G. K. Chesterton’s Defense of Dogma

[djeter]

http://payingattentiontothesky.files.wordpress.com/2010/03/caricaturegkc1.jpg?w=365&h=400

Selections from a chapter in David Fagerberg’s The Size of Chesterton’s Catholicism that takes up Chesterton’s defense of dogma and doctrine.

Most regard obedience to Church dogma as a negative (Is it because dogmatic is derived from dogma?) but Chesterton shows dogma makes us more free and is a way of thinking. Doctrines are complex, Chesterton argues in the way a key is complex; they are vital in the sense of life-producing and life-protecting; they show a map to the mind which maintains by conviction what is otherwise maintained only by custom; and he says that doctrinal complexity, while single-minded, does not suffer the narrow-mindedness which cleaves revelation from reason and science.

Fagerberg liberally uses quotes from Chesterton and brings together material from several different sources.

You can find it here:

payingattentiontothesky.com/2010/03/16/g-k-chesterton-regarding-dogma-the-key-in-the-lock/

dj

 

[Charlemagne_II]

What has always amused me is that the people most opposed to dogma have made it a dogma that there should be no dogmas.

 

[Leela]

What has always amused me is that the people most opposed to dogma have made it a dogma that there should be no dogmas.

I wonder how often you get to laugh at people who say that. Has anyone ever actually said that?

What does “dogma” mean as you are using it here? How does Chesterton define the term?

 

[Charlemagne_II]

Leela

I wonder how often you get to laugh at people who say that. Has anyone ever actually said that?

Well, just about every relativist I have ever known. You know what I mean. They say there is no absolute truth. But of course, that can’t be absolutely true!

By the way, did I say laugh, or did I say amused? There’s a difference.

 

[Leela]

Leela

I wonder how often you get to laugh at people who say that. Has anyone ever actually said that?

Well, just about every relativist I have ever known. You know what I mean. They say there is no absolute truth. But of course, that can’t be absolutely true!

I had a feeling that you were referring to the same straw man. I have a feeling that the apparent contradiction in both cases will get cleared up if you explain what the terms in question mean as you and Chesterton use them.

What would it mean to say that it is true but not absolutely true that nothing is absolutely true?

What would it mean to hold dogmatically to the assertion that there ought not to be dogmas? Why can’t someone assert that we shouldn’t hold onto beliefs dogmatically without being guilty of holding onto a belief dogmatically? I can’t see why there must be a contradiction as you seem to think, so I wonder, what does “dogma” mean as you are using it here?

djeter, how does Chesterton define the term?

 

[Charlemagne_II]

Leela

Why can’t someone assert that we shouldn’t hold onto beliefs dogmatically without being guilty of holding onto a belief dogmatically?

How can you **not be dogmatic about saying no belief **should be dogmatic?

Am I missing something in your question?

 

[djeter]

djeter, how does Chesterton define the term?

That’s what the essay is about, Leela. Follow the link to get your answer. How he defines the term relates to its importance and its meaning.

dj

 

[R_Daneel]

Don’t take this remark seriously, But I always had a good chuckle when saw the bumper sticker:

My karma ran over your dogma.

 

[Abu]

The dogmas of which we speak are “truths contained in divine Revelation”, or “truths having a necessary connection with these” when proposed “in a definitive way.” (Cf. CCC #88).

GKC was always a champion of orthodoxy.

 

[Leela]

The dogmas of which we speak are “truths contained in divine Revelation”, or “truths having a necessary connection with these” when proposed “in a definitive way.” (Cf. CCC #88).

GKC was always a champion of orthodoxy.

Charlemagne asked me, “How can you not be dogmatic about saying no belief should be dogmatic?”

Based on Abu’s definition, it is quite easy to see that arguing that we should be suspicious of claims to divine revellations does not need to be done from a position of accepting some divine revellation. In other words, there need not be anything dogmatic about the recommendation that our beliefs ought to be subject to evidence and arguments rather than accepted on faith. This recommendation itself is subject to argumentation is and not accepted as dogma.

 

[Abu]

That Christ’s Church has His authority to proclaim His teaching in dogma and doctrine is clear from Sacred Scripture.

 

[Leela]

That Christ’s Church has His authority to proclaim His teaching in dogma and doctrine is clear from Sacred Scripture.

There is no doubt here that the Church insists as a dogma that the Church has authority to insist on dogma. The problem for me is that I see no point of entry into this circle of logic. There is no way to try to get agreement with those outside of this circle.

 

[Thing]

There is no doubt here that the Church insists as a dogma that the Church has authority to insist on dogma. The problem for me is that I see no point of entry into this circle of logic. There is no way to try to get agreement with those outside of this circle.

Surely the point of entry is when Christ said the words "…and on this rock I will build My church…’, and when He gave to St. Peter, the rock, the ‘Keys of the Kingdom of Heaven’.
And again ‘I will remain with you always, even to the end of the age’.
‘Dogma’ is the truths preserved and taught by this same divinely established and guided church.

 

[Leela]

Surely the point of entry is when Christ said the words "…and on this rock I will build My church…’, and when He gave to St. Peter, the rock, the ‘Keys of the Kingdom of Heaven’.
And again ‘I will remain with you always, even to the end of the age’.
‘Dogma’ is the truths preserved and taught by this same divinely established and guided church.

You really don’t see the problem here? It is the Catholic Church and no one else that says that this verse refers to the Catholic Church. Other nonCatholic Christians don’t believe that the Catholic Church is the one true church or they would be Catholic. They don’t equate The Church with the Roman Catholic Church. It is only the Roman Catholic Church that says so (sometimes).

Also, non-Christians like myself have no reason to believe that Jesus actually made this statement other than the fact that Christian tradition says he said it. From outside this circle of logic, this is just one more thing that the Church says about itself while trying to bootstrap support for its own authority.

Other religions have analogous bootstrapping methods. For example, the Koran says that Muhammed (who is said to have written the Koran) is the last prophet who had the final say on God’s word. Islam, like Catholicism and pretty much every religion, also claims to be the one true religion that can tell us about God’s will.

If other religions also claim as dogma the authority to claim dogma, how do we decide which one if any really has that authority? What authority do we appeal to to decide who has authority? I think we all ultimately appeal to the same authority: our best understanding of the facts and our weighing of the evidence and arguments in support of the facts. So much for dogma.

Best,
Leela

 

[tonyrey]

I think we all ultimately appeal to the same authority: our best understanding of the facts and our weighing of the evidence and arguments in support of the facts. So much for dogma.

If you rely solely on your best understanding of the facts and **your **weighing of the evidence and arguments in support of the facts the dogma proceeds from you because you become your highest authority!

 

[Leela]

If you rely solely on your best understanding of the facts and **your **weighing of the evidence and arguments in support of the facts the dogma proceeds from you because you become your highest authority!

By what authority could you decide to submit to the authority of another? There is no way to shirk the responsibility of making your own decisions or the responsiblity for the decision you make even if your decision is to suspend your own doubts in deference to someone or something else. There is still the decision to do so, which is your responsiblility alone and made based on your own weighing of the evidence and arguments in support of the validity of the authority to which you choose to submit. So much for dogma since the dogma’s to which you subscribe as espoused by your chosen authority are subject to rational argumentation through arguing about the validity of that authority. The dogmas themselves are subject to rational argumentation if only indirectly. In that case, dogmas cease to be dogmas. They are rational arguments posing as things that can’t be argued about. Of course they can be argued about. Asserting something as a dogma is just a refusal to argue. They are expected to stand on the arguments for the validity of authority. They are in a weak position because they come into question whenever the authority is in question. For anyone who is not Catholic, that is all the time.

Best,
Leela

 

[Non_Serviam]

You really don’t see the problem here? It is the Catholic Church and no one else that says that this verse refers to the Catholic Church. Other nonCatholic Christians don’t believe that the Catholic Church is the one true church or they would be Catholic. They don’t equate The Church with the Roman Catholic Church. It is only the Roman Catholic Church that says so (sometimes).

Also, non-Christians like myself have no reason to believe that Jesus actually made this statement other than the fact that Christian tradition says he said it. From outside this circle of logic, this is just one more thing that the Church says about itself while trying to bootstrap support for its own authority.

Other religions have analogous bootstrapping methods. For example, the Koran says that Muhammed (who is said to have written the Koran) is the last prophet who had the final say on God’s word. Islam, like Catholicism and pretty much every religion, also claims to be the one true religion that can tell us about God’s will.

If other religions also claim as dogma the authority to claim dogma, how do we decide which one if any really has that authority? What authority do we appeal to to decide who has authority? I think we all ultimately appeal to the same authority: our best understanding of the facts and our weighing of the evidence and arguments in support of the facts. So much for dogma.

Best,
Leela

Kudos to you for the most succinct explanation of the circularity of the Catholic appeal to authority that I’ve read thusfar. I’ve tried to explain it several times at CAF and have never been quite that precise.

If you rely solely on your best understanding of the facts and **your **weighing of the evidence and arguments in support of the facts the dogma proceeds from you because you become your highest authority!

First, it wouldn’t be dogma according to the definition used in this thread because no claim is being made for infallibility by the person putting forth their best understanding of something. Second, if you stop to think about it, the act of choosing to submit to a “higher authority” must be preceded by your decision that this authority is the one to whom submission is due instead of any of the other claimants. It still comes back to you judging the claims and deciding which you believe to be correct according to your best understanding.

 

[tonyrey]

First, it wouldn’t be dogma according to the definition used in this thread because no claim is being made for infallibility by the person putting forth their best understanding of something.

Dogma is associated with the teaching of an individual or organization and is not necessarily regarded as infallible. If you reject all authorities except yourself you obviously regard yourself as the highest authority.

Second, if you stop to think about it, the act of choosing to submit to a “higher authority” must be preceded by your decision that this authority is the one to whom submission is due instead of any of the other claimants. It still comes back to you judging the claims and deciding which you believe to be correct according to your best understanding.

That is true and it is also true of a person who decides to submit to no authority - a decision which presupposes greater confidence in one’s own judgment than anyone else’s. It is indeed the teaching of the Church that our ultimate authority is our own conscience but the difference is that a Catholic takes the authority of the Church into account whereas you rely entirely on your own judgment…

 

[Thing]

You really don’t see the problem here? It is the Catholic Church and no one else that says that this verse refers to the Catholic Church. Other nonCatholic Christians don’t believe that the Catholic Church is the one true church or they would be Catholic. They don’t equate The Church with the Roman Catholic Church. It is only the Roman Catholic Church that says so (sometimes).

Also, non-Christians like myself have no reason to believe that Jesus actually made this statement other than the fact that Christian tradition says he said it. From outside this circle of logic, this is just one more thing that the Church says about itself while trying to bootstrap support for its own authority.

Other religions have analogous bootstrapping methods. For example, the Koran says that Muhammed (who is said to have written the Koran) is the last prophet who had the final say on God’s word. Islam, like Catholicism and pretty much every religion, also claims to be the one true religion that can tell us about God’s will.

If other religions also claim as dogma the authority to claim dogma, how do we decide which one if any really has that authority? What authority do we appeal to to decide who has authority? I think we all ultimately appeal to the same authority: our best understanding of the facts and our weighing of the evidence and arguments in support of the facts. So much for dogma.

Best,
Leela

You’re not really thinking clearly about it. If someone was not christian why on earth would they care about dogma or bother thinking about entering the circle of something they don’t believe in. Only christians would bother thinking or worrying about christian dogmas.
About non-Catholic christians, the bare fact remains that Christ was recorded by His Apostles as saying that He had built His church. That was in 33 AD. Unfortunately no protestant movements existed until about 1,500 years later, long after Christ had established His Church.
So Christs church existed for 1,500 years up to the reformation and it was, from all the historical still-existing documents, the Catholic Church.

Going back to Christs recorded words to His disciples:
I will build My church…
Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and behold I am with you all days*, even to the consummation of the world.

• that is, He is with His church from 33ad continuously to 1500ad and onwards to the consummation of the world.

 

[Leela]

Dogma is associated with the teaching of an individual or organization and is not necessarily regarded as infallible. If you reject all authorities except yourself you obviously regard yourself as the highest authority.

That is true and it is also true of a person who decides to submit to no authority - a decision which presupposes greater confidence in one’s own judgment than anyone else’s. It is indeed the teaching of the Church that our ultimate authority is our own conscience but the difference is that a Catholic takes the authority of the Church into account whereas you rely entirely on your own judgment…

Everyone recognizes various authorities. There is no one single “highest authority.” The estimation of authority always depends on what we are talking about. The Church doesn’t claim to be an authority about lots of things. The Church is an authority on what the teachings of the Church are, but the Church agrees that a logistician rather than the Church is an authority on what arragement of traffic lights will result in the best traffic patterns. A physicist rather than a logician is an authority on how the debris will scatter if there is an accident. A biologist rather than a physicist is an authority on mitosis, etc, etc, etc. There are lots of authorities we submit to.

Even more so than a democratic government, to the extent that the Church governs at all, it does so only on the authority of the consent of the governed.

Best,
Leela