Chesterton: a seer of science.

Chesterton: A Seer of Science

by StanleyL. Jaki (University of Illinois, 176 pp., $12.50)

MOST PEOPLE are aware of Chestertonas a master of English prose, a coiner of startling paradoxes, a writer of ingenious detective stories. It may come as a surprise to see his name associated with science. But although he had no scientific training, he had an astonishing insight into the nature and limits of science. Again and again he identified the central issues in the debates of his times and expressed his accurate diagnoses in trenchant and memorable language. It was an excellent idea to study his writings in this perspective, as Professor Jaki has done here, and to show the magnitude of his contributions to some of the fundamental issues raised by the development of modern science.

At the time when Chesterton wrote,and indeed for long afterward, many spokesmen for science such as Herbert Spencer and H. G. Wells propagated what amounted to a secular religion, often called scientism, in which all the problems of man would hence-forward be solved by the application of scientific method. Chesterton challenged them by showing that they went far beyond the scientific evidence: "They say that Science says this or that; when they only mean scientists, and they do not care which scientists.' Indeed, "they simply affirm all the notions that happen to be fashionable in loose intellectual clubs.'

Chesterton tackled the basic issueof the status of scientific knowledge. He was clear that scientific laws have no ontological status; this is essential for the freedom of man, because, if nature is a wholly determined system and man is no more than a part of it, then man is a machine. But once the laws are seen as a product of the Divine will, there is a place for the expression of free human will. God has indeed created things that behave in a consistent way; that is what makes science possible. But matter remains contingent: God could have made it otherwise, and at any moment He could decide to do so.

Evolution, being one of the centralstrands of scientism, is widely invoked to explain the development of all living things, including man, without reference to God. Chesterton knew that a gradual development is perfectly acceptable to orthodox Christians, but he also insisted on the paucity of the evidence for evolution. Scientifically it is indeed very plausible, but it is far from being established. Certainly it provides no grounds for the rejection of the central Christian beliefs concerning the uniqueness of man.

Darwinism provides nobasis for ethics, or for the equality of man. Once man is seen as changeable by external forces, he becomes the object of manipulation by the strong and crafty. The only safeguard of the equality of man is provided by the recognition of the uniqueness of Christ as man. This is no abstract observation: Evolution in general and the survival of the fittest in particular have been identified as among the most potent causes of the First World War.

In recent years there has been muchdiscussion of the development of science as occurring by a series of revolutionary changes, to the point where scientific objectivity is itself denied. Chesterton, long before, had already provided the essential comment on this discussion, because he knew that true revolutions always respect the element of continuity rooted in the underlying reality. Objective reality is the safeguard of sanity.

One of the most interesting questionsthat can be asked is why science developed in Christian Europe and not in any of the great civilizations of antiquity. A vital observation in this respect is that all civilizations except the Christian are infected with the idea of cosmic recurrence, the notion of events repeating themselves over and over again. This idea saps initiative, generates hopelessness, and effectively prevents the rise of science. Only the Judaeo-Christian religion sees history not as a series of endless cycles, but as a linear process with a beginning and an end. This view, together with the Christian beliefs about the rationality and contingency of matter, provides the necessary conditions for the rise of science. Chesterton recognized that the cosmic treadmills of recurrence were present before the rise of Christianity and are now reappearing in the period of its neglect. The final, conclusive argument against cosmic recurrence is provided by the unique and unrepeatable incarnation and resurrection of Christ.

Chesterton showed his philosophicalacuteness in basing his thought on reality as perceived by the mind--contrary to modern philosophers since Descartes and Kant, who start with the mind and ultimately become trapped in positivism and solipsism. This acceptance of objective reality leads to the affirmation of the totality of all objects, namely the universe. Recent research has shown the universe to be highly specific, and this can only be understood as a consequence of the purposeful action of its Creator. Those unwilling to accept this interpretation try to avoid the implication of the specificity of the universe by describing how nothing can turn into something. Chesterton saw that this is absurd: "The world does not explain itself . . . it is absurd for the Evolutionist to complain that it is unthinkable for an admittedly unthinkable God to make everything out of nothing, and then pretend that it is more thinkable that nothing should turn itself into everything.'

These few examples suffice to showthe range of Chesterton's thinking and its bearing on many problems that are still of vital relevance today. Professor Jaki has performed a most valuable service in bringing together Chesterton's ideas and showing their importance. His book is not always easy to read. Like Chesterton's own books, it has depths that do not immediately yield their meaning, but the effort to comprehend is most rewarding.