PHASES OF ATHEISM.

Auckland Star, Volume LVII, Issue 80, 6 April 1926, Page 14

PHASES OF ATHEISM.

(To the Editor.) Siry—"A.E.C." states he cannot distinguish between a "fortuitous concourse of atoms" and "result of blind chance." Equally so I cannot distinguish between his "eternal law" and a "first cause." Yet he seems to see a distinction in the two: phrases. I must also take exception to "A.E.C." falling in with the general delusion that the opinion of a great man on any question outside his speciality is of no greater value than that of an ordinary intelligence. The mere fact of men like Kelvin going so far on one subject _ gives a fair assumption their opinions on other subjects are worthy of respect. In fact a student of the lives of our great thinkers will easily recognise their powers of mind are not confined to their special subject, though certainly egregious blunders have been made by men dogmatising outside their own province. However, if "A.E.C." wants special opinion, he should give weight to the great "religious teachers who, though bound often by creed, were sufficiently. God-inspired to sway and affect millions to change their beliefs. There is a case of men of powerful mind centred on one subject. Elijah, Misses, Mahomet, Buddha, for example. If he wants men of powerful mind and not specialised, he must recognise that Herbert Spencer and Huxley, in fact all our ! great, philosophers, felt the sense-of a power outside ourselves. Huxley states if he is to be confined to a dogma, put him down as a spiritualist as opposed to a materialist. Spencer also indicates, without stating definitely, a reverent' leaning to the larger hope. It is hardi to remember any man of leading who was not reverent in doubt, while all our poets of first rank seem to be inspired with a sense of larger issues —I am, etc., SEEKER.

(To mc Editor.) Sir.—"A.E.C." wants to know what I mean by "chance." L«t mc give an illustration. Suppose I went into the "Star" office and saw a lot of typescattered over the.floor by the upsetting of a case, and noticed in another part of the room columns of standing type, which spelt out one of Shakespeare's plays. The arrangement of the type scattered on the floor I would describe as fortuitous, as due to chance; and the arrangement of the other type into lines and paragraphs I would describe as due to intelligence and , purpose. No sane man could be induced to believe that a case of type could by accident arrange itself! into one of Shakespeare's plays. Yet I the atheist asks us to believe that the infinitely more wonderful arrangement of things which we call the universeincluding the mind of man and its purposeful activities—just happened to happen that way by chance. If mind and purpose are required in order to give a rational explanation of the arrangement of type into one of Shakespeare's plays, mind and purpose of an infinitely higher order are required to account for the universe. "A.E.C.'s" statement that theism and atheism are logically on the same footing is quite wrong. Atheism asserts a universal negative. Only a person who knows everything that exists is entitled to assert that God does not exist. Such a person would be omniscient, as God is. Which means that no one but God is in a position rationally to state that there is no God. Atheism is therefore selfcontradictory —an absurdity. 1 am, etc., NORMAN E. BURTON, j