A CHALLENGE TO “MODERN.”

Hawera Star, Volume XLV, 5 August 1925, Page 6

A CHALLENGE TO “MODERN.”

(To th© Editor). Sir, —For calm self-assurance commend me to your correspondent “Modern.” He finds believers in “spooks” among our greatest scientists, he tells us. Who are these greatest scientists? .Sir Oliver Lodge, the gentleman who in “Raymond” tells us that the “spirits” beguile their idle hours with tots of whisky and fragrant cigars. No such thing as no-license in Summerland! Crookes, the susceptible old gentlenian who was deceived by the medium Florri© Cook into believing that the spirit “Katie King” used to walk and talk with him. Let

“Modern” read the critical works of Pod more (‘‘Modern Spiritualism”-), Clodd (“Occultism”), Walter Mann’s “The Follies and Frauds of Spiritualism,” and in particular “Spiritualism and Common Sense” of Father tie Heredia, 5.J.., also Abbott’s “Behind the Scenes with the Mediums,” and lie will perhaps write in a more chastened spirit. Both Father de Heredia and Abbott show how every manifestation of spiritualism has been produced, and Houdini, the magician, has offered £I,OOO to any medium who can give a manifestation that fie cannot reproduce by tricks. Needless to say the £'l,ooo has never been claimed. Bergson is not a great scientist, and in any case can hardly be called a spiritualist. See the remarks concerning his beliefs in the, “Biographical Dictionary of Modern Rationalists.” His “God” is not an eternal and perfect being (“Creative Evolution” at pages 18(Fl87) since “He does nothing.” See also the criticism of Hugh Elliott in “Modern Science and the Illusions of Professor Bergson. ’’ As regards Elammarkm, let “Modern” ask any person who knows anything of astronomy and he will be told that TTainniarion was not in the first flight as an astronomer. But he certainly was not a spiritualist. “The supernatural does not exist,” he says, (“Jyes Forces Naturclles 1 neon lines’’). Tic is not a spiritualist, he distinctly asserts (pages 586, 51)2, of the work cited), bee also his latest three works:

“Death and its Mystery,” “At the .Moment of Death,” “Alter Death.’ He attributed abnormal phenomena to abnormal powers of the mind, and that is all. Marconi —will ‘Modern” quote (lie work and page where Marconi admits that lie .is a spiritualist ? Bla tchl'oril; !has : distinctly said that his mind is in suspense on the question, and that it was simply the death of his wife that made him hope for a future life. It was merely a pious hope and nothing more. He is not a scientist and his opinion is of no more value than “Modern’s.” Conan Doyle. I lie gentleman who sees “fairies” dancing on the green sward, and who. in I lie words of Sir R-a.v Lankester, England's greatest biologist, “reveals an extraordinary inability to grasp the principles of scientific investigation. Joseph McCabe made a mess of him in their debate on spiritualism. Of course, no one looks upon Doyle as a scientist. Edward Marshall-Hall, a lawyer, but like all lawyers, a notoriously bad witness; his witnessing as to “spiritualism” is very half-hearted and unconvincing. See his article in “Immortality” edited by Sir James Merchant, and just published. I challenge “Modern,” leaving aside Sir Oliver Lodge, to name one eminent living man of science who believes in spirit-

nalism Novi, -then, “Modern” trot them along, but no fourth or fifth niters, please. It will also help it “Modern” cites his authorities and pages. , , n I think most people would preiei th 0 straight-out dogmas of the orthodox religion to this “spook” business. Lord Kelvin, the world’s greatest mind since Newton, calls spiritualism ‘ that wretched superstition.” (His Life by Svlvanus Thompson). Professor v\. K. Clifford said, “There is no room in the world for spirits” (“Essays”). Sir Ray Lankester: “Th 0 whole past and present history of what is called the occult is enveloped in an atmosphere of self-deception and of a readiness to be deceived by others” (“Diversions of a Naturalist”). Huxley, the greatest biologist of last century, said that lie would much sooner prefer annihilation than be called up to parade at a seance for the edification of ignoramuses at a' guinea a tim e (“Essays”). Docs “Modern” realise that this earth of ours is just a speck of cosmic dust in an infinite universe? Docs he think that his* Little personality Is going to exist for eternity? “lhe cosmie odds are all against immortality, says Prof. Hugh Elliott (“Modern Science and Materialism”). It is an assumption of stupendous conceit to claim that our little personalities will never be extinguished. We know that the sun, th e stars and the planets, are living their lives and will all decay. One may say in the words or Lucretius, as paraphrased by \\ . H. Mullock: — “What! shall the rateless worlds in dust he blown “Back to the unremembered and unknown, “And this frail Thou—the flame of Yesterday—- “ Burn on forlorn, immortal and unknown ?” I am, etc*., ANTI-HUMBUG. Hawera.