One Charles Darwin doubted God because
The daughter of the scientist had died.
Or maybe it was more than that. The claws
Of scarlet snarling nature would have dyed
Pure certainty about a loving force
Behind the curtains of the universe.
A trillion deaths per minute in the course
Of any day could teach a man to curse–
But Dillard hadn’t written Pilgrim yet.
Still, what he noted must have sated him
With boding hints, enough to cause a fret
Inside him as he read a world this grim. ..Lord Tennyson and Darwin took a path, One up to consolation, one to wrath.
The first line is a bold clear statement and so is interesting, but doesn’t scan (nine syllables; the final seven fit the iambic pattern fine).
But Charles Darwin as wrathful—taking the path to wrath?? Really?? That doesn’t come across as his personality at all, does it, when you read him? When you read about his gentle manner?
Now, yes, his ideas led OTHERS to be wrathful about them, that’s true, no doubt. But . . .
Dillard hadn’t written PILGRIM yet, but when we read VOYAGE OF THE BEAGLE we are amazed by how curious the young Darwin was, a trait which he evidently carried with him right through life. He investigated things for himself, which is one big reason he couldn’t believe the old orthodoxies about, say, geology which he had been taught. What he saw around him on his voyages and inland expeditions was vast evidence of an earth much older than that, and one in flux: the earth moves; parts of it thrust up, are then eroded away, and so on, showing evidence of incredible age, ages, and, yes, those ages all full of plenty of death. Death, however, which was also creative, helping to shape the life/lives which were passed on. As Darwin said, this new vision of how life has evolved on earth is not without its own splendor (or whatever the term he used).
The kindly man seemed so reluctant to upset the apple cart (and his wife, who was religious), that he was almost tardy in announcing his findings. Yes?
But it isn’t just the “problem of evil” which has to be everyone’s, or the only, reason to disbelieve in God, the moral argument. Darwin’s theory gives us an alternative to the “design” argument: a way that life “designs” itself without a conscious, intentional “Designer.” It’s not all just about being bitter at God for being a careless or heartless designer; it’s about evidence that things change and reform . . . without God or any other plotting designer (for good or for ill). What survives, survives, thus fashioned for the environment which permitted that survival. No reason to get “angry” at “God” who wasn’t at the levers anyway.
And, compared to Darwin, you think Tennyson with his agonized special pleadings on these issues, all of which of course MUST end in rationalizations for faith “somehow”—you say Tennyson took the path “up” to consolation?! I mean, Tennyson DOES scratch at the itch, and I love reading him for that level of honesty, at least! But in the end he slaps a band-aid on it which is far from convincing. Human, of course! All too human! So Tennyson stands as representative homo religiosus, still, even after all his youthful science study (see the new biography out about this aspect of his life in particular), all his seeking. “Oh, well, but in the end we need to believe what we need to believe, so I guess that means it must be so. There! I feel better already—sweet consolation indeed!” And so in the end he was acceptable as Victorian poet laureate.
But I don’t think we can project Tennyson’s angst upon Charles Darwin! Who, instead of wringing his hands about all the implications, was out there . . . wringing specimens to death (at times) and looking at evidence.
Let’s not even project OUR OWN angst upon him, without good reason! (Well, ok, we can probably find passages in Darwin’s writings of that also, but overall . . . .)
The first line is a bold clear statement and so is interesting, but doesn’t scan (nine syllables; the final seven fit the iambic pattern fine).
But Charles Darwin as wrathful—taking the path to wrath?? Really?? That doesn’t come across as his personality at all, does it, when you read him? When you read about his gentle manner?
Now, yes, his ideas led OTHERS to be wrathful about them, that’s true, no doubt. But . . .
Dillard hadn’t written PILGRIM yet, but when we read VOYAGE OF THE BEAGLE we are amazed by how curious the young Darwin was, a trait which he evidently carried with him right through life. He investigated things for himself, which is one big reason he couldn’t believe the old orthodoxies about, say, geology which he had been taught. What he saw around him on his voyages and inland expeditions was vast evidence of an earth much older than that, and one in flux: the earth moves; parts of it thrust up, are then eroded away, and so on, showing evidence of incredible age, ages, and, yes, those ages all full of plenty of death. Death, however, which was also creative, helping to shape the life/lives which were passed on. As Darwin said, this new vision of how life has evolved on earth is not without its own splendor (or whatever the term he used).
The kindly man seemed so reluctant to upset the apple cart (and his wife, who was religious), that he was almost tardy in announcing his findings. Yes?
But it isn’t just the “problem of evil” which has to be everyone’s, or the only, reason to disbelieve in God, the moral argument. Darwin’s theory gives us an alternative to the “design” argument: a way that life “designs” itself without a conscious, intentional “Designer.” It’s not all just about being bitter at God for being a careless or heartless designer; it’s about evidence that things change and reform . . . without God or any other plotting designer (for good or for ill). What survives, survives, thus fashioned for the environment which permitted that survival. No reason to get “angry” at “God” who wasn’t at the levers anyway.
And, compared to Darwin, you think Tennyson with his agonized special pleadings on these issues, all of which of course MUST end in rationalizations for faith “somehow”—you say Tennyson took the path “up” to consolation?! I mean, Tennyson DOES scratch at the itch, and I love reading him for that level of honesty, at least! But in the end he slaps a band-aid on it which is far from convincing. Human, of course! All too human! So Tennyson stands as representative homo religiosus, still, even after all his youthful science study (see the new biography out about this aspect of his life in particular), all his seeking. “Oh, well, but in the end we need to believe what we need to believe, so I guess that means it must be so. There! I feel better already—sweet consolation indeed!” And so in the end he was acceptable as Victorian poet laureate.
But I don’t think we can project Tennyson’s angst upon Charles Darwin! Who, instead of wringing his hands about all the implications, was out there . . . wringing specimens to death (at times) and looking at evidence.
Let’s not even project OUR OWN angst upon him, without good reason! (Well, ok, we can probably find passages in Darwin’s writings of that also, but overall . . . .)