Deity and Darwin
notes – not for distribution
Frank Kaufmann - 06/05/10
Spiritual reality is proven in the Darwin debate, not by the
content of the conversation, but by its vehemence.
I have a special interest in those conversations that
cannot be held intelligently by intelligent people.
Why? Because this fiery torrent that substitutes for
reasonable and dispassionate conversation always
reveals that something significant is at stake. Where are
some such places where a simple difference of opinion
disqualifies your partner from respect and virtues for
compassionate engagement become overshadowed
by such undesirable qualities as closed-mindedness,
impatience, and vitriol? Palestine and Israel, Abortion,
Darwin, conservative and liberal-politics, and whales in
the sea.
Most people who reach a level of leadership, especially
in intellectual circles believe that one important sign of a
mature intellectual is the ability to see "all sides" of an
argument, and the willingness to grow and modify one's
views in light of information and sound argument. But in
these hot areas, even the smartest people descend into
negative passions, and grow blind to any and all
thoughts on the matter contrary to their own. Instead of
Page 1 Kaufmann – Darwin and Diety
being able to learn from others with opposing points of
view, valid and interesting information from “the other”
never helps. Such opportunities instead are used to
further hone our own arguments and positions. Greater
understanding seems to have an inverse effect. Instead
of gaining greater sympathy for those with "opposing
views," we rather sharpen and hone our positions all the
more fiercely. A chasm an inch wide in this “hot issues”
somehow stays as deep and non-traversable as one
miles wide. Darwin is one such arena.
Supposing I were to show up to an important scientific
gathering, or sought to teach in schools a theory
challenging the conventional wisdom of the lunar
impact on tides? Surely such a position would be as
radical and perhaps unthinkable such a proposition as
possible. Yet, I would be met with established protocols
of the scientific establishment, and my research would
be allowed to rise or fall on the basis of its merit within the
strictures of the scientific method.
Why is it then that rivers run red when bonafide scientists
seek to question a even the tiniest element in the edifice
necessary for Darwinism to stand? Obviously because
something far more central to human affairs at stake
than mere scientific theory. In my few moments, I would
like to offer thoughts to suggest what is at stake. My
argument and conclusion is that the discussion suffers
Page 2 Kaufmann – Darwin and Diety
from the dysfunction characteristic of the great shame of
religious conflict.
The Christian theologian Paul Tillich in the 1957 classic
Dynamics of Faith, described faith as "ultimate concern"
The intense agitation and response to challengers by
committed Darwinists should be understood and
engaged as a form of religious zealotry.
What is religion, and how does it function for believers?
To be human requires us to come to deal with three
elements of subjective experience: 1. Who am I. Why
am I here? What makes me the way I am? 2. What is
nature and the natural world around me? What is it to
me? And 3. How am I to function as a social being.
What is my life as it pertains to other human beings?
Every complete, and major world religion offers answers
for these three fundamental questions to its believers.
The question who am I in faith systems is called theolgical
anthropology. The account of the significance and truth
about nature is found in what is called “the creation
myth” of any given religious system. And my life vis a vis
the greater social reality in which my life unfolds is the
doctrine of human responsibility.
I will take a quick look at a couple of scriptural packages
Page 3 Kaufmann – Darwin and Diety
of these 3 elements momentarily. But first quickly, where
does Darwin fit into this?
I hold that an unusual occasion of religious founding
(birth and origins) occurred in the 19th century in Western
Europe.
Most though not all religions are introduced into the
stream of human affairs through single individuals,
possibly what is known in Islam as prophets known and
not known. Some such people whose lives, life-
experiences and teachings spawned communities of
religious believers include, Mahavira, Siddhartha
Gautama, Moses, Lao Tze, Kung Fu Tzu, Jesus of
Nazareth, the Prophet Mohammad (PBUH). As great
and glorious as any of them are, it is surely true that you
could walk by any of them on the street and not know it.
If you were having particularly bad luck, on what would
be for you a VERY bad day, you could even push any of
them out of your way.
What I arguing was born as a new religion in Western
Europe in the 19th century, came into human affairs not
in the conventional manner of being introduced by one
life, and one teacher, but rather strangely by three. For
the theological anthropology (who am I? what makes
me tick?) the founder was Sigmund Freud (German
pronunciation: born Sigismund Schlomo Freud (6 May
1856 – 23 September 1939). For the creation myth (what
Page 4 Kaufmann – Darwin and Diety
is nature? and what is its relation to me?) the founder is
Charles Robert Darwin (12 February 1809 – 19 April 1882).
And for the doctrine of social responsibility (what are
others? and what at they to me?) the founder is Karl
Heinrich Marx (May 5, 1818 – March 14, 1883)
Let me interrupt here to express an apology in advance,
as well as to express some personal views. There are two
things that I disagree with as a habit of public discourse
especially in the area of religious conversation: 1. One is
to imagine oneself as fully capable of grasping a religion
as one of its believers. I'm not saying that's impossible. I
believe it IS possible, but it is rare, and very difficult to do.
One thing for sure is not possible, is to imagine yourself
capable of grasping a religion if you don't like that
religion, or don't believe it is true. 2. The second thing I
think is bad to do, is to present the religious beliefs of
others in overly simplistic ways.
This said, I offer sincere apologies to those believers in the
community of faith founded by Darwin, Freud, and Marx.
I confess, I am not partial to this faith system, and I
confess that in this short period of time my account for
these beliefs will be superficial and perhaps simplistic
(but I hope not).
I believe that the 19th century Western European religious
Page 5 Kaufmann – Darwin and Diety
belief system with three founders has as its consistent
theological foundation, 3 things: Essential materialism, a
determinism inherent in this most foundational article of
faith, and the doctrine of being and development
grounded in conflict, struggle, and strife.
In Freud developer of the theological anthropology of
the faith, being and development stems from the the
battle between Eros and Thanatos, and from the
essential discord among id, ego, and super ego.
In Marx, the developer of the social doctrine for this faith,
being and development transpires through dialectical
materialism and historical materialism. A struggle or
conflict based faith coursing through thesis, antithesis,
and synthesis.
In Darwin, the principle of creation that underlies
progress in the nature and in the natural order of
creation is the inherent in the theory of natural selection,
the struggle for existence. Darwin imported Spencer's
term “survival of the fittest” into his 1869 Origin of the
Species.
It is vital to know that this faith with three founders
accounts for all of reality in terms of conflict and as
ontological.
Page 6 Kaufmann – Darwin and Diety
When engaging this faith, traditional religious believers
tend to be drawn into debate more especially on the
materialism and determinism in the ontology. This is
necessary of course, but I feel this has real dangers if not
undertaken prayerfully.
Of course it is natural and obvious that the beliefs and
faith of materialists is starkly juxtaposed to conventional
religious belief especially on that front, since the latter
see origins and the ongoing sustaining of all in spiritual
reality.
It is my view however, that a vital element of this faith,
namely its ontology of struggle and conflict might be a
more pressing arena for religious leaders to engage. I
think so for a number of reasons.
One BIG reason for this view is that religion in the
contemporary world constantly and near perfectly
discredits itself when involved in conflict with other
religions. Religions that fight are seen as hypocritical,
thus irrelevant and unwanted, and more importantly a
hindrance to our desire for a peaceful world.
The community of religions will never be able to mount
an effective conversation to challenge the underlying
Page 7 Kaufmann – Darwin and Diety
impact of the widespread faith of materialism and
conflict ontology, if religions themselves remain in
conflict. Religious conflict is internally inconsistent, and
self-defeating. True religion advances through the
irresistible taste of the divine as received through
compassion and humility, namely the fruits of life lived
faithfully to the truth.
Page 8 Kaufmann – Darwin and Diety