REV. FLANAGAN AGAIN.

Taranaki Daily News, Volume LI, Issue 98, 14 April 1908, Page 4

REV. FLANAGAN AGAIN.

To tlie Eidtor. | Sir» —Having had occasion to go out of town on Friday, I did not have tlio opportunity of writing a reply at <mw? to my iritii->, "Frank Aroa" and "Scientist and Christian.'" Regarding tht? decline or not of intellectual Atlwism. i iimply quoted the figures supplied by the British Weekly. a paper that cannot lie >aid to favor intellectual uth«i>m, to show tli.in alone in twenty years there had l>cen a decline in ; churchgoers of half a million. "When I j s id that the intellectual Atheists had 1 ily altered their method of propauida, I wa- -peaking from experience, •t me here tell K.A. that I know of •veral churches in the Old Country thai

rc not now used for the purpose of worshipping in. The English Co-opera-tive Society has one in use as a More. There is another one used as a Ixmded' warehouse. And coining a little nearer home, 1 noticed one in the capital of the Dominion serving the purpose of an organ factory. Now at this point I wish to emplia-ise t li >i | don't take this data as evidence of the decline in the belief in tlo<l. I wish, on the other hand, that the data supplied by the Rev. Flanagan in the fact of several places that were onee used by Atheists and Freethinkers l>eing now places of worship may not be accepted as evidence of a decline of intellectual Atheism. The evidence I see for the growth of it is seen not only in the fait of the masses being outside the church. The masses are in the same position as the Red Indian, who replied, on being asked why he was not attending church, that he had not received any blankets. The evidence I see is in the fact of the existence of a band of scholars within the church known as the "higher critics"; in the fact of the New Theology: in the fact which I mentioned in my first letter, that the foremost scholars of the German Protestant Churches just differ in a shade in their opinions regarding God, tlie Bible and Christ from the thoughts expressed by Uaeekel, the world's greatest biologist; a man whom One could fitly term an intellectual 1 Atheist; in the fact that the greatest Socialist movement in the main does not concern itseli with religious ideas about God, Christ, ami the llible. This is a world-wide growing movement, which is distinctly agnostic when it is forced to express itsel! on matters religious by the antagonism of the churches to its work. And, finally, with this point, that on a perusal of the columns of the llibbert .lourual, Nineteenth Century, and many more magazines the trend of thought will be observed to be towards intellectual Atheism. "Scientist and Christian" says that my letter would seem to imply that there is a war between Christi-, anity and Science. Part of the proof adduced to contradict this implication is the fact that during the fifteenth, sixteenth and seventeenth centuries there were scientists who were believers in (•ml. Mr. Editor, the implication is not "was" but "is." Nearer our time, however. he gives us some others. Amongst tliese I notice tin- names of specialists in electricity, chemistry, and microbes, s|>eeialists nothing more nor less! Now j what I want "Christian and Scientist" to do is to name a distinguished biologist, a man skilled in the science which deals with life, one living, or just recently dead, who is or was a believer in God. If "Scientist and Christian" will look over my letter again he will see that I did not assert "that all our most distinguished biologists contradicted Lord Kelvin for having the audacity to differ from Haeckel." 1 protest at having words tacked on to my pen that were not there. What I wrote was to the effect that Lord Kelvin sj«)ke in Ihe name of biology in order to confute -omc of Ilaecket's argument-, and he

wa* immediately contradicted by all our iihM distinguished biologists. Nor did I say that "all our most distinguished biologist* agree with llaecket." I may disagree and tlatly contradict the statements one man may make in op-.' position to other views. But it does not follow that I agrro with the views of th t . second man. I may altogether I differ from him in his declaration. The j fact remains, however, and I challenge | "Scientist and Christian" to say other- | wise and bark it up by giving the names Or name, that the mo*t distinguished biologi-U do agree with Haeckel. nie answer K.A. that Dr. -lessopp is an eminent divine. The professions ho mentioned are those of minister and doctor. I mentioned ju-t a few of the n>"-t prominent men in the church why were of the belief tint Christianity was i.ipidly going down tln* hill. K.A. de>«re> a longer INt of prominent men of the church, who are of thi> opinion, a goodly numlfer of whom are resident in England if w>t in London, then I shall supply one that ou«:M to satisfy him. In conclusion, let imp here say that I do not aenisc the Kev. Flanagan with lying. but in allowing his zeal to carry

him too far. Ho is an emotional man. He is in the same position as many of Ilis listener-. He has not cultivated the judicial faculty. Since writing last I have heard of a flagrant instance of mis-statement made by the rev. gentleman at a meeting in Stratford. More will he heard of this later 011. In the meantime, I am cte., J.G.