THE BIBLE AND PHYSICAL SCIENCE.

New Zealand Herald, Volume XLV, Issue 13768, 5 June 1908, Page 7

THE BIBLE AND PHYSICAL SCIENCE.

REPLY TO THE REV. W. BEATTY BY DR. R. BHIfKAUXT. Mb. BK.vrr.rs deliverances are always marked by such admirably terse lucidity of diction and virility of reasoning that it was with astonishment that I read in last Saturday's Supplement a column from Ilia pen, in which those characteristics were conspicuous by their absence. . I had to read it two or three times in order to obtain a glimpse of the mental sequence which it was intended to suggest. Mr. Beatty appeared, in fact, to have strayed into that nebulous Cloud-cuckoo land which on a recent occasion he has himself so admirably depicted. The need for this extraordinary excursion on his part obviously lay with the subject he set himself to examine.

It was apropos of the dicta of the Moderator of the Presbyterian Assembly at Sydney. That gentleman, in words which could not have been more felicitous, lay bare the one great vulnerable side of ecclesiastical Christianity. So characteristic and representative was his way of doing this that one's pen itched to exegise upon his utterances. This, however, was done excellently by Dr. Giles, who expressed accurately the mental commentary of every honest* thinker on reading the said pronouncements.

; Mr. Beatty takes up the cudgels in defence of the Moderator. His first point reveals already the effects of the neighbourhood of Cloud-cuckoo land. For. in it he commits the lapse of logic which is technically known as "ignoratio eleuchi;" which, being interpreted, means ignoring the, issue raised, and substituting another in its stead. Mr. Beatty says that scientific or theological accuracy does not affect belief in the moral and spiritual value of the Bible. No one said it did. The Moderator affirmed that the statements of the Bible relating to physical phenomena are confirmed by. scientific knowledge. Dr. Giles contends that such an assertion can only proceed from one of two mental conditions in the speaker: ignorance, or intellectual dishonesty, otherwise citizenship of the land of Cloud-cuckoo.

Proceeding upon his journey, Mr. Beatty quotes Dr. Giles' dilemma. The questions at issue are: "Is the statement of the Moderator true':'.' "Is tin.- Moderator ignorant, or stupid, or dishonest in making it?" Momentous questions those. Bub by this- time Mr. Beatty is well advanced in the happy land. Instead of answering these- questions or any one of them, he sayshe. says many things.

He says that he is not conversant with physical science or metaphysics. He says that history and languages are useful studies.. He says that he likes the Soera'tic method. He says that physical science has limitations. He says that the Universe is the sum of things, man included.' He says that man may be contemplated as apart from the physical order. He says that a cobbler should stick to his last.

The remaining portion of his communication, indeed, is so diffuse and confused that, strange as the position may seem, in the case of such a master of verbiage as Mr. Beatty, 1 must .try, in older to answer him. to help him out with, his meaning. What Mr. Beatty had it in his mind to say, and but for the paralysing atmosphere of Cloud-cuckoo land Mould doubtless have said, is, i think, this:— '...

"The Bible is, on the whole, the greatest text-book, of moral .and spiritual teaching which' we, have. It is not a text-book of physical science. Physical science can only deal with the order of physical phenomena. Physical phenomena have nothing to do with moral and spiritual truths. At least, it is not possible for us to trace the precise, relation between the two. Ergo; physical conceptions have nothing to do with either suiiiioiling .or disproving the moral and spiritual truths of the Bible. Moreover, be it noted that moral and spiritual truths are id' infinitely 'more importance than physical phenomena." •

1 think that is the chain of reasoning which Mr. Beatty had in his mind ; I am sin* he Mill correct me if I urn wrong. The argument is an excellent onethough perhaps one or two points in it could be discussed with advantage-but it has the one fault of having nothing to do with the difficulty which it is intended to meet. The question at issue was: "Is the Moderator a foolish person,'or ——''""

The Bible is not a. text-book of physical science, but it does, nevertheless, commit itself to many statements as to physical facts, also to some metaphysical statements-. It reproduces, for instance, the account of the creation of the world, which was composed by the Chaldean magi, and which was discovered in tne library of Assur-bani-pal. (The reproduction is faithful, even down to verbal details, such as the beautiful expression, "'And the breath of God moved upon the face of the waters.") This account does not possess a high degree of scientific probability. Science, in fact, has something to say concerning this, and all like statements about physical facts which occur in the Bible. And. science, after all, is nothing else but plain ordinary commonsense, organised, checked, and tested in a thousand wavs.

Now, Mr. Beatty, if I mistake not, is a man who values practical common-sense above even the refinements of intellectual theories. And the practical question is this: A very large number of good, sincere, earnest, and truly religious men at the present day cannot by any feat of intellectual legerdemain close their mind's ears to the teachings of common-sense on physical questions. They value the moral and spiritual teaching of the Bible, and of the Churches, at least as much as anyone. But they cannot reconcile such teaching, and such professions, with the action of Church teachers who shrink from frankly declaring that the Bible is not a text-book of physical science. These men may be right, or they may be wrong, but they are honest; and if the Churches' are concerned about them, they must deal with them honestlv.

This is not solely or mainly a question of physical science ; it is ail ethical question. The guilt of sunpressio veri and suggestin falsi which attaches to the attitude of the Churches in regard to the physical and metaphysical statements of the Bible and rituals is unworthy of their high spiritual mission. And it is this guilt which more than anything nullifies their good work and their good teaching, robs good men of the benefit they might derive from the eternal good news ; it is this guilt which is killing the Churches. The Churches have few real enemies nowadays; they would be full to-morrow; not a thoughtful man would stay away if only he could feel assured that those whose mission it is to teach moral and spiritual truth were free from the stain of intellectual dishonesty.

1 Mr. Beatty proposes to show " that the Bible account of Creation is in no way opposed to the discoveries of physical science.'' That has been done too often already. I have too deep and sincere a respect, and too much personal regard for Mr. Beatty, to wish to see him appear in public as a common acrobat.