Was Darwin an Atheist?

[Charlie_Macleod]

Hi everyone! I’m new here, so be gentle…

Let me be clear about my question. I do not subscribe to the Darwin Death-Bed Conversion claptrap, nor do I approach this issue with a religious or political agenda. But I am curious. I’m aware that Darwin renounced Christianity (not hard to fathom, considering his volumes of empirical study, his father’s religious cynicism, his wife’s beliefs, and his daughter’s untimely death). But in spite of this, is there any evidence that he espoused ‘atheism’ in the pure sense of the word?

Just asking…

[Asympotically_fat]

This seems the most relevant:

Dear Sir

It seems to me absurd to doubt that a man may be an ardent Theist & an evolutionist.— You are right about Kingsley. Asa Gray, the eminent botanist, is another case in point— What my own views may be is a question of no consequence to any one except myself.— But as you ask, I may state that my judgment often fluctuates. Moreover whether a man deserves to be called a theist depends on the definition of the term: which is much too large a subject for a note. In my most extreme fluctuations I have never been an atheist in the sense of denying the existence of a God.— 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.

Dear Sir | Yours faithfully | Ch. Darwin

http://www.darwinproject.ac.uk/entry-12041

As an aside, I went to school with a direct descendant of Charles Darwin, the family struck me as pretty traditional anglicans, but I couldn’t say 100%.

[John_Mace]

@Charlie_Macleod

Hi everyone! I’m new here, so be gentle…

Not a chance!

From the wikipedia article, it would seem that his views evolved, pun intended, and that he was at some point an agnostic, but not an atheist.

Darwin continued to play a leading part in the parish work of the local church,[13] but from around 1849 would go for a walk on Sundays while his family attended church.[14] Though reticent about his religious views, in 1879 he responded that he had never been an atheist in the sense of denying the existence of a God, and that generally “an Agnostic would be the more correct description of my state of mind.”[7] He went as far as saying that “Science has nothing to do with Christ, except insofar as the habit of scientific research makes a man cautious in admitting evidence. For myself, I do not believe that there ever has been any revelation. As for a future life, every man must judge for himself between conflicting vague probabilities.”

[Charlie_Macleod]

Thanks, John! I was searching for those quotes…must have missed them in the wiki report. Reading too fast. I was looking for a response to Richard Dawkins (whom I admire, for the most part), and his claim that religion & science are incompatible. That may well be, but it doesn’t follow that scientists and and religious people are. By his standards, Newton, Darwin, and even Einstein wouldn’t pass muster.

[standingwave]

There’s an entire wiki page devoted to the subject: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Darwin%27s_religious_views

and here’s an excerpt from his autobiography concerning his religious views: http://www.update.uu.se/~fbendz/library/cd_relig.htm

The money quote (perhaps): * “Thus disbelief crept over me at a very slow rate, but at last was complete. The rate was so slow that I felt no distress, and have never since doubted even for a single second that my conclusion was correct.”*

[MEBuckner]

@Charlie_Macleod

Thanks, John! I was searching for those quotes…must have missed them in the wiki report. Reading too fast. I was looking for a response to Richard Dawkins (whom I admire, for the most part), and his claim that religion & science are incompatible. That may well be, but it doesn’t follow that scientists and and religious people are. By his standards, Newton, Darwin, and even Einstein wouldn’t pass muster.

I don’t think most people would call an agnostic “a religious person”. So Darwin basically does fit Dawkins’ contention. (Newton of course was devoutly religious. Einstein’s religious views are a huge source of debate.)

[John_Mace]

@Charlie_Macleod

Thanks, John! I was searching for those quotes…must have missed them in the wiki report. Reading too fast. I was looking for a response to Richard Dawkins (whom I admire, for the most part), and his claim that religion & science are incompatible. That may well be, but it doesn’t follow that scientists and and religious people are. By his standards, Newton, Darwin, and even Einstein wouldn’t pass muster.

I think it’s important to distinguish between someone from the 17th century (Newton) and someone from the 19th. There is big intellectual chasm between those 200 years, and the role that religion played in pretty much everyone’s everyday life during the former time period.

Dawkins is a very strident atheist, and while I share many of his views, I would say something more along the lines that religion and science are orthogonal to each other. One has nothing to do with the other, but we’ve seen that there are plenty of very good scientists who are also religious.

I would say it is safe to say that none of the people you mentioned would take the same position that Dawkins does. I like him when he’s talking about evolution, and I think his book The Ancestor’s Tale is a tour de force of popular science writing. But when he starts weighing in on religion… I’m not remotely as interested. And I consider myself an atheist (agnostic, if you really want to nit-pick about it, but as close to an atheist as one can get).

[Simplicio]

@Charlie_Macleod

Thanks, John! I was searching for those quotes…must have missed them in the wiki report. Reading too fast. I was looking for a response to Richard Dawkins (whom I admire, for the most part), and his claim that religion & science are incompatible. That may well be, but it doesn’t follow that scientists and and religious people are. By his standards, Newton, Darwin, and even Einstein wouldn’t pass muster.

I’m gonna go out on a limb and guess that Dawkins is aware of the existence of religious scientists. I seriously doubt he’s ever said that religious people can’t be successful scientists.