A quote from Darwin

An oldie but a goodie:

With respect to the theological view of the question; this is always painful to me.-- I am bewildered.-- I had no intention to write atheistically. But I own that I cannot see, as plainly as others do, & as I shd wish to do, evidence of design & beneficence on all sides of us. There seems to me too much misery in the world. I cannot persuade myself that a beneficent & omnipotent God would have designedly created the Ichneumonidae symbol with the express intention of their feeding within the living bodies of caterpillars, or that a cat should play with mice. Not believing this, I see no necessity in the belief that the eye was expressly designed. On the other hand I cannot anyhow be contented to view this wonderful universe & especially the nature of man, & to conclude that everything is the result of brute force. I am inclined to look at everything as resulting from designed laws, with the details, whether good or bad, left to the working out of what we may call chance. Not that this notion at all satisfies me. I feel most deeply that the whole subject is too profound for the human intellect. A dog might as well speculate on the mind of Newton.--forced double space Let each man hope & believe what he can.--

Certainly I agree with you that my views are not at all necessarily atheistical. The lightning kills a man, whether a good one or bad one, owing to the excessively complex action of natural laws,--a child (who may turn out an idiot) is born by action of even more complex laws,--and I can see no reason, why a man, or other animal, may not have been aboriginally produced by other laws; & that all these laws may have been expressly designed by an omniscient Creator, who foresaw every future event & consequence. But the more I think the more bewildered I become; as indeed I have probably shown by this letter.

From the Darwin Correspondence Project.

More like this

It's a season, so I am told, that has something to do with religion. We celebrate the birth of commodity capitalism, or something. So I thought I would combine my favourite issues - philosophy, religion and evolution. It's all Alex Rosenberg's fault. At a dinner before the conference, he was…
The problem of evil has become a topic of discussion again. I don't think I've blogged about theodicy in any depth since 2006, so I guess it's time to take it up again. In brief, the problem of evil is classically posed as a question of why evil should exist in the world if there is an omnipotent…
This myth says a lot about the default views of western thinking, rather like the issue of teleology. One of the constant and incessant complaints made against Darwin by theists in particular, is that he introduced chance and purposelessness into our worldview. I don't believe in such entities as…
I originally wrote this post off the top of my head, groping (somewhat unsuccessfully) to find the right words to express my enthrallment with natural history. I edited it substantially here without changing the main points of the argument, and I feel that while it could use some improvement it…

Hard to improve on this, even today. It is as if asking and answering questions just generates new and deeper questions, without end. Strange that existence should be structured that way.

One man looks at the abundance and intricacy of living things and sees evidence of design. Another man looks at the abundance and intricacy of living things but sees no evidence of design. One man constructs a revolutionary theory to explain what he sees. The other does not. Correlation or causation?

By Ian H Spedding FCD (not verified) on 23 May 2007 #permalink

very very profound ... forced double space ... the notion that the dog and Newton are forced to occupy different realms of experience, a double space, even though it is but one space

By snaxalotl (not verified) on 23 May 2007 #permalink

[Everyone's a critic mutter mutter grumble]

I said it once and I'll say it again. We only hang around here waiting for you to make a mistake so that we can shit on your head!

I have always admired Darwin. He thought deeply about what he thought he knew or could know, and even more deeply about what he thought he didn't or couldn't know.