WOOL GROWERS’ WORTHY PART.

Otago Daily Times, Issue 19816, 15 June 1926, Page 8

WOOL GROWERS’ WORTHY PART.

DISSOLUTION OF B.A.W.R.A I iP.BOU Ouh Ows Coeeespokdekt.) I LONDON’. May 4. I Relative to the dissolution o£ 8.A.W.R.A., the Trade Specialist of the Bradford Daily Telegraph, writes; "Many appreciative comments have been made on the suggestions put forward by the directorate of the British Australian Wool Realisation Association relative to tho disposal of the surplus funds which , that body still has to distribute. It is now practically certain that, though the dissolution of the association will not be regretted, it will go out of existence with credit to its name. Being faced with the liquidation of about 4,000,000 bales of wool, together with each colonial clip, the task seemed to be superhuman, but with the patience and goodwill of the trade that big weight of wool, which at one time, as Mr Walter Andrews said, ‘smothered the trade.’ was liquidated, and the very handsome surplus which has to be divided among its . hareholdcr.s will ■be the final iam on the breed and butter jof growers, who are to participate one* J more in a very good thing, j ‘’The part Australian and New Zealand ; growers played in meeting the wishes of the Mofhor Country at the time of stress I and strain will go down in history as a : very worthy one, and they are deserving of all the financial benefit that B.A.W.R.A is about to confer. The trade is particularly well pleased with the recommendation of B.A.W.R.A. to put on one side £250,000 for a research laboratory in Sydney in honour of Captain John M‘Arthur. the founder of the wool industry of Australia. There are still many lines of experimentation which can be followed out to advantage by using the yearly income from this fund, and it may be taken for granted that B.A.W.R.A.’s shareholders will agree to the proposal.” “PRESENT-DAY RATIONALISM.” TO THE EDITOP.. Sir, — Tho efforts of religious writers » discredit rationalism have never reflected credit on their honesty of method nor on their clearness of vision. The paragraph under the above heading in Saturday’s Daily Times is an example of how eager defenders of theology are to grasp any weapon which promises to pass muster among the public as destructive. Mr Joseph M‘Cabe, the arch-rationalist, is quoted as complaining regarding the position of rationalism to-day. Although the complaint is obviously not against the extent or spread of rationalism, but solely concerning jts public manifestation, these word* of Mr M'Cabes’ are construed by religious writers to testify to the decay of rationalism itself. The truth probably is that the present-day tendency to ignore or treat with silent contempt the theological claims is. to a man of Mr M'Cabe’s militant spirit, a" cause for real concern, and that he bemoans tho absence of that public aggressive spirit that was manifested 20 years ago. During the last century the conflict which raged about theology and evolution was fierce and aroused vast public interest, but since there has been a quiet accept&no* of rationalistic teachings among all thinking people it is neither necessary nor expected that public parade he made of the fact. Only a few such as Mr M'Cafce.ara of opinion that militant organisation* should be mintained, and it is a plea tor these and a comglamt. regarding their decline which he expresses. Even If the alleged falling away from rationalism were a fact, precisely the same has occurred with regard to theology. In the diminished congregations and the lack of public interest in religion we are faced with a state of things which is testified. to by churchmen the world over, and which it net capable of dispute by anyone. . If the people will have none of rationalism nor of theology, where have they drifted to? It is poor consolation for the forces of theology to imagine a falling off in adherents of rationalism and still be unable to entice people into the church fold. How then can the present-day tendencies be “heartening from a Christian point of view?”

The final quotation of Professor Millikan as saying that ho has “never known a thinking man who _ did not believe in God” is almost too ridiculous for comment. I have in my possession some dozen or to XI.P.A. annuals in which are hundreds of articles by “thinking” men testifying to their unbelief. There are outside of these pages manv imminent men who are unbelievers, while the extent of agnosticism or atheism among the masses must be immense. Are we to take it all these are just ignorant persons, and that only such ss Professor Millikan arc “thinkers?” The supposition is absurd. The exact revaraa is the true position, and is summed up by one writer in the statement that he “never knew any thinking man or woman to sit down and seriouslv examine his creed or belief, and not end by rejecting it.” The statement bv Professor Osborne that “the ago of scientific scepticism is over” is. if possible, more ridiculous than Professor Millikan’s statements. The churches themselves testify to the world wide scepticism not iceablo to-day and the opinion of a solitary professor, or for that matter of many professors, does not affect the conviction of many thousands of the clergy whose bitter experience has all too well convinced them that scepticism is anvthirg but dead. —I am. etc., E. W. F.