"When a man stops believing in God he doesn't then believe in nothing, he believes anything."G.K. Chesterton, right? Well, sort of.
Despite this having been quoted in countless sermons and homilies, G.K. never actually said that. A rather interesting Quotemeister page gives the history of this particular maxim. The closest Chesterton seems to have come to it is this, from Father Brown, as part of a longer speech:
"The first effect of not believing in God is to believe in anything."Pretty much the same meaning, definitely not the same words. And it's not even true - at least, not in the sense that I have heard the more famous paraphrase used, over and over again. It's quite possible, maybe even more common, to not believe in God AND not believe in anything else of a supernatural nature either - horoscopes, souls, spirits, deities, afterlife, magic etc. It doesn't stop you from being a generally moral being, for a given value of 'moral'. Likewise, you can not believe in God because you do have a very clearly defined alternative supernatural belief - maybe you're a Hindu, maybe you're a Wiccan - that doesn't include him in it. The effect is still the same - you do not then start to believe anything, you simply close down on alternative beliefs.
Chesterton, I have no doubt, was bright enough to know it.
What he meant by 'God' wasn't just Him Upstairs but the whole belief package that goes with subscribing to a particular theological position. For him, that could be described as 'God'. But if you just say "yeah, I believe in God" in a vague, tolerant, nice-guy sort of way, that doesn't narrow down anything at all. Your mind is open to all comers. So, for 'believing in God' in the quotes above, substitute 'thinking through the implications of what I believe'. This brings you much closer to the Chestertonian meaning.
All this was sufficiently obvious to Chesterton, and to Father Brown, that the accompanying thought processes would have taken a micro-second and not required further elucidation. Sadly it isn't sufficiently obvious to preachers who misuse the quote to show why everyone should become Christian NOW. It's bad logic. It's telling people that black is white, when they can plainly see it isn't. And if your argument can only be supported by bad logic - well, what does that say about your argument?
Great articles. It's interesting how many familiar quotes have been misattributed and changed "chinese whispers" style over the years.
ReplyDeleteJust curious, but if you were introducing Christianity to a moral, (not necessarily peaceful) polytheistic alien race who had never heard of it, what would be your argument? Would you simply offer your own witness, or even feel the need to persuade them of anything at all?
I have to admit this one hasn't been causing me sleepless nights. If by 'alien' we mean 'extraterrestrial' then you could spend years trying to get a common frame of reference in the first place to describe morality. I'm reasonably sure I wouldn't use the tried and tested nineteenth century approach of dressing them as Europeans and teaching them the kings and queens of England. So it probably comes down to the own witness thing. There again, I may just file this under 'cross that bridge when I get to it' ...!
ReplyDeleteI am an Aquarian too. I know it's all rubbish, but it's still *clearly* the coolest star sign. I have no problem believing both of these things.
ReplyDeleteAbso-tootin'lutely!
ReplyDeleteThanks for your reply, Ben. That question was a bit vague and loaded, I suppose. Of course you're right about the frame of reference thing, and I immediately think of 'Speaker for the Dead' as one story where the characters grapple with different moral perceptions between humans and extraterrestrials. I had in mind something like the Spanish conquest of Mexico and Peru, but conversion of the natives in that case was often at the point of a sword and had more to do with control than philanthropy.
ReplyDeleteI've since read the religious essays on your website – both cogent and entertaining, with things to think about long afterwards. Excellent stuff.
Yup, Speaker for the Dead rocks.
ReplyDeleteAs for the Spanish conquest, or any situation where you're talking to fellow humans - yup, still the personal witness thing, plus a little hearts and minds effort. You'd think it shouldn't be too hard to sell a religion where you have to eat some bread and drink some wine occasionally, rather than cut out someone's beating heart on a regular basis. I don't mourn the loss of the pre-Colombian religions one iota, but I do say the process could have been better handled.
Cue that well known Aztec country'n'western song, "Your beatin' heart ..."