@Franc_Lazur
Pour info, voici comment démarre cette réflexion dans son autobiographie :
"
Formerly I was led by feelings such as those just referred to, (although
I do not think that the religious sentiment was ever strongly developed in me), to the firm conviction of the existence of God, and of the immortality of the soul. In my Journal I wrote that whilst standing in the midst of the grandeur of a Brazilian forest, 'it is not possible to give an adequate idea of the higher feelings of wonder, admiration, and devotion which fill and elevate the mind.' I well
remember my conviction that there is more in man than the mere breath of his body.
But now the grandest scenes would not cause any such convictions and feelings to rise in my mind. It may be truly said that I am like a man who has become colour-blind, and the universal belief by men of the existence of redness makes
my present loss of perception of not the least value as evidence. This argument would be a valid one if all men of all races had the same inward conviction of the existence of one God; but we know that this is very far from being the case.
Therefore I cannot see that such inward convictions and feelings are of any weight as evidence of what really exists. The state of mind which grand scenes formerly"
Et continue ainsi, sur la page 93 :
"
When thus reflecting I feel compelled to look to a First Cause having an intelligent mind in some
degree analogous to that of man;
and I deserve to be called a Theist.
This conclusion1 was strong in my mind
about the time, as far as I can remember, when I wrote the
Origin of Species; and it is since that time that it has
very gradually with many fluctuations become weaker. But then arises the doubt—can the mind of man, which has, as I fully believe, been developed from a mind as low as that possessed by the lowest animal, be trusted when it draws such grand conclusions? May not these be the result of the connection between cause and effect which strikes us as a necessary one, but probably depends merely on inherited experience?
Nor must we overlook the probability of the constant inculcation in a belief in God on the minds of children producing so strong and perhaps an inherited effect on their brains not yet fully developed, t
hat it would be as difficult for them to throw off their belief in God, as for a monkey to throw off its instinctive fear and hatred of a snake."
Qu'on arrête, après cela, de me dire que Darwin croyait en Dieu. Il explique clairement que lors de la rédaction de son Origine des espèces, il était théiste. Extrêmement théiste d'ailleurs puisqu'il trouvait, comme les créationnistes d'aujourd'hui, des preuves de Dieu dans pratiquement chaque arbre ou insecte de la forêt brésilienne (même s'il le nie à moitié, mais ça, la plupart des experts du bonhomme s'accorde à dire qu'il s'agit plus de se rassurer lui-même qu'autre chose, en mode "j'étais pas aussi *** non plus hein"). Mais, au fil du temps, de ses découvertes et des contradictions que celles-ci amenaient par rapport à la thèse créationniste majoritaire à l'époque, il a changé d'avis.
Et il exprime très bien que ce changement, graduel chez lui, est lent du fait de l'endoctrinement profond de la religion dans son éducation. Au point qu'il compare le fait de jeter ceci aux oubliettes aussi difficile que pour un singe de jeter sa peur primale des serpents dans les mêmes oubliettes. Même s'il passe par l'image d'un enfant, pour marquer le coup encore plus, il parle en réalité surtout de sa propre expérience lorsqu'il a du le faire. Et du pourquoi la plupart de ses contemporains n'y arrivent pas.
Et pour info, encore, on trouve le livre complet ici (je n'ai pas été retranscrire à la main mon bouquin non plus, faut pas charrier) :
http://darwin-online.org.uk/content/frameset?viewtype=text&itemID=F1497&pageseq=1