One reason I am not writing much here is that on top of everything else I have been sent fourteen (at last count) books on Darwin to review. Well, fifteen, counting the hardback Origin of Species which turned up this morning from Penguin, with a cover by Damian Hirst, and a blurb from him, too, explaining that Darwin had revealed “the meaning of life”. I haven’t time to scan the whole thing in, but it is a very clear example of Darwinism as a substitute for earlier religions: what he writes about Darwin is exactly what would have been written about Revelation 200 years ago.
-
Archives
- October 2019
- September 2019
- November 2018
- August 2018
- July 2018
- January 2018
- November 2017
- October 2017
- September 2017
- July 2017
- December 2016
- October 2016
- May 2016
- March 2015
- April 2011
- March 2011
- April 2010
- February 2010
- January 2010
- December 2009
- November 2009
- September 2009
- August 2009
- July 2009
- June 2009
- April 2009
- March 2009
- February 2009
- January 2009
- December 2008
- November 2008
- October 2008
- September 2008
- August 2008
- July 2008
- June 2008
- May 2008
- April 2008
- March 2008
- February 2008
- January 2008
- December 2007
- November 2007
- October 2007
- September 2007
- August 2007
- July 2007
- June 2007
- May 2007
- April 2007
- March 2007
- February 2007
- January 2007
- December 2006
- November 2006
- October 2006
- September 2006
- August 2006
- July 2006
- June 2006
- May 2006
- April 2006
- March 2006
- February 2006
- January 2006
- December 2005
- November 2005
- October 2005
- September 2005
- August 2005
- July 2005
- June 2005
- May 2005
- April 2005
- March 2005
- February 2005
- January 2005
- December 2004
- November 2004
- October 2004
- September 2004
- August 2004
- July 2004
- June 2004
- May 2004
- April 2004
- March 2004
- February 2004
- January 2004
- December 2003
- November 2003
- October 2003
- September 2003
- August 2003
- July 2003
- June 2003
- May 2003
- April 2003
- March 2003
- February 2003
- January 2003
- December 2002
- November 2002
- October 2002
- September 2002
- August 2002
- July 2002
- June 2002
-
Meta
Hirst? Jesus. What has he delivered: domestic pigeons chopped in half and sealed in tanks of formaldehyde?
Is the veneer of language enough to make that argument? I don’t think Hirst means that Darwin has revealed the meaning of life at all, at least not in the sense that a theist would say that the Bible reveals the meaning of life. People may have appropriated the language of revelation, but changing the context changes the intent of the words, surely?
Paul: of course changing the content can change the intent of the words, but not, I think, in this case. To say that Natural Selection “explains the meaning of life” — Hirst’s exact quote — looks to me a retreat into exactly the same kind of meaningless dazzle as saying “We want to share Jesus”. There is no possible sense in which Natural Selection can explain the meaning of life. Yet he wants Darwinism, as he understands it, to be the guarantor — the standard — of truth and beauty and the condition towards which art aspires. That’s what people once wanted from God. I am going to post more about this at the graun site later.
The places I hang out and throw stones at creationists are rather strict on ‘Darwinism’. That word tends to be a shibboleth of the creationists; the fighters for truth are much keener on ‘evolutionary biology’, as am I. Never used the D word myself as shorthand for EB, and I don’t recommend anyone else does.
I don’t normally, either. But this is Damien Hirst, and I think we are seeing a crossover between one all-wise being with a beard who explains how the universe is to another one.
That’s to say that I accept entirely the distinction between Darwinism and evolutionary biology but there are people who believe in both, as well as neither …
(creationists believe in Darwinism but not EB)
(some creationists)
To be sure, and I haven’t read much about Damien Hirst’s take on the scientific method and the philosophical underpinnings behind empiricism. It could be that he maintains a high degree of clarity regarding the meaning of meaning, after all.
There will be lots of people who get the warm fuzzies about Darwin. I certainly get a sublime shot of the numinous from lots of the better class of science. But then I do from the better class of Prayerbook Evensong: in neither case, would I classify myself or my beliefs as religious.
Well, I draw religion more broadly than you do; at least I think that lasting religions can only be sustained by a great deal of unreligious observance. I mean, full churches are full of people thinking about the shopping, the cute person across the aisle, the decvline of language since Cranmer …
I think a belief in supernatural beings (in the common usage of all those words) is part of anything I’d define as religious.
That’s it, really.