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 being able to learn from others with

Page 1 Kaufmann – Darwin

and Diety
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 from the dysfunction
characteristic of the great shame of religious conflict.

Page 2 Kaufmann – Darwin

and Diety
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 of these 3 elements momentarily. But first

Page 3 Kaufmann – Darwin

and Diety
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 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

Page 4 Kaufmann – Darwin

and Diety
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 belief system with three founders has as its
consistent theological foundation, 3 things: Essential
materialism, a determinism inherent in this most
Page 5 Kaufmann – Darwin
and Diety
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.

When engaging this faith, traditional religious

believers tend to be drawn into debate more

Page 6 Kaufmann – Darwin

and Diety
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 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

Page 7 Kaufmann – Darwin

and Diety
divine as received through compassion and humility,
namely the fruits of life lived faithfully to the truth.

Page 8 Kaufmann – Darwin

and Diety