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.

In a book written as an apologia to Christianity, where is the connection to Christian theology in the chapter “The Ethics of Elfland”? There seems to be much mention of magic, but none of God. I haven’t read the book, but I find this somewhat surprising. For Travis or Randy (or anyone else who may have read the book), does the chapter actually fit in with the overall mission of Orthodoxy, or would you say that the chapter is a kind of intellectual cul-de-sac?

And a comment —

“These tales say that apples were golden only to refresh the forgotten moment when we found that they were green.”

I don’t know that I agree. I can’t imagine that primeval man was surprised to find them green, nor filled with wonder at the color, nor that he even noticed it. That’s romanticizing from the present backward. It was simply a given (though he might have noticed that some apples were green, while some were red). So, rather, I would say that the legendary apples are golden only to serve as a contrast to the received knowledge — of the present — that they should be green (or red). That is to say, rather than recalling some prehistoric moment of surprise or wonder, I think such fairy-tale elements are meant to contrast with expectations in the present. (By “present”, of course, I mean both the present of the fairy-tale author as well as the later present of the fairy-tale reader.) To put it another way, fairy-tales aren’t forward-looking, but backward.

The first is the mystical function [...] realizing what a wonder the universe is, and what a wonder you are, and experiencing awe before this mystery. (The Power of Myth 31)

“These tales say that apples were golden only to refresh the forgotten moment when we found that they were green. They make rivers run with wine only to make us remember, for one wild moment, that they run with water.”

It was a perfect illustration of what Chesterton meant by a world filled with wonder.