Darwinism with a human face

Yesterday I had lunch with a writer and historian who is a Darwinist, but, as he explained to me, not a dogmatic one. He says he thinks that the Darwinian theory of evolution by chance mutations and natural selection is true, but that there are legitimate doubts about the theory, such as those raised by the gaps in the fossil record—which from Darwin’s publication of The Origin of Species in 1859 until this moment have not been filled. He even highly praised Ann Coulter’s chapters on evolution in her book Godless (which I have also highly praised), in which she mercilessly excoriates the Darwinian orthodoxy. Further, he said he’s a non-believer, but he’s not sure about that either. He admitted that he lacks the faculty of intuition, which, as I said, is one of the ways we know that SOMETHING is there. In other words, he was admitting that his non-belief in God may come from some lack in his own perceptions and experiences.

What a different world we would be living in if there were more Darwinians and non-believers like this.

- end of initial entry -

Ben W. writes:

You write, “In other words, he was admitting that his non-belief in God may come from some lack in his own perceptions and experiences.”

I used to believe that doubt about the existence of God was the default human position. In other words, since there does not appear to be an absolute, indisputable proof for God’s existence in the human mind, the human mind by nature does not have the concept “God” as an essential aspect of its structure.

The onus is then on the believer to prove the existence of God through active, rational persuasion while all the doubter has to do is sit back passively (since the burden is not on him to either disprove or prove the supposition that God exists). In other words, the primary and default human position is agnosticism according to prevailing opinion.

I used to believe that until I read Hans Kung’s “Does God Exist” and several articles by Alvin Plantinga (Notre Dame University). Hans Kung delineates all of the agnostic and atheistic arguments given throughout history and traces their roots in society and culture. His thesis in that book, which I think is successfully shown, is that skepticism about God’s existence is an acquired trait, a developed impulse, a historical artifact, not an innate instinct.

Plantinga’s contention is that the onus is not on the believer to prove the existence of God. On the contrary the burden falls on the shoulders of the skeptic. Both Kung and Plantinga reverse the common myth that agnosticism is the default position for human nature and that faith (or belief) as a stage beyond the vacuous human mind (with respect to God) that has to be actively developed otherwise it will persist in the default condition of agnosticism.

Usually the agnostic (and thereby the atheist) are commended for their “sincere” doubts because we all think that we started from a position of ignorance concerning God’s existence. And that may not be the case.

BTW Lawrence, have you ever heard about God’s five proofs for the existence of man?

LA replies:

No, I haven’t. But I did once write a long paper in which I examined Nietzsche’s denial of the existence of God—from God’s point of view. Or more precisely: from the point of view that God exists, what is the meaning of Nietzsche’s denial of God’s existence? I ought to post it online some time.

As for whether belief or agnosticism should be the default position, Paul in the first chapter of the Epistle to the Romans establishes in the clearest terms that it is the former:

Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them. For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse.

Posted by Lawrence Auster at August 08, 2007 04:11 PM | Send