Chesterton and An Anthrocentric God

Introduction

This post has an introduction, some remarks that preface my other remarks. Any post that has an introduction, that is worthy of a preface of any sort, is bound to be a long post. For that I apologize, but for the content of the post, after the preface anyway, I do not yet apologize, because I think it is very important and probably true.

The other thing I'd like to say as way of introduction is that these thoughts are G.K. Chesterton's first, and mine secondly. But, allow me to point out that, in truth, G.K. Chesterton's thoughts were the medievals' first, and his secondly, and his great creativity was a reflection of antiquity past. Since I am a lesser man than G.K. Chesterton, I can draw from his distillment and press onward. The other thinker I am consciously considering is Saint Thomas Aquinas, who explicitly argues for an anthrocentric world in the Summa Theologicae, very convincingly.

What I plan on arguing is that the world is anthrocentric, that God created it for man, and not only for man's existence basically (a marvelous thing, truly) but for man's happiness, a more marvelous thing than existence because it is about existing well. I intend to do so from a Christian, theistic perspective, unapologetically. If you want a little more basic perspective, read Chesterton's Orthodoxy. He presents what I take, fundamentally, to be an anthrocentric universe there, and calls it Fairy Land philosophy. I don't necessarily agree with Chesterton entirely, since I'm not entirely clear with how to take my thoughts on him yet. I'm writing this post because of the the book and because of a conversation.

The Cosmos' Anthrocentricity

I am not sure how to argue this most successfully, because I can see several semi-successful lines of argumentation, which convince me, but may not others. I hope that a reader will be critical and charitable.

God created the world. This premise is evident from Revelation, and very arguable from creation without revelation. I believe that it can be shown that the only sufficient explanation for the existence of the world must be a first mover, for several reasons, but it's not my task here to argue a cosmological argument. Several good cosmological arguments may be found in Aquinas' Summa Theologiae and in his Summa Contra Gentiles. They're at the beginning of the book. A good modern analytical commentator to read, who thinks that Aquinas (in an unexpected place) argues successfully for a necessary first being is Norman Kretzmann, in Metaphysics of Theism. I think the First Way is probably successful, and one MacDonald "Aquinas Parisitic Cosmological Argument" shows how to read it. I'm not sure it's parasitic, like he says, but he distinguishes the proper kind of causal chain for Aquinas to argue from. But, anyway, I digress. All that I want to show is that God has created the world, and we know this from Genesis.

Of creation, Man is the most significant part. This is, to me, plain. Man was created last, and was the most significant of God's creations because we manifest soul in a higher way than any other being. If I was a medieval this is all that I would need to say, because obviously the more capacities proper to being a person possessed by an immaterial being, the "more noble" the being would be. So, animals manifest some aspects of personhood, but not in a significant way, but obviously, God manifests all significant elements of personhood perfectly. Man has limitations God does not, but we can still manifest attributes of personality that no other being in the physical created order does, namely reason, and so we are most like God.

Also, from revelation, we possess the imago dei.

There is a chain of being, of sorts, in which less significant parts exist to actualize more significant parts. Is it a stretch to say that fertile soil exists so plants can grow in it? Is it a stretch to see great pastureland exists so grazing animals can live on it? Without any of these things, they would cease to be. Taking a creator as true, then it seems evident that each part exists so that the system continues to exist.

Man's telos is happiness. We all desire happiness more than anything else, Aristotle remarks. Consider it. Ask yourself why you do this or that, press yourself on the desires of your heart, and you will come to this same conclusion. Happiness is the only thing that we want for itself, and not for the sake of something else. I want to be happy, and I will sacrifice many things to reach this happiness. If all men want happiness, then it is reasonable to figure that we were made to be happy, because anything that tends towards some end exists to fulfill that end. A good example is a seed. A seed tends invariably (if the situation is correct) towards becoming a tree. The tendency of a seed can be analogized to the tendency of mankind. As a seed tends towards being a tree, so does man tend towards being a happy man. This is what Aristotle calls our telos, and this is a version of his function argument.

As highest being, creation must move to bring man happiness. So, if there is a chain of being, and man is at the peak of it, then this chain of being must move in the service of mankind. And if it moves to serve mankind, this is best accomplished (as we would expect to find in a designed structure) by bring man to find happiness.

Answers to Modern Difficulties

One, the world seems impersonal. But this is only because this is what we've been taught. I can't see any fact derived from natural science that does not have the potential to bring man happiness. It must bring the scientists who found it happiness, or they would not have sought after it in the first place, right? It's worth thinking about!

Two, the world doesn't make me happy, why should I expect that it's trying to? The world is a source of great joy, which can be found in more than the pleasures of the scientist. Because we think we understand the world, people cannot find anymore joy in it sometimes. But they should look up again, and wonder in the fact that it is so regular. Chesterton's attempt is to show that the world is wonderful in this fact: it is the unfamiliar familiar. Though we seem to know it so well, we have no reason to think that it will remain the way that it is. And if we expect that it will change in some unexpected manner at any moment, every moment that it remains the way it is is the most wonderful moment. And so we can take pleasure and find joy in the fact that apple trees produce apples, for it is a miracle.

His argument on this point is a disproof of the belief in natural laws governing the interaction of physical objects. He takes the route of Hume, and buys the riddle of induction. The only reason to believe that something will happen again is that it's happened before. But this is not knowledge, this is only supposition. Just because something happens repeatedly does not show that it will happen again. To know it will happen again, we must make a deductive proof, but this is impossible. These are his words on the theories of a scientist, "They feel that because one incomprehensible thing constantly follows another incomprehensible thing the two somehow make up a comprehensible thing."

And so, it is not irrational to suppose that there is joy to be found in the mere fact that creation is continuing to exist, and that it is continuing to exist in a regular way. Looking at the world, again, with these eyes will enable us to see the world as a place that can bring us happiness.

The Mystery of God's Love

If we step back a bit and reevaluate all that I just said in this post thus far, it seems that fundamental fact I've belabored can be boiled down to something deeper: that it is God who desires our happiness and has done all to bring it about. If nature is moving to bring us happiness, it is because God has put it there and then pushed it in such a way that we can know it and find this joy.

But of course, now, like Chesterton, we have rediscovered Christianity. For didn't we damn ourselves in the beginning, when creation must have been the most wonderful? And didn't God condescend to earth and die for our redemption? Doesn't this show that God desires us to push us onto being what He has designed us to be? For the incarnation, atonement and resurrection provide eternal life, which in its weakest formulation is the avoidance of eternal pain, a major stumbling block towards finding happiness. But, really, we know that Eternal Life is much much more, it is the pursuit for eternity of happiness in the true wonder, God Himself. If nature is unpredictable, it is because there is an unknown God behind it that it is hinting at. And when in eternal glory, it will be God that we will be engaged in knowning. And this will be true bliss.

But, is God anthrocentric if the world is anthrocentric? Yes and no. This is the cosmological paradox portrayed by Dante. God both moves the world from the furthest sphere of heaven, and the cosmosrotates around God. For, though God seeks to make us happy, it is as an instrument to His own happiness. And this happiness He has never lacked. And here we have come upon a deeper mystery than the post has set out to answer, and so I have gone too far and will stop.