Social education

Press, 27 April 1987, Page 22

Social education

Sir,—John Canham (April 13), in promoting his particular theology, states that "the scientific humanist surely fails to recognise people’s need for a firm foundation and empowering to live morally.” A large proportion of the world’s people support their various moralities on “the firm foundations” of Vishnu, Ahura-mazda, Jehova, Kali and a host of other putative metaphysical entities. From this it could appear to the “scientific humanist” that for many their need for “a firm foundation” perhaps outweighs their intellectual needs. Mr Canham is satisfied with a morality that appears to rest on notions that support the universe being created in 4004 8.C., Noah’s Ark, virgin birth, returning from the grave, etc. Many find that sort of thing most satisfactory. Others think morality too important to be left

teetering on theological implausibilities. Even Vernon Wilkinson and I could agree on that — Yours, etc., DAVID SHANKS. April 21, 1987.

Sir,—l apreciate Vernon Wilkinson’s viewpoint. He believes Christianity is declining and less relevant to the modern world because there is evidence of lower numbers in some churches, increases in immorality in society, and some failures by Christian countries this century. I believe he is partly illogical in regarding as failures of Christianity the failures of some who have departed from it of their own free will. He makes an enormous error in rejecting the only true basis for morality in a desperate search for some hazy evolutionary substitute which will appeal to more people. He asks, concerning the great good done socially by Christianity: “Is it actually doing it now?” The answer is, certainly. Things would otherwise be much worse. My reference to atheistic Russia was certainly not irrelevant. Dostoyevsky wrote: “The degree of civilisation in a society can be judged by entering its prisons.” There the innocent suffer. — Yours, etc., JOHN CANHAM. April 22, 1987.