G.K. Chesterton?

[nrose619]

This man named G.K. Chesterton said "If you don't believe in God you've lost your common sense." I find this statment quite ridiculous since I can reason fully and clearly without beliveing in a supreme entity who created us. What do you guys think about this?
thanks,

[Justsit]

Chesterton was a Christian apologist. He was a firm believer in God.

He believed what he believed - you believe what you believe.
No problem.

[Sam Vara]

This man named G.K. Chesterton said "If you don't believe in God you've lost your common sense." I find this statment quite ridiculous since I can reason fully and clearly without beliveing in a supreme entity who created us. What do you guys think about this?
thanks,

I've Googled this, and can't find any link to Chesterton. My thoughts about it are that the person who said it had a different conception of "God" or "common sense" from me.

I have read quite a lot of Chesterton, and found him to be an intelligent and insightful writer, very humane and challenging of my preconceptions. As he was a Christian Englishman who died in 1936, it would not be surprising if he did believe something like your quote. But he would probably have expressed it more elegantly and thought-provokingly.

[David N. Snyder]

This man named G.K. Chesterton said "If you don't believe in God you've lost your common sense."

It is not a logical or good argument. It is a thought-terminating cliché, nothing more. There may be a logical argument for believing in a personal-God-supreme being but I haven't seen one and this is certainly not one.

One could use that phrase for anything; for example, "if you don't believe in fairies, you've lost your common sense" or "if you don't believe in the Flying Spaghetti Monster (FSM), you've lost your common sense."

[Kim O'Hara]

Without disagreeing with any of the responses above ... It's quite possible Chesterton put those words in the mouth of one of his fictional characters, i.e. they are his words but they are not what he would have said himself.


Kim

[cooran]

Or it occurred in a discussion like this:
http://www.apologetics315.com/2012/12/g ... heism.html

[plwk]

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... .niza.html
“Monks, there are four bonds. Which four? The bond of sensual pleasure, the bond of being, the bond of opinion, the bond of ignorance.
“And how is there the bond of opinions?
Here, monks, someone does not understand as it really is the arising, the subsiding, the sweetness, the wretchedness, and the leaving behind of opinions.
For one not understanding as it really is the arising, the subsiding, the sweetness, the wretchedness, and the leaving behind of modes of opinion; who, with respect to opinion, is obsessed with passion for opinion, delight in opinion, affection for opinion, intoxication with opinion, thirst for opinion, fever for opinion, attachment to opinion, craving for opinion: this, monks, is called ‘the bond of opinion’. Thus the bond of sensual pleasure, the bond of being, and the bond of opinion.

“Monks, there are four releases from bondage. Which four?
The release from the bondage of the bond of sensual pleasure, the release from the bondage of the bond of being, the release from the bondage of the bond of opinion, and the release from the bondage of the bond of ignorance.
“And how is there the release from the bondage of the bond of opinions?
Here, monks, someone understands as it really is the arising, the subsiding, the sweetness, the wretchedness, and the leaving behind of opinions.
For one understanding as it really is the arising, the subsiding, the sweetness, the wretchedness, and the leaving behind of opinions; who, with respect to opinions, is not obsessed with passion for opinions, delight in opinions, affection for opinions, intoxication with opinions, thirst for opinions, fever for opinions, attachment to opinions, craving for opinions: this, monks, is called ‘the release from bondage of the bond of opinions’. Thus the release from the bondage of the bond of sensual pleasure, the release from the bondage of the bond of being, and the release from the bondage of the bond of opinions.

See this too...

http://www.dharmaweb.org/index.php/Thus ... nd_Stories
PARABLE 0120: THIS MIND IS THE BUDDHA
"Once a monk asked Big Plum what [the famous Zen Patriarch] Matsu taught him.
Big Plum said, 'This mind is the Buddha.'
The monk replied, 'Nowadays Matsu teaches That which isn't the mind isn't the Buddha.'
To this Big Plum replied, 'Let him have That which isn't the mind isn't the Buddha. I'll stick with This mind is the Buddha.'
When he heard this story, Matsu said, 'The plum is ripe.'
(Transmission of the Lamp, chapter 7)." Red Pine: 116

[Kim O'Hara]

Or it occurred in a discussion like this:
http://www.apologetics315.com/2012/12/g ... heism.html

It could have, but it didn't.
Google "If you don't believe in God you've lost your common sense", with or without "Chesterton", and you get ONE result ... this thread.
Tentative conclusion: Chesterton didn't say it at all.

Okay, nrose619, where did you get it from?


Kim

[pulga]

The Buddhist scholar Paul Williams converted from Buddhism to Catholicism. I don't know off hand what drew Chesterton to the Catholic faith, but Prof. Williams gives his reasons for rejecting Buddhism and embracing Christianity in the link below.

http://whyimcatholic.com/index.php/conv ... l-williams

[Modus.Ponens]

Paul Williams' reason for leaving buddhism are mainly poor understanding of rebirth and karma. Also, he never truly accepted the doctrine of anatta or he would not be so afraid of death.

It surprises me how can one can make a PhD in buddhist philosophy at Oxford (!) and make such interpretation mistakes.

[nrose619]

Hey Kim! This quote was told to be by G.K. Chesterton in the DVD "G.K. Chesterton The Apostle of Common Sense"

[pulga]

As luck will have it, we'll all be reborn as cockroaches in our coming lives.

[nrose619]

Buddhism seemed problematic to Paul Williams because of the doctrines of rebirth and kamma, but in actuality it was Paul himself who let his view become problematic through worrying about death and beginnings; which in turn, demonstrates his inability to reach a full comprehension of the doctrines in both concept and practice. (as modus said). Paul also makes an emphais on the existence of self, " What is so terrifying about my being executed at dawn and reborn as a cockroach is that it is simply, quite straightforwardly, the end of me"- From this it seems Paul did not leave behind Buddhism because of the teachings themselves but rather his need for self-preservation and not clearly seeing that the ego is an illusion.

[pulga]

Just the thought of living forever, even if it doesn't imply death, scares the hell out of me.

[nrose619]

Just the thought of living forever, even if it doesn't imply death, scares the hell out of me.

That is why the Buddha's wisdom is unlimited he showed a way to get off the wheel of coming and going. Nirvana (non-coming non-going)

[mirco]

This man named G.K. Chesterton said "If you don't believe in God you've lost your common sense." I find this statment quite ridiculous since I can reason fully and clearly without beliveing in a supreme entity who created us. What do you guys think about this?

Hi,

I have no ideas of what kind of god Mr. Chesterton is thinking of. Do you? I mean, how do you know that his god is a "supreme entity who created us"? That maybe is your version of a god. A helpful question for you might be, why do you have issues with that concept.

Regards :-)

[nrose619]

Well since he is a Christian I assume he believes in one God (monotheism) that has the ability to dictate our lives through the manipulation of a permanent "soul" (that is the basis of Christianity). I do not agree with this since I do not believe there is a soul or unbreakable human essence. The main "issue" I had with his statement however, was the absoluteness of his proclamation he appeared to make (if you don't belive in a god= you don't have common sense) I am not saying his belief in a God is "wrong" but rather his bold statement which came off as quite disingenuous to human beings of other beliefs. But perhaps you are right and I should ask myself why I reacted to that statement in the way I did, If that were the case I'd say I've grown weary of the Christian contradiction of having a pure code of ethics (kindness, compassion, generosity) tainted by desire of conquering and unrelenting persuasion.

[tiltbillings]

This not the first time a Chesterton comment has been a topic here.

viewtopic.php?f=16&t=13853#p204716

[pilgrim]

Paul also makes an emphais on the existence of self, " What is so terrifying about my being executed at dawn and reborn as a cockroach is that it is simply, quite straightforwardly, the end of me"- From this it seems Paul did not leave behind Buddhism because of the teachings themselves but rather his need for self-preservation and not clearly seeing that the ego is an illusion.

Appears that he wasn't looking for truth, but for comfort. If not for Christianity, any other myth would do.

[Cittasanto]

This man named G.K. Chesterton said "If you don't believe in God you've lost your common sense." I find this statment quite ridiculous since I can reason fully and clearly without beliveing in a supreme entity who created us. What do you guys think about this?
thanks,

He was raised up in an environment to believe, his perception was imbued with it, so for him to think in another way is unfathomable.