SCIENCE AND RELIGION

Hokitika Guardian, 6 April 1922, Page 4

SCIENCE AND RELIGION

address by dr Holloway

A mass meeting of the Church ot England Men’s Society was held on Monday night in the Durham street school room, Mr C E. Bevan-Brown presiding over a large attendance, says the Christchurch “Press.”

An address on “Do Science and Religion Clash?” was given by Dr Holloway, D.Se., M.A. The speaker endeavoured to show that science had helped the believer to see the spirit of the Bible, through the mere words in its composition. In I Book of Revelation, the material things, the streets of gold and tli c gates of pearls were surely used in a parabalic sense, and why should not Genesis bo looked upon in the same way ? The question was often asked: “What about f ho contradiction in the Bible?” The principles set forth were the things that mattered. “Those who hold to the words of scripture,” said the Doctor, “have a hard mechanical view of religion.” There were people who led such simple, upright lives that the words themselves satisfied them, but I the Protestant man in the street, who i avowedly believed in the Bible, had j often only the verbal without the spiritual significance of it. I He was an idolator, a materialist, and he had never obtained the real

spirit of the love it contained. The liberal view of the Garden of Eden was a hard mechanical one, and it was over the early chapters of Genesis that Christians and scientists had clashed. “Our fathers held a wrong view of the early chapters,” said the lecturer, who went on to explain that they took

a too materialistic view of them. Another quecstion was “What about the problems of morality of the Old Testament?” If one had the idea, of the development of religion, it was at once explained. The writers had only written their own views and they had been honest enough to put down things as

they were. Many of the miracles of the Old Testament, the speaker thought, had been traditions handed down, but the miracles of the N ew Testament were now treated sympathetically by modern scientists. There were some things such as the Christian’s conception of God and the Son of God, which could not be explained. The belief in the next world was an inner faith and beyond all scientific

explanation. He had endeavoured to show that renewed belief had come

from the modern scientific point of view and lie would end with a quotation: 'l be desire to know in order to know was curiosity and neither relig-

ion nor science bad any time Bor dabblers; the desire to know in orde to bo known was vanity, and. that had no place in science or religion; the desire to know to sell knowledge was •covetousness, and for this also religion and science had no time; the desire to know to edify oneself was prudence, a religious and a scientific virtue; the desire to know to edify others was charity, one of the finest qualities of religion and also science; ami lastly and supremely, where relig-

ion went alone, was the desire in order to glorify God. Science had proved herself the handmaid of religion and had broken down the external covering and left to sight the real essence of the teaching of Christ. In answer to a question as to whether Christ’s word was to be believed literally, the speaker said that he had not meant to apply the arguments to the Lord’s speech because it had come from the Son of God. The early stories which had been handed down b.v the Jews were no doubt, many of them absolutely true, but the Dr preferred to take the spiritual meaning rather than that of the words themselves. The Old Testament prophesy was not at all literally true, but rather parabalic. The prophets had had something in their minds in connexion with their own sphere of activity, but there was a local and a far-reaching truth in the words they spoke. The lecturer believed that they were saying things which .were more true than they knew. There was meaning in their speech far beyond their words.