St. Augustine's roadblocks in his Confessions

[Vico]

Vico:

Human authority may be unjust

Yes, this is very much what I am thinking. In order to have a world where leaders rule in a just manner, God gave us the capacity to disobey authority.

What God did not do is implant in us an infallible ability to distinguish a just ruler from an unjust one. So man does sometimes err, we defy a benevolent authority, we challenge orders when they do not seem to have reasonable purpose.

As a result, we have a species that is compelled to good, but has a real handicap in terms of actual knowledge. Part of the compulsion to do good is to challenge rules by authority that appear to inhibit freedom in some way.

Do you see what I mean?

That human authority may be unjust is not the reason for the capacity to disobey authority, rather it follows from the necessity of free will to become “partakers of the divine nature”. (For partakers see Catechism 460.)

 

[Mhkc]

we have a species that is compelled to good, but has a real handicap in terms of actual knowledge.

Yes. So , as a man of this species, is it just "part of the human condition ’ to resign oneself to this unsafe dangerous handicap? Futher chalk it up to “why we NEED MUST AND ABSOLUTELY HAVE Christ” ? In some way, is not then human life so rancourously foul , be it saint or sinner, that truly in all probability , such handicap u speak to…just means that existential danger is normal, ordinary, rationally part of hogging oxygen…aka, being human and alive?

That human authority may be unjust is not the reason for the capacity to disobey authority,

Agree. No disobeying authority or laws of man… yet, then , is it a sin to then think how utterly depraved, senseless, stupid, irrational, or unequally scandalous…some authority is in ones own opinion?

Perhaps splitting hairs is why , according the supposed vetis latina-vulgate-bible Authority scriptures st.jerome ended up selling to a few early church council…said sumpin like “woe to lawyers, woe to pharisee”

Of course, let me stand on my “handicap”, as if u may respond…I’m surely wrong, fit for bigotted false witness, illicitly implied bafoonery lampooning, and not worthy of the most horrid torturest of mind, body and soul…unless I’m granted miraculous mercy from Christ…

 

[Vico]

… is it a sin to then think how utterly depraved, senseless, stupid, irrational, or unequally scandalous…some authority is in ones own opinion? …

It is clearly taught by the Catholic Church that all people are sinners, and that all sin is contrary to reason.

Catechism

418 As a result of original sin, human nature is weakened in its powers, subject to ignorance, suffering and the domination of death, and inclined to sin (this inclination is called “concupiscence”).

1872 Sin is an act contrary to reason. It wounds man’s nature and injures human solidarity.

 

[OneSheep]

Yes. So , as a man of this species, is it just "part of the human condition ’ to resign oneself to this unsafe dangerous handicap?

I would hope not!

…just means that existential danger is normal, ordinary, rationally part of hogging oxygen…aka, being human and alive?

Can you describe the existential danger?

 

[Mhkc]

Can you describe the existential danger?

Though admittedly, my word choice is terse…and i so happen tone a believer in Christ and Roman Catholic Rite.

I’m suggesting, that since the concupiscence is inherent. And with all due seriousness here now, is it not , inherent, in all probability, that indeed , regardless of faith, hope, love…and any other kumbaya rainbow unicorn pitch one might want wrap around the cause of faith…being “used in service of the Lord”, can absolutely come with martyrdom, unheard and unknown causes of false witness and scandal?

I hear so much Christ pitched, but no cross. No real facing the fullness of relationship to in depth trust to to sacrificing. Accepting loss, abuse, scars, handicaps. I hear selfish complaints of blah blah healing and reconciliations, not “selfless prayers”. I hear unsurrendered want of respect, dignity, recognition, legacy, contribution, love, relationship connection and influence…fears of lost integrity character, as if the “kind of person one is” makes a difference to whatever “thy will be done” will do? …any prayers asking God to be like, “help, love me, at least let me know I’m loved during *(insert) blah blah hard tuff spot…”… just ranting too far I guess, this idea of mine us off…right?
Like I said, I’m human, arrogant, sinful. I need Christ, because sure as hell: nothing if man, including myself, can possibly be of reconciliation. .

i guess me,it’s me, and my excuse. Aren’t u a sinner too? However, sanctified? Im just saying it can be like a perpetual echo chamber chatting up casper the friendly ghost on the way to being called delusionally blind , dangerous to society, and in fact locked up , like john the baptist…

 

[OneSheep]

I’m suggesting, that since the concupiscence is inherent

Good Morning.

Did you mean innate or inherited, part of our nature?

And with all due seriousness here now, is it not , inherent… that …being “used in service of the Lord”, can absolutely come with martyrdom, unheard and unknown causes of false witness and scandal?

Well, since those are all choices, they are not characteristics. They are certainly possible, and even “probable”, but not unavoidable in a state of growing Spritual awareness.

“selfless prayers”

It is very difficult to extract benefit to the self from anything we do. It is nearly impossible.

Like I said, I’m human, arrogant, sinful. I need Christ, because sure as hell: nothing if man, including myself, can possibly be of reconciliation

Well, if Christ is in everyone, then our “being” includes the desire to reconcile. And we know God wants all people to come to Him, be with Him. Or maybe that doesn’t jibe with your own image of God?

i guess me,it’s me, and my excuse. Aren’t u a sinner too?

Yes. Have you read St. Augustine’s Confessions? The last section we were addressing is here:

I myself have seen and have had experience with a jealous little one; it was not yet able to speak, but it was pale and bitter in face as it looked at another child nursing at the same breast.

-Book 1, Ch. 7

He uses this as part of the evidence of “sin within him (man) you (God) have not made” (first line of Book 1, chapter 7)

What I am saying is that jealousy is possibly one of the “roadblocks” in St. Augustine’s ability to support that “Through the Spirit we see that whatsoever exists in any way is good”.

Is jealousy an aspect of our “foundational nature”, a gift from God, that we can be aware of and come to appreciate without letting it enslave us?

 

[Magnanimity]

Hello @OneSheep! I am sorry to have left this thread for so long. I had some reading to do which was very important to me, and there were other issues here at CAF that contributed. But you took the time to engage my comments, so I’d like to return the favor.

Fairness is a matter of tribal survival, is it not?

Intrinsic in the essence of the ‘alpha’ is unfairness itself. That is, he gets things that others simply don’t (more mates, in this instance). If you have an alpha, you have unfairness. Lacking an alpha is the only way to have equal distribution of goods among the males, right? I’m not addressing justice, just fairness (equality).

When nestlings watch each other and try to stretch higher and peep louder than their siblings, they are helping their genes continue to exist. I know, that sounds awfully “materialistic”,

Yes it does. And that’s how NatGeo interprets nature. But it doesn’t have to have such a negative interpretation. The nestlings could simply be communicating “me too! Don’t forget about me!” It has always bugged me that NatGeo (or any Darwinian slant) insists on seeing nature as “red in tooth and claw.” Modernity was not onlymechanistic but fundamentally bleak. That’s an interpretive lense, and it may or may not be generally operative. After all, cooperative living (and even sometimes altruism) is widespread in nature.

Something emotional/biological is triggered.

We would have to admit that among very simple life forms, neurological triggerings is the order of the day. Among higher life forms, these matters become more complex, I think. I stand by my earlier assertions that the toddler isn’t neurologically triggered in wanting the good thing that his neighbor is getting. Rather, he is aware (at some level) that his own inherent value entitles him to the same goods that his neighbor gets. And he imports fairness/equality into it…

 

[Magnanimity]

I don’t know about “fundamental”. We certainly, naturally, see essence based on how we see people behaving. What is more fundamental than behavior, though, are the natural wants, desires, appetite, and capacity of the human himself, which are not really “actions”. It’s more of a programming , our being is written in a certain way, compelled to make certain decisions that lead to actions.

Good Morning! I just finished a wonderful book by a Scottish philosopher John MacMurray. It’s called Persons in Relation. This book follows his prior work called The Self as Agent, which I haven’t read. But, he regularly refers the reader back to the prior work in the course of reading Persons in Relation. The basic thrust of his reasoning is that agency (not reflection or thought) is what is most basic to being a human in the world. Thought, reflection, introspection, memory are all derivative from the more fundamental mode of being in act (human agency in the world).

We are prone to shortfalls in awareness, and these shortfalls play such an impactful role in our (poor) decisions that the subsequent behaviors turn out to be very superficial means of determining a person’s essence, right?

It’s a good question. I’m not sure how superficial we could say these shortfalls are in determining our essence.

Do you see that behaviors and thoughts are more like manifestations of being (and phenomenology, experience, etc), not being itself?

I can’t quite clearly see what you’re getting at here. Maybe help me with it. I don’t really know of a way of thinking about humans outside of the dual aspect that Aristotle identifies–rational animal–the intellectual and the bodily aspects.

 

[OneSheep]

Good morning, when you read my response please keep in mind my basic question: “The negative sense of the mechanistic side of our nature, from where does it come?”

Intrinsic in the essence of the ‘alpha’ is unfairness itself. That is, he gets things that others simply don’t (more mates, in this instance). If you have an alpha, you have unfairness. Lacking an alpha is the only way to have equal distribution of goods among the males, right?

I can see what you mean by sort of “extending” imago dei to an underlying sense that people have of their own value. Jesus said, “love your neighbor as yourself”, which baffles those who retort, “what if I hate myself?”. In actuality, it is not themselves they hate, but something about their life or some guilt they carry.

Yes it does. And that’s how NatGeo interprets nature. But it doesn’t have to have such a negative interpretation.

Please explain, I’m confused! Is it negative that “nestlings watch each other and try to stretch higher and peep louder than their siblings, they are helping their genes continue to exist”? Why wouldn’t God program in us the desire to survive, and this be a manifestation of the mechanism of such programming? (I’m not saying, of course, that the nestlings only care about their genes, or are even “thinking” of their genes)

The nestlings could simply be communicating “me too! Don’t forget about me!”

Of course they are. But are you closed to the possibility that this is a very mechanistic phenomenon, an innate action, that they are just as programmed to watch their nestmates as they are to fly?

It has always bugged me that NatGeo (or any Darwinian slant) insists on seeing nature as “red in tooth and claw.” Modernity was not only mechanistic but fundamentally bleak.

Well, much of innate behavior is very mechanistic, but I don’t see how “mechanistic” becomes negative or bleak. A fawn is born, and is programmed to quickly begin walking and nursing. It’s beautiful. Is God excluded from mechanisms?

 

[OneSheep]

After all, cooperative living (and even sometimes altruism ) is widespread in nature.

Yes, these too are things of beauty, but some cooperation involves brutal predation. It’s all part of the beauty; it is God programming in every species an increasing ability to survive and thrive. I can’t separate all this from the spiritual, it all inspires such wonder and awe. God’s hand is there at every hair, and every facet of the programming.

We would have to admit that among very simple life forms, neurological triggerings is the order of the day. Among higher life forms, these matters become more complex, I think. I stand by my earlier assertions that the toddler isn’t neurologically triggered in wanting the good thing that his neighbor is getting. Rather, he is aware (at some level) that his own inherent value entitles him to the same goods that his neighbor gets. And he imports fairness/equality into it…

And if the toddler was “neurologically triggered”, this would mean something negative, a mechanism that somehow explains away God? I don’t know if you read Origins by Dan Brown. I couldn’t finish it. There was this ridiculous premise that a “genius” character was going to spring onto the world scientific evidence that explained how life came to be in a mechanistic way, and that huge revelation was going to collapse all religion and faith. It’s a false dichotomy.

I breathe in Oxygen, I breathe out CO2. The carbs I ate earlier are being chemically burned for my own ability to type this sentence, and oxygen molecules are picking up the carbon waste from that oxidation. Our bodies are incredible machines; and through prayer we can be in touch with our soul. It’s all beautiful, and God’s hand is there at every aspect of my physiological and psychological programming. He creates every atom!

All people have natural built-in drives and emotional capacities; we all have the same palette, do we not? We develop aversions to some of these programmed drives and capacities, but even the capacity to have the aversions is natural and part of spiritual growth. However, there comes a time that we may shed the aversions and become more whole, become reconciled with our nature.

This is exactly what St. Augustine was dealing with. We all deal with the aversions.

 

[Chistian-ity]

" Through the Spirit we see that whatsoever exists in any way is good…

-Book 31, Ch 31

But then, he contests these thoughts with, such as when referring to the Manichaeans:

They themselves are truly evil, when they think such evil things." I wouldn’t totally call that a contradiction.

 

[OneSheep]

I wouldn’t totally call that a contradiction.

Welcome! What are you referring to?

 

[Chistian-ity]

Oh, that is a good point. Lol

 

[Magnanimity]

Good morning, when you read my response please keep in mind my basic question: “The negative sense of the mechanistic side of our nature, from where does it come?”

Good Morning to you! OK, I’ll try to use the above question as the overarching motif and hopefully it’ll help guide our discussion and keep us on point. I do have a tendency to wander down rabbit holes…

I can see what you mean by sort of “extending” imago dei to an underlying sense that people have of their own value.

Yes, I think you’ve got it. This is what I was after. And this is a fundamentally positive aspect of human behavior because it isn’t necessarily competitive. We could think of it as a low-level realization of one’s own intrinsic value and the assertion of that realization (telling others about it).

Jesus said, “love your neighbor as yourself”, which baffles those who retort, “what if I hate myself?”. In actuality, it is not themselves they hate, but something about their life or some guilt they carry.

Yes! I follow Fr. Keating and Rev. Cynthia Bourgeault here. To love neighbor as self does not mean, “I have to love ME first and then I’ll be able to love my neighbor.” Rather, it’s to acknowledge that, on a basic level, your neighbor is yourself. This gets to the equality aspect that I’ve been bringing up. In St Augustine’s example of the toddler, I saw both this low-level understanding of one’s own value and an acknowledgement of equality/fairness. My neighbor and I are one, ontologically speaking. My value is his value. His is mine. They are the same. But also, if he gets a good, I should get a good too (equality).

Please explain, I’m confused! Is it negative that “nestlings watch each other and try to stretch higher and peep louder than their siblings, they are helping their genes continue to exist”?

Not necessarily negative, I grant you. But there is certainly the possibility (probability?) that when we in the West speak of nature, we carry a negative aspect to interpreting the world as fundamentally competitive and as a zero-sum game (rather than cooperative and abundant). Charles Darwin is as historically-conditioned as we all are. And the European context of the mid-19th century (Industrial Revolution, Communist Manifesto, etc) almost certainly colors his expression of the theory of evolution. In 19th century Europe, there was quite a bit of bleak competition and human mistreatment. I regard it as a veritable certainty that this dark period of human history in Europe influenced the Origin of Species. A theory of evolution need not import the fundamentally negative concepts of competition and zero-sum. More to the point, such approaches ignore the aforementioned cooperative-living, altruism and abundance observable in nature. This is a sticking-point for me, something that has long bothered me about Darwinism.

 

[Magnanimity]

But, I’ll acknowledge that in nature there are many creatures that instinctively are “triggered” as you say, like a program, to use your analogy. Humans fall outside of this category though. At birth, what instincts do humans have? What a human does not have to be taught is a sucking reflex to eat, the passing of waste and expressing discomfort (crying). I think that’s pretty much it. Although, I would be open to the interpretation that newborns have an additional instinctual tug toward physical proximity to others (e.g., twins incline toward sleeping in contact with each other or even the newborn’s desire to be “held” by the mother). Humans are so unique in this aspect that they stand quite apart from nearly all mammals who are born with a variety of capable instincts right from the beginning (like walking or swimming).

Yes, these too are things of beauty, but some cooperation involves brutal predation. It’s all part of the beauty;

There is a sense in which one can see the beauty, like in the law of the conservation of energy maybe. So, when the jaguar kills the large snake and consumes it, the snake is transformed into something that nourishes the jaguar. The matter/energy of the snake passes into the universe in another manner, is this the beauty you see?

I would say that animal death is not something beautiful though. I’m with the philosopher Jitendra Mohanty here in his phenomenology–we are attracted to life and repulsed by death. Life and beauty compel us toward themselves. But death and ugliness repulse us. Do you agree? If so, why do you think that we are repulsed by death?

Origins by Dan Brown. I couldn’t finish it. There was this ridiculous premise that a “genius” character…

This sounds like the myth long enduring in physics–the elusive “theory of everything” like Stephen Hawking was after. Yes, it’s a problematic notion. The philosopher’s problem with the scientist is that the scientist limits herself to very narrow questions (the questions of physical phenomena). The philosopher can treat of being as such, which leads to many fascinating questions like necessity and contingency, the universal and the particular, virtue and vice… The scientist cannot explain how a being whose nonexistence is always possible (like you or me) exists at all. There is no way to “scientifically” account for contingent being. It is a category mistake to even try. Ed Feser and DB Hart are very good in these areas.

 

[Magnanimity]

Our bodies are incredible machines;

I get what you’re saying, and I know it’s just an analogy. But living beings are also quite unlike machines in fundamental ways. The sense in which living beings self-repair is disanalogous to machinery. The sense in which bodies self-create (the replication of cells, the formation of new neural paths) is also well beyond machinery. There is something of a self-propelling nature to living organisms.

God’s hand is there at every aspect of my physiological and psychological programming. He creates every atom!

Very well said. I couldn’t agree more and love that you used the present tense–He “creates.” Creation is indeed an ongoing activity of God. This is entailed in the realization of contingent being. The universe is more like the music that God is always playing than it is like the watch made (in the past) by a divine watchmaker.

We develop aversions to some of these programmed drives and capacities, but even the capacity to have the aversions is natural and part of spiritual growth.

I like this thought. It reminds me of St. Thomas’ reasoning that without some sort of deprivation and/or suffering, certain virtues could never arise, such as patience and fortitude.

 

[OneSheep]

Not necessarily negative, I grant you. But there is certainly the possibility (probability?) that when we in the West speak of nature, we carry a negative aspect to interpreting the world as fundamentally competitive and as a zero-sum game (rather than cooperative and abundant)

Very interesting. I hadn’t heard this perspective.
What I see is that the competition leads to (led to) greater viability of the species that ultimately becomes what we know as human, competition itself as part of a God-given mechanism. While competition itself has some negative effects in the short term, the overall effect is something very positive; God has improved upon our species. Yes, there are some zero-sum aspects; a gene coding one psychological aspect is selected out by selecting out the holder, but over time we have come to develop many positive qualities and have come to have access to the creator Himself through relationship within. As a side note, there is some evidence that our species has become less aggressive over the millennia, more “domesticated” in a sense.

Are you thinking that the negatives of competition rule out the possibility that God intended it to help drive our evolution as a species?

Charles Darwin is as historically-conditioned as we all are. And the European context of the mid-19th century (Industrial Revolution, Communist Manifesto, etc) almost certainly colors his expression of the theory of evolution. In 19th century Europe, there was quite a bit of bleak competition and human mistreatment. I regard it as a veritable certainty that this dark period of human history in Europe influenced the Origin of Species. A theory of evolution need not import the fundamentally negative concepts of competition and zero-sum.

Wow, I never thought of his theories on natural selection as based on something bleak or on mistreatment. Darwin’s theories show an underlying positive in what can appear negative; they show the action of an underlying God who cares very deeply for our continuance. From where came a different view? What is the evidence that evolutionary theory came from a position of bleakness other than coincidence of time period? All time periods had some positives and negatives going on, and these may lead to ideas that either reflect or run contrary to the prevailing current mood. This is still a bit of a head-scratcher for me; Darwin presented a wondrous view, a view based on observation.

A theory of evolution need not import the fundamentally negative concepts of competition and zero-sum.

It is based on observation. Competition changes what phenotypes survive. We have the moth studies, for example. Competition created the instinct that nest-mates watch one another’s stretch and try to beat it. Competition created the instinct that squirrels hide oodles of extra food, that chickens roost higher in trees rather than on low branches. Individual experiences do not guide these behaviors, they do it out of pure instinct.

 

[OneSheep]

More to the point, such approaches ignore the aforementioned cooperative-living, altruism and abundance observable in nature. This is a sticking-point for me, something that has long bothered me about Darwinism.

Intraspecies altruism is even more obviously a benefit for the individual species, but interspecies altruism goes beyond; it shows us creation caring for itself beyond the confines of the mechanism, perhaps. As I see it, there is a place for seeing mechanisms as the tools of our creator, but to see mechanisms as “the whole story” is totally superficial, it ignores that evolution is going somewhere, that there is an underlying purpose.

I’m not asking you to change your POV, but integration as I know it is a process of coming to see something beautiful and good in what appear to be very negative aspects of the human psyche, of our nature.

When I find myself having a gut-level reaction to an idea, something new, I give myself the freedom to “try it on for size”. For example, a recent speaker I heard on the topic of “images of God” discussed with us the idea of “God as disturber”; that we may like the image of “God as unconditionally loving”, but there is reason to broaden the image. My own life was disturbed pretty severely last month (family matters), and my wife and I suffered a lot. The idea of “God as disturber” made some sense because of the growth I experience in the aftermath, but the “God as disturber” conflicted with the premise “God loves you at least as much as the person who loves you most”. People who love me (us) most would not do this (the very disturbing thing) to us, even for a good end. Well, I allowed myself to (temporarily) incorporate “God as disturber” anyway, complete with the contradiction. Something very unexpected came of it, something that really blew me away. Let me add that I really disagree with the speaker on some key issues, other perspectives that I “tried on” but rejected in a short while as incompatible with my own experience. But this one led to a super “aha”, some real words from God.

I’m wondering what it would be like for you to try on “God using competition for His purposes” or “God creating in part through mechanisms identified by science” for a day.

At birth, what instincts do humans have?

Wow, there are a ton of human instincts. St. Augustine identified capacity for jealousy, though he rather condemned it. We cry out in pain (many species don’t), we sleep as much as needed, we begin to track objects, we recognize our mothers and familiar people, we get angry when we do not get our way, we have a list of desires that philosophers call “appetites”, we start to crawl and then walk, we develop communication (even if we are born deaf), we trust the familiar, we are territorial, we develop sexual desire, we mirror what our parents do, etc. Didn’t I send you the video of how babies instinctively develop a tribal identity and behavioral mores? Yes, all these things are influenced by environment, but the idea of humans as an “empty slate” has long been debunked.

 

[OneSheep]

The matter/energy of the snake passes into the universe in another manner, is this the beauty you see? I would say that animal death is not something beautiful though.

This is certainly part of it, but no, the animal death does not go to a place in my mind of “that is beautiful”. But our instinctual attraction to life and repulsion of death, that is beautiful!

why do you think that we are repulsed by death?

Well, we see beauty in life. I think both nature and nurture are part of this. And when that life is destroyed, there is a triggered hurt in the observer. My conscience reacts; my empathy reacts.

God wants us to live, to survive, to enjoy life. Why wouldn’t he program our basic feelings toward life and death, with some stipulations like tolerance of killing something we want/need to eat? Something like an “override circuit”? Sorry if that sounds super foreign and objectionable. Remember I am not saying that the machine aspect is everything influencing our behavior. It’s only part of the picture.

I’m also not saying that the mechanistic approach is the only path toward integrating the parts of our nature that we resent/loathe. For example, when Augustine is observing that “Even Cataline” wants something good, he is giving an example that fits the absolute he observed. He did not say that “people wanting what is good” is mechanical, he did not use that language; he merely stated that this is how we are, and he accepted that in spite of evidence that seems to contradict it.

Maybe once we get the “mechanical” language ironed out, we can go back to the jealousy question…?

 

[Magnanimity]

As a side note, there is some evidence that our species has become less aggressive over the millennia, more “domesticated” in a sense.

Are you thinking that the negatives of competition rule out the possibility that God intended it to help drive our evolution as a species?

Think of it like this. If an alien species were to visit our planet and confine itself to observing humans in downtown Chicago at night or at the US/Mexico border where the cartels operate, the alien species would develop an interpretation of human animals as being fundamentally brutal, competitive, gross and evil. To note various dark aspects of the animal world and extrapolate out to a wider perspective that the animal kingdom is fundamentally brutal, competitive and gross is, to my mind, a non sequitur. And, there are too many counter-examples to this brutal and competitive viewpoint (just as there are too many “good” humans for the aliens to extrapolate from the minority examples of bad behavior among some that somehow the entire species is the same). One can hold to a theory of evolution without tying it to a historically-conditioned Darwinism that believes nature is necessarily “red in tooth and claw.”

And yes, I do believe that aggressiveness and competition are intrinsically opposed to equality and love because there is always a “loser.”

What is the evidence that evolutionary theory came from a position of bleakness other than coincidence of time period?

That every writer is historically-conditioned by his/her time period is self-evidently true, as far as I can see. There is no way to develop a theory that is free from your time period and human context. If you’re aware of how dark much of 19th century Europe (especially England) was, why would you think that this historical situation would not work itself into how Darwin views “nature?” Humans are part of nature, and the Manifesto of the Communist Party was written a little over a decade before the publication of the Origin of Species. The manifesto described much of the class-struggle and inhumane treatment of the “people” produced by the Industrial Revolution. Just as the Bible didn’t fall from Heaven, so too, the Origin doesn’t either. To my mind, the widespread suffering in Europe, produced by class struggle, undoubtedly “colored” Darwin’s take on evolution.