Proving Chesterton right

I rarely mention issues relating to faith on this blog. There is good reason. Like many, I was long ago alienated from the conventional religious interpretations of Christianity

Does explain so much of what he does believe, doesn’t it? When a man stops believing in God they don’t believe in nothing but in anything….

We supposedly venerated the angry protestor in this story. And yet we have not learned to listen to those who oppose corruption, oppression, inappropriate profiteering and the powerful who gain as a result of those abuses. Instead, those with the power to abuse still seek to criminalise those who righteously protest.

Like, perhaps, that we should consider the Tax Justice warriors as being like Jesus entering Jerusalem….

30 thoughts on “Proving Chesterton right”

  1. “When a man stops believing in God they don’t believe in nothing but in anything….”

    I’ve long found this statement annoying. It may well be true of some people but it is a ridiculous generalisation. People who base their beliefs only on credible evidence tend not to believe in God but certainly don’t believe in just anything.

  2. @Stonyground. Yeah, pisses me off, too. I don’t believe in gods, but I don’t believe in anything either. I need to see evidence, reason and logic.

  3. The Meissen Bison

    Stonyground & Longrider – the point is more that it is in the nature of man to have beliefs and that if he does not believe in God, then he may place his faith elsewhere.

    It does not follow that every atheist must be loopy because be believes in anything that comes along, but there are enough people who invest their all in their climate or covid or critical race theory convictions to suggest that Chesterton might have been on to something.

  4. @ Stonyground & Longrider
    We’re talking about those of a superstitious mindset & those with a sceptical mindset here, aren’t we? Statement’s probably true of the former. They need faith in something. So in the absence of belief in the CofE version of God (whatever that is currently-is it the same one the Archbish of Canterbury believes in?, they’ll latch onto whatever’s going around. The Catholic God (the one doesn’t seem quite so riddled with Self Doubt), the Religion of Peace, Gaia, macroeconomics (should that be capitalised for the faithful?) or even West Ham United or in Theo’s case the latest leader of the Tory Party. And then there’s sensible people.

  5. I reckon the proof of Chesterton’s statement is around you. The West gave up worshipping God and now worships brown people, mentally ill dildo fetishists, and clitorally-challenged Moon cultists. We kill more babies than all the Moloch disciples in history, and think we are good.

    Something something about the sociological purpose of religion and the role of confidence in civilisation.

    Anyway, I’m fairly certain Christ would have some harsh words for the animists and racial narcissists of XR/BLM.

  6. Stonyground – the quote starts “ When a man stops…”.

    The quote is disparaging those who as an adult believed in God and then changed their minds, not those who adopted an agnostic or atheist approach as soon as they gave the matter adult thought.

  7. This reminds me of this passage in CS Lewis’s the Screwtape Letters

    “We do want, and want very much, to make men treat Christianity as a means; preferably, of course, as a means to their own advancement, but, failing that, as a means to anything––even to social justice. The thing to do is to get a man at first to value social justice as a thing which the Enemy [God] demands, and then work him on to the stage at which he values Christianity because it may produce social justice. For the Enemy will not be used as a convenience.”

  8. That second quote is …interesting…

    Isn’t it the Potato himself who rules his blog like a petty dictator who brooks no opposition? At all….?

    Something, something, stonethrowing..

  9. Can anyone define for me “inappropriate profiteering”? Does that really mean anyone who earns more than a fuckwit potato?

  10. Social justice? Now there’s an elusive animal. Two heads, five legs, three wings & a very long tale, hasn’t it?

  11. @ Diogenes
    “inappropriate profiteering” – when an individual or a private sector business sells an article at a profit to the benefit of any person or group not on The Party’s approved list.
    The individual need not be earning half as much as Murphy is paid (he almost certainly will be *earning* more than Murphy).

  12. = I reckon the proof of Chesterton’s statement is around you. The West gave up worshipping God and now worships . . .

    Not really. The rational observation is that many, probably most, humans are predisposed to irrational belief systems. Mortality and maths are hard so it’s easier to comfort yourself with God or Gaia (etc). God is just one example of “anything”.

    Well established irrational beliefs tend to be nicely blended with the society of believers, with most of the rough edges smoothed off. Occasional stonings, burnings, excommunications but for the most part functional. New ones, insecure and without the time annealing, tend to be overtly batshit and dangerous for all.

    Waves of moral panic seem to be a feature of both.

  13. From spud recently.

    “I don’t usually talk about party political but I’m going to talk about party politics ”

    “I don’t usually talk about religion but I’m going to talk about religion”

    Twat.

  14. Strikes me that Spud’s remarkably like his God. A rather insignificant deity who believes himself omniscient & gets off on worshippers constantly praising him. He might even be ineffable. He’d certainly like to be omnipotent. Hardly worth nailing his son up, is it? Fortunate lad.

  15. ‘Profiteering’ is a pejorative, so quite what “inappropriate profiteering” is is anyone’s guess.

  16. Quite so, Rob. The omniscient Spud is waiting to be born. This incarnation cannot even run a model railway on time

  17. Diogenes: Despite his toxic personality he’s not yet aspired to the rough beast levels that would take.

  18. Strange that pure reason doesn’t stop lots of “sky fairy” enemies on here from taking unlicensed gene re-writing shite for what reason should tell them is a bad winter flu. So they can go on holidays that 1-seconds logic would have told them they wont be allowed while wearing maskies with holes 10 to 100x larger than the supposed pathogen they are allegedly protecting against.

  19. “When a man stops believing in God they don’t believe in nothing but in anything….”

    Which neatly sums up the belief in god. Its a belief in nothing (still aint there) and anything (how many interpretations of how many gods?). Probably more disparaging of ‘belief systems’.

  20. Which neatly sums up the belief in god. Its a belief in nothing (still aint there)

    Ah, someone who has The answers.
    I await your proof for that assertion eagerly.

  21. Ah, someone who has The answers.
    I await your proof for that assertion eagerly.

    You’ve stolen someone’s line, Chernyy.

  22. Belief in “anything” can, of course, include another god(s) and the behaviour/claimed morality that goes with it that differs from that of whoever trotted out (for the (n+1)th time) this particularly tiresome and unoriginal trope.

  23. “Ah, someone who has The answers.
    I await your proof for that assertion eagerly.”

    It is pretty basic stuff that you can’t prove a negative. I keep an invisible pink unicorn in my garage, can you prove that it isn’t there?

    Meanwhile I am being expected to believe that the entire universe and the intricate laws of physics were created by an ignorant and stupid bully with the mentality of a bad tempered toddler.

  24. “Like, perhaps, that we should consider the Tax Justice warriors as being like Jesus entering Jerusalem….”

    I assume that you are referring to “riding on an ass” …

  25. @Stonyground

    What makes you think you can’t prove a negative?

    I could hold up a pink tutu and say “this is not blue”. This can be proven by showing it is pink.

    The statement itself, “you can’t prove a negative” is in fact a negative statement.
    So either you are wrong, which I have shown an example of, or you have made another assertion that has to be shown to be true. (But if you show it to be true, you in fact show you are wrong.)
    Logic is fun isn’t it?

  26. So Chernyy, can you prove that my unicorn doesn’t exist then? In this case it can actually be done. The disproof does also apply to the common conception of God though.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *