There were quite a lot of so-called “reconcilers” between religion and Darwinism in the 19th century. They used a range of arguments. Both Darwinism and liberal theology seemed (to some minds at least) to share a Victorian sense of “progress”, with natural laws and history propelling society forward towards certain goals (telos). Humans were at the apex of evolutionary change for many evolutionists, while some liberal theologians seemed to be moving towards a vague rational Christianity that eliminated the mysterious and emotional sides of religious belief (“Modernism” seemed a theological version of the Doctrine of Progress). The young Anglo-Catholic Aubrey Moore said: “Order, development, and law are the analogue of the Christian view of God”.
The great problem with all this was that “pure” Darwinian theory actually repudiated teleology (although Darwin himself flirted with it for some time). The unvarnished theory of natural selection pictured evolutionary change as random-based, violent and purposeless. God was regarded as either an unnecessary hypothesis or a remote first cause. This sense of clash intensified in the 20th century.

An American study some years ago looked at “psychological ageing”. In a large sample of people studied it found that those who had higher risk of heart disease and poorer physical health were those who, in long interviews over several years, were more self-focussed, talked more about themselves and their grievances, problems, etc., were in other words more egocentric. (The old Buddhist warning about “self”!).
Altruism on the other hand correlated higher with better health and longevity. The advice the psychologist doing the study concluded with was: “Listen with regard when others talk. Give your time and energy to others; let others have their way; do things for reasons other than furthering your own needs”.
.

How could you reconcile evolution, Darwin’s theory of natural selection, with religion? Many Victorians found solace in the idea that Darwinism was compatible with the eighteenth century school of “natural theology” or the argument for God’s existence based on Providential Design. Scholars have pointed out that Darwin’s theory itself owed much to William Paley’s concept of universal natural laws that were beneficial. As part of God’s great Design, animals and plants adapted themselves to their environment. Paley’s “teleology” pictured an evolving universe, but all heading to a Divine goal, with humanity at the centre of God’s creation. The world was purposeful and essentially benevolent.
For many traditional Christians, the idea that God worked through natural selection was abhorrent. There was disquiet from a range of thinkers that Darwinism had expelled Man from the centre of God’s creation, making him one with the animals, replacing a purposeful and benevolent world with a purposeless and violent one. Nature was simply the product of blind chance and struggle. Even non-Christian progressives like John Stuart Mill worried that Darwinism would have a disintegrative effect upon values and social stability.

In much popular comment Charles Darwin’s “Origin of Species” is viewed as almost immediately causing one of the greatest storms in intellectual history by directly threatening the old Biblical view of creation and challenging the whole existence of God. This was not quite how it actually happened at the time, as scholars have long pointed out, although Darwin’s long time impact proved to be great. He did indeed challenge the central issue of man’s place in nature, the whole question of Nature, Humanity and God. There was indeed some fierce squabbling, and there were emotional reactions at the time, but in hindsight what is surprising is how relatively calm was the immediate debate (especially in Britain).
There was no “war” between science and religion at this time. Not all clerics were anti-science, nor were all scientists anti-religious – far from it. There were outspoken sceptics such as T. H. Huxley, John Tyndall and Francis Galton. On the other side you could set devout Christian scientists such as Charles Lyell, Faraday, Lister, Asa Gray and Clerk Maxwell. There were a number of possible responses to the cultural shock of Darwinian evolution. One was a sort of existential acceptance of a Godless universe. Another was to find a reconciliation between religion and science. More on this soon.

Many people as they age simply imagine that they can’t, or shouldn’t, do certain things because they are too old. They are meeting expectations.
What they should do, in Buddhist philosophy, is to have as one of their goals this:
to remain at the “most youthful level of functioning possible”.

We could have travelled by fast train to Nagoya, but chose the more picturesque route using local trains. This took us through the Hida, the Japanese Alps, rather than through the flat lands with wall to wall residential. We went Minoota-Tajimi, then Shinanano Express with large viewing windows to Nagano. This express was disappointingly one minute late, arriving at 16.55 pm (someone would have their knuckles rapped!).
We passed incredibly beautiful scenery – wild gorges, rivers, waterfalls, steep forested hillsides, towering mountains, hydro-electric dams, tiny villages clinging to patches of land, with all available ground covered in rice paddies, vegetable gardens and fruit orchards; small shrines and temples, groves of Japanese cedar trees, family graveyards, workers in the fields, older villages with architectural features that kept houses as warm as possible during the long winter months.
We descended into Nagano down into a valley, again with great views and landscapes. Nagano has a well planned railway station, the legacy of the Winter Olympics in 1998, and wide modern streets. It is the centre of soba noodle production, because the buckwheat that is used to make this noodle flourishes here.
More on Nagano next…..

G.K.Chesterton believed that “the only part of Christian theology which can really be proved” was original sin. He ran against the currents of his age, which disparaged the whole idea of original sin, by saying that it was obvious: we only had to look around.
He wrote that the doctrine of original sin, “the permanent possibility of selfishness” arising “from the mere fact of having a self” should be the first thing to be believed in. Original sin was really original: “Whatever else humans have believed in, they have all believed that there is something the matter with mankind. This sense of sin has made it impossible to be natural and have no clothes, just as it has made it impossible to be natural and have no laws”[The Everlasting Man].
This might be compared with Buddhist thought, which posits that “I am loved and I am love”, that we are essentially good at our deepest, most spiritual level. But is this a real contrast?
It could be argued that in both cases the real origin of sin is the self, and the path to virtue is to subdue (even eliminate) self. What do you think?
Any theologians around?

Julian Huxley was one of the first to popularise the term biosphere. In 1969 he and Max Nicholson publicly stated:
“…the earth supports a realm of living creatures, plant and animal, which is gradually becoming known as the ‘biosphere’. Emerging from that living layer, the human species has quite lately begun to create, as Teilhard de Chardin pointed out, an intangible but even more significant ‘noosphere’, or realm of human feelings and ideas. This agency of psychological change is steadily evolving toward greater universality and continuity all the time”[“Times”, 7.10.1969].

Julian Huxley wrote this:
“It is part of man’s destiny to be the necessary agent of the cosmos in understanding more of itself, in bearing witness to its wonder, beauty, and interest, in creating new aids to and mechanisms for existence, in experiencing itself, and so introducing the cosmos to more new and valuable experiences”
[New Bottles for New Wine, 1957, p.121].

Hida Takayama Museum of Art [cont]:
Among the many fascinating exhibition rooms, we particularly liked the third and fourth rooms. Room 3 had a number of reproductions of Charles Rennie Mackintosh’s work, including room divider and lighting from “Hill House”, a house he designed in Glasgow, and the “Willow Tea Room”. The modern silver chairs in the tearoom must have been eye-catching for their time. In the centre was a huge baronial-style table that hinted of pre-Raphaelite tendencies but with echoes of a medieval castle. In the final room we saw highlighted the work of the Vienna Secession group, architects, designers and artists, who rejected the “Revival”style so popular at the end of the 19th century. They embraced a “Holy Spring” philosophy, referring to their youthful energy, developing their artistic vision using the ideals of John Ruskin and William Morris (who were also popular, it must be said, in the fin de siecle period). Among members were Josef Hoffman, Otto Wagner and the now well known Gustav Klimt. The underlying belief was that style comes from necessities. Everyday household items should be beautiful, simple and practical, furniture uncomplicated where elegant design was all that was needed to attain beauty. On display were bentwood chairs, a dining table, summer house chairs, and a sideboard with its dramatic triangular back – much different to the previous Art Deco collections. Next Nagano.