Citizens Say

Sun (Auckland), Volume II, Issue 557, 9 January 1929, Page 8

Citizens Say

(To the Editor.)

IN THE BEGINNING Sir. The burden of the argument used by “Faith” is that he and others “feel” there is a God, therefore He exists. “Faith” is somewhat presumptious in labelling those whose views on this matter differ from his as men of stunted vision. It indicates ignorance of history. Neither do I believe, nor have I any evidence that I have a “spirit,” an entity separate from my material organs. All medical and physiological evidence points to the conclusion that this “spirit” so-called is but a function of the material organs. There is no evidence otherwise, but the “feelings” of such as “Faith.” Can I account for those, who after scepticism turn to belief in God? In many cases it is due to the decay of mental faculties in old age and a resumption of childhood beliefs. Can “Faith” account for the majority of sceptics who do not so turn? To Mr. /C. F. Giesen I would say that if Mr. Field ha/r succeeded in making any really scientific discovery, I wish him the fullest recognition possible, and whatever the implications of such discoveries when once established beyond doubt, I, foi one, would unhesitatingly accept them. Bo it noted, though, I am not acquainted with or have I criticised in any way Mr. Field’s scientific work. It is merely upon a theological matter on which he claims his theories have some bearing that we have had, I hope, a purely amicable discussion, in spite of Mr. Giesen’s rather ungenerous to the contrary. To prove some things in Genesis is out of the realm of science and into that of metaphysics. As to the publication of my name, although the greater portion of vour correspondence is over noms de plume, I have been constantly twitted with withholding my name. There is nothing I could wish myself more than the liberty to place it at the foot of letters and end for ever this petty degeneration into side issues by opponents. So little real freedom have we, however, in this Christian era, that the man who dares voice criticism of current creeds is liable to find his occupation an unstable quantity. That is my position, and with generousminded correspondents it should suffice. A.E.C.

SAFEGUARDED INDUSTRIES Sir,—•

Mr. J. It. Beale does not even refer to the evidence of increased costs relating to America -which appeared in ™ y , .?®i' •. i - does not suit him. The fact, if it is one, that certain well-to-do people go to France to live cheaplv proves nothing; reliable price index figures is what is required. But if living is cheaper in France than in -England, then, judging by the IL O statistics, the London worker must fno ? ven m< ? re than the equivalent of 100 franes ,n “money” wages to the do francs earned by the Paris worker France lias been “safeguarding” for quite a long time. If that is* tho rejsult, it is to be hoped Britain will be

safeguarded against such folly. With regard to the results claimed, free traders have never denied that the British Government could, by granting State favours (protective tariffs) to a few carefully selected industries, increase employment -within such concerns, but protectionists ignore the inevitable reactions. Once let the policy become general and the temporary advantage to the few favoured ones will disappear, and the country will be impoverished. Professor F. W. Taussig, of Harvard, speaking of England, has said: “That country depends for its very existence on manufacturing industries which are able to face the competition of the world. If once her industries really lean on protection against foreigners, her knell is sounded.” I know Professor Taussig’s qualifications to speak on this subject: but not Mr. Beale’s. Simple people look on with approval while the old Tory party of Britain proceeds to “sneak in protection by the back door.” Unless -wiser counsels prevail England will a back place in international trade. While the Tories have been “safeguarding,” the army of unemployed has steadily grown. It is now over a quarter of a million more than a year ago C.H.N. THE BASIS OF BELIEF Sir, It is not my habit by any means to “butt in,” as our American friends say, on another man’s arguments, but a letter signed “A.E.C.” in your Citizens’ Column (4/1/29) contains one or two statements which I cannot allow to pass unchallenged. The first statement to which I take exception is the one in which your correspondent claims that the majority of mankind believes in the exfstence of God because it has been “taught to do so,” not because it has investigated and proved the existence of God for itself. In this dogmatic assertion—which, had it referred to creeds or forms of belief, might be nearer the truth —I believe your correspondent is very much wide of the mark. In my own opinion man, from the most primitive savage to intellectual giants Sir Oliver Lodge, to whom “A.E.C.” refers, believes in the existence of a Supreme Being solely and simply because of an inward urge which is as natural as breathing or sleeping, though perhaps fundamentally just as difficult to explain as the nature of life, electricity, magnetism, heat, gravity or any other manifestation of energy. Further on your correspondent states that men who have investigated for themselves still retain a “modified form of belief.” Just exactly what does he mean by modified? What I usually find is that men who have searched for Truth, either by scriptural research or by the study of comparative religions, have simply enlarged their mental horizons and their belief in God is greater rather than less as a result of their studies. And so far as science is concerned, while 1 freely grant all that “A.E.C.” has to say in its favour, I believe that, but tor the spiritual urge to which I have referred above, science by increasing mans capacity for mischief would wreck civilisation itself. What does iiouue «ay in his “Short Studie - on k Subjects?” “Intellectual gifts

are like gifts of strength, or wealth, or rank, or worldly power, excellent thin?' if nobly used, but needing qualities Uuse them nobler and better than theniselves.” No one will deny the train of this assertion, but I would ** • Whence does man obtain his capaci . for good—and the fact that man progressed so far is sufficient prool - his capacity—if not from God, or tn Supreme Being, or whatever term. J. may use? Personally lam absolute > at one with the man who observed tiu “if there were no God it would necessary to invent one.” Once divoJT Science from Faith and this structure we call civilisation would collapse like a house of cards.