What did Darwin Regret? An “enfeebled” moral and emotional character

Faith & Science Conversation
21

Here at least we have considerable agreement. But the same can be said of other attempts to adapt other aspects of science to theology. They typically go too far. In looking for reconciling theology to science, they often rewrite the Bible and theology with the science, and there really is no good reason to do such a thing. All we really need is compatibility and the Bible is sparse enough on many topics to make that quite possible.

To be sure a few adjustments are needed usually only eliminating certain theological branches which are already explored, and it is often surprising that these are areas where the theological traditions have strayed rather far from scripture anyway. And whether some self-important denominations indulging authoritarian babble throw around the word heresy is of no concern to me. If it contradicts the minimal defining creed of Nicea 325 AD, then we ought consider if we are not moving off into a completely different religion, but that is all.

So for example, one of the things which is essential for compatibility with evolution is the understanding that physical death is 100% natural, always a part of the world, and not a result of sin or the separation from God. Resurrection is as Paul explains in 1 Cor 15 a physical/bodily resurrection to a supernatural/spiritual body not to natural/physical body. (notice the employment of two different definition of the word “physical,” one agreed to by Paul and one rejected by Paul) This is a theological problem I have encountered in both Protestant and Catholic denominations and I certainly do not care if either prop up such nonsense by throwing the word heresy around since the Bible is quite clearly on my side with this one – not just with Paul’s explanation but throughout the whole Bible where we see a constant reference to two different types of life and death.

Another one is the watchmaker intelligent design notion of God which is frankly more a derivative of deism than Christianity for you certainly do not find such a notion of God anywhere in the Bible. Modern science gives us plenty of reason to discard the deist attempts at reconciliation and go back to the theist understanding of a God who is intimately involved in our lives – going back the Biblical portrayal of God as a shepherd.

1 Like
22

Hello again Steve,

I hope and trust you are growing in faith and intellectual works since our last contact here.

Yes, that’s really what’s at issue here. Glad you ask about it this way.

So, for example to compare persons, Francis Collins’ music appreciation hasn’t suffered from heading the Human Genome Project or the NIH. His “moral character” and “the emotional part of his nature” don’t seem to have suffered due to being a “natural scientist”, let alone a professional “naturalist” like Darwin. Collins is not an ideological naturalist, let alone a professional “naturalist” like Darwin was. If someone knows him personally, perhaps they could suggest what Collins might say. It does indeed seem to be ideology realized in action (or inaction) that led to Darwin’s regret as expressed in the OP. Are we agreed?

“follow his words and not his example.”

Yes, it’s good to listen to music and read poetry. It’s even in the Bible!

When it comes to his thoughts and views about humanity, I don’t listen much to Darwin’s words. Imho, there are much more important thinkers and theorists when it comes to understanding human persons today than Darwin. He’s way down the list of “thinkers religious believers should listen to when speaking about human beings”, at least in my assessment of the intellectual and scholarly landscape, with plenty of non-Darwinian options available. That’s what I meant in saying that we typically don’t discuss “theological anthropology” by invoking Darwin’s name because he was neither a theologian nor personally a religious theist.

“it has no effect at all on my interpretation of his contribution to natural science”

Ok, so it just helps understand his “agnostic” worldview. Understood. Thanks for expressing your responses as a biologist to my questions about Darwin’s regret at losing “higher estetic tastes”, happiness and moral character.

23

A good reference. This is worth repeating:

“Theologians start with what God has revealed and think from there, extending human knowledge and understanding. To ask how many times God worked miracles to bring about the diversity of life is to ask an unanswerable question unrooted in revelation.”

24

It’s to ask a meaningless, irrelevant, non-question rooted in an irrational epistemology. Repetition, from an unknown source, avails no further meaning.

25

Your message reads to me: do you need a hug? :hugs:

In this case, my method was to copy/paste. This: “Theologians start with what God has revealed and think from there, extending human knowledge and understanding”, brought up Stacy Trasancos’ article against the concept construction “theistic evolution” linked above. 30 seconds of “work” in a search engine, friend, in this case removes the opportunity to mock.

It’s a cool article, don’t you think? I agree with the quotation GJDS cites, also that it is worth repeating. But it won’t upset me or trouble me in the slightest if you don’t think the same Klax, and I doubt it will to GJDS either.

What’s up with flinging “irrational epistemology” around at people? She’s a Roman Catholic; her views should not be seen as such a “mystery” as you seem to make them out to be. Her views about “theistic evolution” seem meaningful to me, and also did enough to BioLogos’ management to link Trasancos’ article on their site. Does that count as “irrational epistemology” to you also?

26

I searched on sentence and paragraph. Nothing. Hug accepted gratefully. And reciprocated. Even in the arena. Supply the link and I’ll use it.

Theistic evolution is bunk, a joker, a wildcard. And yes, playing it is demonstrating magical thinking which cannot be removed from epistemology without enormous disruption. That’s the price that has to be paid. And I didn’t want to. But had to.

BioLogos are playing a very subtle game, being all things to all men, in an attempt to manage people in and through their rhetorical faith positions. Although I doubt any are post-Lutheran yet, they’re good people.

27

It is a very basic concept. Science can only tell us how nature works. Science can’t tell us what humans should do. As Hume put it, you can’t turn an Is into an Ought.

As I stated earlier, science doesn’t tell us that we should push people off of tall buildings so they can fall. All science can tell us is what would happen if we pushed someone off of a building.

28

You might want to check out the following essay written by Francis Collins:

Collins thinks Darwin’s theory has been confirmed. Does that make him an ideological Darwinist, or a naturalist?

29

Yes, it is a kind of “arena” of sorts, I agree with you. Glad for the supra-biological reciprocation.

Here’s a different link to the link. Why Say “Theistic” Evolution? Is There Any Other Kind? (link to article)

“Theistic evolution is bunk, a joker, a wildcard. … BioLogos are playing a very subtle game”

And they let you play here with that language about “theistic evolution”? :relaxed:

“Although I doubt any are post-Lutheran yet, they’re good people.”

Yes, and as you can likely imagine, I’m still concerned with Nietzsche’s post-Lutheranism and it’s lasting impact on “good people” in society today too.

30

“It is a very basic concept. Science can only tell us how nature works. Science can’t tell us what humans should do.”

It’s great if we can get down to basics, @T_aquaticus. So nice to see you again, this time at BioLogos.

Your statement is a kind of declaration about science. “Science can only tell us…”, “science doesn’t tell us…”. This seems to be your philosophical position, rather than a conclusion drawn by “science itself”.

I have written about this elsewhere, in case it helps you to understand what I mean by “science” or “sciences”. How many ‘sciences’ are there? Gregory Sandstrom - Social Epistemology Review and Reply Collective

Here is the question I need to ask you before responding to your philosophical position about “what science is” and “what it can tell us”. It’s a basic question, so I’m glad you recognize that as important.

Are sociology, economics, political science, psychology, and cultural anthropology also “sciences” in your personal conceptualization and definition of them, or not? In other words, what is “social science” to you, what broader classification is suited for it, if you don’t consider it as “science”? Does it count at least as “knowledge about humanity”, somewhat similar, but also in many ways quite different from (the realm of) natural sciences that gather “knowledge about nature”?

Otherwise, introducing Hume here doesn’t really get us anywhere, at least, not how I see it. Likewise, if a person read’s “Darwin’s Regret” above and thinks it’s just an issue of “natural science”, they surely cannot be thought a balanced commentator about what Darwin himself thought “injurious to the intellect, and more probably to the moral character, by enfeebling the emotional part of our nature.”

This reveals a major difference between Darwin and myself. I believe human life is not really most importantly about our “nature” as Darwin sees it, but rather about our “character”.

31

Thanks for recommending the essay by Francis Collins. I’m sure I bumped into it a few years ago at PSCF, but it’s nice to be reconnected with it. I will add it to a collection I’ve been gathering to help people navigate the troubled waters of the online “origins” conversation, which you have been involved in too.

“Collins thinks Darwin’s theory has been confirmed. Does that make him an ideological Darwinist, or a naturalist?”

Not necessarily, no.

Ideology supervenes upon biology in this case. Another way to argue it is that biology is built upon ideology from the start, and has sometimes abused ideology in the practise of doing natural-biological science that is reported to the masses via public education. (Biology and Ideology from Descartes to Dawkins, Alexander, Numbers).

In short, the way I see it, “Darwinian” is a non-ideological term referring to Darwin’s ideas and theories, while “Darwinist” denotes an ideologue that supports/promotes the ideology of “Darwinism”. Does that help you see how I organize these terms?

32

Nietzsche didn’t roll back Luther’s faith in Christ heresy to the faithfulness of Christ truth once delivered. He wasn’t aware of that. He just junked the righteously psychopathic God of Luther.

As for BioLogos tolerating my language, they are a broad church and the many intellectual best of them completely agree.

33

This just popped up on my radar. It may or may not speak to what you are suggesting. At least it references Nietzsche.
Why a good philosophical aphorism can be so powerful - ABC News?

Would Darwin be a Tweeter? My guess is no.

“the many intellectual best of them completely agree.”

Okay, it’s a big change re: “theistic evolution” from when I was here last! :yum:

34

I was under the impression that you were looking for my thoughts, not the thoughts of other scientists. Also, science is humans. Science isn’t some entity separate from humanity.

If they use the scientific method then they are scientific. I would hazard a guess that not all papers in those fields apply the scientific method, so it is impossible to give a blanket statement.

How I see it, this is a straight up application of the Is/Ought problem. Darwin’s theory tells us how we got here, how it is. Darwin’s theory can’t tell us what we ought to do in matters of morality or human culture and society.

2 Likes
35

Come again, what does this mean?

“If they use the scientific method then they are scientific.”

There are multiple scientific methods.

“Darwin’s theory can’t tell us what we ought to do in matters of morality or human culture and society.”

It’s about more than just is/ought, though the naturalistic fallacy is indeed at play in the conversation.

What is at issue, and I cannot stress this enough, though people still misunderstand it & revert to old trustworthy language, is not “Darwin’s theory”, but rather “evolutionary theory” and indeed, since there are undeniably multiple, “evolutionary theories”. ["to tell the truth, rather than the theory of evolution, we should speak of several theories of evolution” - John Paul II]

If “evolutionary theories” can “tell us what we ought to do in matters of morality or human culture and society”, which is what (some, but not all) theories about “the evolution of morality” aim to tell us, then the conclusion can be drawn that religion is simply a “natural” product of the human imagination, rather than a God-given feature of spiritual life and our personal conscience. That’s the conclusion as well as the starting point of the subfield known as “evolutionary religious studies”. They’re atheists pushing this, though, to be clear.

Indeed, one could easily argue that the notion of a “natural evolutionary origin of religion” (thus, a non-divine or transcendent source) was itself “injurious to the intellect, and more probably to the moral character" of Darwin, “by enfeebling the emotional part of” his character and personality.

Not just to @T_aquaticus, for those who disagree, why would that be seen as uncharitable, when it is meant simply to be realistic about the worldview he expressed, taken in light of the above quotation from his autobiography?

36

Science is a human institution practiced by humans.

No, there isn’t.

The naturalistic fallacy is a subset of the is/ought problem.

None of the scientific theories tell humans what they ought to do. No scientific theory does. Germ theory doesn’t tell us if we should or shouldn’t infect people, or if we should treat infections. Atom theory doesn’t tell us if we should or shouldn’t build nuclear weapons.

Scientific theories of evolution don’t tell us what we ought to do. The fitter individuals do tend to have more grandchildren. That can not be construed as saying we ought to kill or sterilize the less fit. Scientific theories of evolution can not inform us about morality. All science can do is tell us what the consequence of our actions will be. It is the job of morality to determine what outcomes we want to have.

What Darwin says does not automatically become science just because he uttered it.

2 Likes
37

No, not at all. You made an unsupported assertion that Darwin’s statement reflected the results of some kind of (materialist?) Darwinian ideology, based as far as I could tell on a bad misreading of it. You have done nothing to support your assertion, so my view hasn’t changed. (Surely you don’t think that picking Collins to compare to Darwin is evidence for anything, when you could have picked any number of atheist or agnostic scientists who have a deep love of music or poetry, do you?)

By the way, when was the last time you read a poem?

I find it interesting that you accept at face value Darwin’s assumed connection between aesthetic sensibility and moral character. It’s interesting because that assumption does reflect a very particular ideology, one that was both widespread and very much contested in Darwin’s time. The traditional belief in a moral role for the arts was under vigorous attack by the aesthetic movement and has largely vanished from contemporary thought. Darwin places himself on the traditional side of the debate, albeit somewhat tentatively.

3 Likes
38

My thoughts exactly. Darwin was expressing a Victorian sensibility that connected an appreciation of “higher tastes” in art and culture to moral character. (A true gentleman should be well-rounded.) I know a few too many writers and poets to believe that is true. It’s also a perspective that surfaces quite a bit in Nietzsche, to raise that specter.

I think you read far too much into Darwin’s regret. Darwin does not at all express regret in pursuing science with a particular ideology or worldview. That’s quite a leap. To refresh people’s memories, Darwin said,

"My mind seems to have become a kind of machine for grinding general laws out of large collections of facts, but why this should have caused the atrophy of that part of the brain alone, on which the higher tastes depend, I cannot conceive… if I had to live my life again, I would have made a rule to read some poetry and listen to some music at least once every week; for perhaps the parts of my brain now atrophied would thus have been kept alive through use. The loss of these tastes is a loss of happiness, and may possibly be injurious to the intellect, and more probably to the moral character, by enfeebling the emotional part of our nature.”

He explicitly says he “cannot conceive” why he lost his enjoyment in music and poetry. The connection to his ideology/worldview is your own. Darwin expresses a personal regret that he no longer enjoys many of the things that he once did. The reason for his regret, in his actual words, is a personal “loss of happiness,” and the solution was not a change of worldview/ideology, but a change of habits “to read some poetry and listen to some music at least once every week.” In other words, Darwin chalks up his loss of enjoyment in music and poetry to the fact that his pursuit of science left him no time for those other pursuits, and when he came back to them, he no longer enjoyed them as he once did.

To add my own interpretation, Darwin’s regret is spending so much time on his obsession with science that he became a less happy and well-rounded individual. I’m sure plenty of people reading this can identify with that sentiment.

3 Likes
39

This is a reasonable conclusion, but an incomplete one - Darwin’s view(s) changed as he developed his theory and this also imo would have modified his aesthetics and his religious/moral outlook - it may be difficult to understand this fully, but I think it is clear.

40

Darwin lost his faith as he explored the evolution of life on this planet and thought about its ramifications, but anyone who’s hung around the BioLogos Forum for more than a year has seen that story replay itself out numerous times. Some people’s faith survives this deconstruction, but not all. As for modifying his aesthetics, I don’t think that’s true. We could ask numerous people right here whether their taste in literature, poetry, or music changed when they changed their worldviews. I see no connection between one and the other.

3 Likes