Chesterton is quite clear that Orthodoxy is not, primarily, a work of positive, apologetic proof for the existence of God: it is merely his [Chesterton's] journey back to what he came to see as the best possible set of beliefs for living one’s life, i.e., The Apostle’s Creed (as he concludes). Some may even say, as the author does, an autobiography. In short, the work humorously traces the intellectual journey of this terribly intelligent fellow, and explains why he, himself, came to believe in Christianity.

That being said, your attack on this book for it’s being “circular” is off the mark. Of course, since it is a Catholic’s Theists autobiography, the book revolves around the central axiom that GOD EXISTS (in other words, the author does in fact believe God exists).* I believe you meant to say that Chesterton was coherent =D. In seriousness, What you were trying to convey by “circular,” I believe, was that you think his argument takes the Assumption: “God exists” only to come to the Conclusion: “God exists.” But if you think this is the basic argument of the book, you, to put it bluntly, missed the point. The book is pretty much one, big, jolly, “Reductio ad Absurdum.”He essentially “bites the heels” of other rival philosophical systems, shows the innate absurdity of each, i.e., that determinism completely undercuts the justice system, and from there, goes on to explain how all of this intellectual searching brought him back to Christianity, the only system which he found to be the most existentially, and philosophically ( It provides answers to Epistemological, Metaphysical, Ontological, and Ethical Questions) complete.

With this brief background, I think you might be able to see the relevance of “The Ethics of Elfland.” This chapter reveals some of the basic axioms** (intuitions, if you will) Chesterton held, which lead him to reject the other philosophies and accept Christianity: it is foundational to the book. As the main point of the chapter is to reveal Chesterton’s belief that Life is beautiful and full of Wonder, one can now easily see how he would be attracted to the Judeo-Christian Tradition, which teaches that, “We must see the hand [to avoid confusion, Will] of God in all things, and this should bring us joy.”

Hope this helps a bit!

Side note: If you want to read some heavier, philosophical defense of Christian belief, May I suggest “Warranted Christian Belief,” By Alvin Plantinga :D

• Just as Richard Dawkins’ or any other Naturalist’s work revolves around the fact that God DOES NOT EXIST. If this is your criterion for ‘circularity,’ then we are all screwed!

**That life and people are wonderful. Keep in mind the bleak background of philosophical pessimism that dominated the contemporary academic milieu.

For Myths are exactly that, a window/lense in which we can look at life . . . Honestly. No-one is qualified to disprove any myth strictly on the basis of Inconveince or as some say their Individuality . . . ; p – Because my faith in the Author of the Universe has nothing to do w/ your Choices. So in light of this I want to say that for me “story” or “myth” is better seen as a Language in that whether your a Scientist, Mathematian or an Autistic Prodigy (think -Rainman). . . Its a language we all speak and understand. Its when we waste time debating the details or the question of life that we lose out on Life itself. So please remember that if one looks hard enough. . . You will See, Experience, and finally Live your life for what it was meant for . . . To be lived ; ) As for me . . . I whole heartily embrace myths as eternal because its the story of my life like my children that will out live me. . . That my friend is how I define Legacy.

We must sharply distinguish between Evolution as a biological theorem and popular Evolutionism or Developmentalism. (83)

I think it would be correct to say that people today (at least in America) fail to see this difference. Your example about the existence of God is a good one; we see many authors claiming that science somehow proves there is no divine being and no level of existence other than the material. I don’t know how science could ever prove such a thing.

We will be discussing on this site in the future the notion that science and myth have historically served different functions among human beings. I think it will be fruitful to contrast them at least at some level, though (since this is a myth magazine and not a science magazine) we will obviously spend more time exploring the functions of myth.

** “I have no need of that hypothesis” – LaPlace **

No god hypothesis is necessary. Was it only 200 years ago that LaPlace supposedly said this to Napoleon?

“Materialism” “certainty” “uniformity” “induction” “determinism” “scientific law” “universal causality” are as dead as “God” — belief in them is no longer believable.

1.There is no such process as “induction” from “the facts” of nature. 2. There are no necessary empirical truths. (No science is certain.) 3. Every empirical statement is falsifiable in principle. 4. To be part of science, an empirical statement must be testable, hence refutable. 5. “Materialism” is no part of science 6. Mathematics makes models. Models, however refined, are not reality.

What follows from these now well-known propositions: 1. No part of science presupposes any “uniformity of nature.” (No faith needed!) 2. There are no “laws” in science — no need for a “law giver” or any “source.” 3. If a religion makes an empirical claim; then, it could be false. 4. In order to be considered scientific, an empirical claim made by religion must specify conditions to test it — that is, show how it could be falsified 5. “God” doesn’t do mathematics. Mathematics doesn’t “describe” or “explain” the world.

Science determines nothing — if by ‘determines’ one means ‘demonstrates with certainty what is true.’ It’s the demand for so-called mathematical certainty in our knowledge which is problematic.

bipolar2 ©2008

Jason, you bring up some interesting points. Quick question: do you have kids? I have a 2 year old daughter, and yes, it’s both a surprise and/or a wonder that the apple is green. Every time. I agree with Randy that wonder does not always mean “surprise.”

I’ve read “Elfland” multiple times, as a part of studying fairy tales, but I’m not familiar with the entire book as a whole. That said, I don’t tend to agree that Chesterton managed this whole chapter without Christian theology (despite his claim to the contrary at the end). It wasn’t exclusively Christian theology, but I’m of the opinion that God is almost an absolute necessity for his argument in this chapter, and that the heart of it is his comment that “our Father is younger than we.” Unless God is there, with the option of having made the world different (but exciting as it is), then all that’s left is what science itself determines.

I’m feeling something circular in there…but I don’t have the time to re-analyze it at the moment. If it’s there, you’ll find it ;-)

I don’t know how important these “forgotten memories” would be to Chesterton’s argument. He thinks the world should inspire in us wonder because it could have been different — a conclusion he has had “meekly ratified by the mere facts.” Whether or not children (or primeval man) felt this wonder at the world wouldn’t matter that much, would it?

You bring up a good point about wonder. Many people mention wonder in relation to ancient myths and modern-day speculative fiction, so I think it’s worth exploring that emotion a little more. I agree that wonder and excitement are definitely different though often confused or conflated. But I have a feeling that wonder does not always imply surprise. Here’s an excerpt from the Wikipedia article on “Wonder (emotion)” that might express the same thing I’m feeling in this regard:

Wonder is an emotion comparable to surprise in that it is most commonly felt when perceiving something rare or unexpected. Unlike surprise, however, it is more definitely positive in valence and can endure for longer periods.

(The qualifier “most commonly” and the fact that wonder can last for longer periods touch on what it is that I’m feeling.)

Thanks for the reply!

Concerning your comment — I don’t think the “forgotten moment” belongs to primeval man but to modern children. [...] I think Chesterton believed that children respond to world correctly: with wonder. Fairy tales recall those earlier memories and prompt us as adults to respond to the world correctly again.

I think, mutatis mutandis, it makes no difference whether it’s children or primeval man Chesterton has in mind; I still find myself not altogether convinced by his apple metaphor. Wonder seems to me to imply surprise, and that’s the sticking-point. Excitement isn’t the same as wonder. A child of three may indeed “be excited by being told that Tommy opened a door”, but how do we know that a child feels wonder that an apple is green …? I’m just not sure I quite buy it.

Concerning your question — As far as I can tell, Orthodoxy is a fairly autobiographical work; Chesterton describes how he came to believe in and accept Christianity, but he presents many of his own theological views along the way. (I have only read this “The Ethics of Elfland” chapter; hopefully Travis or someone else can comment on the book as a whole.) He introduces his discussion on fairy tales and wonder with these words:

My first and last philosophy, that which I believe in with unbroken certainty, I learnt in the nursery. [...] I deal here with what ethic and philosophy come from being fed on fairy tales. [...] I am concerned with a certain way of looking at life, which was created in me by the fairy tales, but has since been meekly ratified by the mere facts.

Concerning your comment — I don’t think the “forgotten moment” belongs to primeval man but to modern children. Earlier in the same paragraph, he says this:

When we are very young children we do not need fairy tales: we only need tales. Mere life is interesting enough. A child of seven is excited by being told that Tommy opened a door and saw a dragon. But a child of three is excited by being told that Tommy opened a door.

I think Chesterton believed that children respond to world correctly: with wonder. Fairy tales recall those earlier memories and prompt us as adults to respond to the world correctly again.