On Darwin's Thoughts on Religious Belief

Frank Kramer

Rutledge
FYW: God and Darwin
14 February 2011
! In his autobiography, specifically the section titled “Religious Belief,” Charles

Darwin briefly outlined the main reasons behind his gradual loss of faith in Christianity.

He brought to light six points that he considered worthy of inclusion in his

autobiography, expanded on five of them, and also spent some time on morality and the

role of skepticism. The purpose of this paper will be to defend Christianity from the

attack presented by Darwin to the greatest extent possible. However, all too often the

validity of an argument is lost due to a misrepresentation or underestimation of the

opposition, therefore this paper will analyze each argument in two ways. The first will

evaluate Darwinʼs criticisms of Christianity in a way that gives the points presented the

most credit possible, in hopes that a straw-man argument can be avoided. The second

will then defend Christianity from each argument individually, ignoring the faith-based

tactics that are so often abused, instead using logic and reasoning alone. My goal for

this paper is to concede to Darwinʼs arguments every inch of ontological and theological

ground they deserve while still preserving as much of the Christian faith as possible. By

doing this, I hope to show that an individual can agree with Darwin to an extremely large

extent and simultaneously maintain spiritual beliefs that fall under a commonly accepted

definition of Christianity.

! I intend to present each of Darwinʼs points in order of their dangerous

implications for Christianity, starting with what I believe to be the least relevant and

ending with the most damaging. Unfortunately, Iʼve deemed one of Darwin's points

irrelevant to the issue because it seems to be more of a tangent than an actual point of

discussion about the validity of Christianity. The point to which I am referring covers

immortality, and is contained entirely in one paragraph starting on page 76 of The

Pg. 1
Autobiography of Charles Darwin. I questioned whether or not it should be included in

this paper, however it is possible that the point has simply gone over my head, and it

has been mentioned for that reason, along with diligence. Regardless of whether

Darwinʼs musings on immortality are unconnected or Iʼve simply missed the connection,

I will not offer a two-fold analysis of the paragraph.

! We now reach Darwinʼs first real objection toward a belief in the Christian God,

which is on the subject of the universe as a result of chance. Darwin expressed the

Christian sentiment that the universe must have been created by an intelligent mind due

to “the extreme difficulty or rather impossibility of conceiving this immense and

wonderful universe, including man with his capacity of looking far backwards and far

into futurity, as the result of blind chance or necessity (Darwin, 77).” His response to

this reasoning can be summarized as stating the fallibility of the human mind. Because

we now know that the human mind is the result of evolution and has “been developed

from a mind as low as that possessed by the lowest animal (77),” we also know that the

human mind is not perfect, and that our capacity for understanding may not be to the

point of being able to grasp the laws under which the universe was born. Granted,

there are other readings of Darwinʼs meaning here, but for the sake of brevity Iʼve

chosen to mention this interpretation, as it seems to be a strong one. To put the

argument as simply as possible: just because we cannot understand any alternatives to

creation does not mean that there are none, and does not mean God is the answer.

! To give credit where credit is due, I completely agree with Darwinʼs logic here.

However, it does not actually threaten Christianity. It does destroy the argument that

God is the only possible explanation for the creation of the universe, but it does nothing

Pg. 2
against God as one possible explanation. For this reason, I feel it is a weak argument

against Christianity, in that we can accept that we do not and cannot fully understand

the beginnings and complexities of the universe and simultaneously maintain a belief in

God as the creator. It would involve a certain degree of faith, but it would not be a self-

contradictory disposition and an individual who adopts these beliefs could still be called

a Christian.

! Another point Darwin presents is on the topic of inward convictions and feelings

as proof of God. His argument is a response to one of the most common explanations

offered when individuals are asked why they believe in God: that they have a deep

inward conviction that tells them so. Darwinʼs response is simple and straightforward;

there are many people-- hindus, muslims, buddhists, barbarians-- who can be said to

have those same inward convictions, but toward a different result. In addition, he

offered his own experience as an example of that inward conviction disappearing. In

both cases, the first of conflicting feelings and the second of changing feelings, it seems

that the feeling “God exists” is no more valid or convincing as evidence of reality than

the feeling “Shiva exists” or “ghosts exist,” especially when those feelings are subject to

change.

! Once again, I feel I must agree with Darwin, and once again I do not see his

argument as threatening to Christianity itself. However, some disagree with his point by

making the objection that all of the above groups have a sense of “the divine,” and in

that way, do not have conflicting convictions after all. In response I would have to step

past the words of Darwin, but it is easy to point out that an individual who has a deep

inward conviction that “there is no God” is without doubt in conflict, and therefore serves

Pg. 3
the same argumentative purpose as Darwin intended for hindus, muslims, etc. He

concludes, “I cannot see that such inward convictions and feelings are of any weight as

evidence of what really exists (76),” and in doing so he removes it as a proof of God.

However, this is not in actuality an attack on Christianity, but rather just an attack on a

weak argument in favor of Christianity. We can accept that feelings are not evidence for

God and simultaneously maintain a belief in God, and in the rest of Christianity, without

a contradiction. As with the first issue, an individual who holds these beliefs can still

easily be called a Christian.

! Next we can consider Darwinʼs account of the argument of design in nature,

which is simple to understand and can even be guessed by the context. (The context

being the autobiography of the man who disproved the fixity of species.) Because of

natural selection and its implications, design in nature can no longer be used as proof of

God. This is an obvious conclusion which, in my opinion, doesnʼt require much of an

explanation. As far as the questions it creates for Christianity, I think there are two

commonly brought up issues that merit discussion: the impossibility of a literal

interpretation of the bible and the lack of evidence for Godʼs influence on Earth.

! These are two issues that Darwin does not state directly, but do come naturally

from his line of reasoning, which I do not intend to fault. Given this greater

understanding of how the world has developed, a literal interpretation of the bible must

be forfeited. This is the first real concession that has been forced, however it does not

destroy oneʼs ability to believe in Christianity, and is only perceived as a threat to

religion by a small portion of believers. The second point brought up here is slightly

more complex, but can be parried away relatively easily. Simply put, the lack of

Pg. 4
evidence for Godʼs influence on Earth is exactly that-- a lack of evidence. It does not

disprove Godʼs existence, it only shows that we can explain and understand more and

more of our world. An individual can accept that God cannot be proven to exist by

design in nature, that the bible cannot be interpreted literally, and that there is a serious

lack of evidence of Godʼs influence in the natural world and still be considered a

Christian by many common definitions.

! The last two points are far more difficult to handle in comparison with the first

three, and I claim to have neither a deep understanding of the issues, nor a position of

entitlement from which I can make arguments. However, I believe I can attempt to

make a case with at the very least a mostly unbiased viewpoint, which I do think is

better than average.

! The issue of suffering has plagued theologians for quite some time, but rather

than just dragging up the old question, Darwin presents natural selection as a possible

alternative to faith-based explanations. He makes the claim that sentient beings have

developed pleasure as a guide, and along with suffering help an animal toward survival.

He then explains the religious attempt at explaining suffering by saying that “it serves for

his moral improvement (75),” but rightly responds, as many have, by asking why other

animals, who cannot undergo moral improvement, must also be forced to suffer.

! Here, I must concede that I once again agree with the criticism put forth by

Darwin. I believe that the suffering of animals cannot be reasonably explained by any

common theological answer, unless one is willing to claim that all forms of life that suffer

also understand suffering and can benefit from it, which is a difficult claim to make.

Another somewhat common claim is that animals do not actually feel pain, but this a

Pg. 5
similarly difficult claim to maintain. Even more common than either of these, however, is

the claim that suffering arises from freedom. This well-known position gives an

extremely reasonable explanation of the universe as it is, but several criticisms can be

made against it. However, to state them here and attempt to make a convincing

argument one way or the other would be an injustice to the complexity of the issue, and

I instead intend to sidestep the argument entirely. This is a reasonable move primarily

because my goal is not to find the one truly correct theological answer to suffering; my

goal is only to find an acceptable answer that is not in conflict with the ideas Darwin has

presented. Any position that can be held that does not conflict with reason and

adequately explains suffering in animals will suffice, and an example can briefly be

expressed as the belief that God created suffering in humans through the process of

natural selection, and the suffering of animals is the product of that development. This

belief is a stretch to say the least, and it does not explain why God would chose to

develop suffering in such a way or how it affects his benevolence, but it is not

contradictory with natural selection as the explanation for suffering, and an individual

who holds these beliefs could still be called a Christian.

! Lastly, Darwin questions the Bible as divine revelation. Seeing possibly the

simplest and most damaging argument against Christianity, Darwin, like so many others,

saw the incompatible and contradictory nature of many parts of the bible, the seemingly

impossible nature of the stories in the bible, and the commonality of the bible with so

many other faiths that are rejected as false, and “gradually came to disbelieve in

Christianity as a divine revelation (72).” As simple as this objection is, the response is

just as simple, albeit still somewhat damaging. A commonly maintained Christian

Pg. 6
sentiment is that the Bible is flawed because it was recorded by man, and man is

flawed; however, the message contained within its pages is inspired by God. This

response is not logically flawed, but it basically leaves the Bible as more of a general

guidebook for behavior, and removes quoted scripture or similar close interpretation as

relevant in decision making or argumentation. In this way it is the most damaging to our

acceptable definition of Christianity, but it does still leave Christianity intact according to

a more broad application of the word. Once again, I understand and admit that there

are other perspectives that can respond to Darwinʼs criticisms, but to list them here is

unnecessary; all that is needed for argumentation is one reasonable position. To say

that the Bible is only a general guidebook is to irritate a good many Christians, but it is a

belief held by some Christians, and it seems to be a perfect example for this argument

because it eliminates much of the confusion caused by other positions.

! I believe Darwin had gathered enough information and thought to warrant his

agnosticism, however I do not believe he ever intended to outright attack Christianity or

a belief in God, only explain his own personal reasons for his hesitations. Iʼve

concluded that a man with Darwinʼs beliefs could still keep his faith as a Christian by

some of todays standards, but considering the differences that Christianity has

undergone since Darwinʼs time, namely the broadening of what is considered

acceptable interpretations, it is understandable that he was content with agnosticism.

Pg. 7
 Works Cited

Darwin, Charles. The Autobiography of Charles Darwin, 1809-1882. Ed. Nora Barlow.

! New York: W.W. Norton & Company, 2005. Print.

Pg. 8