Citizens Say—

Sun (Auckland), Volume II, Issue 374, 7 June 1928, Page 8

Citizens Say —

GOOD HEALTH—OR? Sir,— R. M. Thomson asserts that disease is greatly increasing. Many people fear the same, yet do not know whether it really is so or not. Can he give anything definite about disorders that one hears of, and sees around almost i every day? For instance: Heart failure, diphtheria, exophthalmic goitre, pneumonia, rheumatism, appendicitis, influenza (dangerous forms), scarlet fever, cancer, and so on? I presume he takes into account the rather rapid increase of population in New Zealand. STIGGINS. MR. BARTON’S LIMERICK Sir,— _ One hates to disillusion these budding rhymsters but it is necessary to tell them that their ears are sadly at fault. Both “F.R.F.” and “Optimist” commit the heinous crime of trying to rhyme “spider” and “beside her” with “tiger” and even the Look Out Man incurs disqualification because (following the old-time formula) he used “tiger” again in the last line. A. purist like Mr. Barton will, of course, rule them well out. Here’s another; — There was an old lady of Riga IVho tamed what she thought was a tiger; She made it her friend s And from then to the end When •pinched it tcould warningly cry t( grrrr. 3 * I trust the way to “the end” is sufficiently obvious. 6LENDOWIE. EVIDENCE AS PROOF Sir,— Mr. Bowie seems to have very little idea of what “science” is and, again, he accuses materialists of talking “jargon.” Materialism is a method or mental attitude, as opposed to the spiritual one. As I said in my previous letter, “Science is materialistic—or nothing, meaning that it proceeds on the basis of a ‘unity’ in all phenomena, and that everything can be interpreted in terms of natual causation.” “The real discoveries of the past”—which Mr. Bowie says “are thankfully accepted by everybody”— must conform to the materialistic interpretation (as stated above) if they are “real” at all. No scientist indulges in “mere speculations”—that is

(To the Editor.)

the province of the theologian. If scientists speculate at all, it is based on some very definite “evidence.” To show that it is Mr. Dowle who is talking jargon. I need only draw attention to his statement that he maintains there are “two kinds of science, physical and mental.” It is impossible for there to be two “kinds” of science. The term “science” stands for a unity of method, mood, and aim. See Prof. Thomson’s “Introduction to Science,” first three chapters (Home University Library). There can be the physical and mental branches or divisions of science, but to be “science” they both must adopt the same “method, mood, and aim.” The jargon is further illustrated by proclaiming theology a science. Theology, in dealing with its subject matter, is very far from adopting the procedure of any of the accepted branches of science. Its interpretation of phenomena is not in terms of natural causation, which alone rules it out as a “branch” of science, so Mr. Howie’s statement is “confusion worse confounded.” He says that Sir Arthur Keith or his supporters gave no proofs. With your permission, Mr. Editor, I hope to give some scientific evidence as proof in a further letter, as also desired by “G.R.” (30/5/28). PROFANUM VULGUS. A HELPFUL BOOK Sir,— I am not desiring to rush pell-mell into the controversy concerning life after death, neither do I pretend to understand the wonderful working—or result of cessation—of a few ounces of brains. But I can vouch that a true Christian knows the rapture of the knowledge of Christ in the heart, and when one has been reborn spiritually, the wisest man, the biggest controversy, and the cleverest pen disputing life after death really don’t matter. I would like to suggest that those interested in the controversy—Ruel M. De Cossey included— should read the splendid book named “A People's Life of Christ,” by J. Paterson Smyth obtainable for 2s 6d. They would ’not regret reading it; in fact, they would want to recommend it to others. It is a book that mothers and fathers should place as lifelong gifts into the hands of their sons and daughters. FAITH. THE ALL BLACKS Sir,— I am sure that aH Rugby football enthusiasts will support me in a protest against the meagre and crude in-

formation the public of New B is receiving about the All ft* South Africa. Of course, it *- newspapers to make t*™Li repo* ls, rangements, but the o *“ c^ tV ,: ng BIS so far, have not been an}, ln Ha& the bright, competent descrJP enjoy in The Sun on or ‘V‘^ eW Ze-' ons. If. by any chance.) * nt ei ft land Press is poorly rep f. <&&&* the tour, why not secure - of South African critics. journals of the Union there lent comment on footballnot had a word about opinion concerning our teai-i- 3 tunately wireless does not » f&X this instance. It is to b o** New Zealand newspapers, saf** interests, and with a V 1 ta tj o n guarding their high rep w tb« service, will make a cIU * CK *]i Bla ctr pathetic reporting of matches. Economy and are bad allies in