HOW THINGS BEGAN

New Zealand Listener, Volume 22, Issue 550, 6 January 1950, Page 5

HOW THINGS BEGAN

Sir,-Father Duggan asks me to quote cases in which his use of the term "selfcontradictory" is "indiscriminate." For one such case, I would refer him to Page 35 of Evolution and Philosophy, where he tells us that the view that the material universe is a single substance is "incompatible with the principle of contradiction." It may be true that, as Father Duggan goes on to say, this view "sffrms the real identity of what we cannot but regard as really distinct," but this only means that it contradicts our conviction as to what are distinct substances; it does not mean, as Father Duggan’s charge of "self-contradiction" would imply, that it contradicts itself (as, for example, the statement that the material universe is, in the same sense of "substance," one substance and many substances, would contradict itself). For another case, I would again refer to his assertion on Page 31 that "a selfsufficient process of becoming is a contradiction in terms." Father Duggan repeats this in his letter, when he says that "the concept of an uncaused change is literally self-contradictory," and tells us that this follows from the "self-evi-dence" of the proposition "that a change must have some cause." Of course if this proposition is self evident, it does follow that the assertion that a'change may have no cause is self-evidently false, since it contradicts the self-evidently true one; but that is not to say that it contradicts itself-as, for example, the assertion that an effect (i.e. that which > is caused) has no cause, would contradict itself. "Being caused," in short, is not part of the meanin of "being: a change," as it is the whole meaning of "being an effect." I would add that just because it would be self-contradictory to deny that every effect has a cause, it would be trivial to assert it, since the assertion would merely mean that what has a cause has a cause. On the other hand, the assertion that every change has a cause, whether’ it be true or false, is not trivial but important-if it is true (and like Father Duggan I think it is) it really tells us something about how change occurs; and its denial, if it were true, would really tell us something too.

It should now be sufficiently plain that I would not agree that "to say that an unknown block of marble became a statue of Apollo without the intervention of a cause is nonsense," if by calling a thing "nonsense" Father Duggan means that it contradicts itself. Nor would I regard it as "nonsense," though I would think it most unlikely to be true, to say that an unknown block of marble became a statue of Apollo (or some inanimate earth a living man) with no intervening cause but the direct action of the Creator. It is something of a philosophical fashion nowadays to describe any position with which one does not agree as "nonsense"; I must confess that I regard the fashion as a bad one. I am prepared to answer the rest of Father Duggan’s letter if nobody else does, but this is enough in the meantime.

ARTHUR N.

PRIOR

(Christchurch).

Sir,-I read with interest Mr, Prior’s review of Father Duggan’s book Evolution and Philosophy. I say with interest, as I was anxious to learn how this work would be received by "an evolu-tionist-and I have taken the liberty of assuming that your reviewer holds to this theory. In all I was disappointed to

find Mr. Prior using the now outmoded arguments for evolution and confirmed in my suspicion that the modern evolutionist, biologically speaking, is still living with Darwin. Mr. Prior is so rash as to challenge Father Duggan’s contention that no philosopher who does not believe in God has talked sensibly about time and change. He mentions philosophers who have discussed these problems more rationally than those indicated by the author. Unfortunately we do not learn the names of these philosophers, and so Mr, Prior’s answer holds little weight. Further, it is to be hoped that his philosophers are not rationally arguing from false premises — a prevalent modern fault. ; Father Duggan asserts that biologicogeological research has failed to close the gaps in the so-called evolutionary process. All Mr. Prior can say is that the author, in proving that there are numerous differences between creatures prior to one gap as compared with those that follow, has proved nothing. But I feel that it is essential first to point gut these numerous differences when discussing evolution. I have in mind the evolutionist habit of taking one or two doubtful instances among an overwhelming number of clear-cut cases and then holding the thesis proved. Perhaps Mr. Prior has forgotten the rule of logic that it is invalid to argue from the particular to the general. As for the biologists who are doubtful as to what "major" groups many organisms should be placed in, I feel that they must be doubtful biologists. Surely Mr. Prior is aware that a philosophical system can only be built upon facts, If he wishes to condemn the thesis put forward by Father Duggan it is only intellectual honesty to first disprove the facts upon which the author has proved his case. If a reviewer cannot or is not prepared to do this I feel that he should at least remain silent rather than ‘ask his readers to accept doubtful scientific instances as a satisfactory and all-em-bracing refutation of the thesis put forward by an author. It is to be regretted that Mr. Prior has neither remained silent nor given us those scientific and factual proofs which we could reasonably expect from him.

A.A.

N.

(Wellington).