A RECENT CONTROVERSY

Nelson Evening Mail, Volume LXI, 29 November 1927, Page 2

A RECENT CONTROVERSY

—— (To tho Editor) Sir, —This controversy at Westminster over the Bishop’s reference to man having descended from apes reminds mo of an incident ill my school days when big boys were wrangling over the game they were to play after their midday meal. But- let’s see what “Fundamentalist” has got to gay. What does all this mean? Is it not far better to sav what one thinks than to say what one knows is not true, which a Bishop must do if ho preaches orthodox theology. Now I must skip over some of “Fundamentalist’s” classical language and come, to Iris criticism of Sir Arthur Keith. Perhaps Sir Arthur instead of saying tho soul could only he regarded as a, function of the brain should* have said the mind could only bo regarded as a function of the brain and leave tho definition of soul to metaphysicians and psychologists. Then “Fundamentalist” asks why doesn’t the biologist stick to his biology, and why should a cobbler go beyond iris last. Well, T think there is good reason for a deviation in both cases, because if this policy had been adhered (o we should have been a long way short of our knowledge through discovery. I think Sir Arthur would have been quite correct if lie had said mind instead of soul. But after all what is mirid but a cognisance, of, external and internal conditions through the senses? The metaphysicians, I believe, say there are other mediums of conception. But I must leave that question of metaphysicians again. Well, I am not a biologist and I do not pretend to explain the cosmic process by which mind is produced, qther than conception through the senses and reflection bv suggestion. Alv own private opinion is that it- is some kind of animal magnetism whereby one thing suggests another, hut there is a vast difference between suggestion and secretion. All over the world one notices new peels springing up, the object of which is apparently anything but the truth. The two that come to my mind, now is “Fasciste” and “Fundamentalist,” and it would appear that the people are more incensed with names and notoriety than the. truth-. Anyhow, fundamentalists may* live to. And out that the laws of nature are. more fundamental than names and tenets. In conclusion, I think the main strain of “Fundamentalist’s” letter in reference to the Bishop of Birmingham is “birbosity and bias.” For my part 1 am out to fight superstition to the death, but I hav.£ got the whole world against me.—T am, etc.. W, P. S. Afoluoko, 261 h November.