I find that those in my personal interactions claim to have their beliefs set primarily in the notion of Universal truth. However, each person has an individual interpretation of what the “Universal” truth is. Many of the “modern” people find a belief that fits their identity in an attempt to set themselves apart from others and their ideas. For this reason, I find it difficult to believe that there are a set of general truths that explain everything within our universe. It is the right of the individual to make his own truths through his observations of the world. As complex as the self, the environment, and the world are there is no way there are a finite set of concepts to capture all of these interactions. Plus, these truths could not possibly coincide with everyone’s personal ideas especially with the diversity of the modern age.
I haven’t read very many articles in defense of orthodoxy, but this seemed particularly impressive. All things considered, I would have to give Chesterton a 4 on the persuasion scale because he’s not exactly a genius, but he did give me quite a bit to think about. One very effective approach was the description of the mentality of those individuals involved the orthodox beliefs. For example, one line that stood out was: “If he (the man of orthodox faith) stood alone in a howling wilderness he was more than a man; he was a church.” It showed me that this person must have done this to feel a sense of empowerment, much like the feeling Joel Olstein gets when he reassures you that you’re a “victor” as opposed to a “victim.” He also goes on to explain how the idea of orthodoxy has deteriorated over the years; being less about the pursuit of what’s right and more about what feels right to the individual, which seemed like a reasonable claim. I have seen examples of this first hand. A friend of mine who is in the orthodox church and claims to have these beliefs, but never goes to church because he can find God on his own. This only further persuades me to side with Chesterton and hence granting him a grade of 4.

I would agree with many of Chesterton’s ideas on Universal Truth, and have seen some of what he talks about in my daily life. I would definitely agree that there is an aversion to Universal Truth in today’s society, because individualism is so heavily stressed. There is a clear message in today’s society that each individual’s views are perfectly acceptable, and no one has the right to tell them otherwise. Thus, the very idea of a Universal Truth is a kind of ironic heresy. I know people who can’t stand Christians because they push their religion on other people, preferring to take their own individually derived truths. But then, I have also seen the opposite side of the spectrum, those Christians who practically attack those who do not share their beliefs in an attempt to save their souls from burning in hell (not the most positive ad campaign, I might add). The latter group obviously believes in the concept of a Universal Truth. It is the kinds of conflicts created in situations like the aforementioned that have led our culture to shy away from Universal Truth. Even many Christians prefer to use individually derived truths, taking their own spin on doctrine. They may possess all of the morals encouraged by the Bible, but disagree with the fire and brimstone of fundamentalists. The bottom line is that a growing percentage of the population feels that religion does not have all of the answers to the questions of the universe as we once thought it did, that religion is no longer a universal truth.
While I agree with Chesterton’s statement that the importance of blasphemy varies directly with the importance of orthodoxy (pardon the mathematical statement in a literature class), I’m not sure I agree with his feelings about the importance of orthodoxy. I believe I would give his argument about a 2. I, admittedly a product of the times, believe that, at least to some extent, there is no real Universal Truth. I also don’t agree with his statements about art, that an artist who does not subscribe to Universal Truth creates mediocre work. I believe that there is more in the universe to inspire beautiful art than just philosophy or religion.

It was interesting to have read this article at this point in my life. Recently, I’ve taken the time to step back and really think about my ideas and morals and what exactly I want to aim for. Realizing that I left my idealist self behind to take care of my smaller truths and goals, I abandoned my current path to better seek my huge ideals. Chesterton somehow clearly put into words my feelings I experienced during my revelation; I realized my path of mediocrity following what works by losing my theories and ideals we’ve learned to want since birth. You can tell, I especially liked the reference to wanting the moon since birth and losing that ideal goal as we grew. I began rejecting the universal truth I once believed to accept individually derived truths and go along my way. I’m glad I not only had the epiphany at an early age, but I coincidently came across the text by Chesterton to support my ideas during this course.
I, myself, have never been in favor of orthodoxy. Of course, from what I’ve read and been exposed to on the subject, its been painted in a different light that Chesterton’s idea. Every argument I’ve read in the past has never convinced me to agree with any form of orthodoxy. However, never have I read anything that looked so in depth on the results of heresy as compared to the past when we had orthodoxy. All in all, I’d have to give Chesterton’s argument a 5. Perhaps its because I just recently witnessed parts of his argument first hand and can relate to the way he states his arguments. Whatever the case, he was persuasive enough for me to now stand firm in saying that I strongly agree with Chesterton’s ideas of universal truth and the lack thereof because of the spread of heresy. I also have to agree that the definition of heresy has now greatly changed now to “being clear headed and courageous”, which doesn’t say much about our progression in search for truth. I strongly agree that orthodoxy may be the answer we need.

In dealing with individuals in my personal interactions, I see a mixture of those who accept Universal Truth and those who accept and favor a multitude of individually-derived truths. I believe this mixture of acceptance also stems from the times we grew up in when our opinions are formed. For example my grandparents were raised in the early 1900s and hold extreme faith in Universal Truth. My parents grew up in the middle 1900s and have faith in the Universal Truth but also every now and then take to an individually-derived truth as long as the message remains the same. My sister and I grew up in the late 1900s and again hold faith in the Universal Truth but unlike my parents and grandparents are able to be much more objective when it comes to individually-derived truths. The shift of the times shows a shift in the attitudes of Universal Truths vs. individually-derived truths. Universal Truth is a great basis for views and beliefs but as the times change I feel so does the strict adherence and interpretation to those Universal Truths. To me, people aren’t rejecting Universal Truth just simply modifying it to fit their need to believe. Everyone should have a truth to believe in and if the typical Universal Truth doesn’t fulfill that need then an individual truth should be created.

On Chesterton’s persuasiveness I would rate him a 2. I wouldn’t consider Chesterton an idiot but I wouldn’t consider him a genius either. He writes “the modern idea is that cosmic truth is so unimportant that it cannot matter what any one says.” I don’t agree with that statement. Everyone is trying to find what they believe to be the cosmic truth and I think individuals take what others have to say and make their own adjustment accordingly. I am not convinced with Chesterton’s argument and to be quite honest had a little bit of difficulty figuring out where his argument was going. It is important for orthodoxy to remain in society because it gives a guide for people to follow. But I do not believe as Chesterton does that any person who changes that orthodoxy is automatically a heretic. Who are we to judge those who hold belief in their individually derived truths? Everyone should have the opportunity to have their own cosmic truth even if it differs from yours.

In reading Chesterton’s writings, I find that I am leaning towards the middle of the spectrum. In my every day interactions with people, I find that the Universal Truth is present and not rejected, but there is also an individually-derived truth as well. I think as the times change over the years Universal Truth stays the same whereas individual truths vary among the population. Chesterton’s idea that the Universal Truth doesn’t matter doesn’t seem quite accurate in my dealings in every day life. I think Universal Truths are not what thoughts and actions revolve around, but they are the basis for my individual thought. I think people will mold their ideas to fit the Universal Truth. Different individuals will put different twists. I do not think I have dealt with one person who completely disregards the notion of Universal Truth. I would suggest that there are people who attempt to disregard the Universal Truth, but I don’t know if it is possible for a person to completely disregard it because it is a basic idea of which other, individually-derived ideas are built off. The interpretation of the Universal Truth might change over time, which is a possible explanation for why individual truths evolved over time. Depending on the societal make up of the time, the Universal Truth might be interpreted in a completely different way then the Universal truth of another completely separate time. People change in their belief systems and thoughts, and the interpretation of the Universal truth and the importance on individually derived truths will shift accordingly.
As for Chesterton’s persuasiveness in his defense of the importance of orthodoxy, I would likely give him a 1-2 on a scale of one to five. I don’t think he presented his argument very well and I felt like he was very “jumpy” in his thoughts. He was arguing for orthodoxy, but I didn’t believe him. He definitely did not make the best argument on the topic. I understood where he was coming from in his arguments, but based on the criteria we have learned in class, I wouldn’t say Chesterton made the best argument based on the criteria for heretical thought.

1. I’ve found Chesterton’s accusation that many people forego Universal Truth in favor of many individual truths to be very true. I certainly know that I do, and I would venture to say that most of my friends do. I think the reason this is true is because of the Universal Truths are something that can not be known for sure. They can’t be tested or studied. It makes far more sense to me to live in the here and now and concern yourself with many small individual truths. Chesterton also brings up the fact that "The modern idea is that cosmic truth is so unimportant that it cannot matter what any one says.” I would disagree with this. Cosmic truth is probably the most important thing in our lives. My own personal belief though is that no human can possibly understand cosmic truth themselves. I’m not an atheist. I believe there’s something else besides what we can experience in our lives out there. I do however believe that what other people say concerning Universal Truth is unimportant because I don’t believe they have any thing better than I do to base their ideas on. I just think we all need to live the way we see fit and hope for the best.

2. I’m giving him a one (what a friggin’ idiot). I’m a big believer in art, be it film, music, sculpture, literature, painting, or whatever. I’m a fan of human expression. I thought his argument became arrogant and incorrect when he started talking about how art produced by non-believers was inferior to that produced by the faithful, or when he implied that the faithful portrayed blasphemy better than blasphemers. I don’t have anything against religious art, but I like secular art too, and I think it is naïve for anyone to say any type of art is better than any other type like it’s a fact. Any conclusion one draws from art is most likely an opinion, and thus useless in an argument. I also didn’t like his metaphor at the end, the one about the lamp, the monk, and the crowd. The point of the metaphor is that the lamp, representing God, Christ, religion, or whatever, is pulled down, the people are happy about it, but then they realize that the monk (the orthodox church), was right and now they must live without the light. The thing I didn’t like about this argument is that it assumes right off the bat that the monk is right about the lamp, an assumption we can not necessarily take concerning the church and God. It’s the classic orthodox argument of “We are right because we are right.” It’s another opinion, and therefore not convincing.

As I’ve gone through my life, the more people I’ve encountered seems to equal the number of truths of which I have learned. Individualism is a predominant trait of Generation Y, or, as one might call it, Generation Why? Or in some cases, Generation Why Not? Whether this truth be political, religious, philosophical…etc, each individual’s personal truth, though in some cases, similar, has been decidedly different. This is a generation that was brought up in an era where self esteem and a sense of self worth has been the chant of all of the childcare and self help gurus, therefore, why shouldn’t each individual think that he can have a claim on their own truth? One could even distort this occurrence as to say that the Universal Truth is that each person is in charge of heir own personal truth.
Even a few that I have met that said that they did devote themselves to the idea of a Universal Truth in religion, in this case Catholicism, were willing to tell someone to find their own version of the truth if said person inconvenienced them enough to do so. When seeing that a newcomer to the church didn’t quite know how to go through the ceremonies of the Mass or was a little confused as to what each part of the mass symbolized, these followers of the Universal Truth, took it upon themselves to tell this person that he perhaps wasn’t committed enough to the religion and should perhaps find his own philosophy by which to go by. People, even ones that do view themselves as following Universal Truths, will revert to a philosophy of individualism when convenient or self serving.
As for Chesterton’s defense of the importance of orthodoxy, there parts of it that I find unconvincing. He discusses on page forty eight about how when original restraints were lifted on religious discussion that it has ultimately resulted in a suppression of any religious discussion, yet he conveniently leaves out the fact that when the so called “old restrictions” have included complete persecution of any religious dissent, not just by treating the dissenter as a social pariah, but through uses of such torture devices as the rack, burning at the steak, or the less often mentioned anal pear
He goes on to mention that today, modern versions of orthodoxy do not include much of a doctrine at all, and that at least if the clergy of the past forced doctrine on the people that they at least made sure that they thought it out enough to where the doctrine was lucid. It seems that Chesterton believes being forced to live under orthodoxy is better than having the dangerous option of following an individual truth.
Besides the flaws I find in this paper, he does make good points in that society has put a sort of stigma on discussion of religion, labeling any of it as counterproductive to progress or individualism. Indeed it could lead to a new kind of religious suppression, not one where an established religion is trying to quell heretics, but one where a secular society is trying to quell any philosophical or religious orthodoxy whatsoever. Overall I rank his argument a compelling 3.

I have found that people try to avoid talking about the concept of there being one Universal Truth not because the concept of an Absolute Truth in unattainable, but because of the society we live in. In modern day America, an idea of Universal Truth denotes the possibility of God, and therefore a discussion about religion. Being one who is of the persuasion of a religious minority, I find that people avoid speaking of an Absolute Truth in fear that they will offend someone- most likely me. In an attempt to cater to this fear inherent in our liberal, tolerant society, people have adopted the new individually derived truths. Modern people have given up on the age-old question. The only way to explore the cosmos without challenging the beliefs of others and offending someone is to digress and propose “to each his own.” In terms of a discussion of an Absolute Truth being unattainable, thus irrelevant, I have dealt with a couple of people who believe this. These people are convinced that since nobody will be able to grasp and prove a Universal Truth, anyone’s thoughts on the subject are meaningless. It is as if these people have heard it all and the mere proposal that a friendly discussion may lead to an interesting insight is a farce. Chesterton claims that people should talk about the cosmos because it is the most important thing to talk about. I think an argument can be made to disagree with the notion that people don’t talk about Truth because they don’t think it is important. In fact, I think they avoid it because it is SO important to them. People may dismiss another’s views on Truth for fear that they may be imposing their beliefs on them. Something I think Chesterton would humorously point out if he were writing about modern life is the portrayal of those people who talk about Absolute Truths. I do not have enough fingers to count the amount of movies or TV shows I have seen that portray marijuana-smoking youth talking about the cosmos and the search for a Truth in vain of their out-of-body experience. So, does it take drugs to get modern day people to open up and talk about the greatest and most relevant mystery of all?

Out of a 1 to 5 scale, I would give Chesterton a 3. Although I don’t agree with him, I would say his argument definitely has some validity to it. I can see where he is right in implying that humans need a systematic structure in their culture to give them the tools to survive. Chesterton makes an interesting point in that Orthodoxy gives the misguided human the tools to put himself back on track and make constructive decisions. But, being a product of American modernism, I am accustomed to the moral and philosophical isolation inherent in the chaos of society. Therefore, Chesterton has not convinced me to change my ways.

Question 1: The people I deal with in everyday life, are between sides of Chesterton. On the whole, they mostly accept Universal Truths such as: killing is bad, you need milk in your cereal and shoes should be tied. There are those however, who believe in personal truths such as: I look hideous in the color gray, the grass is Hunter Green, and pink flowers are more beautiful than red flowers. Overall, I think that most of the people in everyday life do reject the idea of Universal Truth. It is much easier to believe something that is in closer relation to oneself, than to believe things that are a blanket statement for all people. Those who do believe in Universal Truth, in my dealings, have less of an idea for individualism, and are less likely to ponder such great questions of the world. Universal Truth is also often hard to stand by because there are so many philosophers and higher beings who have many different views on Universal Truths, to choose which to believe and which to throw out can often become a serious dilemma for those who are strong in their convictions.

Question 2: Chesterton’s argument on a scale of one to five, would probably rank a 2 for me personally. It is easy to see what point he is making in his view of the heretic being the man who is the law, who is structured. It is also easy to see that Chesterton believes that the man who breaks the law is the orthodox, because the law enforcers had rebelled against him. Chesterton describes orthodoxy as being true to oneself, and no one else. He describes heresy as those who break out against one person’s actions or beliefs. I do not agree with Chesterton at all, after reviewing the criteria for a heretic from J. Willhelm and Hillaire Belloc. Although Chesterton makes a fascinating case, it is not as persuasive. To a man who had little knowledge of what a heretic is, or even what heretics stand for, it could be easily believed. Chesterton can not quite be labeled a quack, because he is very strong in his beliefs and has many dealings with many scholarly men, therefore, he is knowledgeable and does have the convictions to make his own definition of what a heretic is.

I found this article very interesting. I have seen this a lot in my own observations. The individual truths are evident mostly in my family. I am the only Christian in my family, so it is tricky not to step on anyone's toes when they all know that I believe that I am right. I continue to come across that idea that everyone should just believe what works for them, and we can all live in harmony together. I don't think it is that they reject the idea of Universal Truth, but they don't believe that any one individual truth is correct. Chesterton says at one point that people have started to just not care if they are correct. I hadn't ever thought about it this way, but it is completely true. If people really wanted to be right, they wouldn't be so passive about everyone else's beliefs. I think that many religions believe they are right, and want to be right, because it has worth and sharing that with the world is a part of their beliefs. I think that's why there is so much argument over evangalism. It's as if everyone is saying, "I respect you and am leaving you alone, so why can't you do the same for me?" So then, they start defending their beliefs and suddenly it's important that they are right. Chesterton says it well at the end of the second paragraph in section one: "Everything matters--except everything."
I will give Chesterton a 3 for his argument of orthodoxy. It makes a lot of sense, but living in the generation we do, I think we also have become the kind that he describes. We are able to accept all kinds of beliefs, and because of that his argument is less convincing. On the one hand I understand that we need orthodoxy because the world is somewhat chaotic without, but on the other I feel like we as a people will adjust to that chaos and will continue to find ways to disturb the peace.
Overall Chesterton's ideas still ring true in our society today. He makes a very good point of how people today differ from those in the past.