Mr. Charles Darwin, and the case of the man slain by lightning

According to Charles Darwin the evil and suffering in the world made it impossible for him to believe in God. If we're to take him at his word, this was the factor that led him to develop a substitute for the idea of creation.

Quotes and comments;

A. 'A world so full of cruelty and pain he [Darwin] could not reconcile with the omniscience, the omnipotence, the goodness of God. An innocent and good man stands under a tree and is struck by lightning. "Do you believe," asks Darwin of his friend Gray, " that God slew this man on purpose ? Many or most people believe this. I cannot and will not believe it." [1.]

- I notice that he first says he cannot believe it, but then he quickly adds he won't believe it. Well, what is it? I think it's the latter.

In examining this troubling event we need to begin by stating the obvious; that however you look at it, the man is still dead. Whether the man was killed by God (through intermediate means) or by lightning he's still dead. If you were going to die would you rather by killed by God or by lightning? If God is the ultimate cause (behind the lightning) then at least you have the hope that a life beyond the grave exists, and that you might find a greater and more rewarding life in heaven than you had on earth. If there is no God behind the lightning you have no hope of further existence. It's clear to me at least that one is far better off getting 'slain' by God than by lightning. As I see it, the only reason to wish for lightning is the fear the after life will be something horrible. [2.]

If lightning is all there is, then there is no purpose in life. Is it meaningful to get slain by a bolt of electricity thrown down randomly, and hitting its mark by chance? If there is no god there is no ultimate meaning and purpose. I don't see how this is preferable to a universe of meaning and purpose. As usual with 'theological' matters, Darwin just doesn't think deeply enough. He's far to ready to spurn God at the slightest provocation. He wants the universe to conform to his own ideas (Victorian to the core) of propriety and order, and if it doesn't he decides there can't be a God. He apparently believed that if God truly existed he would be a Victorian gentleman.

He looked around and saw a world of pain and suffering and decided that since this was no way he himself would run the universe that this meant god did not exist. (He really seems to have believed that God either had to be a Victorian or he didn't exist; that these were the only two options available.) He seems to have believed that since the world wasn't the way it 'ought' to be this meant there was no god. (This is the kind of theological thinking rampant in the church today. Darwin would feel right at home in the church of England of our time.)

Summary;
Charles Darwin is a classic Rationalist in the sense he wasn't willing to believe anything he couldn't understand. He seemed to believe that his mind was capable of determining reality. This belief makes no sense in terms of his evolutionary beliefs however. If man is just an evolved bit of pond scum why should he be able to comprehend reality? He rejected the bible because it didn't make sense to him, because it seemed fallacious. If someone had told him the theories of our day he would have rejected them as nonsensical as well. There's a humility in accepting the creation account of Genesis that is utterly absent from evolutionary thinking. Is creation a mystery? Most assuredly.

Notes;
1. The philosophy of revelation - Herman Bavinck/p.12
2. I'm always puzzled by people who claim they can't imagine wanting to go to heaven. (Let's assume for the sake of argument it exists.) I can think of many reasons for wanting to go. In particular I'd like to know the true answer to this puzzle of Origins. I'd like to know exactly when and how the whole thing happened. (I'll admit that I can't comprehend what people might do for eternity... but maybe we'll learn the answer to that conundrum as well.)

Addendum;
B. 'The discovery of the so-called law of " natural selection " brought him accordingly a real feeling of relief, for by it he escaped the necessity of assuming a conscious plan and purpose in creation. Whether God existed or not, in either case he was blameless. The immutable laws of nature, imperfect in all their operations, bore the blame for everything, while at the same time guaranteeing that the world is not a product of chance and is progressing as a whole towards a better condition. [1.]

- This view is popular in many theological circles today. It's the source of what's popularly none as anti-Calvinism. God is absolved of all evil by claiming the idea of Providence is an evil invention of Jean Calvin, and has nothing to do with 'true' Christianity. It's not an exaggeration (or a joke) to say that Charles Darwin is the most influential theologian of the modern world.

It's vital to realize that the idea of progress is essential to the thinking of Darwinian theology. The world is not only in a state of constant flux, but it's in a constant state of progress, that it's getting better and better in every way. (We might call this a kind of Fabian eschatology.) For this reason these theologians encourage people to abandon the Bible and to embrace the spirit of the age. The thinking of the bible is obsolete in a world of constant change they tell us. There are no moral absolutes, there is only change; and as the biological world has evolved ever upward, so shall the spiritual world. The only sin is to resist change.