Orthodoxy By Gk Chesterton a commentary

[mitchellmckain 0]

I found this book delightful and intriguing. I will not defend the logic of his arguments, but I think that I am not what Chesterton would call a lunatic -- for although I am skillful in the use of reason, I am not one who is so confined by reason that they cannot see beyond its limitations. In fact, I think this connects somewhat with my usual argument that life cannot be confined to objective observation but must include subjective participation where what you want to be the case cannot be ignored. Every living thing has to pursue what it wants and this has to color its understanding and perception of itself and the world. There is nothing objective about living your life, because however great tool science may be, trying to reduce life to science is foolish.I was a bit annoyed by Chesterton's equivocation of "believing in oneself" and "believing in oneself blindly" for one can equally criticize "believing in God" on the basis of examples of those who "believe in God blindly", if you know what I mean. I know that he wants to argue that believing in God has an important advantage, but that is not something that I even believe is universally true, and I think this fact is an important part of the seperation between man and God. I also cringed at his mention of the apostles creed because I do not support this creed which had no eccumenical approval but would stick to the more minimal definition of Christianity in the Nicean creed as it was first agreed upon in the first eccumenical council. I would argue that the earliest consensual and most inclusive definition of Christianity is the most orthodox one and that heresy should indentified more by the way in which it limits and reject rather than by its deviations.Chesterton's idea about the shift of humility/modesty from ambition to conviction was quite interesting. I have often found myself in a battle with people over something quite similar, because I feel that boldness given by faith applies not only to doing good works but also to do with conviction. I quote the parable of the talents (Matthew 25:14-30) to explain to Christians that this fearful and miserly way of seeking the truth by sticking to the literal word of Scripture alone is not an example of good faith at all. However, I think Chesterton over-reacts to the admission that one can be wrong and I definitely think he overplays his hand with this idea that the role of relgious authority is the defense of reason, which continues to show such an extreme disregard of the significance of science that I am given to wonder if he is in the Flat Earth society.His criticism of materialism as stopping thought is too extreme, for I think that the most we can says is that we have some cause to see truth in the claim that materialism is to some degree self defeating -- which we must admit is a rather subjective judgement. Having heard this kind of extremism with regards to materialism, we cease to be surprized when we hear his attacks on evolution, existentialism and pragmatism as well (though in each case we can agree that these have at times been taken to absurd/distateful extremes). His argument that evolution is an attack thought itself is rather bizarre and it makes me wonder if he has made the same mistake of Aristotle to confuse the elements of language with reality itself, for thingness does not depend on arbitrary lingustic categories for a thing can be a dynamic entity whose changes cross such boundaries. To make "choice" (which is another name for free will) a central concept in ones philosphy is not to worship it, though I quite agree that Nietche has gone right off the deep end in his pursuit of will for its own sake.However Chesterton's claim that every act of will is a limitation, points to an oversight on his part. For an infinite God this would in fact be the case but for finite beings in a process of growth and learning this misses the mark, because in the latter case every act of will is also an act of self-creation. Thus we can distinguish between acts of will that narrow and destroy ones range of choices and potential for development and those which expand them. Good habits increase ones choices and opportunities and bad habits (sin) decrease ones choices and eventually destroy free will itself. I certainly reject the idea that salvation and heaven is a matter of sacrificing ones free will to become a slave to goodness. It is evil and destruction that must end in the monotony of nothingness where there are no choices left but goodness and creation is an exploration of infinite possibilities. Free will really isn't about a choice between good and evil, but about being able to get the most out of life and what goodness/creation has to offer.In the fourth chapter, Chesterton certainly has a unique and interesting view of things, but I find it to be a little extreme. However, I have learned in science of all places, just how instructive extreme cases can be. Often it is by looking at extremes that one can uncover the fundamental elements of an equation.I had come to the conclusion that one of the key difference between the religious and the non-religious is in what sort of events they are willing to see as significant. But I was still quite surprised to see such a clear example of this in Chesterton but in reverse of the usual case. The atheist cannot see any truth in relgion because he does not see any significance in the events upon which such convictions are based. Chesterton is quite right in seeing that science is based upon looking at patterns in objectively observable events and therein is what science accepts as significant. But it is the first time I have encountered someone who not only sees other types of things as significant (as all religious people do), but who also cannot see any significance in the things that science does.Thus Chesterton becomes a counter-example to the view that the religious are simply those who see significance in too much, getting false positives in an over-active capacity to see patterns in life. Thus it is proved that it really is a matter of choice about what one thinks is important and thus in what sort of things one is willing to look for patterns. Most of Chesterton's life including when Orthodoxy was written, is before the discoveries of quantum physics which would ultimately bring physical determinism crashing down. Thus it is science itself which finally brought an end to the era of materialistic fatalism that was so similiar to Calvinism in that respect. Thus perhaps today, Chesterton would not feel quite so much aversion to science as he expressed in Othodoxy.

[mitchellmckain 0]

In chapter 5 "Flag of the world", I think Chesterton is very much on to something, but that he comes at it from the wrong end. His blasting of the suicide as the greatest crime is all wrong because of this approach from the negative rather than the positive -- with the stick rather than the carrot so to speak. The suicide is more of a victim rather than a criminal and deserving more of compassion than condemnation. If the suicide has sneered at life then it is only because all of the rest of us have failed to demonstrate that life is worthwhile. This problem with his approach to this topic is found from the very beginning when he looks at embracing life as a matter of patriotism and loyalty as if failing to do so were treason. But in what Chesterton is trying to communicate, I have great sympathy because in it is found the roots of my own faith in God, but from a more postive approach. For me embracing life is not a matter of patriotism and loyalty but a matter of faith. You will find on my blog that I only began to find some meaning in the word "God" when I saw an equivalence between a faith in God and a faith that life is worth living. This is something that I think goes both ways -- not only does a real faith in God give you guarantor that life worth living in the face of adversity, but I also think that having faith that life is worlth living is in some sense a faith God (the reality rather than what any religion says about God), because it means that you value what God values and embrace what God strives so dilligently to give, "that you may have life and have it more abundantly".I was not very happy with Chesterton's condmenation of the Quaker idea of the spark of the divine in every human being, and I certainly do not agree with his attempt to equate this with a worship of self. The Quakers are one of my two most favorite historical religions and the testimony of its impact on modern society, transforming us from the barbaric treatment of fellow human beings is nothing less than a manifestation of the divine in human history. It is one of my amusements in discussions with atheists to suggest that it is in Quakerism that we find the true origins of humanism, which I very much see as positive thing -- for not everything non-Christian idea/movement has to be seen as an attack on Christianity as if Christianity were about world domination rather than world transformation.On the other hand, I was very happy with Chesterton's point about Christianity dividing God from the cosmos and explaining why this was so important, for I have certainly come to the same conclusions. The fact is, that I see many strains of Christian thought straying over the line into pan(en)theism all the time, in such things as Christian mysticism, absolute predestination and divine sovereignty, and even in the pious attempt to say that without God we are nothing. An overdependence upon God and excessive control by God reduces His creation to the status of a mere dream in the mind of God, which I think is indistinguishable from pan(en)theism. A true act of creation is necessarily an act of self-limitation, and a sacrifice of absolute sovereignty is required to support the autonomy of life and free will. I in fact, believe that love itself requires such a sacrifice of absolute sovereignty and contol. The love that I see in God is not the prideful love of an artist for his work, or the indulgent love of an owner for his pet, but the self-sacrificing love of a parent for his child. So He came to us in order "to serve, not to be serve" (Matt 20:28).In chapter six, "Paradoxes of Christianity", I think Chesterton makes too much of the hypocrises and contradictions in the criticisms of Christianty. Just because ones critics are wrong does not mean that you are right. Nevertheless his basic idea about not only balancing but also embracing passionate extremes as the right way to find balance is I think right on the money. In fact I have found something very similar in the nature of the process of life itself, which is not simply a balancing between sensitivity to the environment and independence from the environment (avoiding the twin deaths of stagnation and dissolution) but a matter of finding through complexity a means to simultaneous seek both greater sensitivity and greater independence without limit.I think he takes this "Christianity as truth in paradox" a little too far at times. Not all contradictions are paradoxes that should be embraced (I am open theist and I think that absolute predestination is just wrong), and I think that the example of balancing pride and humility in Christian doctrines involving seeing man as a sinner is a little bit TOO much of a pragmatic approach to Christianity. Christianity does not look at man as a sinner in order to find some sort of psychological balance in his emotional states but because this is an unfortunate fact about our existence. That particular aspect of Christianity is about truth not technique.However, I am quite delighted that he finds that he has this idea that orthodoxy is about balancing because in this I see a lot of similarity with my own ideas that orthodoxy was always about the inclusivity of retaining all the dimensions of the Christian experience and resisting the attempts of sects to cut it down into something smaller and thus more exclusive.