Charles Darwin was not an atheist in the conventional sense. He believed that God was responsible for the First Cause. And yet, Charles Darwin is a poster boy for atheists nowadays.
We run into these situations again and again – Thomas Jefferson, one of the founding fathers of United States of America, wrote at lengths on freedom, equality and liberty and yet he had slaves in his household. Abraham Lincoln, who waged war against the Confederates, thus abolishing slavery in the South, was not ready to concede Blacks were equal to Whites. Isaac Newton, who discovered Universal Law of Gravitation, thus setting the trend for removing God from affairs of Man, was a firm believer in God.
Liberalism or Atheism or any such progressive thinking is different in different times. Thomas Jefferson may be a liberal thinker for his times but when we look into the past and measure his liberalism from our yardstick he fails the test. Charles Darwin or Einstein may not qualify as atheists from our standpoint and yet they were closer to atheists of their times. When Judaism came on board, atheists were non-believers of God of Moses. When Islam came on board, atheists were believers of other religions – like pagan religions and other unknown religions. During Spanish Inquisition, Protestants, Jews, and non-believers in God were all put in the same league and called atheists.
Charles Darwin believed in a Creator. He may not have expressed enthusiasm for Christianity as it is practiced, but he still believed that a Divine Creator existed who have might have started it all, set the laws in motion and let the Universe take care of itself without intervening further.
The way Theory of Gravitation had an effect on humanity much beyond what Newton comprehended Origin of Species has an effect much beyond what Darwin stands for in his personal life. Many such great scientists are still human, mortal, time-bound, looking at the world from their narrow window of their time on earth. Some of them displayed idiosyncrasies which are completely irrelevant to Science. And if they are unimportant to Science they are not included in Science. Newton refused to admit certain results his own theories proved, even Albert Einstein turned out to be smaller than his own theory refusing to accept the byproduct of his own theories. What is important is what they have contributed to – in unraveling Nature – giving us a tool to understand the laws of Nature and how it worked, without resorting to miracles, divine intervention and omnipotence of God.
Would Darwin be an atheist if he was alive now? Can’t say! May be, may not be. Would he have come up with Theory of Evolution if he was born elsewhere, in another time, as someone else? Can’t say! Such speculations are irrelevant. His being an atheist or theist has no impact on what he discovered. If it was not Charles Darwin, some other scientist or a series of scientists would have come up with that theory in the next few decades. If the other scientist happens to be gay, atheist, murderer, communist, woman, it doesn’t make much difference to the overall contribution to Science.
What is important is how that theory fits into grand scheme of things. Does it make sense? Not to a narrow set of whimsical and fanatic individuals but to everyone who has studied that topic in great detail irrespective of their political, social, ethnic, or sexual identity?
In that respect, Darwin gave atheists a tool to make their case. His theories have implications far greater than what Darwin imagined in his lifetime – though he had a hunch that he was up against religion in many ways. His Theory of Evolution is how Nature works, and that’s the beauty of it – which is universal – at least as far life on this planet is considered. And that theory gives more credence to atheists than to theists and therefore Darwin remains a darling to atheists, and an anathema to theists.
It is an interesting thought! People will go on looking for answers to questions irrespective of their faith and beliefs. It will be interesting to know about another person whose works lead to the the development of modern evolutionary synthesis was a Austrian augustinian priest, Gregor Mendel
ReplyDeleteSujai,
ReplyDeleteYou have misconstrued the idea that I want to present in my previous message on one of your articles on “Darwin’s Birthday”. I should have posted it on the following article, “Darwin’s Theory and Atheist”, but I made an error.
The reason I mentioned “Gregor Mendel” in the consecutive post was to show you my point that science does not belong to a particular faith. It is ridiculous to assume that people who believe in evolution should not believe in god. Let me clarify few points:
1. I do not think science is a belief system.
2. I think atheism or assumed rationalism (as I like to call it) is a form of belief system.
Remember, Darwin himself believed that a person’s belief, the thought process, their behavior depend on their evolved mind. So, if Darwin is right in his assumption then my experiment is equally relevant. Trust me; it will be foolish to assume that you have reached the climax of evolution and I will be equally naïve for crediting you with such thoughts. Humanity has been on this planet for thousands of years and people had been aware of things that Newton saw or Galileo observed, but they couldn’t understand the phenomenon behind them until last 400 years, now it looks so obvious that you imagined it while walking back from school. I am sure it happened to many of us. Assuming born in an age 400 years ago, it is highly unlikely that you would have bothered about apples falling off the trees or the shape of the world. Maybe because you were not ready (evolved) to understand it? As I don’t think that my brain is evolved enough to see beyond observed experiments done till date to prove the existence of evolution, where scientists have observed cell evolving from non living molecules or evolution through mutation. So, I do not understand the mechanism how it happens like many others on this planet.
Remember, evolution does not operate in isolation; thus mobility in a species arose as a consequence of elements of distance in the environment, so humans have better eye sight as result of danger and location of food. But, when you think of evolution think about mind and intelligence? Did it just arise because you are human? Or did it arise in relation to something in the environment, your hunting ground, your family, your rearing, your culture? Unfortunately, we still don’t understand it well enough. Though I have my own theories and hypothesis, but I don’t get airy about them as they are irrelevant unless I have 15,594 more observations on the blogsphere to back my claims ;-) (kidding)
You have divided people into two groups. One constitutes atheists who think the way you think or usually, how a group thinks. And second group comprises of the people who believe in god and are largely ignorant, irrational people. Trust me, anyone who reads your articles can point out the places where you show your ‘belief’ of bipolar world.
I am not interested to involve in a debate where I am assumed a responsibility of defending the theists. I have no such intentions. But I have met people who live in these bipolar worlds and divide groups based on ‘us and them’ with various faiths and then try to prove whose faith is more sane and rational. Atheists are no different.
And I believe that such beliefs cause hindrance in the growth of science. The best and the most (scientifically) ethical marketing strategy for the theory of evolution should be, “Read about Darwin’s theory, it will surely change the way you look at yourself and the world” instead of “Read the theory of evolution and become an atheist!!!”
Lastly, about the thought experiment, have you ever tried to teach someone about the theory of relativity or quantum mechanics? How do you do it? Do you flash a torch and try to run at speed of light or kill a cat and put it in a box? These theories are explained through thought experiments if not mathematics. There are numerous examples of such experiments.
With my thought experiment I was showing a relation between human thought and assumed alien thoughts concerning the theme of evolution with living and non-living entities. Please note that, I concede to the fact that we have been climbing the stairs of evolution, but I believe from what I read, that we do not understand the mechanism yet. Once we understand the mechanism, you will be able to explain why my assumption is wrong in hypothesizing that plates and mugs can evolve. Till then the question, ‘why can’t non living things evolve? If life can evolve from non living molecules why any other inanimate objects can’t?’ will remain a relevant question. It cannot be answered because we don’t know the answer, because we still don’t understand it perfectly. The only sane answer you have, “because we have never observed it happening ever.” (I do not believe in the stories where Lord Vishnu change a earthen pot into golden jar, like you probably have assumed about me) But we can’t observe evolution happening infront of us. Because we all know that the pace is too slow to notice a significant difference. So, we largely depend on the amount of evidence that exist infront of us in form of fossils and animal and human behavior to construct a theory. So, based on the observations made by Darwin, the idea came into existence that human evolved from the other available species on this planet. And we give much importance to this idea on the basis of the so many evidences discovered in past century. This is how humans think in a group, especially when they are motivated by a group of people who are bound by similar faith.
So, what is wrong with my thought experiment? Think about it and I hope that you will be able to see that I was trying put enough emphasize on the fact that we do not understand a lot of things about evolution than we should? So, why isolate the science of evolution from the theist by your statements like, “And that theory gives more credence to atheists than to theists and therefore Darwin remains a darling to atheists, and an anathema to theists.” You never know, it might need theist like “Gregor Mendel” who will show the way forward and prove my thought experiment irrelevant!
Dear cxzaq123:
ReplyDeleteThanks for writing and thanks for clarifying. I will start with a correction on my side based on what you pointed out.
You say (almost at the end of your comment):
So, why isolate the science of evolution from the theist by your statements like, “And that theory gives more credence to atheists than to theists and therefore Darwin remains a darling to atheists, and an anathema to theists.”
I agree that’s a wrong statement that I made. I categorize all theists into religious people which I should not have – will make the necessary corrections. Not all theists may be religious people – if I were to define theism as a belief in God (including a religious God).
However, I have the following disagreements with you – based on what you wrote above.
You say:
2. I think atheism or assumed rationalism (as I like to call it) is a form of belief system.
I do not agree with the above view completely. Is atheism a belief system like religion? Not really. Unless atheists renounce the fundamental aspects that differentiate them from the religious people – if they are willing to admit God exists in face of fresh and new evidence, if they are willing to renounce atheism if at any instance atheism contradicts laws of nature or experiment results, or if any if any of atheistic theories are disproved – their position cannot be called a ‘belief system’.
However, one can call Atheism a belief system like a religion, only if they are guided by a certain book or certain person or certain idea which they think is immutable or infallible, only if they think no experimentation should be done to challenge that idea, only if they refuse to accept any new repeatable or demonstrable evidence that challenge their idea, only if they shun any debate or argument that leads to questioning their idea.
Most atheists (may be not all) do not subscribe to any of the above which make their idea a dogma – hence it is not a belief system like a religion.
You say:
Assuming born in an age 400 years ago, it is highly unlikely that you would have bothered about apples falling off the trees or the shape of the world. Maybe because you were not ready (evolved) to understand it?
That’s a wrong understanding of Theory of Evolution (from what is generally agreed in the scientific circles.)
Darwin’s Theory, Theory of Evolution or Modern Science (Genetics and other Biological Sciences) do not say that our brain has evolved considerably in the last 400 years. A person born 400 years ago is equally capable of asking questions about falling apples or shapes of the world. The only reason he may not have the answers is because the collective knowledge of mankind has not reach the level where we could go the next step in understanding the Universe – not a limitation of human or his brain, but the limitation of our collective knowledge, its availability, its propagation, and its assimilation into a theory.
In fact, Eratosthenes calculated circumference of Earth more than 2000 years ago, and his results are close to the actual numbers – he used simple trigonometry.
A person born nearly 12000 years ago is also capable of understanding Newtonian Physics provided he has gone to a school like us, understood basic algebra like us, and provided he had access to the results of various experiments and theories like us. Many aborigines living in Stone Age have been able to go to universities and accomplish great things within one generation.
You have divided people into two groups… One constitutes atheists … And second group comprises of the people who believe in god... Trust me, anyone who reads your articles can point out the places where you show your ‘belief’ of bipolar world.
Yes, for the sake of discussion I do put two groups at loggerheads - atheists on one side and religious people on the other side. To make the distinction I do assume that atheists (as I define for such discussions) follow scientific methods to arrive at a conclusion or standpoint (please note that are different types of atheists) while religious people believe in a book or a prophet or a set of beliefs which are not questioned or challenged.
The distinction is more like an ‘idea’ that atheists seem to carry forward versus a ‘belief’ that the religious people seem to adhere to.
I do not show a ‘belief’ in bipolar world, I propose such an ‘idea’ for the sake of discussion fully aware that such an idea works under a narrow scope of things – such as this discussion and that such a distinction is not immutable or inviolable.
Atheists do believe in things, which are quite different from the set of belief systems religious people propose.
Saying to my daughter, “I believe in you”, is not the same as “I believe in Bible, the Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost”. The distinction is in the fallibility and subjectivity of the first belief as against the infallibility of a religious belief.
But I have met people who live in these bipolar worlds and divide groups based on ‘us and them’ with various faiths and then try to prove whose faith is more sane and rational. Atheists are no different.
Proposing two groups for the sake of discussion is not the same as ‘living’ in a bipolar world. Categorization or classification is an extremely important tool in developing knowledge, fostering debate and discussion. Life on earth is broadly categorized in plants and animals, humans into men and women, ideology into communists and non-communists, and so on. Some categorization can be based in prejudice and used to perpetuate a prejudice, while some classification can be done for academic purposes.
While discussing a particular battle, we may resort to using words like Japanese versus Chinese – sometimes imparting our bias, sometimes being impartial.
Categorization is necessary – how you want to use it is up to you.
The best and the most (scientifically) ethical marketing strategy for the theory of evolution should be, “Read about Darwin’s theory, it will surely change the way you look at yourself and the world” instead of “Read the theory of evolution and become an atheist!!!”
I don’t think all scientists who read Darwin’s theory are atheists. Also, being rational or scientific does not necessary make you an atheist, but most atheists are rational and scientific. Also, I don’t think atheists put forward Darwin’s theory as a selling item for atheism. Evolution does not directly translate to atheism. In fact, Darwin himself was a theist.
This is how humans think in a group, especially when they are motivated by a group of people who are bound by similar faith.
Theory of evolution is not a wishful thinking. It is something that is observed in smaller life forms whose life span is quite shorter than humans. In fact, evolution or similar ideas of evolution originated in more than one human being. It is not like Darwin was the only person who could have come up with that theory. He just happens to be the first.
Scientists are not bound by the same faith. In fact, there is no room for faith (but since humans are fallible many scientists have gone that path many a times). Science is not perfect, but the enterprise of Science represented by scientists is pool of skeptical people who are ready to question basic assumptions – and if they had not done it, we would not have Science as we know it.
Darwin’s Theory is accepted, not because it is a faith, but because it makes sense – from various sources and evidences.
Sujai,
ReplyDeleteThanks for replying and I apologize for the delay in reply because for at least another week my accessibility to the internet will be scarce.
1) I endorse your point that Atheism is not a belief system like any other theistic system. And yes, there are obvious differences that you rightly pointed out.
I just wanted to show that irrespective of differences in beliefs, people often behave similarly even when they claim to adhere to two contradicting philosophies.
2) There are enough theories and speculation about mind and culture which postulates the evolution of culture with evolution of genes. I would request you to read the following:
a) Dual Inheritance Theory
b) Cultural Evolution
Our understanding of the human mind and its behavior is very limited. There are inhibitions produced in mind which may be cultural (I have read about your frustration on usual Indian way of thinking, most times I sympathize with the issues that you raise in this blog and find them thought provoking ) or maybe genetic, when it comes to accept a scientifically verified theory or become reasonable in way of thinking. The explanation is hard to point out but it has been proved that a person's behavior may not just be the outcome of his nurture. Everyone of us is born with different mind architecture which makes us perceive the same idea differently. We are born with a nature which is later influenced by both the culture and capacity of understanding. I am not trying to degrade anyone, but this is how the nature works and therefore I believe that a society should be developed where every individual should treated differently like we treat our man made groups.
3) People believe in things because we inherit the prejudices that the society or the culture has produced.
Scientific thinking does not clean a person from his own prejudices. There was a time when Darwin's theory of evolution was commonly misinterpreted as an explanation of intellectual and moral progress instead of an explanation of how living adapt to an ecological niche. There was a Darwin's student, named Herbert Spencer who seemed to believe that do-gooders would only interfere with the progress of evolution if they tried to improve the lot of the impoverished classes and races, who were, in Spencer's view, biologically less fit. There were many prominent intellectual of that time who endorsed this kind social Darwinism who discouraged the 'less fit' from breeding. History will show you that laws were passed in most of the western countries where people with a particular ethnicity were sterilized. It was only later than the Nazi ideology of inferior race based on Aryan theory to justify murder of millions of Jews, Gypsies and homosexuals came in existence.
Science can remove ignorance but not prejudices that we are born with... Its the way of human mind. Its our Nature!
cxzaq123:
ReplyDeleteI just wanted to show that irrespective of differences in beliefs, people often behave similarly even when they claim to adhere to two contradicting philosophies.
People always do – they always carry prejudices and try to introduce them into the system. A system has to be designed such that it can work fairly in spite of those prejudices. Religion is a system which inherently does not question nor challenge any prejudices because it is based in blind belief and dogma. Science is a system which inherently corrects itself – sometimes sooner sometimes later.
evolution of culture with evolution of genes
Evolution of culture is different from evolution of genes. They are not necessarily guided by the same laws. Using scientific terminology into non-scientific topics can bring bizarre results.
every individual should treated differently like we treat our man made groups.
Theories you cited talk about human behavior which is not the same as human intelligence.
Don’t mix culture with science. Laws of Nature are universal. It does not matter whether you are a pygmy from Africa, Eskima from Arctic, a Nordic from Norway or an Hindu from India, Newtonian Physics, Theory of Relativity or Theory of Evolution are all valid and no cultural bias is needed to explain whether an Indian is less ready to understand theory of relativity compared to a Norwegian.
In the same way, universal topics like algebra, mathematics, Euclidean Geometry are not culture biased. There is no single race or ethnic group on the planet which understands these better than others.
Science can remove ignorance but not prejudices that we are born with... Its the way of human mind. Its our Nature!
No arguing there. But still, as a system Science can correct itself, while Religion can pass a lie as a truth.
Thanks.
Forgive me if I implied that people can be excused from learning science or any other form of knowledge because of their adherence to a particular culture. This is not what I meant in the arguments presented in previous posts.
ReplyDeleteDon’t mix culture with science. Laws of Nature are universal. It does not matter whether you are a pygmy from Africa, Eskima from Arctic, a Nordic from Norway or an Hindu from India, Newtonian Physics, Theory of Relativity or Theory of Evolution are all valid and no cultural bias is needed to explain whether an Indian is less ready to understand theory of relativity compared to a Norwegian.
I agree but the reason I mentioned culture in my post was point out that culture of a country determines the outlook of majority of people in a nation. You cannot create the right environment for science unless you imbibe the right scientific culture in a society. Unless our minds are genuinely involved with the problem of the objective world like the problems which we discuss in the classrooms of great universities or research institutes we cannot expect the change. All I want to point out is that the mean with which this transformation can be achieved still remains unanswered and it definitely is not atheism. It can be seen that most of the existing cultures are based on religion and they originated at a time when little exact knowledge of the physical world existed. After the spectacular advance of modern science it has become more and more difficult to accept these elements of a culture which are based on objective lies.
In recent past we have observed people redefining the concept of God, heaven, hell etc and emergence of new age spiritual gurus who are modifying the old concept to fit the modern scientific view of the universe. I believe that objective truth creates a psychological pressure on all thinking men which can be relieved only by getting rid of the objectively false beliefs. The process is definitely very slow at present. But may be at some critical stage it would be much faster. But it remains a hope unless we study the society and culture and find out the way to include such scientific bent of mind.
cxzaq123:
ReplyDeleteAll I want to point out is that the mean with which this transformation can be achieved still remains unanswered and it definitely is not atheism.
Atheism is not the means to inculcate scientific temperament. Atheism is a mere byproduct – maybe unintended – of that scientific temperament. I have never, not even once, suggested that atheism is a necessary tool for bringing this ‘transformation’.
Rational thinking is a must for promoting Science. Cultures which were seeped in monotheistic dogmatic religions have been able to get onto the bandwagon of rational thinking within a short span of few hundred years – because they saw the value in it.
If atheists are so intelligent, rational and scientific shouldn't they be able to handle Newtonian physics with no problem.
ReplyDeleteSo shouldn't most atheists have noticed how the collapse of the WTC towers on 9/11 have violated the conservation of momentum. Since, as a group, they don't seem to be making a BIG DEAL about this it certainly calls into question how scientific thy are. I don't hear them demanding the daata on the distribution of steel and concrete. LOL
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LXAerZUw4Wc
Oh, yeah! They just have to BELIEVE! Rational thought isn't required.
psikeyhackr