RELIGION AND SCIENCE

New Zealand Listener, Volume 21, Issue 536, 30 September 1949, Page 5

RELIGION AND SCIENCE

Sir,-The question, "Can a scientist be a Christian?" may be given a wider application. "Can a scientist believe in @ superintending Intelligence?" John Tyndall, the eminent physicist of .the last century, said in a lecture: "The primeval fiery mist could not evolve an intelligence." Therefore behind the mist and the catastrophic grandeur of the cosmic process whereby this and other worlds came into being there must exist an omnipotent creative Will. In one of Tyndall’s Jiferary masterpieces on the Alps he says: "I stood at the foot of the Alps. I looked at the peaks above; then into the clear blue sky, and lastly into myself. I thought, ‘How little we know-but there is One who knows.’" Tyndall, a sufferer from insomnia, the most merciless of all scourges, died | in December, 1893, from’ an overdose chloral. The late A. J. (Lord) Balfour concluded the last of his Gifford lectures by affirming: "Belief in God as Creator, Sustainer, and Ruler of the universe is compulsory to every sane mind." Hegel and Kant taught that every plant, every shrub, indeed every organism, was not only related to an intelligence but a manifestation of intelligence. They are not and cannot. be of independent or spontaneous origin. Therefore when we pass a tree or a flower or loiter on the banks of a stream — e are as near the Divine Presence as in cloistered monastery or Kant and Hegel, two of the profoundest thinkers of all time, firmly rejected materialism. To none of the men quoted above could the vague and conventional term Christian be applied. To their minds divine providence was not presented as something confused and nebulous, but as an inescapable reality. The shallowness of so much that is termed Christian renders it only too susceptible to sneering

criticism.

A.

BEESON

(Rotorua).

Sir,-I find your correspondent "Ipso Facto’s" letter interesting and wellpointed. But with what calmness so many people state what Christ thought, or would have said, regarding this, that and the other! One must agree, in the gase in point, that Jesus is recorded

as having not only gone to church, but also as having delivered sore of his most telling sermons from the "pulpit." But whether He ever said or implied that no one could be a follower of His who did not go to church, is quite another matter. For my part, looking over the records in the New Testament-and incidentally leaving out St. Paul, who created the Church-the impression I get is rather that He would have wished to find His followers in every part of daily life. It seems to me the consummation off His teaching and example would be a leavening of love, consideration for others, and selfless service, in home and work place, kept bright and living by communion with Himself by family and friendly groups, and a happy fellowship among themselves. I think what He would wish to see among us is not so much regular church-gging, as a building up and beautifying of family life, with the New Testament as guide and reference book. The only stumbling block for a "scientist" (define ‘"‘scientist" please) would be inability to accept, as true, the existence of Jesus, as a living person, with splendid attributes and sympathies, with whom it is possible for a human being to commune, or converse, by the power of thought. In this way He can still be counted a member of every sincere group of people aspiring to true goodness.

DAUGHTER OF THE MANSE

(Ahititi).

Sir,-I am sure that "Tpso Facto" has made a great mistake by saying, "Christ did not think you could be a Christian and not a member of a church," because sectarianism was not known in His day. The Church founded on the rock statement of the apostle Peter, "Thou art the Christ," is the only one of New Testament proclamation, and if true followers of Christ choose to become members of any denomination they must adhere to other forms of ethics, as required by the articles of the church. It is generally agreed that Christianity is proved by science.

STUDENT

(Hamilton),

Sir,-I do not feel competent to discuss dogma and ethics with "Ipso Facto," but I feel that it might have strengthened his argument if he had cited Christian ethics or dogma instead of the pre-Christian Ten Commandments. I should have thought the practice of Christianity would have rendered the Ten Commandments obsolete. It might be the emphasis of the Christian churches. on pre-Christian doctrine that makes many of us doubt the presence of a Christian Church.

CARITAS

(Dunedin).

Sir,-In deciding whether a scientist, or anyone else, can be a Christian it is surely necessary first to describe the principles on which Christianity ‘is based. It is not sufficient simply to state that belief in the existence of Christ makes a Christian. It appears to be of paramount importance to believe in the holy scriptures, since they are the Word of God. The Christian, of necessity, must believe in the oneness of Christ and God. He must at once believe that. while God is all-loving, all-merciful, all-power-ful and all-knowing, He is also vengeful, warlike, jealous, selfish and the creator of peace and evil. But mere belief is not

enough. A Christian must live his Christianity as his Deity advised, namely, by being poor in spirit, meek, righteous, merciful, pure in heart and peaceful. He must love his enemies and give all his tiches to the poor, Belief in these divine attributes and practice of these principles may be difficult, but they are the Word of .God and as such, cannot be disputed. Within the framework of what is called Christianity, there is so much dissension that it might be pertinent to‘ask, not whether scientists can be Christians, but whether Christians can be Christians.

J. S.

LESNIE

(Auckland).