"A. M." AND PROFESSOR HAECKEL.

Otago Daily Times, Issue 13589, 10 May 1906, Page 10

"A. M." AND PROFESSOR HAECKEL.

TO THE EDtTOB. -Sir,—"A. M.," after long silence, replies this morning at length. Ho says; " I am by no means sure that 1 Rock 1 understands tho monism of Hacckcl." But that is quite unimportant: I am willing to assume that "A. M." at least believes that ho understands it, and do not hold the theory in any greater respect on that account. He seeks to weaken tho force of tho defection of Reymond, Virehow, Baer, Wundt, and others by saying that they arc. or wore, soeptics to a man. But they werk moiiists to a man, and reverted to dualism—that is, they in their riper years adopted the tclcologic view (oreation by design). "A. M." says: "It by no moans follows that bccauso a few eminent men hero, and there have reverted to dualism, monism does not remain more or less tho only religious position headed by men. of scicnoe and thoughtful people generally." Haeckol says: " The great majority of philosophers and theologians hold tho contrary oninion "—that is, that thero arc " two different separate worlds—the one physical and material, and the other moral and immaterial." Dees "A. M." mean to say that philosophers are not " thouehtfut people"? or does he contradict, Hacckcl?

"The theologians of tho present are liko a mob of shepherdless sheep wanderincr amid wide and broken-fenccd pastures." So! Haecltcl tells us practically tho samo thing _ obout Iho "mo3t eminent phvsic.jsts," hut comforts his renders by reflecting: " One is therefore free, to choose amoiMt the [their] contradictory hypotheses according to one's knowledge and judgment." And following this rulo. though "no expert in t.his department," ho fives his own view of ether. The whole thinir is "hypothetical," and is dug by "no expert" out of a bewildering mass of "extremely divergent," views, in • which the mast, eminent, physicists "frequently contradict each other on tho most, important points." Yet it serves to demonstrate the "law of substance" which "definitely rules out the three central dogmas or motnnhysie.;—God, freedom, and immortality." Tho hypothesis is built up on such phrases as "Fif.hcr has probably 119 chemical finality," "If it. bo supposed." "It must further ho supposed," "As is ve.l7 probable," "Tt must be." "May probably." etc. And of the "Problem of substance." th® great law of which Tides out God, Haeckcl confesses: "The innermost character of Nature is jurt as filtlo understood' by us as it was by Anaxiniauder and Empedocles 2400 years ago." "Wo must even grant that this cssonco of substance bccoincs more mysterious and enigmatic the deeper ive penetrate into tho knowledge of its attributes, matter, and energy, and the more thoroughly ive study its countless phenomenal forms and their evolution. We do not know the "thing in itsolf" that lies bc-bintl thes" lrcowab l^ phenomena." What if, after all, it should provo to be the Christian's Rod?

Haeckel discovers "eternal iron laws." hut no lawgiver; mirposc and design in the structure of life of oil oriranisra, but no designer. He tells us that_" in harmony with the great laws of 'division of labour' (?) tho originally indifferent 'sense-cells of thi skin' undertook (?' different tasks." etc. For scicnco "Faith is indispensable, but fl'is is becauso it is the imagination (?) that fills up the fra,ps loft, by the intelligence in our knowledge of tho connection of things." but ho denies faith to the man who would fain connect "things" with Iho great b3nelicient Being we rail God. He believes in souls, but they, although "actual." aro merely "the sum total of the physiological functions" of " the nsychio ovgans." Ho lias a "religion" without a God. but out of consideration for human weakness, his " monistic religion" is to have thrco " eoddesscs"—'Truth, Beauty, and Virtue. The seventeenth chapter of tho "Riddle" is a gross caricature of Christianity, which ninnv of our school children could correct. The anwing ignorance of fact and literature exhibited in this chapter has been well exposed by Profe.ssor Loofs and others.

This is the sort of thing which has " emanated from a level-headed thinker like Haeefcel." It does not comirifnd itself to me. But I agree with " A. M." that no solid nrofit can accruo from intermittent skirmishings over such matters. _ I would only ask your corresnondent in his wriitngs to leave us tho <iod of our fathers whom wo reverenco and worship, and to refrain from newspaper correspondence, which causes pain and distress to many without accomplishing any good.—l am, etc.. May 7, Rock.