Untitled

New Zealand Listener, Volume 15, Issue 381, 11 October 1946, Page 5

Sir,-As:"G.S.P." does not "desire to become embroiled in a religious argument," I shall respect his wishes and stick to logic, a subject to which he has evidently devoted a certain amount of study. He says that I have "merely

pointed out that Russell’s premiss is false and not that the inference is invalid." As a matter of fact,’ I pointed out that Russell’s argument was fallacious in the strict sense of the term, i.e., his conclusion did not follow from his premisses. Russell wrote: "The Catholic Church has a system of dogmas from which it follows that the majority should be made Catholic; if these dogmas are true, any degree of force is justified in spreading the Catholic faith." Thus, from "should be made Catholic" in the premiss, Russell infers "should be made Catholic by force" in the conclusion. Is that any clearer? The fallacy could be classified as "Latius hos" — asserting more in the conclusion than is warranted by the premisses, or it could perhaps be described as equivocation, based on "the double meaning that can be given to the word "made." Since Mr. Williams’ acquaintance with Catholicism is so slight that he thinks it comparable to the religion of Ancient Egypt, it would be wasting my time and your space to attempt to enlighten him on the subject. I spoke of our "western love of liberty"; Mr. Williams seems to think He has contradicted me by referring to the love of liberty that "existed for millions of years before religion was thought of"’-presumably in the breasts of dinosaurs or mastodons. The logic is rether curious.

G.H.

D.

(Greenmeadows).

(This correspondence is now closed.

closed.-Ed.)

d.)