Citizens Say—

Sun (Auckland), Volume II, Issue 580, 5 February 1929, Page 8

Citizens Say —

(To the Editor.)

SPOILING A GOOD GARDEN Sir, Walking through the Domain last evening, I came suddenly upon a subtropical garden that was a feast for the eye. Well-kept lawns sloped toward a lily-pond. Splashes of vivid colour flecked each garden bed and rioting in the centre of it all was a blaze of cannas. The gardeners responsible for the upkeep of this garden are to be congratulated. But, sir, in the centre of the bed of cannas (and the mathematical centre of this particular patch of exotics) has been raised a pole, and on the top of that sits a crazy-looking lantern which would disfigure a back street in Woolloomooloo. What are the authorities thinking about to permit such a glorious garden to be so marred? To anyone with a sense of beauty it is like a smack in the face. BRISBANE. MILITARY TRAINING Sir, — Like many others J listened with great pleasure to Mr. Scrimgeour’s sensible remarks on the compulsory military training of school children in this much-admired little country. Everywhere I travelled when abroad, general surprise was expressed that New Zealand should be the one country to create a false impression that the children of other countries are the future enemies of New Zealand children instead of their friends. As was remarked by a prominent lecturer at Oxford, England, recently, “It is the lack of moral courage to assert what we believe to be right and allow ourselves to be led by what is often against our principles, that has caused other countries to distrust us as a nation,” and he added that it was a matter for regret that o;ur moral j apathy was in strong contrast to our j physical courage. As Mr McKenzie 1 King remarked the other day, “EngI lish people try others to straining j point till they see the justice of affairs •in question. Then they act straight.” B. KING.

THE BIBLE Sir. —- I accept your correspondent’s, “W.R.E.C.” explanation of the term “sometimes.” At the same time he must admit that man’s deliberate contraction of disease is an evidence of a mind of like nature. With regard to the question of Spiritualism, and the messages that are stated to come direct from the incorporeal dead, the whole subject is surrounded with trickery, secrecy and a fuliginous atmosphere that one marvels that men of mark in their respective paths of life should give credence to the ectoplasmic and other claims made by Spiritualists. I do not suggest that Sir Oliver Lodge, Sir Arthur Conan Doyle and Mr. Robert Blatchford are deliberately deceiving their readers, but contend that the inanner in which they put the case for Spiritualism is likely to deceive the uninformed. It must be borne in mind that many of the scientific men who have examined Spiritualistic presentations, have rejeected their genuineness. It is easily conceivable that much of what is called

proof of communication with the dead can be explained as the action of well understood mental abnormalities. Crystal gazing and automatic writing continue to be experiments among psychological students. Many who attend seances to communicate with the dead help the medium by answers to leading questions of automatisms; 99 per cent, attend desiring to believe and do so. If the tangible evidence put forward by Spiritualists were not invested with quasi-mystery the whole business would be wafted to the four winds of heaven. With reference to your correspondent’s explanation of the translation of the Bible from Hebrew to Western languages, it is conjectural. We. however, have this knowledge. The earliest dated MS. is 916: more than a thousand years after the latest of the books included in it. The MSS. of the New’ Testament written in Greek are also unauthenticated. It is not known whether they were composed by their alleged authors or whether those authors ever lived. We know that the Hebrew version of the Old Testament was devoid of vowels and of punctuation; was much dilapidated, frayed and undecipherable in places, which lent itself to alteration and am end at ion to agree with the viewpoint of the translator. C. E. MAJOR. RADIO ENTERPRISE Sir, A very instructing and pleasing item was given by the Sydney “Sun” Office through 2BL Sydney on Saturday night. Those listeners who were burning midnight oil were well rewarded. 2BL switched over to the “Sun” office at ten minutes to twelve (Auckland time), and the announcer at the “Sun” office gave listeners-in a full description of the working of the machinery, type-setting and handling the huge rolls of paper which were necessary in the making of the “Sun” Sunday newspaper. He announced that this Sunday paper used 20 tons of paper, and it took two tons of ink to print it. His account was very clear and interesting. At a given moment a bell sounded and the announcer called, “She’s off” (meaning the machinery). Then the deafening sound of this vast machinery turning out 70,000 copies an hour, each approximately 60 pages.

Within a few seconds the announcer read to listeners the main events printed. To my mind this is one of the best and most instructive items I have heard for some time, and will look forward to another at some future occasion. Could not your office do likewise through our Auckland station—lYA? I feel sure it would be much appreciated. MIDNIGHT OIL. THE DESIGN ARGUMENT Sir.— My suggestion that “A.E.C.” should bring his philosophy up to date was not based on the fact that his opinions differ from mine. I made the suggestion because “A.E.C.’s” views have been left behind by the main stream of modern thought. He still clings desperately to the mechanical interpretation of the universe, though it has been . battered to pieces by the criticism of Balfour, Bergson, James Ward, Otto J Lucken, Boubroux, Kelvin, Lodge, Ed-

dington and other front-rank philosophers and scientists. It certainly will not fit in with Einstein’s theory of relativity. Huxley gave it a deadly blow when he declared that the only absolute certainty’ is the existence of mind —of a mental world. “A.E.C.” is still preaching the same worn-out gospel that Bradlangh, Ingersoll, and Haeckfci preached fifty years ago. That is why I suggested that he should bring philosophy up to date. The strength and validity of the disign argument in its wider and deeptmodern form is fully and frankly admitted by Darwin, Huxley*, Wallace an<j a procession of leading scientists ana philosophers down to the present day I repeat, quite deliberately, that it “sheer silliness” to state that this argument has been “demolished” by Mr. McCabe. As I am leaving to-day on a month’s holiday this must be my last word for the present. “Free Thinker is well able to continue the controversy. and I am quite sure that tne design argument will survive until return. , NORMAN BURTON.