Well written! Faith is the fundamental difference between religious myth and modernity’s myth. Properly understood, faith is not blind assent or intellectual laziness. It is an acknowledgment of limits, of mystery, contingency, and dependence on a reality that exceeds human mastery. Faith begins with the admission that I do not fully know, and therefore it cultivates humility.
Modernity’s myth, by contrast, tends toward absolute conviction precisely because it refuses to see itself as a myth at all. Its story of progress, rational mastery, and inevitable enlightenment is treated not as an interpretation of reality, but as reality itself. Because this narrative claims the authority of science, it often immunises itself against philosophical or moral questioning. Doubt is permitted only within tightly controlled parameters, while doubt about the framework itself is treated as irrational or dangerous.
This is why modern ideological certainty so often produces fanaticism rather than openness. When a worldview is believed to be not merely true, but self-evident and final, disagreement is no longer an invitation to inquiry. It becomes a moral failure. Ironically, this posture is far closer to dogmatism than to reason.
Faith restrains the intellect by reminding it that truth is something to be sought, not possessed absolutely. Modernity’s myth, lacking that restraint, mistakes confidence for clarity and conviction for understanding.
This was so wonderfully stated! And your last paragraph cannot be stressed enough. It's another modern misconception that faith and reason are opposed to each other. As you noted, tradition believe that faith doesn't deny reason, but restrains it from consuming itself, or even perfects the intellect. Without wonder, and a foundation to ground rationality in, man becomes a "maniac," (to borrow another Chesterton-ism)
My pastor says you cannot walk about in nature (presumably with eyes wide open) and not believe in God, but someone has to teach you about Christ. I think that is definitely true. I enjoy watching birds. I am in awe at the intricacies of the various types of birds and how each type is unique and sufficiently different from one another to tell one type from another. But each type is intrinsically detailed.
That the little hummingbird who travels north each spring can hover and fly backwards is a wonderment. In the spring, the adults (those who at least a year old) fly south first. Those born that summer fly south, as far as Mexico, although they have never been there before. Hummingbirds fly solo, not in flocks like some other birds. All these things make hummingbirds seem like one of God’s miracles to me.
I've had a realization recently. That we are very insignificant as compared to the rest of the universe. And no matter how much we think we know, there are still so much more that we do not know.
Suddenly, I felt a shift in my perspective. And while I was unsure before, now I don't think I could call myself an atheist, or totally dismiss the existence of a God. Given the vast universe, I realized that while it is difficult to claim that God exists, it is much more difficult to prove that God does not exist.
It doesn't mean I'm anti-science all of a sudden. But perhaps science has kind of skewed our perspective starting in the modern era. We think of science as the electric bulb that fills the room with light so you can see everything. So everything becomes small, and can be reduced into mathematical equations.
Rather, I'd like to think that science should feel like carrying a candlelight in a dark room. That it illuminates only to reveal that the room is so much bigger, and we have yet to see eveything. And it could feel scary, but then it starts to spark our imagination. Precisely because, we have limits to what we know.
This way of thinking changed a lot for me. Suddenly, I feel like a child again, curious about the endless possibilities. Perhaps, there are such things as fate or destiny. Perhaps there are more to things that we see. There is beauty all around, and perhaps there's a message behind them like constellations in the skies. The shift in perspective changed a great deal for me, without having to discard science but also having an openness to myth. I both know so much and so little at the same time.
That sounds like a wonderful revelation/curiosity, very much in line with the wisdom of Socrates (I know that I know nothing at all).
For what it's worth, that classical view of education doesn't hold science/logic/reason in opposition with faith nor mysticism, rather it stressed that natural law points to a higher ordered reality. So I would say your line of thinking is precise and sharp here
It's amazing to think that given all our technological leaps and scientific discoveries, we've seemingly made little progress since Chesterton's days. Or, perhaps we've made progress in a roundabout way--all the new age, secular assumptions about the world that arose during the Industrial Revolution, are starting to decay.
Chesterton's assertion that you included summarizes it well: “Nobody can imagine how nothing could turn into something. Nobody can get an inch nearer to it by explaining how something could turn into something else. It is really far more logical to start by saying ‘In the beginning God created heaven and earth’ even if you only mean ‘In the beginning some unthinkable power began some unthinkable process.’"
It's a great point you bring up. Really, we can even question what "progress," looks like. It seems modernity has progressed wonderfully in the realm of science, but not so much in the terms of morality.
I think it was Alfred Whitehead who said, paraphrased: "For the past 2,000 years, no ethical system has replaced the Sermon on the Mount"
Myth is a beautiful word, if not taken too far into story or fiction.
Nowadays we refer to a worldview or narrative. These might be more rational, adult terms, but without the mystery and missing pieces and slightly hazy mis-telling of myth.
While I agree, of course, with Chesterton, I would add two things:
1) 100 years after Chesterton we’re seeing a battle for a new “Ur-myth” in the West. Theory of evolution is a product of enlightened positivism and we can see how that has run out of steam. Instead we see lots of different “heresies”, if you will, vying for supremacy, from climate religion, via assorted guilt trips, to AI utopism and what not. Check out Franz Borkenau’s “End and Beginning”, in which he sketches a similar situation in late antiquity before the foundation of the new Ur-myth of Western Civilization.
2) one thing I’d add to your list of various aspects qualifying for a myth, is the idea of original sin. Not sure how that works with the theory of evolution (maybe that’s its weakness as a myth?), but most contemporary myths deal strongly in some form of original sin (man-made climate change, colonialism, racism, etc). None of them offers the full package, though, which is more proof of them being heresies.
On point 1, I do think "heresies," is an appropriate term, insofar as you see gnosticism butting its head up again just as it was doing so 2,000 years ago.
And to point 2, the idea of original sin's ubiquitous nature is very compelling. I believe Chesterton himself adds that point later on in Everlasting Man, something along the lines of "pagans didn't encounter grace, but they all agreed upon the Fall."
The whole Christianity — the church’s version — is foundered upon one miracle, the resurrection. Think about that.
Jesus’ own teachings are drastically different from Paul’s version which became the teachings of the church. Faith became the only thing that matters in the church’s version of Christianity, to make it easier for everyone to be converted, and for the rich and wicked to enter heaven — as long as they have faith!
Why are you peddling this junk in this day and age?
Well written! Faith is the fundamental difference between religious myth and modernity’s myth. Properly understood, faith is not blind assent or intellectual laziness. It is an acknowledgment of limits, of mystery, contingency, and dependence on a reality that exceeds human mastery. Faith begins with the admission that I do not fully know, and therefore it cultivates humility.
Modernity’s myth, by contrast, tends toward absolute conviction precisely because it refuses to see itself as a myth at all. Its story of progress, rational mastery, and inevitable enlightenment is treated not as an interpretation of reality, but as reality itself. Because this narrative claims the authority of science, it often immunises itself against philosophical or moral questioning. Doubt is permitted only within tightly controlled parameters, while doubt about the framework itself is treated as irrational or dangerous.
This is why modern ideological certainty so often produces fanaticism rather than openness. When a worldview is believed to be not merely true, but self-evident and final, disagreement is no longer an invitation to inquiry. It becomes a moral failure. Ironically, this posture is far closer to dogmatism than to reason.
Faith restrains the intellect by reminding it that truth is something to be sought, not possessed absolutely. Modernity’s myth, lacking that restraint, mistakes confidence for clarity and conviction for understanding.
This was so wonderfully stated! And your last paragraph cannot be stressed enough. It's another modern misconception that faith and reason are opposed to each other. As you noted, tradition believe that faith doesn't deny reason, but restrains it from consuming itself, or even perfects the intellect. Without wonder, and a foundation to ground rationality in, man becomes a "maniac," (to borrow another Chesterton-ism)
Had to stop and write this down. First and last paragraph in particular. WOW
My pastor says you cannot walk about in nature (presumably with eyes wide open) and not believe in God, but someone has to teach you about Christ. I think that is definitely true. I enjoy watching birds. I am in awe at the intricacies of the various types of birds and how each type is unique and sufficiently different from one another to tell one type from another. But each type is intrinsically detailed.
That the little hummingbird who travels north each spring can hover and fly backwards is a wonderment. In the spring, the adults (those who at least a year old) fly south first. Those born that summer fly south, as far as Mexico, although they have never been there before. Hummingbirds fly solo, not in flocks like some other birds. All these things make hummingbirds seem like one of God’s miracles to me.
In the last paragraph, I said that the migration to which I was referring took place in spring. It should say it occurs at summer’s end.
I've had a realization recently. That we are very insignificant as compared to the rest of the universe. And no matter how much we think we know, there are still so much more that we do not know.
Suddenly, I felt a shift in my perspective. And while I was unsure before, now I don't think I could call myself an atheist, or totally dismiss the existence of a God. Given the vast universe, I realized that while it is difficult to claim that God exists, it is much more difficult to prove that God does not exist.
It doesn't mean I'm anti-science all of a sudden. But perhaps science has kind of skewed our perspective starting in the modern era. We think of science as the electric bulb that fills the room with light so you can see everything. So everything becomes small, and can be reduced into mathematical equations.
Rather, I'd like to think that science should feel like carrying a candlelight in a dark room. That it illuminates only to reveal that the room is so much bigger, and we have yet to see eveything. And it could feel scary, but then it starts to spark our imagination. Precisely because, we have limits to what we know.
This way of thinking changed a lot for me. Suddenly, I feel like a child again, curious about the endless possibilities. Perhaps, there are such things as fate or destiny. Perhaps there are more to things that we see. There is beauty all around, and perhaps there's a message behind them like constellations in the skies. The shift in perspective changed a great deal for me, without having to discard science but also having an openness to myth. I both know so much and so little at the same time.
That sounds like a wonderful revelation/curiosity, very much in line with the wisdom of Socrates (I know that I know nothing at all).
For what it's worth, that classical view of education doesn't hold science/logic/reason in opposition with faith nor mysticism, rather it stressed that natural law points to a higher ordered reality. So I would say your line of thinking is precise and sharp here
It's amazing to think that given all our technological leaps and scientific discoveries, we've seemingly made little progress since Chesterton's days. Or, perhaps we've made progress in a roundabout way--all the new age, secular assumptions about the world that arose during the Industrial Revolution, are starting to decay.
Chesterton's assertion that you included summarizes it well: “Nobody can imagine how nothing could turn into something. Nobody can get an inch nearer to it by explaining how something could turn into something else. It is really far more logical to start by saying ‘In the beginning God created heaven and earth’ even if you only mean ‘In the beginning some unthinkable power began some unthinkable process.’"
Well done, Sean.
It's a great point you bring up. Really, we can even question what "progress," looks like. It seems modernity has progressed wonderfully in the realm of science, but not so much in the terms of morality.
I think it was Alfred Whitehead who said, paraphrased: "For the past 2,000 years, no ethical system has replaced the Sermon on the Mount"
Myth is a beautiful word, if not taken too far into story or fiction.
Nowadays we refer to a worldview or narrative. These might be more rational, adult terms, but without the mystery and missing pieces and slightly hazy mis-telling of myth.
I agree! I personally have a distaste of "worldview," especially, as it strikes me as a watered down term that implies subjectivism.
Sean, this is remarkable work. I hope you compile your essays and put them into a book someday.
Thank you Mike! Honestly, that's a very fun suggestion to think of. Maybe someday :)
While I agree, of course, with Chesterton, I would add two things:
1) 100 years after Chesterton we’re seeing a battle for a new “Ur-myth” in the West. Theory of evolution is a product of enlightened positivism and we can see how that has run out of steam. Instead we see lots of different “heresies”, if you will, vying for supremacy, from climate religion, via assorted guilt trips, to AI utopism and what not. Check out Franz Borkenau’s “End and Beginning”, in which he sketches a similar situation in late antiquity before the foundation of the new Ur-myth of Western Civilization.
2) one thing I’d add to your list of various aspects qualifying for a myth, is the idea of original sin. Not sure how that works with the theory of evolution (maybe that’s its weakness as a myth?), but most contemporary myths deal strongly in some form of original sin (man-made climate change, colonialism, racism, etc). None of them offers the full package, though, which is more proof of them being heresies.
100% agree with everything you said.
On point 1, I do think "heresies," is an appropriate term, insofar as you see gnosticism butting its head up again just as it was doing so 2,000 years ago.
And to point 2, the idea of original sin's ubiquitous nature is very compelling. I believe Chesterton himself adds that point later on in Everlasting Man, something along the lines of "pagans didn't encounter grace, but they all agreed upon the Fall."
Wonderful.
Thank you sir!
Chesterton is a glib writer.
The whole Christianity — the church’s version — is foundered upon one miracle, the resurrection. Think about that.
Chesterton is a glib writer.
The whole Christianity — the church’s version — is foundered upon one miracle, the resurrection. Think about that.
Jesus’ own teachings are drastically different from Paul’s version which became the teachings of the church. Faith became the only thing that matters in the church’s version of Christianity, to make it easier for everyone to be converted, and for the rich and wicked to enter heaven — as long as they have faith!
Why are you peddling this junk in this day and age?
Well said, you've got me keen to re-read Chesterton!
Here's C.S. Lewis' take on the issue:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B487M8KEkpHZaFdBRTlOU3V3ZVk/view?usp=drivesdk&resourcekey=0-a1B5pubYYYCgyC01_e-ybw
Very new here, and just getting the hang of posting. Would appreciate it if you would check this out:
https://open.substack.com/pub/livingapologetic/p/image-bearers-of-something-eternal?utm_campaign=post-expanded-share&utm_medium=web
We could more accurately say the humans are more followers of myth than of truth.
https://open.substack.com/pub/angelofreason/p/why-myth-is-unreplaceable-even-in?r=6g2b54&utm_medium=ios