Seconded. Thanks for leading to the …
Thanks for sharing these links, Erp. This may be helpful re: “large chunks” during his Cambridge studies and in the early years of his marriage. Darwin read/had a Bible with him while on the Beagle, right, as a gentleman companion of the Anglican Captain, only a few years older than him, in the midst of losing his “faith”?
Yes, I forgot the exams, though he didn’t finish his “to become a clergyman” studies, right? This was Darwin’s unfinished business, a historian’s “what if” somewhat similar to how one must react to “Darwin’s regret”, as expressed above. What if Darwin had continued reading Scripture in his later years, instead of (assumed) dropping it entirely the last years of his life? Would that have impacted the “loss of higher esthetic tastes” also, for example, if he had continued throughout his life reading Psalms?
While nice to read how 17 yr-old Charles Darwin reacted to his elder sister Caroline, the 1826 letter seems largely irrelevant in relation to the OP. Likewise, the letter he responded to seems more interesting for understanding Charles in some ways than his “I like the gospels” general reference, given his sister’s spiritual encouragement to him.
“dear Charles I hope you read the bible & not only because you think it wrong not to read it, but with the wish of learning there what is necessary to feel & do to go to heaven after you die. I am sure I gain more by praying over a few verses than by reading simply— many chapters— I suppose you do not feel prepared yet to take the sacrament—” | Darwin Correspondence Project
Which sacrament would that be?
What I’m rather interested in here is Darwin’s last 25 years, not his first 25 years. The autobiographical quotation about what the OP calls “Darwin’s regret” was from 1881, rather than 1826 or 1828. Did Darwin crack the cover of his own Bible in the last 25 years of his life? Is it known whether or not, and if so, how much Darwin read Scripture over his last 25 years?
“(though perhaps not in a way you would approve of).”
Please rather keep that commentary to yourself, as this has nothing to do with that “approval” approach. It should be a mutual exploration, rather than expecting a one-sided reading or individualistic display.
This is a related recent interesting find from a bit of research
https://atrium.lib.uoguelph.ca/xmlui/bitstream/handle/10214/16085/Floyd_Caroline_201905_MA.pdf?isAllowed=y&sequence=1
p.s. why do you think your post about the Bible Darwin did read, got 3 likes above? Is the available “evidence” of Darwin’s knowledge of Scripture barely any, a little, some, more than average, or considerable? Just curious.
Sometimes it seems people would like to make Darwin less irreligious than he actually was. It would seem that “apatheist” might also be a suitable term for Darwin’s “faith” or “worldview”, instead of just the newly minted term “agnostic” by his friend T.H. Huxley. How does it sound?
The sacrament was likely ordination (the 39 Articles of the Church of England called it a commonly called sacrament though not a Sacrament of the Gospel [those were Baptism and the Lord’s Supper]). To go to Cambridge as a student at that time, Darwin would have had to have been baptized and taken communion. I wouldn’t call Darwin an apatheist; it is fairly obvious he thought a great deal about it but tended to be very private on his views. In his letter to John Fordyce of 1879 he wrote “What my own views may be is a question of no consequence to any one except myself” before going on to state “I think that generally (& more and more so as I grow older) but not always, that an agnostic would be the most correct description of my state of mind.”.
https://www.darwinproject.ac.uk/letter/?docId=letters/DCP-LETT-12041.xml;query=agnostic;brand=default
The annotation on the letter says to check what “agnostic” meant at that time and gives a reference to a book. As Darwin himself notes in the letter, definitions matter. Also a world view is more than just a view about God or the Christian religion (most Buddhists are apatheists as far as Christianity); Darwin had strong views about treating one’s neighbors.
BTW Emma Darwin had some decided views on the Psalms when rereading them in her own old age (letter to her daughter Henrietta in 1895, Century of Family Letters).
2 Likes
@Peter, thank you for revealing your true colors. You are not interested in discussing the issues of meaning and purpose, but only making your point about survival of the fittest and the emptiness of life. Too bad that I did not buy that scientism stuff, but you impressed a few people.
“To go to Cambridge as a student at that time, Darwin would have had to have been baptized and taken communion”
Darwin went through quite a profound shift of “worldview” in his 20s & 30s, and away from whatever “Christianity” (low Anglican & Unitarian) he gained from childhood. You’re aware of this, right? Please don’t bother addressing his youth anymore; it’s his elder years that are at issue here. He forget his Greek language quite quickly, and likely forgot much of what he read in the Bible from his youth also. Surely we know that his thoughts about the Bible changed quite dramatically away from what he wrote to console W.D. Fox in 1829, speaking about “so pure & holy a comfort as the Bible affords”.
In November 1880, within 17 months of his death, Darwin answered a letter, saying:
“I am sorry to have to inform you that I do not believe in the Bible as a divine revelation & therefore not in Jesus Christ as the son of God.” | Darwin Correspondence Project
Are you suggesting that nevertheless he kept on daily Bible readings, @Erp, perhaps out of duty with his wife, who was far from “orthodox” in her Anglican → Unitarianism? How much would she have been “worn down” in her religious life from having been married to her first cousin the “Naturalist” for so many years?
“I wouldn’t call Darwin an apatheist; it is fairly obvious he thought a great deal about it but tended to be very private on his views.”
Well, even so, I would still call Darwin what is now known as an “apatheist”, as I think it’s more accurate and informative in this case for our time to describe the man than “agnostic”, which was coined back then. From what I’ve read in his autobiography and letters, the evidence for this is convincing, based on how Darwin refers to the Bible and “religion” in what he wrote privately. “Jesus” is only mentioned once as a place name for a Cambridge college in Darwin’s Autobiography, after all, right? Will you somehow conjure Darwin up for people here as “almost Christian”, @Erp?
An “agnostic apatheist” sounds effective when combined to describe Charles Robert Darwin. He was no spiritual role model, in any case, though one can shine accolades on his contribution to natural science and as an “ethical English gentleman” of his time.
No, I don’t think it’s obvious that Darwin thought a great deal about, nor that he actually read, the Bible in the last 25 years of his life. Do you have any evidence to show otherwise? That’s what I’m interested in here, rather than merely his “agnosticism”, which tells little about a person except for what can’t be or just isn’t known. That is, unless you’d like to suggest there is a connection between the onset of lifelong “agnosticism” in his early-middle age, and later “Darwin’s regret” as expressed in the OP? Thanks.
Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour" (Exodus 20:16)
Roger, you have a long and celebrated track record in here, according to myself and others, of not listening, of misrepresenting what other’s say, of not being across the science, of making unfounded claims, and never correcting anything you say when the copious evidence against you dictates that you should, and of promoting your own book.
Your continued attempts to misrepresent my arguments and claim some sort of victory by having the last word here is pushing the bounds of decency, and is out of step with the standards of this site. I care about this site, and do not want to be dragged down any further by interacting with you.
Please desist in this harassment and show some decorum and respect, and I say again, honesty.
2 Likes
Given that I’m a humanist myself, I’m hardly going to describe Darwin as a bog standard Christian at any time in his life. His mother and wife were Unitarian (even if his wife regularly attended the Anglican church in Down though publicly refusing to say the creed if her son is correct). I would however not call him an apatheist; he had seriously considered the claims of Christianity and rejected most of them.
I would consider him a role model for intellectual honesty and intellectual care. He was, for instance, honest in his autobiography. Also, for his time and place, quite progressive in his views (one can’t read the Voyage of the Beagle without realizing all the jabs at slaveholders); one willing to correspond with women on scientific matters.
BTW you should probably read the letter that Darwin was replying to when he bluntly wrote he didn’t consider the Bible divine
The reason of my intrusion—which I trust you will pardon—is this. I have a great desire to read your books—the more so after finding (in his Life written by his wife) that Charles Kingsley strongly recommended them—but I am a busy man & not at all a clever man, and if I am to have pleasure in reading your books I must feel that at the end I shall not have lost my faith in the New Testament. My reason in writing to you therefore is to ask you to give me a Yes or No to the question Do you believe in the New Testament. If you could answer me Yes I should most gladly enter upon the study of your wonderful books but without that assurance I fear my brain is not fine enough to argue out doubts which might be suggested by your works, but if I can say that the author of these doctrines believes as I do that Christ was the Son of God, I can say it is only in matters of detail that Mr Darwin differs from Charles Kingsley and I may read with full pleasure of all the wonders of nature which he has collected.If you will write on the back of this page Yes or No you will be doing a real kindness which I will certainly not abuse by sending a paragraph to the theological papers headed “Mr Darwin on the New Testament”
This is a Christian. Fortunately so were people like Asa Gray or Rachel Held Evans and many others who were and are willing to test their beliefs and interact as peers with non-Christians.
1 Like
“I would however not call him an apatheist; he had seriously considered the claims of Christianity and rejected most of them.”
Wow - I’m surprised you’ve having such trouble facing the “change-over-time” in Darwin’s “worldview”. 
The historical record seems to indicate that he wasn’t as a child or youth, but rather BECAME an apatheist, in addition to an “agnostic”, a term which was only recently invented, to which he self-referenced. Do you disagree with this, and if so, would you please reference his lack of apathy towards God, “religion” and the Bible with evidence in his letters or elsewhere?
“Apatheism” denotes the lack of interest or attention to theism, to be more specific, to theology and study of Scripture itself. That’s why I’ve been asking if Darwin (continued to) read the Bible in the last 25 years of his life. As a person who seems to track and know a fair bit about Charles Darwin, @Erp, it’s a rather glaring error that you don’t yourself know whether or not Darwin read Scripture in the last 25 years of his life, or at least haven’t shared it with us here yet.
I ask this with sincere curiosity, as gently as a friendly OP author may do in returning focus to the OP, because if he stopped reading the Bible and became “apathetic” to it, that would also parallel the time period for which Darwin’s reading choices later in hindsight he expressed “regret”, as in the OP.
“BTW you should probably read the letter that Darwin was replying to…”
Yeah, I did read it. Makes sense from a “busy man & not at all a clever man”, humbly stated, as a simple Yes or No answer. Darwin had a reputation for responding to many letters. Likely would have been fond of Twitter. 
The people I’m around don’t seem nearly as “religiously sheltered” as the “honesty and intellectual care” above “truth and revelation” approach you seem to be championing.
The audience here may also be wondering, well, what about all of the religious and spiritual “humanists”; shouldn’t they be allowed into the conversation as well, instead of blocked off by the presumption that “humanism” is dominated by “atheism” or “secularism”? So to be more specific, it’s rather a “secular humanism” or “atheist humanism” that you are representing, is that correct? I ask because it helps to understand your defense of Darwin’s “regrets” or “non-regrets” in our interaction. A theist defending Darwin would likely approach this feature of Darwin’s autobiography differently, as was done by several people above.
“and many others who were and are willing to test their beliefs and interact as peers with non-Christians”
This doesn’t really cover it. Interaction as peers is already common in “secular” contexts. Likely more involved is atheist humanism presupposing to require religious theists to adopt what amount to “heresies” based on loosely scientific (or “sciency”) results and mainly ideological say-so. Ideological evolutionism, beyond Darwin’s wildest dreams, has a tendency to produce such attitude and thinking, but so does historicism, if one is able to take a reflexively critical look at ideologies.
It’s been welcome to dig into Darwin’s letters a bit more in response to responses in this thread. Thankful for the discoveries there.
“I have lately read Morley’s Life of Voltaire & he insists strongly that direct attacks on Christianity (even when written with the wonderful force & vigour of Voltaire) produce little permanent effect: real good seems only to follow from slow & silent side attacks. - I have been talking on this head with Litchfield, & he strongly concurs, & insists how easily a man may for ever destroy his own influence.” - Charles Darwin to G.H. Darwin (1873) | Darwin Correspondence Project
@Peter, thank you for responding.
How can you attest to my long track record of bad deeds if you are new to the website?
The way to refute my unfounded claims is to refute them, which you have endeavored to do. Then was my turn to respond, which I have, so now it is your turn . Please do so and stop all this ad hominem.
I have been thinking that the charge that I made that you created strawman was not quite accurate. The problem is that you do not understand the nature of predation. Predation - prey is symbiosis in that culls the herd. It prevents the herd from growing so large that Malthus would be right and there is not enough food for all. Also of course Survival of the fittest is intraspecies conflict, while coevolution based on predation is interspecies.
I understand that the discussions can get a little rough. I warned you that I am not “a nice guy.” If you can not take it, then it would be best to leave. .
“it would be best to leave.”
No, Roger. Your views are simply irrelevant to science. As a non-scientist, that shouldn’t surprise you.
[quote=“Peter, post:132, topic:44348”]
I did not say that lives lived or still living are in reality pointless or meaningless. Learn to tell the difference between talking about how one interprets reality and what reality is.
You say that Reality is apparently cruel, empty, and a struggle, So what is it if it is not harsh?
Not me, the record, Roger. Please stop looking at me. This is not about me. Your views as a non-scientist are and remain simply irrelevant to science. So that’s how I treat them, no matter how much you implore otherwise. Yours is the kind of resume that is easy to know what to do with when it comes across the recruiter’s desk: Is the candidate qualified to pontificate about ecology due to scientific experience and knowledge, yes or no?
Dear Gregory,
You might be unaware of this, but BioLogos Forum is a place were interested scientists and non-scientists can discuss topics concerning science and faith, especially the topic of evolution. As far as I know one does not need qualifications of any sort to participate in this forum. Nor am I looking for a job from you. No thank you.
If you are accusing me of pontificating about ecology, I don’t think so, but it is possible, so I apologize. Because I know that I am not an “expert” on ecology and science I try to make sure that I can defend what I say on scientific topics. That is why I usually insist on evidence based on experiment and verified studies like referred to Peter that he said was improper.
Peter claimed I twisted science to suit my belief in a good God by saying that evolution is based on symbiosis. Now most people I know that the late Lynn Margulis, who was controversial, was a prominent scientist and shared this very idea. So how can I be anti-science, if I agree with a great scientist. That does not make me right, but why do you and Peter reject me out of hand?
What is much more important than being a professional scientist or being trained to be a scientist, is to think like a scientist, and that this is what I try to do.
“That does not make me right, but why do you and Peter reject me out of hand”
As gently as possible, with a continued firm “No thanks”.
- You say things already long and widely known, as if you’re telling people something unique & new; this wastes peoples’ time, 2) it appears that you almost idolize “ecology” & “symbiosis”, which seems unhealthy, 3) You chronically use non-standard capitalization, which makes your text horribly difficult to understand, 4) You appear to be hung up on Richard Dawkins, 5) Nothing you have offered appears to be tractable or value-adding for “practising” scientists, philosophers and theologians.
You’ve written an AWFUL LOT at BioLogos over the years, Roger. But you’ve started very few topics, and none with “ecology” or “symbiosis” in the title, while you do indeed pontificate about them just like breathing air. Why not start a new thread, your own thread, and give your best presentation of “ecology and symbiosis” - ONCE and FOR ALL - and see if you can add value at BioLogos, rather than just consuming peoples’ time with endless philosophistry?
Oops, perhaps shouldn’t have suggested. Roger already got an opportunity here, which didn’t seem to go well. Debating Roger's ideas
Dear Gregory,
Let me respond as firmly as needed, thank you for your comments, but no thanks for your advice at least until we have the air cleared.
First of all we need to understand what happened to @Peter. Peter said he could intimidate or humiliate me, because I said that God and Nature are good, while Dawkins as an authoritative evolutionary scientist said that God and Nature are hostile to humanity. By the way this reference to Dawkins did not come from me, but the beginning of the essay by Sy Garte published by BioLogos and introduced as a topic on the forum, “Purpose, Evolution, and Self-Replication.”
As it turned out he could not. Predation is not the result of hostility, but the way Nature makes best use of resources through symbiosis. Humans are predators in that we eat animals and plants to live, not because we must struggle against them for scarce resources. .
He gave a list of parasites, some of which were pretty scary, but come on, an appeal to emotions is not proof. He appealed to the fact of extinction and the fear of death, but when I called him on that he seemed reverse his field, so he really had nothing.
Except ad hominem arguments. For those who do not know an ad hominem is not based on facts, but based on human persons. It means we cannot say that X person right or wrong simply because she or he is a Christian, or a Republican, or a Scientist or White.
Gregory, are you saying that Peter won the debate solely because I am not a certified scientist? Soley based on ad hominem arguments, not substance and facts?
The reason why this is important to me is that the Logos is important to me. I hope that the Logos is important to BioLogos, but I wonder when I see no one from BioLogos defend the Logos. (Not that the Logos needs a defense, but who are Christians if not people of the Logos.) The Logos says that the nature of the universe and life is not conflict, but love.
Now I know that Dawkins does not agree with this, but that does not make it false. If BioLogos does not accept it as true then maybe I am in the wrong forum. Certainly if it is Not true that Jesus is the Logos and God is the God of Love, then I have added nothing of value for “practicing” scientists, philosophers and theologians.
Disagreement is not putting others down. I am not putting Dawkins down. The facts stand for themselves. The wrong way to prove you are right is to put others down.
Roger, please, stop badgering. I simply don’t have the time on my hands that you have for idle chatter. Thanks for understanding, gently, but firmly, “No, thanks.”
“Gregory, are you saying that Peter won the debate”
I’m uninterested in mediating a “debate” between you and Peter. From what I can tell, he’s not interested to “debate” you either. Please go, with politeness and grace requested, start your own thread and put your best “ecology & symbiosis” largely philosophical work there. OK?
This topic was automatically closed 6 days after the last reply. New replies are no longer allowed.