Chesterton Aftermath (Part 1)

Last updated on: September 15, 2012 at 8:17 pm by Leah Libresco

Chesterton Aftermath (Part 1) 2012-09-15T20:17:38-04:00 Leah Libresco

LOGO Patheos Explore the world's faith through different perspectives on religion and spirituality! Patheos has the views of the prevalent religions and spiritualities of the world.

Thanks for all the comments and questions that you’ve left on my Monday post on my attraction to G.K. Chesterton’s Orthodoxy. I’m working my way through them and I anticipate that will be my main source of inspiration for posts this week and possibly next if your questions continue. So here goes…

Matt asked a question that was aimed at the heart of my post:

It’s weird to me that someone would use theology to substantiate their own claims about the world. Wouldn’t you use investigation and reason to substantiate those claims?

In other words, reason and empirical investigation are “truth-telling” things, and they directly conflict with theological claims. I’m surprised to read an atheist that values Lewis for anything other than his literary prowess. He was an absolutely horrid apologetic and most of his arguments were riddled with logical fallacies and faulty premises. His “three L’s” argument should be mandatory in any introduction to logical fallacies.

Ok. So I’m not going to defend C.S. Lewis’s Mad, Bad, or God trichotomy, which I also don’t find logically compelling. I’m going to return later this week to the question (which others have asked) about what specifically about Lewis’s world view attracts me (in the meantime, check out the posts tagged C.S. Lewis). What I want to address is Matt’s claim that empiricism and rationality are intrinsically opposed to and a negation of theological thinking.

Theology is not prima facie irrational, or, at least, it’s not necessarily any more rational than philosophy generally. Some religious questions can be studied empirically (medical effect of prayer = pretty much zilch), some make empirical predictions that are hard to falsify and test (God was the force behind the Big Bang, Jesus turned water into wine at Cana), and some are outside the realm of empirics all together. When religion and empirics intersect, I trust empiricism and the scientific method as my truth-telling thing.

Unfortunately, not all interesting questions fit into a this epistemological paradigm. I do think of it as a truth-telling thing, but it’s not complete. There are true (or probably true) propositions that are unprovable using empiricism. The actual existence of the physical world (contra the brain-in-a-vat) is hard to prove according to my usual empiricist standard. Also hard to pin down with empiricism alone: causality, absolute morality, and consciousness.

These questions are too interesting to pass over in silence, so I have to make a choice. I don’t think empiricism negates or disproves these claims, so if I want to examine them, I’ll need a new truth-telling mechanism. It may be that these two schemata exist in non-overlapping magisteria, or I may need to figure out which one trumps the other. But if I want to talk about them at all, I’m going to need to tweak my epistemology.*

*The last option is for me to decide that I am more sure that empiricism is the correct truth-telling thing than I am sure that morality exists and needs a truth-telling system that helps me examine it. As you can guess, I’m more confident in morality than the scope of empiricism.

Atheism

Epistemology/Philosophy

chesterton

standards of evidence

Previous Post

February 1, 2011

Testing the Truth-Telling Thing

Next Post

February 3, 2011 Picking and Choosing my Metaphysics

Browse Our Archives

Select a Category 7 Quick Takes Apologetics Atheism Book Conversion Debate Tactics Debates Epistemology/Philosophy Housekeeping Ideological Turing Test Marriage Morality in Practice Parsing Catholicism Possibly Heretical Radio Reviews/Recommendations Sequence Index Spiritual Practice Uncategorized

Select a Month April 2017 March 2017 January 2017 December 2016 September 2016 August 2016 July 2016 June 2016 May 2016 April 2016 March 2016 February 2016 January 2016 December 2015 November 2015 October 2015 September 2015 August 2015 July 2015 June 2015 May 2015 April 2015 March 2015 February 2015 January 2015 December 2014 November 2014 October 2014 September 2014 August 2014 July 2014 June 2014 May 2014 April 2014 March 2014 February 2014 January 2014 December 2013 November 2013 October 2013 September 2013 August 2013 July 2013 June 2013 May 2013 April 2013 March 2013 February 2013 January 2013 December 2012 November 2012 October 2012 September 2012 August 2012 July 2012 June 2012 May 2012 April 2012 March 2012 February 2012 January 2012 December 2011 November 2011 October 2011 September 2011 August 2011 July 2011 June 2011 May 2011 April 2011 March 2011 February 2011 January 2011 December 2010 November 2010 October 2010 September 2010 August 2010 July 2010 June 2010

TAKE THE

Religious Wisdom Quiz

Which writer besides Solomon and David contributed to Proverbs?

Select your answer to see how you score.

Nathan Asaph Agur Moses