The Dawn Treader

Anna asked me how my thinking on determinism dovetails with my reading of G.K. Chesterton.  Good question.

Chesterton muses about determinism in his book Orthodoxy.  For example, Chesterton points out the irony of materialist philosophy.  It is supposed to free the mind from the dogma of religion.  Instead, it creates a slave of its followers, since they must forfeit the freedom of will -- at least in the case of determinism.  Further, it is quite restrictive in what it allows in terms of beliefs about reality.  That is the supreme irony.  In Chesterton's words,

For we must remember that the materialist philosophy (whether true or not)  is certainly much more limiting than any religion. In one sense, of course,  all intelligent ideas are narrow. They cannot be broader than themselves. A  Christian is only restricted in the same sense that an atheist is  restricted. He cannot think Christianity false and continue to be a  Christian; and the atheist cannot think atheism false and continue to be an  atheist. But as it happens, there is a very special sense in which  materialism has more restrictions than spiritualism. Mr. McCabe thinks me a  slave because I am not allowed to believe in determinism. I think Mr. McCabe  a slave because he is not allowed to believe in fairies. But if we examine  the two vetoes we shall see that his is really much more of a pure veto than  mine. The Christian is quite free to believe that there is a considerable  amount of settled order and inevitable development in the universe. But the  materialist is not allowed to admit into his spotless machine the slightest  speck of spiritualism or miracle. Poor Mr. McCabe is not allowed to retain  even the tiniest imp, though it might be hiding in a pimpernel. The  Christian admits that the universe is manifold and even miscellaneous, just  as a sane man knows that he is complex. The sane man knows that he has a  touch of the beast, a touch of the devil, a touch of the saint, a touch of  the citizen. Nay, the really sane man knows that he has a touch of the  madman. But the materialist’s world is quite simple and solid, just as the  madman is quite sure he is sane. The materialist is sure that history has  been simply and solely a chain of causation, just as the interesting person  before mentioned is quite sure that he is simply and solely a chicken.  Materialists and madmen never have doubts.

Chesterton rightly points out the slavish nature of believing in determinism.  Determinists may be free to disbelieve in the reality of the will, but look at what they are not free to do when they truly embrace their worldview.  In his words,

The determinists come to bind, not to  loose. They may well call their law the “chain” of causation. It is the  worst chain that ever fettered a human being. You may use the language of  liberty, if you like, about materialistic teaching, but it is obvious that  this is just as inapplicable to it as a whole as the same language when  applied to a man locked up in a mad-house. You may say, if you like, that  the man is free to think himself a poached egg. But it is surely a more  massive and important fact that if he is a poached egg he is not free to eat, drink, sleep, walk, or smoke a cigarette. Similarly you may say, if you  like, that the bold determinist speculator is free to disbelieve in the  reality of the will. But it is a much more massive and important fact that  he is not free to raise, to curse, to thank, to justify, to urge, to punish,  to resist temptations, to incite mobs, to make New Year resolutions, to pardon sinners, to rebuke tyrants, or even to say “thank you” for the  mustard.   In passing from this subject I may note that there is a queer fallacy to the  effect that materialistic fatalism is in some way favourable to mercy, to  the abolition of cruel punishments or punishments of any kind. This is  startlingly the reverse of the truth. It is quite tenable that the doctrine  of necessity makes no difference at all; that it leaves the flogger flogging  and the kind friend exhorting as before. But obviously if it stops either of  them it stops the kind exhortation. That the sins are inevitable does not  prevent punishment; if it prevents anything it prevents persuasion.  Determinism is quite as likely to lead to cruelty as it is certain to lead to cowardice. Determinism is not inconsistent with the cruel treatment of criminals. What it is (perhaps) inconsistent with is the generous treatment  of criminals; with any appeal to their better feelings or encouragement in  their moral struggle. The determinist does not believe in appealing to the  will, but he does believe in changing the environment. He must not say to  the sinner, “Go and sin no more,” because the sinner cannot help it. But he  can put him in boiling oil; for boiling oil is an environment. Considered as  a figure, therefore, the materialist has the fantastic outline of the figure  of the madman. Both take up a position at once unanswerable and intolerable

Notice that Chesteron makes the same point as Moreland in my prior post.  The concept of determinism does not fit with the notion of moral reform.   Why try to encourage the criminal to be a better person?  He can't help it.  It would be more consistent for our criminal justice system to just drop criminals in boiling oil to get them to change -- if determinism were true.

Chesterton points out the folly of determinism, but I don't see where he connects the dots the way Francis Schaeffer did.  Schaeffer saw how man's desire to control, combined with deterministic thinking ... especially in the area of genetics and / or the mind ... would lead to a disaster.  Indeed, isn't that what we are seeing unfold in the area of genetic engineering and positive eugenics?