Darwin's Evolution of Thought: Higher Aesthetic Tastes and Agnosticism

Beer, near the onset of his paper, claims “The Origin of Species is one of the most extraordinary examples of a work which included more than the maker of it at the time knew, despite all that he did know” (2). My aim here is not to discuss the validity of such a claim but rather to assume its relative validity in explanation of Darwin’s evolving views of religion as well as what Darwin characterizes as “higher aesthetic tastes”.

We discussed in class that Darwin would serve as a pivotal turning point in our class in the sense that disciplinary divisions became increasing popular post-Darwin. Darwin himself is not immune to what we may consider problematic classifications. In his autobiography, Darwin describes his “curious and lamentable loss of the higher aesthetical tastes” (443), by which he means a lack of interest in poetry, literature other than novels, even music. He describes his mind as a “machine for grinding general laws out of large collections of facts” (443). Further, he finds this behavior “injurious to the intellect, and more probably to the moral character, by enfeebling the emotional part of our nature” (443). After reading this, it seems pretty clear that even in Darwin’s time, disciplinary division and relative utility of disciplines had already been firmly established. Darwin has classified himself as a man of science and a strict disciplinarian. What I find intriguing is the origin of such a change, the causal sequence of the development of Darwin from a youthful natural philosopher and admirer of Shakespeare and Milton who balanced a passion for geology and life with strong religious inclination towards an agnostic disciplinarian. Why do you think Darwin lost interest in the higher aesthetic tastes and do you agree that such classifications are problematic?

The development of Darwin’s religious views is perhaps more enlightening in comprehending his change in thinking in all matters, yet I find contradictions in where he ultimately settles on the topic of religion and the existence of god. It is no surprise that Darwin comes to question his religious beliefs, even though he considers religion and science to be mutually harmonious to a certain extent, simply because his contemplation on the origin and development of species caused him to consider the nature of how life came to exist on our planet. His contributions to evolutionary theory, in his mind, only strengthened the belief that the source of life, god or otherwise, must have had great forethought. In “On the Origin of Species, Darwin claims “extreme difficulty or rather impossibility of conceiving this immense and wonderful universe … as the result of blind chance…I feel compelled to look at the First Cause having an intelligent mind in some degree analogous to that of man” (433). However, what I find troubling and possibly contradictory to his passion for discovery is that later in life, he seems to abandon the question of the “First Cause”, claiming, “the whole subject is too profound for the human intellect. A dog might at well speculate on the mind of Newton” (492).

My question is how can a man who seemingly devoted his career to seeking answers on the origin of species and seems an ardent scientist just dismiss the discussion of the origin of life as being beyond the grasp of man? My attempt at an answer may draw on the quote I began with. Looking back at Darwin, we see a hugely influential scientist who we sometimes give almost full credit for changing the course of biology yet Darwin’s ego may not have been so large. If Darwin was in someway unaware of how groundbreaking evolution was and is as a theory, it may explain why he relegated the discussion of origin of life to an unattainable position.