CHAPTER 1.VIII. -- RELIGION.

[The history of this part of my father's life may justly include some

mention of his religious views. For although, as he points out, he did

not give continuous systematic thought to religious questions, yet we

know from his own words that about this time (1836-39) the subject was

much before his mind.]

In his published works he was reticent on the matter of religion,

and what he has left on the subject was not written with a view

to publication. (As an exception may be mentioned, a few words of

concurrence with Dr. Abbot's 'Truths for the Times,' which my father

allowed to be published in the "Index".)

I believe that his reticence arose from several causes. He felt

strongly that a man's religion is an essentially private matter, and

one concerning himself alone. This is indicated by the following extract

from a letter of 1879:--(Addressed to Mr. J. Fordyce, and published by

him in his 'Aspects of Scepticism,' 1883.)

"What my own views may be is a question of no consequence to any one

but myself. But, as you ask, I may state that my judgment often

fluctuates...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 (and more and more as I grow older), but not always, that an

Agnostic would be the more correct description of my state of mind."

He naturally shrank from wounding the sensibilities of others in

religious matters, and he was also influenced by the consciousness

that a man ought not to publish on a subject to which he has not given

special and continuous thought. That he felt this caution to apply

to himself in the matter of religion is shown in a letter to Dr. F.E.

Abbot, of Cambridge, U.S. (September 6, 1871). After explaining that the

weakness arising from his bad health prevented him from feeling "equal

to deep reflection, on the deepest subject which can fill a man's mind,"

he goes on to say: "With respect to my former notes to you, I quite

forget their contents. I have to write many letters, and can reflect but

little on what I write; but I fully believe and hope that I have never

written a word, which at the time I did not think; but I think you will

agree with me, that anything which is to be given to the public ought to

be maturely weighed and cautiously put. It never occurred to me that you

would wish to print any extract from my notes: if it had, I would have

kept a copy. I put 'private' from habit, only as yet partially acquired,

from some hasty notes of mine having been printed, which were not in

the least degree worth printing, though otherwise unobjectionable. It is

simply ridiculous to suppose that my former note to you would be worth

sending to me, with any part marked which you desire to print; but

if you like to do so, I will at once say whether I should have any

objection. I feel in some degree unwilling to express myself publicly on

religious subjects, as I do not feel that I have thought deeply enough

to justify any publicity."

I may also quote from another letter to Dr. Abbot (November 16,

1871), in which my father gives more fully his reasons for not feeling

competent to write on religious and moral subjects:--

"I can say with entire truth that I feel honoured by your request that I

should become a contributor to the "Index", and am much obliged for the

draft. I fully, also, subscribe to the proposition that it is the duty

of every one to spread what he believes to be the truth; and I honour

you for doing so, with so much devotion and zeal. But I cannot comply

with your request for the following reasons; and excuse me for giving

them in some detail, as I should be very sorry to appear in your eyes

ungracious. My health is very weak: I NEVER pass 24 hours without many

hours of discomfort, when I can do nothing whatever. I have thus, also,

lost two whole consecutive months this season. Owing to this weakness,

and my head being often giddy, I am unable to master new subjects

requiring much thought, and can deal only with old materials. At no

time am I a quick thinker or writer: whatever I have done in science has

solely been by long pondering, patience and industry.

"Now I have never systematically thought much on religion in relation

to science, or on morals in relation to society; and without steadily

keeping my mind on such subjects for a LONG period, I am really

incapable of writing anything worth sending to the 'Index'."

He was more than once asked to give his views on religion, and he had,

as a rule, no objection to doing so in a private letter. Thus in answer

to a Dutch student he wrote (April 2, 1873):--

"I am sure you will excuse my writing at length, when I tell you that I

have long been much out of health, and am now staying away from my home

for rest.

"It is impossible to answer your question briefly; and I am not sure

that I could do so, even if I wrote at some length. But I may say that

the impossibility of conceiving that this grand and wondrous universe,

with our conscious selves, arose through chance, seems to me the chief

argument for the existence of God; but whether this is an argument of

real value, I have never been able to decide. I am aware that if we

admit a first cause, the mind still craves to know whence it came, and

how it arose. Nor can I overlook the difficulty from the immense amount

of suffering through the world. I am, also, induced to defer to a

certain extent to the judgment of the many able men who have fully

believed in God; but here again I see how poor an argument this is. The

safest conclusion seems to me that the whole subject is beyond the scope

of man's intellect; but man can do his duty."

Again in 1879 he was applied to by a German student, in a similar

manner. The letter was answered by a member of my father's family, who

wrote:--

"Mr. Darwin begs me to say that he receives so many letters, that he

cannot answer them all.

"He considers that the theory of Evolution is quite compatible with the

belief in a God; but that you must remember that different persons have

different definitions of what they mean by God."

This, however, did not satisfy the German youth, who again wrote to my

father, and received from him the following reply:--

"I am much engaged, an old man, and out of health, and I cannot spare

time to answer your questions fully,--nor indeed can they be answered.

Science has nothing to do with Christ, except in so far 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."

The passages which here follow are extracts, somewhat abbreviated, from

a part of the Autobiography, written in 1876, in which my father gives

the history of his religious views:--

"During these two years (October 1836 to January 1839.) I was led to

think much about religion. Whilst on board the 'Beagle' I was quite

orthodox, and I remember being heartily laughed at by several of the

officers (though themselves orthodox) for quoting the Bible as an

unanswerable authority on some point of morality. I suppose it was the

novelty of the argument that amused them. But I had gradually come by

this time, i.e. 1836 to 1839, to see that the Old Testament was no more

to be trusted than the sacred books of the Hindoos. The question then

continually rose before my mind and would not be banished,--is it

credible that if God were now to make a revelation to the Hindoos, he

would permit it to be connected with the belief in Vishnu, Siva, etc.,

as Christianity is connected with the Old Testament? This appeared to me

utterly incredible.

"By further reflecting that the clearest evidence would be requisite

to make any sane man believe in the miracles by which Christianity is

supported,--and that the more we know of the fixed laws of nature the

more incredible do miracles become,--that the men at that time were

ignorant and credulous to a degree almost incomprehensible by us,--that

the Gospels cannot be proved to have been written simultaneously

with the events,--that they differ in many important details, far too

important, as it seemed to me, to be admitted as the usual inaccuracies

of eye-witnesses;--by such reflections as these, which I give not

as having the least novelty or value, but as they influenced me, I

gradually came to disbelieve in Christianity as a divine revelation. The

fact that many false religions have spread over large portions of the

earth like wild-fire had some weight with me.

"But I was very unwilling to give up my belief; I feel sure of this, for

I can well remember often and often inventing day-dreams of old letters

between distinguished Romans, and manuscripts being discovered at

Pompeii or elsewhere, which confirmed in the most striking manner all

that was written in the Gospels. But I found it more and more difficult,

with free scope given to my imagination, to invent evidence which would

suffice to convince me. Thus disbelief crept over me at a very slow

rate, but was at last complete. The rate was so slow that I felt no

distress.

"Although I did not think much about the existence of a personal God

until a considerably later period of my life, I will here give the vague

conclusions to which I have been driven. The old argument from design

in Nature, as given by Paley, which formerly seemed to me so conclusive,

fails, now that the law of natural selection has been discovered. We

can no longer argue that, for instance, the beautiful hinge of a bivalve

shell must have been made by an intelligent being, like the hinge of

a door by man. There seems to be no more design in the variability of

organic beings, and in the action of natural selection, than in the

course which the wind blows. But I have discussed this subject at the

end of my book on the 'Variations of Domesticated Animals and Plants'

(My father asks whether we are to believe that the forms are preordained

of the broken fragments of rock tumbled from a precipice which are

fitted together by man to build his houses. If not, why should

we believe that the variations of domestic animals or plants are

preordained for the sake of the breeder? "But if we give up the

principle in one case,... no shadow of reason can be assigned for the

belief that variations, alike in nature and the result of the same

general laws, which have been the groundwork through natural selection

of the formation of the most perfectly adapted animals in the world, man

included, were intentionally and specially guided."--'The Variation of

Animals and Plants,' 1st Edition volume ii. page 431.--F.D.), and the

argument there given has never, as far as I can see, been answered.

"But passing over the endless beautiful adaptations which we everywhere

meet with, it may be asked how can the generally beneficent arrangement

of the world be accounted for? Some writers indeed are so much impressed

with the amount of suffering in the world, that they doubt, if we look

to all sentient beings, whether there is more of misery or of happiness;

whether the world as a whole is a good or bad one. According to my

judgment happiness decidedly prevails, though this would be very

difficult to prove. If the truth of this conclusion be granted, it

harmonises well with the effects which we might expect from natural

selection. If all the individuals of any species were habitually to

suffer to an extreme degree, they would neglect to propagate their kind;

but we have no reason to believe that this has ever, or at least often

occurred. Some other considerations, moreover, lead to the belief that

all sentient beings have been formed so as to enjoy, as a general rule,

happiness.

"Everyone who believes, as I do, that all the corporeal and

mental organs (excepting those which are neither advantageous nor

disadvantageous to the possessor) of all beings have been developed

through natural selection, or the survival of the fittest, together

with use or habit, will admit that these organs have been formed so that

their possessors may compete successfully with other beings, and thus

increase in number. Now an animal may be led to pursue that course of

action which is most beneficial to the species by suffering, such

as pain, hunger, thirst, and fear; or by pleasure, as in eating and

drinking, and in the propagation of the species, etc.; or by both means

combined, as in the search for food. But pain or suffering of any kind,

if long continued, causes depression and lessens the power of action,

yet is well adapted to make a creature guard itself against any great

or sudden evil. Pleasurable sensations, on the other hand, may be long

continued without any depressing effect; on the contrary, they stimulate

the whole system to increased action. Hence it has come to pass that

most or all sentient beings have been developed in such a manner,

through natural selection, that pleasurable sensations serve as their

habitual guides. We see this in the pleasure from exertion, even

occasionally from great exertion of the body or mind,--in the pleasure

of our daily meals, and especially in the pleasure derived from

sociability, and from loving our families. The sum of such pleasures as

these, which are habitual or frequently recurrent, give, as I can hardly

doubt, to most sentient beings an excess of happiness over misery,

although many occasionally suffer much. Such suffering is quite

compatible with the belief in Natural Selection, which is not perfect

in its action, but tends only to render each species as successful

as possible in the battle for life with other species, in wonderfully

complex and changing circumstances.

"That there is much suffering in the world no one disputes. Some have

attempted to explain this with reference to man by imagining that it

serves for his moral improvement. But the number of men in the world

is as nothing compared with that of all other sentient beings, and

they often suffer greatly without any moral improvement. This very old

argument from the existence of suffering against the existence of an

intelligent First Cause seems to me a strong one; whereas, as just

remarked, the presence of much suffering agrees well with the view that

all organic beings have been developed through variation and natural

selection.

"At the present day the most usual argument for the existence of an

intelligent God is drawn from the deep inward conviction and feelings

which are experienced by most persons.

"Formerly I was led by feelings such as those just referred to (although

I do not think that the religious sentiment was ever strongly developed

in me), to the firm conviction of the existence of God, and of the

immortality of the soul. In my Journal I wrote that whilst standing in

the midst of the grandeur of a Brazilian forest, "it is not possible to

give an adequate idea of the higher feelings of wonder, admiration,

and devotion, which fill and elevate the mind." I well remember my

conviction that there is more in man than the mere breath of his body.

But now the grandest scenes would not cause any such convictions and

feelings to rise in my mind. It may be truly said that I am like a man

who has become colour-blind, and the universal belief by men of the

existence of redness makes my present loss of perception of not the

least value as evidence. This argument would be a valid one if all men

of all races had the same inward conviction of the existence of one

God; but we know that this is very far from being the case. Therefore I

cannot see that such inward convictions and feelings are of any weight

as evidence of what really exists. The state of mind which grand scenes

formerly excited in me, and which was intimately connected with a belief

in God, did not essentially differ from that which is often called

the sense of sublimity; and however difficult it may be to explain the

genesis of this sense, it can hardly be advanced as an argument for the

existence of God, any more than the powerful though vague and similar

feelings excited by music.

"With respect to immortality, nothing shows me [so clearly] how strong

and almost instinctive a belief it is, as the consideration of the view

now held by most physicists, namely, that the sun with all the planets

will in time grow too cold for life, unless indeed some great body

dashes into the sun, and thus gives it fresh life. Believing as I do

that man in the distant future will be a far more perfect creature than

he now is, it is an intolerable thought that he and all other sentient

beings are doomed to complete annihilation after such long-continued

slow progress. To those who fully admit the immortality of the human

soul, the destruction of our world will not appear so dreadful.

"Another source of conviction in the existence of God, connected with

the reason, and not with the feelings, impresses me as having much more

weight. This follows from 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. When thus reflecting I feel

compelled to look to a First Cause having an intelligent mind in some

degree analogous to that of man; and I deserve to be called a Theist.

This conclusion was strong in my mind about the time, as far as I can

remember, when I wrote the 'Origin of Species;' and it is since that

time that it has very gradually, with many fluctuations, become weaker.

But then arises the doubt, can the mind of man, which has, as I fully

believe, been developed from a mind as low as that possessed by the

lowest animals, be trusted when it draws such grand conclusions?

"I cannot pretend to throw the least light on such abstruse problems.

The mystery of the beginning of all things is insoluble by us; and I for

one must be content to remain an Agnostic."

[The following letters repeat to some extent what has been given from

the Autobiography. The first one refers to 'The Boundaries of Science, a

Dialogue,' published in 'Macmillan's Magazine,' for July 1861.]

CHARLES DARWIN TO MISS JULIA WEDGWOOD. July 11 [1861].

Some one has sent us 'Macmillan'; and I must tell you how much I admire

your Article; though at the same time I must confess that I could not

clearly follow you in some parts, which probably is in main part due

to my not being at all accustomed to metaphysical trains of thought. I

think that you understand my book (The 'Origin of Species.') perfectly,

and that I find a very rare event with my critics. The ideas in the

last page have several times vaguely crossed my mind. Owing to several

correspondents I have been led lately to think, or rather to try to

think over some of the chief points discussed by you. But the result has

been with me a maze--something like thinking on the origin of evil, to

which you allude. The mind refuses to look at this universe, being what

it is, without having been designed; yet, where one would most expect

design, viz. in the structure of a sentient being, the more I think

on the subject, the less I can see proof of design. Asa Gray and some

others look at each variation, or at least at each beneficial variation

(which A. Gray would compare with the rain drops (Dr. Gray's rain-drop

metaphor occurs in the Essay 'Darwin and his Reviewers' ('Darwiniana,'

page 157): "The whole animate life of a country depends absolutely upon

the vegetation, the vegetation upon the rain. The moisture is furnished

by the ocean, is raised by the sun's heat from the ocean's surface, and

is wafted inland by the winds. But what multitudes of rain-drops fall

back into the ocean--are as much without a final cause as the incipient

varieties which come to nothing! Does it therefore follow that the rains

which are bestowed upon the soil with such rule and average regularity

were not designed to support vegetable and animal life?") which do not

fall on the sea, but on to the land to fertilize it) as having been

providentially designed. Yet when I ask him whether he looks at each

variation in the rock-pigeon, by which man has made by accumulation

a pouter or fantail pigeon, as providentially designed for man's

amusement, he does not know what to answer; and if he, or any one,

admits [that] these variations are accidental, as far as purpose is

concerned (of course not accidental as to their cause or origin); then I

can see no reason why he should rank the accumulated variations by which

the beautifully adapted woodpecker has been formed, as providentially

designed. For it would be easy to imagine the enlarged crop of the

pouter, or tail of the fantail, as of some use to birds, in a state of

nature, having peculiar habits of life. These are the considerations

which perplex me about design; but whether you will care to hear them, I

know not....

[On the subject of design, he wrote (July 1860) to Dr. Gray:

"One word more on 'designed laws' and 'undesigned results.' I see a bird

which I want for food, take my gun and kill it, I do this DESIGNEDLY.

An innocent and good man stands under a tree and is killed by a flash

of lightning. Do you believe (and I really should like to hear) that

God DESIGNEDLY killed this man? Many or most persons do believe this; I

can't and don't. If you believe so, do you believe that when a swallow

snaps up a gnat that God designed that that particular swallow should

snap up that particular gnat at that particular instant? I believe

that the man and the gnat are in the same predicament. If the death of

neither man nor gnat are designed, I see no good reason to believe that

their FIRST birth or production should be necessarily designed."]

CHARLES DARWIN TO W. GRAHAM. Down, July 3rd, 1881.

Dear Sir,

I hope that you will not think it intrusive on my part to thank you

heartily for the pleasure which I have derived from reading your

admirably written 'Creed of Science,' though I have not yet quite

finished it, as now that I am old I read very slowly. It is a very long

time since any other book has interested me so much. The work must have

cost you several years and much hard labour with full leisure for work.

You would not probably expect any one fully to agree with you on so many

abstruse subjects; and there are some points in your book which I cannot

digest. The chief one is that the existence of so-called natural laws

implies purpose. I cannot see this. Not to mention that many expect that

the several great laws will some day be found to follow inevitably from

some one single law, yet taking the laws as we now know them, and

look at the moon, where the law of gravitation--and no doubt of the

conservation of energy--of the atomic theory, etc. etc., hold good, and

I cannot see that there is then necessarily any purpose. Would there

be purpose if the lowest organisms alone, destitute of consciousness

existed in the moon? But I have had no practice in abstract reasoning,

and I may be all astray. Nevertheless you have expressed my inward

conviction, though far more vividly and clearly than I could have done,

that the Universe is not the result of chance. (The Duke of Argyll

('Good Words,' Ap. 1885, page 244) has recorded a few words on this

subject, spoken by my father in the last year of his life. "...in the

course of that conversation I said to Mr. Darwin, with reference to some

of his own remarkable works on the 'Fertilization of Orchids,' and

upon 'The Earthworms,' and various other observations he made of the

wonderful contrivances for certain purposes in nature--I said it was

impossible to look at these without seeing that they were the effect

and the expression of mind. I shall never forget Mr. Darwin's answer.

He looked at me very hard and said, 'Well, that often comes over me with

overwhelming force; but at other times,' and he shook his head vaguely,

adding, 'it seems to go away.'") But then with me the horrid doubt

always arises whether the convictions of man's mind, which has been

developed from the mind of the lower animals, are of any value or at all

trustworthy. Would any one trust in the convictions of a monkey's mind,

if there are any convictions in such a mind? Secondly, I think that I

could make somewhat of a case against the enormous importance which you

attribute to our greatest men; I have been accustomed to think, second,

third, and fourth rate men of very high importance, at least in the case

of Science. Lastly, I could show fight on natural selection having done

and doing more for the progress of civilization than you seem inclined

to admit. Remember what risk the nations of Europe ran, not so many

centuries ago of being overwhelmed by the Turks, and how ridiculous such

an idea now is! The more civilised so-called Caucasian races have beaten

the Turkish hollow in the struggle for existence. Looking to the world

at no very distant date, what an endless number of the lower races will

have been eliminated by the higher civilized races throughout the world.

But I will write no more, and not even mention the many points in your

work which have much interested me. I have indeed cause to apologise for

troubling you with my impressions, and my sole excuse is the excitement

in my mind which your book has aroused.

I beg leave to remain, Dear Sir, Yours faithfully and obliged, CHARLES

DARWIN.

[My father spoke little on these subjects, and I can contribute nothing

from my own recollection of his conversation which can add to the

impression here given of his attitude towards Religion. Some further

idea of his views may, however, be gathered from occasional remarks in

his letters.] (Dr. Aveling has published an account of a conversation

with my father. I think that the readers of this pamphlet ('The

Religious Views of Charles Darwin,' Free Thought Publishing Company,

1883) may be misled into seeing more resemblance than really existed

between the positions of my father and Dr. Aveling: and I say this

in spite of my conviction that Dr. Aveling gives quite fairly his

impressions of my father's views. Dr. Aveling tried to show that the

terms "Agnostic" and "Atheist" were practically equivalent--that an

atheist is one who, without denying the existence of God, is without

God, inasmuch as he is unconvinced of the existence of a Deity. My

father's replies implied his preference for the unaggressive attitude

of an Agnostic. Dr. Aveling seems (page 5) to regard the absence

of aggressiveness in my father's views as distinguishing them in an

unessential manner from his own. But, in my judgment, it is precisely

differences of this kind which distinguish him so completely from the

class of thinkers to which Dr. Aveling belongs.)