Musing On G K Chesterton

Faith & Science Conversation
61

He’s not. In fact, his point is the lack of it coming from the Darwinians he’s addressing. And, honestly, back then there was very little evidence to go on besides a few fossils. (I don’t know what GKC would make of the evidence for common descent from genetics, but I find it pretty compelling. Alas, he never had the chance to see it.) In any case, the absence of evidence only mattered because the Darwinians were arguing that their theory proved man wasn’t created in the image of God. Which it didn’t. And still doesn’t.

Look, I don’t know why you keep framing me as asserting something I keep denying. I don’t know how much more clearly I can restate the things I’ve already said. But I’ve concluded that it’s really not that important to me to keep trying.

2 Likes
62

Ah, I see. You mean GKC argues Darwinian evolution is not scientific. On that, I agree with you.

He thinks any sort of gradualist theory of evolution is incoherent (i.e. non scientific), contrary to modern evolutionary theory which is entirely gradualist (as far as I know).

63

Okay … there’s a “trustworthiness with people’s words” contest here which you seem to be losing. You keep trying to make Ron’s words sound like a claim that Ron is not making (and he’s repeatedly told you so - to deaf ears, apparently.)

You do not in fact know that Chesterton would conclude this were he alive today - and in fact you’ve managed to make the case (by virtue of drawing out such responses as Ron and others have supplied you) that Chesterton probably would not be sympathetic to ID [(added edit) - at least not ID of the current DI flavor] were he alive today. But nobody else here is even banging on that drum. At all. Your own drum banging is calling attention to the unconvincing nature of your own desired proposition.

The only claim in Ron’s sentence - is that Chesterton did not at that time take too seriously the paltry evidence such as they had then.

3 Likes
64

Yes, I think we are all in agreement that Chesterton did not think Darwinism a scientific theory due to lack of evidence and conceptual coherence.

Agreement on teh internets!!! :open_mouth:

65

That’s kind of obnoxious, Eric.

1 Like
66

Actually - now that you provoke further reflection on this: It should be striking that Chesterton allowed evolution to be as much of a nonthreatening possibility as he did, given how much more strident and vocal the “evolution = atheism” voices were back then coupled with the fact that there actually was a dearth of evidence at hand in his time to back it up. If ever there was a “golden age” opportunity for a flourishing ID movement - that would have been it. And yet in the middle of it, we find our protagonist not only passing on the opportunity, but even stating he finds nothing threatening about the possibility of evolution to Christian faith. Imagine how much worse your case flounders today where the reverse is increasingly true: scientific voices now much less stridently anti-religious as a whole, and evidence now heaped up everywhere!

67

I don’t think most IDists find anything problematic about evolution. It’s more the gradualist form of evolution that is accepted as canonical today that IDists find a problem with.

68

I thought I was agreeing with you. But I guess not :man_shrugging: I am not sure what you are saying about Chesterton’s view regarding Darwinism.

69

Hmm. Well, Chesterton was famous for engaging and debating with some of the highest profile atheists and “progressives” of his day. This would be men like George Bernard Shaw, H.G. Wells, Bertrand Russell, and Clarence Darrow. His disagreements with these men were deep and fundamental. Public debates would sell out and pack auditoriums. However, despite the disagreements, Chesterton was never mean-spirited or hostile. He treated his opponents with respect, humor, grace, and charity. He was actually quite humble (despite sounding bombastic at times), and willing to admit when he was wrong. For this reason, it’s difficult to find an interlocutor who disliked him. Some of his fiercest debate partners were close friends. For me, that’s an ideal I aspire to (and fall oh-so-short of), and the thing I most admire about Chesterton. He stood up for truth. He was not afraid to take unpopular positions (such as when he took the side of both the Boers and the Irish against British Imperialism). But he did it all winsomely… and was very, very funny.

Towards the end of his life, he had an exchange of letters with Wells. Wells wrote:

If after all my Atheology turns out wrong and your Theology right I feel I shall always be able to pass into Heaven (if I want to) as a friend of G.K.C.'s. Bless you.

To which Chesterton replied:

If I turn out to be right, you will triumph, not by being a friend of mine, but by being a friend of Man, by having done a thousand things for men like me in every way from imagination to criticism. The thought of the vast variety of that work, and how it ranges from towering visions to tiny pricks of humour, overwhelmed me suddenly in retrospect: and I felt we had none of us ever said enough. Also your words, apart from their generosity, please me as the first words I have heard for a long time of the old Agnosticism of my boyhood when my brother Cecil and my friend Bentley almost worshipped old Huxley like a god. I think I have nothing to complain of except the fact that the other side often forget that we began as free-thinkers as much as they did: and there was no earthly power but thinking to drive us on the way we went.

That exchange comes from the biography of Chesterton by family friend Maisie Ward, in a chapter called “The Soft Answer”. Truly, GKC was the master of the soft answer. We could use more of his sort in our world today.

Aside from his public exchanges, Chesterton’s kindness came out in other ways. Based on what I’ve read, he and his wife Frances were always opening their home to others. They could not have children themselves, but were always popular with the children around them. Chesterton was extremely famous in his day. I read somewhere that his conversion to Catholicism made front page news even in the US. But he seemed to never let it go to his head (there was no room for it in there anyway), and always had time for ordinary people.

6 Likes
70

I seem to remember reading somebody’s ode to Chesterton (I think Philip Yancey). Please anybody correct me if I’m mis-remembering or mis-attributing this.

Yancey, who I believe somewhat prides himself on exercising and staying healthy and fit, wrote of feeling the sting of Chesterton’s playful words that Chesterton had trouble trusting thin people. He found them to be austere … or taking themselves too seriously … or something like that. Chesterton preferred the jolly fat friendship of somebody who could enjoy his vittles. So Yancey found himself challenged to adopt more of that bountifully fat friendship spirit despite his own wiry frame.

Does that preference for fat people sound like something Chesterton would have written about somewhere? I am quite aware of his own giantly rotund profile that was apparently so much a part of his large personality.

71

Nothing comes to mind… But there’s still a lot of Chesterton I haven’t read.

I hadn’t heard the Yancey story. Very funny.

There were a number of strange health crazes back then, and GKC often mocks them. G. B. Shaw was very thin, and they were known to tease each other about size. In one exchange, Chesterton remarked, “I see there has been a famine in the land.” To which Shaw retorted, “And I see the cause of it.”

3 Likes
72

That must be fairly famous, because I’ve heard of it. :grin:

73

Found it … and it was Yancey, though it seems my memory may have embellished Yancey’s response to it. In Yancey’s book “Soul Survivor”, he has a chapter devoted to Chesterton that includes this passing comment from Yancey:

Chesterton claimed to distrust “hard, cold, thin people,” and perhaps that’s why I have grown so fond of the jolly fat apologist.

Other gems from the same chapter … (which was hardly at all about Chesterton’s weight despite my fun with that here)

His weight hovered between three and four hundred pounds, and that combined with general poor health to disqualify him from military service, a fact that led a rather brusque encounter with a patriot during World War 1. “Why aren’t you out at the front?” demanded the indignant elderly lady when she spied Chesterton on the streets of London. He cooly replied, “My dear madam, if you will step round this way a little, you will see that I am.”

Apparently cartoonists had a field day with Chesterton.

He was also known for his absent mindedness. Again from Yancey:

Once he sent his wife this telegram: “Am at Market Harborough. Where ought I to be?” She telegraphed back, “Home.”

Some more serious thoughts …

The Christian ideal has not been tried and found wanting. It has been found difficult, and left untried. … The real question is not “Why is Christianity so bad when it claims to be good?” but rather “Why are all human beings so bad when they claim to be so good?”

When London Times asked a number of writers for essays on the topic “What’s Wrong with the World?” Chesterton sent in the shortest of all replies:

Dear Sirs:

I am.

Sincerely Yours,
G.K. Chesterton

3 Likes
74

These are golden quotes. Thank you!

75

Thank you! Now to incorporate some of his kindness into my daily interactions…

2 Likes
76

(Off topic: that is reminiscent of William Spooner, who liked to ride around on a well-boiled icicle. There are funny stories about him: Will Someone Please Hiccup my Pat)

1 Like
77

Yeah, that telegram story is the best.

Honestly, we have his wife, Frances Chesterton, to thank for G.K. He was completely lost without her. She managed the household, his schedule, his finances… all of it. She got him his first book deal (a book of poetry), and urged him to write more. One of my favorite stories is one in which Chesterton is at a picnic or something and begins looking around frantically saying “Where is she? Where’s Frances?”. People standing around, concerned, said “What’s wrong? Do you need her?” To which Gilbert replied “No, but I might, at any moment!”

A few years ago, someone finally wrote a biography of Frances, and it’s a delightful look at a more underappreciated Chesterton.

On a completely different note but suited to the times in which we’re living right now is GKC’s essay “The Wind and the Trees”. It’s worth a read. A quote I love from it:

Since it is lawful to pray for the coming of the kingdom, it is lawful also to pray for the coming of the revolution that shall restore the kingdom.

4 Likes
78

Thank you for pointing to “The Wind and the Trees”.
 

A conversation between GKC and William James would have been more than interesting. The former would obviously agree with this from the latter,

To think is the only moral act.

 
And this is memorable:

… a man’s hand automatically seeks his own mouth, instead of seeking (as it sometimes should do) his oppressor’s nose. [:grin:]

 
But more important than the serious jest is what you noted and what followed close on,

It is lawful to pray “Thine anger come on earth as it is in Heaven.”

I don’t think Spurgeon would disagree.

He who is not angry at transgression becomes a partaker in it.

79

…and to the essay’s point, from a sermon I just heard on Sunday, “Law and order does not provide hope.”

80

(The Tremendous Trifles collection which includes that essay is free for Kindle readers, as are some other works.)