English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

Based on this,
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;_ylt=AqUWPbdkoIoeX05_RTR0UHHsy6IX?qid=20061025083946AA4PYMk

I see two answers that are different, one the answer that he is Agnostic and two the answer that he was a member of the Church of England.

Is it possible the man had different beliefs at different times of his life?

2006-10-25 04:49:56 · 15 answers · asked by Anonymous in Society & Culture Religion & Spirituality

15 answers

He was not coward like Galileo
(or perhaps he forgave them for their childish theories...after all Truth doesnt need to prove itself)

2006-10-25 04:53:14 · answer #1 · answered by ۞Aum۞ 7 · 0 0

During these two years[1] I was led to think much about religion. Whilst on board the Beagle I was quite orthodox, and I remember being heartily laughed at by several of the officers (though themselves orthodox) for quoting the Bible as an unanswerable authority on some point of morality. I suppose it was the noveltry of the argument that amused them. But I had gradually come, by this time, to see that the Old Testament from its manifestly false history of the world, with the Tower of Babel, the rainbow at sign, etc., etc., and from its attributing to God the feelings of a revengeful tyrant, was no more to be trusted than the sacred books of the Hindoos, or the beliefs of any barbarian. The question then continually rose before my mind and would not be banished, -- is it credible that if God were now to make a revelation to the Hindoos, would he permit it to be connected with the belief in Vishnu, Siva, &c, as Christianity is connected with the Old Testament. This appeared to me utterly incredible.

He progressed as do we all, if we are thinkers.

2006-10-25 11:53:43 · answer #2 · answered by AuroraDawn 7 · 2 0

As I said on the other thread New Yorker magazine has a great article on precisely this topic this week.

To summarise, he was almost certainly an atheist by the time he was a young man although he kept up the habits of belief primarily to comfort his wife, they lost a child of about 6 years old and his wife was comforted by the thought of heaven.

There was no deathbed conversion and although he was careful in public not to deny the existence of god (leaving it to Huxley, 'Darwins bulldog') in private out of his wife's hearing he was much more forthright.

Oh and many many members of the Church of England are Agnostic, they just go for the Weddings and Funerals.

2006-10-25 11:56:13 · answer #3 · answered by fourmorebeers 6 · 2 0

He was a member of the Church of England, he didn't want to be a priest... he was going to be but decided it wasn't for him... if not being a priest in your Church makes you an agnostic then I guess I'm an agnostic. (jk).
No, he was a Christian, actually, he was worried about publishing his studies cause he was worried that people would use them against Christianity. Which it doesn't have to be, it agrees perfectly well with Christianity.

2006-10-25 11:55:27 · answer #4 · answered by mmmb 2 · 0 0

He started out in the Church of England. In fact, he was studying to become a clergyman when he decided to go off on his voyage on the ship called the Beagle. Later in life he became an agnostic. Go to the link below and click on or scroll down to "Religious Views". That section is a quick read.

2006-10-25 11:52:50 · answer #5 · answered by Kathryn™ 6 · 2 0

I was a member of the Church of England, I became an Agnostic after my daughter died.

2006-10-25 13:56:59 · answer #6 · answered by Charles Darwin 2 · 0 0

I've heard two differing versions,

1) saying that on his deathbed he recanted all his entire evolutionary theory as utter nonsense;

2)that he remained steadfast in his beliefs of evolution to the very end....

who's to really know besides God?

2006-10-25 12:00:00 · answer #7 · answered by lookn2cjc 6 · 0 0

I studied Christianity in Victorian Britain and it is clear from his biography that he was a fundamentalist Christian in his youth but in later life he admitted that agnostic best described him. He donated to secular causes- including atheists confronting institutionalised religion- but he did remain a patron of his local church.

2006-10-25 12:04:33 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 2 0

Charles Darwin was a theology student. When he read Charles Lyell's book on geology and long time periods, he lost whatever little faith he had, if any.

2006-10-25 11:56:08 · answer #9 · answered by Desperado 5 · 0 0

AND, THERE YOU HAVE IT.

You have some people who know history and his life, who know exactly what happened to Darwin, and even provided you with non-biased links.

And then, you have brainwashed, mindless cult-christians who continue to lie (as usual) about people like Darwin in order to give their cult more value and validity, becasue they have such low confidence in their cult beliefs and such low self-esteem, that they are in a panic to have science and scientists give their cult validity and value for them -- even if they have to lie about things like history, science and scientists, they even go so far as to lie about the Founding Fathers of the US and make ridiculous christian claims about them, too.

GO FIGURE!

2006-10-25 12:04:26 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 2 0

Charles Darwin, the author of THE SPECIES BY MEANS OF NATURAL SELECTION in 1859 and the champion of evolution, renounced his evolutionary theory and became a Christian on his deathbed. This was reported by noblewoman Lady Hope who said she visited Darwin at his home in England at the close of his life. She described him as reading the book of Hebrews in the New Testament of the Bible. She also said that he regarded his writings about evolution to be questions that people made into a religion. Lady Hope said Darwin asked her to conduct a meeting outside a summer house he owned so he could hear the singing of the hymns.

2006-10-25 11:55:56 · answer #11 · answered by Anonymous · 0 4

fedest.com, questions and answers