The Life and Letters of Charles Darwin, Volume I

h >> his son >> The Life and Letters of Charles Darwin, Volume I

Pages:
1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 | 28 | 29 | 30 | 31 | 32 | 33 | 34 | 35 | 36 | 37 | 38 | 39 | 40 | 41 | 42 | 43

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.)

CHAPTER 1.IX.

LIFE AT DOWN.

1842-1854.

"My life goes on like clockwork, and I am fixed on the spot where I shall
end it."

Letter to Captain Fitz-Roy, October, 1846.

[With the view of giving in the following chapters a connected account of
the growth of the 'Origin of Species,' I have taken the more important
letters bearing on that subject out of their proper chronological position
here, and placed them with the rest of the correspondence bearing on the
same subject; so that in the present group of letters we only get
occasional hints of the growth of my father's views, and we may suppose
ourselves to be looking at his life, as it might have been looked at by
those who had no knowledge of the quiet development of his theory of
evolution during this period.

On September 14, 1842, my father left London with his family and settled at
Down. (I must not omit to mention a member of the household who
accompanied him. This was his butler, Joseph Parslow, who remained in the
family, a valued friend and servant, for forty years, and became as Sir
Joseph Hooker once remarked to me, "an integral part of the family, and
felt to be such by all visitors at the house.") In the Autobiographical
chapter, his motives for taking this step in the country are briefly given.
He speaks of the attendance at scientific societies, and ordinary social
duties, as suiting his health so "badly that we resolved to live in the
country, which we both preferred and have never repented of." His
intention of keeping up with scientific life in London is expressed in a
letter to Fox (December, 1842):--