how illogical it was to say that I believed in what I could not understand & what is in fact unintelligible. I might have said with entire truth that I had no wish to dispute any dogma; but I never was such a fool as to feel & say ‘credo quia incredibile’. Considering how fiercely I have been attacked by the orthodox it seems ludicrous that I once intended to be a clergyman. Nor was this intention & my father’s wish ever formally given up, but died a natural death when on leaving Cambridge I joined the Beagle as Naturalist.
Darwin describes his unbelief as a creeping movement, and once said he was a Christian till the age of 40. It is clear that he was a straightforward, if somewhat uncritical, believer at age 29. By the time he was corresponding with Gray, he was an agnostic and was rather open about it. He certainly wasn’t “going along in order to get along” then. I don’t know how the book in the OP uses that quote, but if it doesn’t acknowledge the journey from orthodox belief to agnosticism while quoting that passage, then it’s crap that no one should read.
Given that according to him (autobiography) "Before I was engaged to be married, my father advised me to conceal carefully my doubts, for he said that he had known extreme misery thus caused with married persons. Things went on pretty well until the wife or husband became out of health, and then some women suffered miserably by doubting about the salvation of their husbands, thus making them likewise to suffer. " Darwin got married when he was 29. The statement does seem to be true for when he started his voyage at age 22. Darwin btw did not follow the advice but was quite honest with his wife to be.
Darwin’s theory of natural selection was only a starting point. It has been argued about, modified, improved upon (all of genetics for instance), and all of this is being tested and this will continue as long as there are scientists. It is also part of a weave of scientific theories which try to explain all that is (for instance it does not try to explain the origins of the stars or of life [however one defines life] though once life exists it does do a good job of explaining the diversity of species).
Dawkins and Dennett each have many roles but one role that both have taken is trying to explain natural selection to the general public (Dawkins more so than Dennett). Dennett is also a philosopher arguing out ideas especially those on the mind and philosophy of science with fellow philosophers (search at the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy). Dawkins is also a biologist well known for arguing with fellow biologist Stephen Jay Gould over details in the theory of natural selection.
Interesting musings. I was glad to read a bit more about Darwin and his own inclinations. It also caused me to reflect a bit more on William Paley and the impact of his particular arguments…I did read the Wikipedia article about that interesting wasp species. I cannot profess to any (whatsoever) fascination with bugs, but understand the “why would a good God —?” dilemma. I am sure wasps have their purpose but asking why the insect world, or wasp world, is so cruel is not entirely unlike asking why humans are so cruel. We humans choose to be, but we cannot be sure wasps especially made such a choice.
Beyond all that — it is Memorial Day and hopefully a pleasant one for all — except maybe the wasps.
Good job, JPM!! I am sure that wasps have a wonderful and unique role in nature and in the whole grand scheme of things. You probably are not upsetting the balance of nature here. It may also be that if I were a Wasp Wonk (such must exist), I could think of a purposeful and beneficial reason for the bad domestic situation that they seem destined by their Designer to instigate. Just do not have it in my mental storehouse though. I do like the Design idea, even if it left Darwin cold.
You create problems for yourself and are going beyond science when you operate on presumptions or assumptions. For instance the Big Bang Theory indicates that the universe has a Beginning so what happens when we come to the end of time, space, and things? The crane runs into a dead end, so it is invalid.
Another problem is that up down is taken to mean created by a rational Being. Dennett does not think, and apparently neither do you, that a rational Being created the universe, so does that mean that the universe is not rationally structured, does not follow rational laws or rules? Or does Nature give itself rationality, even though it does think?
Which is more magical? The rational Creator rat6ionally creating a rational universe as the environmental home for rational human beings, or the universe somehow self organizing itself by chance without rationality, purpose, nor meaning out of Nothing?
Thank you for taking the time to share your information with us ignorant lay folk. However it is a serious mistake to confuse genetics which is an aspect of Variation with Naturel Selection which is a separate aspect of Evolution. Variation creates alleles, while Natural Selection selects an allele in or out.
As far as I know Natural Selection is still based on Survival of the Fittest of Malthus and Huxley. Have there been any breakthroughs that I am unaware of?
Dawkins is the most prominent spokesperson for Darwinian evolution because of his best selling book, The Selfish Gene, which is no longer new. I would think that his views have been refuted by E. O. Wilson’s recent book, The Social Conquest of Earth. Although he does see the problem with Dawkins, he does not see clearly the answer to the problems.
Again if you have some answers, please enlighten. Don’t just tell me that the scientists are working on it.