RATIONAL AND RELIGION.

Waikato Times, Volume 107, Issue 17975, 21 March 1930, Page 9

RATIONAL AND RELIGION.

(To the Editor.) Sir, —The usurper of the title “Rational” has made it manifest in his last letter against me that he is nothing less than an illiterate humbug, and he has not had the courtesy to admire or refute one argument of my letter, which proved his arguments to hc ; fallacies. By his ruse of trying to avoid the argumentum ad reni, toy whining •like a dog about my allegedly not bein* a gentleman, and by merely restating the fallacies of his previous letter, “Rational” emulates that American arch-impostor Ingersoll. As your correspondent has not yet an'Swered the arguments in my letter I shall make no new statement's, but confine mvself to “Rational’s” reply. •\n analvsis of his letter will show it to be valueless. I shall overlook the adulation of his opening sentence, hut draw attention to his admission that he had Witten a “very simple letter." Yes, it was so simple that even a simpleton would scorn it. “He (myself) deals out one or two gratuitous insults which show he has not attained the full rank of a genllcman.” Well, how many 'insults were there and what were they? Bogie demands that such an accusation must be substantiated, and until “Rational makes a definite charge 1 have nothing definite to answer. When he infers I am no gentleman he assumes the role of insulter. If. by insults, he means the logical k.o.’s I administered his previous letter he is obliged to prove them to be insuits and to refute them. Until he does so his accusation I ignore. Says this savant, “Alphonsus quotes a lot of authorities, ■but he omits an appeal to common sense.” An authority on a subject is CX pert—that is, I appeal <to experts. On the other hand, “Rational” would have me appeal to common sense (an inexpert). I have searched my library and find no reference to ‘"Mr Co-mmon Sense” either in philosophy or theology, and the subject of this controversy can be treated only by philosophers and theologians, which leaves this pseudo-scholar without a leg to stand on. Verily, sir, is he not an excellent advocate of the cause he opposes? “We are not concerned in this 20th century with a long string of names of scientists,” says “Ralionla.” Who are “we”? The authorities in philisop'hy and theologj . No! Perhaps illiterate Philistines have no use for the names, of pioneering scientists whose names are immortalised, hut scholars have, and I ask “Rational” not to assume the role of a scholar, as he may be liable for false pretenoes. The jackal surveys the bones of dead scientists and barks “what a useless string of hones.” The jackal, because it has the intellect of a jackal, does not know that the flesh of those scientists has been preserved into a treasury from which modern science draws its sustenance. “They are up against priest-craft and religious thought of their day,” says “Rational.” Does he know what priestcraft is? If so, he must specify when it existed, in what church, and in opposition to what scientists. Until he makes a definite charge a definite refutation cannot be given. “Religious folk, as exemplified by ‘Alphonsus,’ heave brickbats at those who do not .see eye to eye with them.” I respect the opinions of honest thinkers. but I do heave brickbats at the trash of uneducated fanatics who have the audacity to rush into print with their opinion on a subject upon which they are not qualified to speak either through scholarship or natural ability. “Alphonsus must know that bishops and priests now subscribe to theories which a few years ago were anathema in the church.” I know nothing of the kind, and I claim to have a better knowledge of the subject than “Rational.” I do know, however, that he has not named one theory which is held by a bishop or priest of the Catholic Church to-day and which was anathema years ago in that church because he is incapable of doing so. This “savant” also asserts that the foundation of the church has been shown to be unstable and “quivering to its fall.” 3y whom has it been shown? Not by “Rational,” as he is incapable of it. He has not had sufficient training in dialects to be able to supply logical proof in support of any of his contentions. “The whole structure is quivering to its fall.” is it? That is why the church which he accuses of priestcraft is able to maintain its own system of education in New Zealand independent of Government support; that is why, in one night, 130,000 men knelt in adoration at Sydney in 1928; that is why under similar circumstances 150,000 women kept silent for an hour at the same ceremonies; that is why the Sydney diocese of that religion contained a mere handful a eetury ago and can now claim 260,000 adherents. In the last 20 years is this diocese of Auckland the number of parishes of that church has been increased from 33 to 57, the number of primary schools from 30 to 51, and its total population from 31,000 to 55,000. Is that a sign of quivering? In conclusion, I mention that this “savant” discontinues argument with another, because she appeals to an authority allegedly fallible. A fortiori I shall engage in no further controversy with this fabulist, as he appeals to something which is not even an authority-—common sense, and because, if we accept his writing as a criterion, he is not a scholar and manifests no signs of education, morality or culture, lie ignores lire arguments ad rem and stoops to the low ruse of indulging in personal recrimination ad captandum vulgus. lie has neither answered nor logically refuted one argument of mine, but hides behind the smokescreen of general assertions The polemical value of his anonymous sniping tactics is nil.—l am, etc., ALPHONSUS V. SYDNEY.

(To the Editor.) Sir, —Our friend “national,'’ having practically disposed of Etc Ten Commandments, calmly ignores the eleventh. Of course it had not anything 1o do with Moses! Not. directly, hut it's such a jolly good one: I hated to sec it passed over. However, if lias suffered Ihc same fate for centuries. An individual who was supposed lo have been born in Nazareth, and lived and taught amongst the Jews, gave il to his followers. Even though you have gained your mountain lop, my friend, do not for one moment loose sight of it? Jesus the Jew called it Love, St. Paul Charity; to-day it js termed Service. —1 arn. elc., , " FOLLOW ON.