Chesterton, the New Atheism, and an Apologetics of Common Sense

(1)

Tilburg University

Chesterton, the New Atheism, and an Apologetics of Common Sense

Kuipers-Sedee, Marianne

DOI: 10.26116/bxn1-3d93 Publication date: 2021 Document Version

Publisher's PDF, also known as Version of record

Link to publication in Tilburg University Research Portal

Citation for published version (APA):

Kuipers-Sedee, M. (2021). Chesterton, the New Atheism, and an Apologetics of Common Sense. [s.n.]. https://doi.org/10.26116/bxn1-3d93

General rights

Copyright and moral rights for the publications made accessible in the public portal are retained by the authors and/or other copyright owners and it is a condition of accessing publications that users recognise and abide by the legal requirements associated with these rights. • Users may download and print one copy of any publication from the public portal for the purpose of private study or research. • You may not further distribute the material or use it for any profit-making activity or commercial gain

• You may freely distribute the URL identifying the publication in the public portal

Take down policy

(2)

Chesterton,

the New Atheism,

and an Apologetics

of Common Sense

Marianne Kuipers-Sedee

Gilbert Keith Chesterton (1874-1936) defended

the Christian and Roman Catholic faith. His

apologetic work was highly regarded in his own

day and has continued to inspire other thinkers

ever since. This study investigates whether his

apologetics is still valuable today. It explores

its value as the basis of an apologetic response

to the new atheism, a popular contemporary

movement that is highly critical of religion. The

author appeals in particular to Chesterton’s

understanding of common sense. For Chesterton,

common sense is a way of thinking that calls us

to see things as they are. Satisfying common

sense leads to a worldview that is more plausible

than a worldview that is not in line with common

sense. This study compares the rival worldviews

of the new atheism and Christianity and argues

that the Christian worldview is more in line with

common sense and is, therefore, more plausible.

(3)

Chesterton, the New Atheism,

and an Apologetics of Common Sense

(4)

Chesterton, the New Atheism,

and an Apologetics of Common Sense

Proefschrift ter verkrijging van de graad van doctor aan Tilburg University op gezag van de rector magnificus, prof. dr. W.B.H.J. van de Donk,

in het openbaar te verdedigen ten overstaan van een door het college voor promoties aangewezen commissie in de Aula van de Universiteit op maandag 28 juni 2021 om 13.30 uur

door

(5)

Chesterton, the New Atheism,

and an Apologetics of Common Sense

Proefschrift ter verkrijging van de graad van doctor aan Tilburg University op gezag van de rector magnificus, prof. dr. W.B.H.J. van de Donk,

in het openbaar te verdedigen ten overstaan van een door het college voor promoties aangewezen commissie in de Aula van de Universiteit op maandag 28 juni 2021 om 13.30 uur

door

(6)

Promotores: prof. dr. M. Sarot (Tilburg University) prof. dr. M. Knight (Lancaster University)

Leden promotiecommissie: prof. dr. P.H.A.I. Jonkers (Tilburg University) dr. N.H.H. Kienstra (Tilburg University)

prof. dr. A.G. Milbank (University of Nottingham) prof. dr. D. Quinn (Seton Hall University)

©2021 Maria Johanna Margaretha Kuipers-Sedee, The Netherlands. All rights reserved. No parts of this thesis may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system or transmitted in any form or by any means without permission of the author. Alle rechten voorbehouden. Niets uit deze uitgave mag worden vermenigvuldigd, in enige vorm of op enige wijze, zonder voorafgaande schriftelijke toestemming van de auteur.

It was the soul of Christendom that came forth from the incredible Christ; and the soul of it was common sense.

(7)

Promotores: prof. dr. M. Sarot (Tilburg University) prof. dr. M. Knight (Lancaster University)

Leden promotiecommissie: prof. dr. P.H.A.I. Jonkers (Tilburg University) dr. N.H.H. Kienstra (Tilburg University)

prof. dr. A.G. Milbank (University of Nottingham) prof. dr. D. Quinn (Seton Hall University)

©2021 Maria Johanna Margaretha Kuipers-Sedee, The Netherlands. All rights reserved. No parts of this thesis may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system or transmitted in any form or by any means without permission of the author. Alle rechten voorbehouden. Niets uit deze uitgave mag worden vermenigvuldigd, in enige vorm of op enige wijze, zonder voorafgaande schriftelijke toestemming van de auteur.

It was the soul of Christendom that came forth from the incredible Christ; and the soul of it was common sense.

(8)

i

Preface

After studying theology (BA) at Tilburg University from 2009 to 2012, I had the opportunity to study theology (MA) at the Université de Fribourg, Switzerland, from 2012 to 2014. In the first year, this was as an exchange student from TiU, where I had started my Research Master. After a few months, I decided to finish the second year of my Master at the UniFr. This was partly because of the possibility to specialize in systematic theology. In Fribourg, I became familiar with the connection between theology, philosophy, and literature in a course called “Einführung in die Theologiegeschichte: C.S. Lewis. Auf Wegen zwischen Literatur, Philosophie und Christentum.” The content of this course gave me so much joy that I decided to write my Master’s thesis in the same direction. My supervisor, Dr. Martin Brüske (UniFr), suggested I explore the writings of G.K. Chesterton, an English apologist of whom I had never heard before. I am grateful for this suggestion and for Dr. Brüske’s supervision of this thesis because it led to the idea to study the works of Chesterton more thoroughly in a PhD project.

(15)

vi

3.2. The Origin of the World ... 227

3.3. The Revolution of Humanity ... 230

3.4. Free Will ... 233

Conclusion ... 238

Conclusion ... 241

1. Conclusions of this Study... 242

2. Implications and Future Directions ... 244

2.1. Implications of this Study ... 244

2.2. Suggestions for Future Research ... 245

Bibliography ... 247

Summary ... 259

vii

Preface

After studying theology (BA) at Tilburg University from 2009 to 2012, I had the opportunity to study theology (MA) at the Université de Fribourg, Switzerland, from 2012 to 2014. In the first year, this was as an exchange student from TiU, where I had started my Research Master. After a few months, I decided to finish the second year of my Master at the UniFr. This was partly because of the possibility to specialize in systematic theology. In Fribourg, I became familiar with the connection between theology, philosophy, and literature in a course called “Einführung in die Theologiegeschichte: C.S. Lewis. Auf Wegen zwischen Literatur, Philosophie und Christentum.” The content of this course gave me so much joy that I decided to write my Master’s thesis in the same direction. My supervisor, Dr. Martin Brüske (UniFr), suggested I explore the writings of G.K. Chesterton, an English apologist of whom I had never heard before. I am grateful for this suggestion and for Dr. Brüske’s supervision of this thesis because it led to the idea to study the works of Chesterton more thoroughly in a PhD project.

(16)

viii

Sarot and Dr. Harm Goris (TiU). Throughout my study, I have also enjoyed the support of other colleagues and fellow PhD candidates at Tilburg School of Catholic Theology. In addition, I have learned much from the helpful feedback of my fellow students and instructors of the NOSTER seminar on Dogmatics, Ethics, and Philosophy of Religion. Their contributions have been of great benefit. One of the major things the feedback from all these fellow researchers taught me was that I had to pick my battles. Research can always be more profound and text can always be improved, but, at the same time, it is impossible to satisfy everybody. I am afraid I learned this the hard way by first trying to address every suggestion, and then discovering that my own study had slipped through my fingers. While working on this project, I have been confronted with my perfectionism, and have learned to cope with this.

During the years of writing this study, I was blessed with the support of multiple people. Being a relatively young female researcher at a relatively more mature and male-dominated school comes with certain challenges. These challenges made me grow in multiple ways, and three women in particular have helped me in this respect. Firstly, Prof. Dr. Monique van Dijk-Groeneboer (TiU) offered to become my confidential advisor. I am very grateful for her confidence, her help, and her feminine guidance. Furthermore, Dr. Penny Barter (TiU), who for a major part of this study shared her office with me, made our collective working days a joy and helped me to understand better the differences in culture and language. Finally, I found a sympathetic ear in Minne Oujamaâ-Wouters MA (TiU), a colleague who also became a dear friend once we both entered motherhood. These three amazing women never seemed to get tired of my wish to talk, and our informal conversations have been extremely valuable to me. I had underestimated the impact becoming a mother would have on my work. In my experience, writing a PhD thesis is not a job that takes place five days a week between 9am and 5pm, and little children naturally have their own demands. Therefore, it was a trial to find a satisfying work-life balance. Along the way, I have learned how to prioritize and how to compromise. Furthermore, I have learned a lot about myself and my passions. I had never thought that my PhD project would contribute so much to this personal development.

This PhD project was many things but it was not easy. However, I am so happy and proud that I persevered. This project has made me even more of a fighter than I already am by nature. I am very honored that a revised version of this thesis will be published by Peeters Publishers as no. 70 in its series ‘Studies in Philosophical Theology.’ I thank the editors for accepting this manuscript for publication in this series.

ix

he was that I was writing a PhD thesis. His words have helped me through the most difficult stages of this adventure. I deeply regret that he did not live to see this work completed. Lastly, my husband Thomas has always believed in me, and he has always been there for me. His support made me determined to push through this job. Without his love and unremitting confidence, I am not sure whether I would have been able to reach this result. My sincere thanks go to them.

(17)

viii

Sarot and Dr. Harm Goris (TiU). Throughout my study, I have also enjoyed the support of other colleagues and fellow PhD candidates at Tilburg School of Catholic Theology. In addition, I have learned much from the helpful feedback of my fellow students and instructors of the NOSTER seminar on Dogmatics, Ethics, and Philosophy of Religion. Their contributions have been of great benefit. One of the major things the feedback from all these fellow researchers taught me was that I had to pick my battles. Research can always be more profound and text can always be improved, but, at the same time, it is impossible to satisfy everybody. I am afraid I learned this the hard way by first trying to address every suggestion, and then discovering that my own study had slipped through my fingers. While working on this project, I have been confronted with my perfectionism, and have learned to cope with this.

During the years of writing this study, I was blessed with the support of multiple people. Being a relatively young female researcher at a relatively more mature and male-dominated school comes with certain challenges. These challenges made me grow in multiple ways, and three women in particular have helped me in this respect. Firstly, Prof. Dr. Monique van Dijk-Groeneboer (TiU) offered to become my confidential advisor. I am very grateful for her confidence, her help, and her feminine guidance. Furthermore, Dr. Penny Barter (TiU), who for a major part of this study shared her office with me, made our collective working days a joy and helped me to understand better the differences in culture and language. Finally, I found a sympathetic ear in Minne Oujamaâ-Wouters MA (TiU), a colleague who also became a dear friend once we both entered motherhood. These three amazing women never seemed to get tired of my wish to talk, and our informal conversations have been extremely valuable to me. I had underestimated the impact becoming a mother would have on my work. In my experience, writing a PhD thesis is not a job that takes place five days a week between 9am and 5pm, and little children naturally have their own demands. Therefore, it was a trial to find a satisfying work-life balance. Along the way, I have learned how to prioritize and how to compromise. Furthermore, I have learned a lot about myself and my passions. I had never thought that my PhD project would contribute so much to this personal development.

This PhD project was many things but it was not easy. However, I am so happy and proud that I persevered. This project has made me even more of a fighter than I already am by nature. I am very honored that a revised version of this thesis will be published by Peeters Publishers as no. 70 in its series ‘Studies in Philosophical Theology.’ I thank the editors for accepting this manuscript for publication in this series.

ix

he was that I was writing a PhD thesis. His words have helped me through the most difficult stages of this adventure. I deeply regret that he did not live to see this work completed. Lastly, my husband Thomas has always believed in me, and he has always been there for me. His support made me determined to push through this job. Without his love and unremitting confidence, I am not sure whether I would have been able to reach this result. My sincere thanks go to them.

(18)

1

Introduction

1. G.K. Chesterton, the New Atheism,

and Common Sense

Gilbert Keith Chesterton was an English writer who wrote most of his works at the beginning of the 20th_{century. In many of his works, he defended the Christian and Roman}

Catholic faith. Today, he is still respected as a renowned apologist. Although he is not as well-known as apologists like John Henry Newman or C.S. Lewis, he is an eloquent and intelligent defender of the faith, and a person with whom it is worthwhile to get acquainted for multiple reasons. Chesterton’s works have received relatively little attention from theologians, although I believe that his apologetics is highly valuable when it comes to accessible ways of defending faith. Chesterton was able to connect imagination and reason. In his apologetic works, he defended the Christian faith in an appealing way. His language is full of provocative images and his illustrative stories help people to see things from a different perspective. He approached topics from unique points of view and illustrated them vividly by providing fascinating examples and striking comparisons. He was a storyteller, and he showed that stories are sometimes better able to make an argument than reason alone. Sometimes, one needs imagination to understand complexity, and stories can increase the imagination and show the truth of an argument through their message. Chesterton was able to captivate his readers by the combination of imagination and reason. Although Chesterton described himself as a journalist or literary author rather than a theologian or philosopher, he wrote extensively about theological and philosophical subjects. His professional background enabled him to introduce difficult subjects in an accessible way. He defended the “common man”1_{against the elite, and common sense}

(19)

1

Introduction

1. G.K. Chesterton, the New Atheism,

and Common Sense

Gilbert Keith Chesterton was an English writer who wrote most of his works at the beginning of the 20th_{century. In many of his works, he defended the Christian and Roman}

Catholic faith. Today, he is still respected as a renowned apologist. Although he is not as well-known as apologists like John Henry Newman or C.S. Lewis, he is an eloquent and intelligent defender of the faith, and a person with whom it is worthwhile to get acquainted for multiple reasons. Chesterton’s works have received relatively little attention from theologians, although I believe that his apologetics is highly valuable when it comes to accessible ways of defending faith. Chesterton was able to connect imagination and reason. In his apologetic works, he defended the Christian faith in an appealing way. His language is full of provocative images and his illustrative stories help people to see things from a different perspective. He approached topics from unique points of view and illustrated them vividly by providing fascinating examples and striking comparisons. He was a storyteller, and he showed that stories are sometimes better able to make an argument than reason alone. Sometimes, one needs imagination to understand complexity, and stories can increase the imagination and show the truth of an argument through their message. Chesterton was able to captivate his readers by the combination of imagination and reason. Although Chesterton described himself as a journalist or literary author rather than a theologian or philosopher, he wrote extensively about theological and philosophical subjects. His professional background enabled him to introduce difficult subjects in an accessible way. He defended the “common man”1_{against the elite, and common sense}

(20)

2

against farfetched philosophies. His informal language is easy to understand, and his tone of voice is friendly towards his opponents. He helped his readers understand how certain complex subjects are connected. In his writings, Chesterton was able to range across topics such as determinism, materialism, and evolutionism, and explain how these subjects were related to each other. Moreover, he could also explain at which points these subjects could lead people to misleading trains of thought. Chesterton was always respectful towards his opponents. At all times, he attacked the opponents’ positions, not the opponents themselves. In many cases, Chesterton was friends with his opponents. As Chesterton scholar William Oddie puts it, ‘he was a controversialist because he hated heresy; but he had an extraordinary capacity for loving the heretic.’1_{Chesterton observed the Gospel of John (8,}

1-11) by hating the sin, but loving the sinner. These characteristics caused me to want to study Chesterton’s works more in depth and write a PhD thesis about his apologetics. I wanted to find out whether his apologetics is still valuable today.

To determine the ongoing value of Chesterton’s apologetics, I wanted to identify a set of opponents that are vocal and strong in their criticism of the Christian faith. I found this set of opponents in a popular contemporary movement that has a highly critical view of religion, known as “the new atheism.” This movement has become well-known because of the works of the prominent writers Richard Dawkins, Daniel Dennett, Sam Harris, and the late Christopher Hitchens. These writers, as the main proponents of the new atheism movement, are often referred to, collectively, as “the new atheists.” In the Western world, Christianity has lost its dominant position and secularism is growing. This means that a major decline is taking place in multiple religious indices, such as belief, ceremonies, or membership.2_{As a consequence, the Western worldview is changing and becoming less}

religious. The new atheism contributes to this change by not only advocating a more scientific understanding of the world, but also verbally attacking religion (and Christianity and Islam in particular) and seeking to describe religious belief in an unfavorable way. Though the new atheism movement has few real followers, its style of debunking religion reaches a large audience and influences public opinion, stirring up anti-religious prejudices in society. Its positions are rhetorically well defended, and they influence many people. Therefore, the new atheism should not be dismissed too quickly. Theologians such as Alister McGrath, John Haught, and Keith Ward have already noticed this influence and

2_W_ILLIAM_O_DDIE_{, “Introduction,” in The Holiness of G.K. Chesterton, ed. William Oddie (Leominster:}

Gracewing, 2010), 9.

3_S_TEVE_B_RUCE_{, “Secularization,” in The New Blackwell Companion to the Sociology of Religion, ed. Bryan S.}

Turner (Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell, 2010), 125.

3

have defended the Christian worldview against the worldview of the new atheism.4

Philosophers such as Alvin Plantinga and literary scholars such as Terry Eagleton have also contributed to the debate.5_{Unfortunately, these apologists and the new atheists often talk}

at cross purposes. They tend to neglect the foundations of each other’s worldview, use arguments that are unlikely to engage the other side, and speak in idioms that are incomprehensible without prior knowledge in the respective fields. This combination leads to unfruitful conversations. I believe the debate would be more rewarding if the conversation partners would focus more on the foundations of each other’s worldview, provide arguments that find some common ground with their conversation partner, and choose words that the other side can understand. Therefore, I think the discussion should be approached in a different way. More attention should be given to the foundations of the opposing worldviews, to the type of arguments that one puts forward, and to the vocabulary that is used.

I found inspiration for this different approach in the call of the Roman Catholic Church for a “new apologetics.” The Church acknowledges that the Christian worldview is under attack, and is calling for a “new evangelization,” of which a new apologetics should be part.6_{This study is intended as an answer to this call and aims to make a contribution to}

the new evangelization. I expect that Chesterton is an apologist who can help carry on an insightful discussion with the new atheists because Chesterton’s opponents had much in common with the new atheists. The hypothesis that I will test is that the content of Chesterton’s apologetics has the potential to inspire a fruitful approach of apologetics towards the new atheism because many of Chesterton’s arguments are still valid today. Chesterton’s arguments in favor of Christianity have enduring value, and many of his cases against other philosophies of his time are still strong. Positions of the new atheism have much in common with positions of Chesterton’s opponents, though often they are defended in novel ways. I will confront not only the new atheists’ individual arguments, but also their underlying philosophy.

4_{Cf. A}_LISTER_E._M_C_G_RATH_{, Dawkins’ God: Genes, Memes, and the Meaning of Life (Malden, MA: Blackwell,}

2005); JOHN F.HAUGHT, God and the New Atheism: A Critical Response to Dawkins, Harris, and Hitchens

(Louisville, Ky.: Westminster John Knox Press, 2008); KEITH WARD, Why There Almost Certainly Is a God:

Doubting Dawkins (Oxford: Lion Hudson, 2008).

5_{Cf. A}_LVIN_P_LANTINGA_{, Where the Conflict Really Lies: Science, Religion, and Naturalism (Oxford: Oxford}

University Press, 2011); TERRY EAGLETON, Reason, Faith, and Revolution: Reflections on the God Debate

(New Haven: Yale University Press, 2009).

6_W_ILLIAM_J_OSEPH_L_EVADA_{, “The Urgency of a New Apologetics for the Church in the 21}st_{Century,” April}

29th_{2010, http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_}

(21)