Writing my previous post (The Myth of Arrogant Atheist) reminded me of an incident that I wanted to talk about but never got around it. I will take this opportunity lest it slips my mind again.
Some time back, I was in Toronto attending a Darwin Day gathering. A very dear friend of mine and I were speaking at the occasion. My topic was why believers feel so antagonized by Charles Darwin’s theory and my friends was talking about Darwin's life. Prior to that gathering, he and I had been talking about, for some time, about my rather militant manner in discussing ideas and ideologies. He had reprimanded me several times for focusing on winning arguments instead of winning hearts (and I plead guilty). During his talk, my friend mentioned Darwin’s loving relationship with his wife Emma who was a devout and practicing Christian. He also mentioned how Darwin let his wife editorialize his books so that they didn’t offend believers.
After his talk, someone from the audience asked him why Darwin never professed atheism and why was it that he let his wife modify his work. That is a very frequent question and it is worth wondering why a person whose work is responsible for making more atheists than anyone else in the history of human kind and who made it possible for atheists to become “fulfilled atheists”, in the words of Richard Dawkins, never publicly renounced his own faith.
My friend, uncharacteristically for him, thundered that because Darwin was not among the people who don’t give a damn about other peoples’ feelings. That made me smile because I had a hunch that my friend’s answer had something to do with my presence there. The hunch was proven next day when I received a very endearing and affectionate note from him explaining the causes of his spontaneous outburst.
Anyways, what I wanted to say to him that day, but didn’t because I didn’t want the event to become an argument, is that it may very well be the case that Darwin was protective of his wife’s religious feelings but that is just speculation (as far as I know). I have always felt that Darwin’s silence about his own faith can be because of something else (which is also a speculation) and that something else has a little bit of explaining to do. (This point onward I am borrowing heavily from the research done by Christopher Hitchens on this very subject).
We are one decade deep into 21st century and in a day and age when humans are looking at Mars to set feet on. Even in these modern times, being an atheist is a kiss of death on many levels. In many parts of USA, being an atheist is worse than being black (or even being a Muslim, no kidding!). Once you profess atheism, you have to kiss any ambitions you might have of holding a public office goodbye because a known gay person can win (and have won) elections but a professed atheist can’t even think of doing that. (The only direct physical threat I have personally received didn’t come from a frothing at mouth Muslim fundamentalist. It came from a redneck in Georgia who, after knowing that I didn’t believe in god, told me to be careful and try not to be in his presence when he has his gun on him.) To my knowledge, there is not a single atheist (or even agnostic) in the US House of Representatives or US Senate although atheists constitute a sizable number among US population. This is in 21st century where the church doesn’t have direct political power. Think about the times it did.
In 18th century, when David Hume wanted to opine on religion, he had to present his views in a fictional dialog in which he himself wasn’t a participant. A century before him, Baruch Spinoza was excommunicated just for questioning the immortality of soul. Galileo faced death for making a genuine scientific discovery that contradicted church’s official position (and the Vatican only recently apologized for that). Thomas Paine whose “Age of Reason” was the first full frontal attack on Old and New Testaments and organized religion refused to accept the label of “atheist”.
In the times when Benjamin Franklin invented lightening rod, the lightening bolt was believed to be a direct act of god. When he introduced his invention to the general public, he was obviously apprehensive about people claiming him to be competing with god so following is what he wrote in the introduction of lightening rod.
“It has pleased God in his Goodness to Mankind, at length to discover to them the Means of Securing their Habitations and other Buildings from Mischief by Thunder and Lightening.”
So, he, in a nutshell had to give god the credit of his invention (and the inclusion of the words “at length” makes me smile every time I read the sentence and I am sure Benjamin was smiling too when he wrote them. If those two words were not there, one could mistake Benjamin Franklin to be a devout Christian. I am happy that he included those two words in sort of a wink to the future generations.)
Darwin’s era was only a slightly after Benjamin Franklin’s. If introduction of lightening rod was such a risky adventure, one can only imagine how dangerous was the introduction of Darwin’s theory; a theory that shook the very ground on which religion stands; that we, the humans, are a special creation of a designer. Humans could now understand the diversity of life without invoking a designer. Benjamin Franklin couldn’t publicly claim to defeat the god and here was Charles Darwin, with one of the biggest, if not the biggest, discoveries of human history in his hands. He was not just talking about defeating god. He was about to make god irrelevant as far as the diversity of life on Earth was concerned. This could ruin Darwin’s personal and professional life utterly but more importantly; this could ruin his work based on years of study and hard work.
No wonder Darwin was apprehensive of his work being rejected without review just based on the ideological repercussions. Maybe that is why, printed on the cover of the first edition of “The Origin of Species”, was Frances Bacon’s suggestion that one should not only study god’s words but also god’s “works”. I am quite certain that Darwin was on pins and needles in the first few weeks (or maybe months) of the publication of “The Origin of Species”. The subsequent editions did not have that inscription of studying god’s work.
It was his latter book, “The Descent of Man” that actually created significant ripples and this was the book Emma reportedly editorialized. But even after her editing, you can see Darwin being much more outspoken than his first book and I completely understand that. For a scientist, the most important thing is the propagation of his work because science, truly, is a team sport. If a work isn’t communicated to the other scientists, it’s wasted work. Once the core of his theory was out, Darwin took more liberty with his ideas in his subsequent work and you see the supposed influence of Emma decreasing gradually.
So, my friend may very well be right that Darwin didn't publicly admit the loss of his faith (which he did admit in personal correspondence and his autobiography which wasn’t meant to be published) protecting his wife’s feelings. But I suspect that the real cause was the concerns for his own safety and the preservation of his work.
Rafi
