Darwin an Atheist?

I think not

From a letter of 1873:

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.

Click to expand...

Score one for the Agnostics.

TVOR

See thats the thing that most anti-evolutionists miss... Darwin never tried to remove god from the system, just church dogma. The problem is the the idea that people can be inerrant, so Church dogma must also be inerrant because those people are never wrong. (silly as far as I'm concerned)

wa:do

Painted Wolf -

Two questions -
1) what does wa:do mean? I see it at the end of many of your posts.
2) I have tried to send you a PM on a couple of occasions. Do you intentionally not take PM's or do you just not have it set up?

Thanks,
TVOR

TVOR-

1) wa:do is Cherokee for thank you. I like to thank people for bothering to read my posts.
2) oops... I guess since I didn't have anything selected it chose to just default to no. I have fixed this so that I can now receve PM's. (I'm not always very handy with these computer thingies. Sad really, )

wa:do

gv-li-e-li-ga wa-hya ( you're welcome wolf)

I think Darwin's statement shows how open-minded he was.

painted wolf said:

I like to thank people for bothering to read my posts

Click to expand...

But obviously not enough to clearly communicate that "thank you".

Speaking of clear communications, I'm curious as to the intent of the post. What should we conlude from the fact that Darwin was not an atheist? Only that Darwin saw no conflict between 'evolution' and the possibility of Deity (nor, by the way, did his friend Huxley). That may have some anecdotal value, but, at the same time, the study of pigeons does not make one a philosopher.

Deut. 32.8 said:

That may have some anecdotal value, but, at the same time, the study of pigeons does not make one a philosopher.

Click to expand...

Deut, I really like the way your mind works.
I think you have to look at the fact that this statement is contained in a letter written by Darwin, as opposed to being written for the sake of being published. Secondly, it is obviously a reply (deduced from the phrasing) to someone (perhaps a friend) that has inquired as to Darwin's stance on religion - it is almost as if he were posting on this board, in response to a question from another site member.

Thanks,
TVOR

There is much of interest here.

Deut -

Great link. I read the entire article, and I especially liked the very last paragraph written by Darwin's son. In it, he distinguishes the difference between his father's Weak Agnosticism and the Atheistic views of one of his contemporary's.

Thanks for the find,
TVOR

PS - this is EXACTLY why I love this site.

Deut- do forgive me for posting something in a non-english language... it was not ment to confuse but to show my pride in my culture and heritage. Again I'm sorry if I confused you enough to attack my communication skills. Perhaps I should attach a translation in the future.

as to the possibilty that Darwin was closer to Agnostic than to Athiest, that goes to the definition of the two terms. Athiests do not believe in the possibility of a god while Agnostics do believe in that possibility. I was not implying that Darwin was a god worshiper as most Agnostics I have met are not god worshiping people. In fact, most Agnostics I know don't really care either way if there is or isn't a god. From the origional quote that is what I thought Darwin was implying. That he was openminded enough to not be bothered by the yes or no debate on the existance of god, and thus to most of the criticism of his theory. (wich I agree with)

wa:do (cherokee for thank you)

painted wolf said:

Again I'm sorry if I confused you enough to attack my communication skills.

Click to expand...

• At issue was not your skill but your intent. If your intent was to communicate "thank you", it was a dismal and predictable failure. If, however, the intent was to solicit a question, it was an obvious success.
• My comment was an observation, not an attack. If you find the observation in error, I am more than willing to hear your reasons.

painted wolf said:

Athiests do not believe in the possibility of a god while Agnostics do believe in that possibility.

Click to expand...

No. :banghead3

painted wolf said:

That he was openminded enough to not be bothered ... (wich I agree with)

Click to expand...

That is not at all what he was communicating. If you're interested, read the link provided above.

painted wolf said:

wa:do (cherokee for thank you)

Click to expand...

Take care.

painted wolf said:

Athiests do not believe in the possibility of a god while Agnostics do believe in that possibility.

Click to expand...

I don't know if this holds true for my fellow Atheists (or any Agnostics), but here's my thinking. Atheists believe we (as humans) can know if a god exists or not. Agnostics do not. Atheists have come to the conclusion that there is no god, based on the current available evidence. There is still the possibility for a god, we just don't know what it is yet, if anything. Agnostics, I assume, would rather stay in a system of 'not drawing any conclusion.' Although they may lean more to one side than another... or wobble back and forth, they still (generally) don't think we can ever know for sure.

meogi said:

Atheists believe we (as humans) can know if a god exists or not. Agnostics do not.

Click to expand...

No. :banghead3 I "believe in" the possibility of Unicorns, but I do not "believe in" Unicorns. In fact, there exists a myriad of "possible" creatures and circumstances that I do not "believe in".

Atheists contend that there is insufficient compelling evidence to warrant/justify a belief in deity - irrespective of whether or not the supernatural is, in principle, knowable.

Deut. 32.8 said:

No.

Click to expand...

Yes. You have to believe it's knowable. If something is not knowable, then it is illogical to draw conclusions about it (hence the agnostic belief). Of course, I'm going off the idea that humans will eventually attain 'perfect knowledge.' Until then (if ever) we can be absolutely sure of nothing. But we can be quite sure (to a high degree of certainty) that unicorns/gods do not exist.

Again, I don't speak for anyone but myself, but this is a 'basic' idea that I think most atheists hold. It's our ability to know that lets us draw this conclusion.

meogi said:

If something is not knowable, then it is illogical to draw conclusions about it (hence the agnostic belief).

Click to expand...

No - hence reliance on revelation rather than impirical evidence.

In contrasting the Western religions with science, the most important criterion of distinction is that the supernatural or spiritual realm is unknowable ... Given this fiat by the theistic believers, science simply ignores the supernatural as being outside the scope of scientific inquiry. Scientists in effect are saying:

You religious believers set up your postulates as truths, and we take you at your word. By definition, you render your beliefs unassailable and unavailable.​

This attitude is not one of surrender, but simply an expression of the logical impossibility of proving the existence of something about which nothing can possibly be known through scientific investigation.

- Understanding Science: An Introduction to Concepts and Issues by Arthur N. Strahler

Click to expand...

meogi said:

Yes. You have to believe it's knowable. If something is not knowable, then it is illogical to draw conclusions about it (hence the agnostic belief).

Click to expand...

We draw conclusions on many things that are not knowable every day.
We must in order to function, so we take what evidence we have for a certain situation and draw the best conclusion we can and get on with life.

Deut, I'm not arguing with you. (I am an Atheist. I have stated before about the emperical evidence, and why I draw the conclusion there is no god). But I will ask you this question: Why do you think it is not illogical to draw a conclusion about something that is not knowable? If you *can't* know - then why do you assume one way.

Lets look at it this way: There may, or may not, be an object in a room. You can speculate all you want on which is correct, but it's not logical to conclude either if you don't think you can ever know. But if you do think you can know, then a conclusion would be fine. The correctness of that conclusion is up for debate, because until you can check if there actually is an object or not, it doesn't matter. But the fact still remains that in order for you to draw a logical conclusion about something, you have to assume that you will one day be able to know.

linwood said:

We draw conclusions on many things that are not knowable every day.

Click to expand...

What exactly do you think is not knowable? And why do you think that drawing a conclusion about it, is not illogical?

linwood said:

We must in order to function, so we take what evidence we have for a certain situation and draw the best conclusion we can and get on with life.

Click to expand...

This is the basis of the atheist belief. But you have to assume that in that certain situation, we will one day know what it actually is. (This can only come with 100% degree of confidence, which I think will be attainable eventually. But right now, high degrees are enough to conclude that something is or isn't. But the degree's only come from things we can know).

meogi said:

(I am an Atheist. I have stated before about the emperical evidence, and why I draw the conclusion there is no god). But I will ask you this question: Why do you think it is not illogical to draw a conclusion about something that is not knowable?

Click to expand...

meogi, my friend, you wrote: "Atheists believe we (as humans) can know if a god exists or not." [my emphasis]

I believe that you infer rather than know.
I believe that this inference is based on reason rather than logic.

I've derailed this thread long enough but, if you wish to pursue this topic, why not start a new one. (I respectfully suggest that you first read up on "The Problem of Induction".)