What passing-bells for these who die as cattle?
Only the monstrous anger of the guns.
Only the stuttering rifles' rapid rattle
Can patter out their hasty orisons.
No mockeries now for them; no prayers nor bells;
Nor any voice of mourning save the choirs,
The shrill, demented choirs of wailing shells;
And bugles calling for them from sad shires.
What candles may be held to speed them all?
Not in the hands of boys, but in their eyes
Shall shine the holy glimmers of good-byes.
The pallor of girls' brows shall be their pall;
Their flowers the tenderness of patient minds,
And each slow dusk a drawing-down of blinds.
What is particularly striking to me about this poem is the immense anger at the wastefulness and dehumanizing effect of war it expresses at the beginning, as well as the deep sorrow that fills the latter part of the poem. Also noticeable is the religious terminology: the references to “prayers,” “bells,” “orisons” (prayers), and “choirs.” Owen was clearly evoking the image of a funeral in a Christian church. Owen himself was raised as an evangelical Protestant by a devout mother. However, after serving as an assistant to an Anglican clergyman for a period of time, he became disgusted with what he saw as the Church’s failure to help the poor and its excessive concern with ceremony. Nevertheless, Owen apparently continued to consider himself some sort of Christian—although, based on my own (admittedly limited) reading of the subject, it appears he redefined Christianity in terms of a sort of absolute pacificism.
Regardless of Owen's theological views, what I find particularly interesting about Owen’s beliefs is that, apparently, while viewing himself as some sort of Christian, he also was a clear believer in Darwinian evolution. This can be seen in a letter he wrote to his mother at the beginning of the war:
While it is true that the guns will effect a little useful weeding, I am furious with chagrin to think that the Minds which were to have excelled the civilization of ten thousand years are being annihilated - and bodies, the product of aeons of Natural Selection, melted down to pay for political statues." (Quoted in Jon Stallworthy, Wilfred Owen: The War Poems (London 1994), p. xxiv)
Note how Owen speaks of “Natural Selection.” Also, note the reference to “weeding,” which suggests the notion of “survival of the fittest.” On this point, Prof. Leslie M. Smith of George Mason University (from which I received my graduate degree!) has this to say:
His comment 'weeding' echoes a common reaction to the outbreak of war, a belief that war would cleanse and reinvigorate a society which had, by the early years of the twentieth century, grown decadent, narcissistic and wasteful. Owen also re-iterates the standard Victorian belief in progress, bolstered by Charles Darwin's now-popularized theories of evolution, in his view of the current generation as the culmination of centuries of human and social evolution. (from gmu.edu/~lsmithg)
In short, Owen viewed the war as functioning to promote the survival of the human species by eliminating those who were in some sense “less fit.” Consequently, the war had a moral justification in Darwinian terms. On the other hand, those bodies that were being “melted down” were the “product of aeons of Natural Selection” and thus of great value because of the long span of time over which they had been brought into existence. Owen seems to have something of a logical problem here—either “Natural Selection” is good because it promotes the survival of a species or it is bad because it leads to the destruction of bodies that are the result of that process. Moreover, it would seem to be the case that if Darwinism is true and human beings are the handiwork of a blind evolutionary process, rather than a Creator, then they have no inherent worth and Owen has no right to be “furious with chagrin” about their annihilation. The logical confusion here is quite astounding. Furthermore, how do such notions as are expressed in Owen’s letter square with his professed Christianity (idiosyncratic as his version may have been)?
It is also ironic that, contrary to the common notion that the Victorians generally rejected Darwinism because of its perceived threat to traditional religious beliefs, Prof. Smith speaks of the “standard Victorian belief in progress” being “bolstered by Charles Darwin’s now-popularized theories of evolution.” Indeed, Owen would appear to demonstrate the widespread acceptance in the Victorian era and immediate post-Victorian period of the idea that human “progress” and evolution were linked.
To be fair, it is no doubt true that many of Owen’s contemporaries viewed World War I from a non-Darwinian perspective. Indeed, some took the decidedly religious view that God was on their side in the war, thus making the war morally right. My understanding is that this rather common view greatly incensed Owen and others, who could not understand how God’s favor could logically be invoked by both sides in a war (a point Lincoln made in his Second Inaugural Address) . Nevertheless, we can see from Owen’s comments that a Darwinian justification of war can also be made, which seems to undermine the force of the argument made by some atheists that belief in God is bad because, among other things, it provides an ideological justification for war. Yes, religious beliefs can be used to justify war, but so can Darwinism it would seem—consequently, does that fact discredit Darwin? If not, then it cannot be fairly said to discredit theism either!
Image of Wilfred Owen from telegraph.co.uk