Indeed, gobucks. Yet the article is silent about what may have been the cause of Darwin's loss of faith in God. Early in his career, he spoke of creatures taking their beginning from God, Who "breathed life" into them. This, he assumed, is how life got started. If the theory associated with his name never deals with the issue of the nature or emergence of life per se, perhaps that's because Darwin admitted a divine creator who functioned at the very beginning of the universe, creating everything including the physical laws; and then "withdrawing" -- which is rather a deist notion.
The article points out that early in life Darwin had considered entering into religious orders; but apparently decided he hadn't the calling to do it. The point is, in his early life, Darwin was a Christian. And it is obvious that somewhere along the line he lost his faith. Why?
It has been suggested that the death of his young daughter from a long, wasting illness in which she suffered horribly is what destroyed his faith.
Whatever the case may be -- and I'm not sure that a "psychobiography" of Darwin can prove anything -- the fact remains that Darwin became a positivist:
Darwin’s master accomplishment was to convince the scientific world that it was unscientific to believe in supernatural causation. His purpose was to "ungod" the universe. Darwin was a positivist. This is the philosophy that the only true knowledge is scientific knowledge; no other type of knowledge is legitimate. Obviously, to accept that premise means to reject any form of divine revelation. Darwin accomplished one of the greatest feats of salesmanship in the history of the world. He convinced scientists that it was unscientific to deal with God or creation in any way. To be scientific, they must study the world as if God did not exist....
In all of this, it is important to realize that Darwin was not an atheist. He did not exterminate God. He just evicted God from the universe which God had created. All that God was allowed to do was to create the "natural laws" at the beginning. From then on, nature was on its own. With God out of the picture, evolution fell into place rather easily, since evolution seemed to be the only viable alternative to Special Creation....
And so, I gather that Darwin, more than anyone else (aided and abetted by T. Huxley, of course) is to be credited (or blamed) for the (to me) utterly astonishing view that, in order to "be scientific," people "must study the world as if God did not exist."
But this is to popularize an ideology -- a philosophic, not a scientific view.
Thanks so much for the interesting post, gobucks!
p.s.: I've pinged my list, which I've just gotten organized. If anyone's name is on it that shouldn't be there, just let me know. If anybody would like to be added, just let me know.... thanks!
Seriously, this is not amusing.
But you ask a serious question:
The article points out that early in life Darwin had considered entering into religious orders; but apparently decided he hadn't the calling to do it. The point is, in his early life, Darwin was a Christian. And it is obvious that somewhere along the line he lost his faith. Why?
A reasonable hypothesis, based on his own writings, is that he was in grief over the loss of his favorite daughter, age eight.
This assumption is hurtful in that the evidence should determine the directions taken.
Likewise, if a "theist" insists on a doctrinaire understanding of a particular inquiry, it the same a priori fault. The evidence should determine the directions taken.
With the notable exceptions of Lewontin, Pinker and gang - science does not speak for or against God. But metaphysical naturalists (www.infidels.org) take that omission as authentication for their religion - the presumption being that since science does not speak of God ipso facto God does not exist.
If you study the world with the assumption that God exists, then everything can be explained by saying "God did it."
There, I've answered all of humanity's questions about life, the universe and everything. Let's shut down all the universities and fire all the scientists.
Well, I have to go to work this morning ... otherwise I'd be here all day. I'm way behind on my replies.
I didn't know this about his daughter. Betty, thanks for this tidbit. Once again, public schools have proved to me that the game is not about what is taught, but what is not taught.