SCIENCE AND RELIGION

Otago Daily Times, Issue 22260, 12 May 1934, Page 4

SCIENCE AND RELIGION

THREE POINTS OF VIEW " Modern Knowledge and Old Beliefs.” By Vivian Phelips. London : Watts. (Is 9d net.) " Science, Religion, and Man.” By the Rev. W. J. J. Cornelius, D.Sc. London: Williams and Norgate. (£1 2s 6d net.) “ Tadpoles and God.” By 1 Laurence Oliver. London; Ivor Nicholson. (9s net.) - —■ —i The Rationalist It is always interesting to see the reactions of different types of mind when confronted with the question of the relation between Science and Religion. Mr Vivian Phelips has written a sequel to his “ Churches and Modern Thought,”, in which he continues his attack on presentday Christian belief. About bis sincerity there can be no doubt, but about his premises there must be quite a lot. To say at the outset, concerning the Resurrection of Christ, “This stupendous miracle, this central ‘ fact' upon which the Church has hitherto rested* apparently never took place,” involves the writer in an obligation to state why it is that the Church has continued so long; why men and women are such misguided fools as to go away into out-of-the-way places as missionaries. Such work is not based upon falsehood.' It is futile to cast doubt upon the Marcan narrative, pointing but that he leaves out some things which are in Luke or Matthew, and at the same time to close the reason to the matter common to all, and to the fact that all three, evangelists, so different in viewpoint and in literary ability, give a portrait of a Man which is living and balanced. Mr Phelips reads widely, we judge, but his mind is definitely closed to any knowledge except that which supports positions he took'up a'generation ago. It is a barren exercise to read merely to refute, and the man who demands candour in another must offer the same candour himself. “Modern Knowledge and Old Beliefs ” leaves one with the feeling that the author is demanding of his readers that they shall submit to his demand that they can be candid only when they agree with his contentions. He does not give us argument, We have statements which are not adequately supported, and concerning which the contrary fact is not considered with any attempt at adequacy. The book is really a reiteration of old doubts, but it fails to take into the discussion the patent fact that the Christian Church and belief in a Living Christ continue unabated. It is surely a marvellous “ lie ” which can continue to be beneficently active for nearly 2000 years. That really does need explanation by every Rationalist. The Synthesis*

The Rev. Dr Cornelius contends that Science and Religion are not enemies, but friends if they are impartially studied. He takes the very opposite view to Mr Phelips. Christian verities and proved scientific facts are not at odds. Surely Science and Religion both seek the great Architect of the universe. Evolution, which regards man as the result of a process and not as the outcome of a personal fiat, is not necessarily an obstacle to the progress of Christian belief. Dr Cornelius considers that in the realms of Science and Religion there, is an alarming confusion in the minds of men and this, hei thinks, is due to the resistance which so many offer to new modes of thought and to the obstinacy of biased minds'which regard the instructions of their earlier, days as definitely final. This is by no means an easy book to summarise, because each chapter is in a sense complete in itself. Perhaps it might be better- to say that, each one is detachable from the others. Let it be said that the argument is divided into three parts. In the first we have a discussion of the phenomenon of life,'God, creation theories, man and his progress through experiment and experience. The second part deals with the religions instinct in man and the various ways in which it is allowed manifestation. The concluding section leads on to the expression of religious belief as seen in Christianity, and closes with a state ment of the reasons for belief in a future life. The reasoning all through is closely knit, despite the fact that each chapter is a complete whol%, The literary style is a little difficult to follow, but, even if this were limpid clear, the argument is such as to demand very close attention. That the book will repay this careful reading is quite certain. A very full and carefully arranged bibliography is a great help, as is the index which is also given.

The Fundamentalist Laurence Oliver is the pen-name of a young novelist who has quite recently been converted to Roman Catholicism. This explains a great deal, but we doubt if Catholic readers of balanced judgment will hail it with delight. There is a definite 1 obscurantist tendency in the reason., ing. One writer mentioned above believes so wholeheartedly in evolution that to him the idea of God is unneessary. The second writer sees very good reason why belief in evolution and Christian orthodoxy are quite compatible. Laurence Oliver will have no thought of evolution at all, and lays about him with a will in his attack upon this pernicious (to him) theory. There is a story of a young aspirant for a place in the world of journalism who applied to John Morley for a post under his editorship stating that he was 44 a specialist in invective.” This is true of the author of “ Tadpoles and God.” His scathing denunciation and ferocious satire at the expense of the idols of the day is amusing at first. Later it becomes as trying as the screaming of a spoilt child. His unrestrained advocacy of the Roman Catholic Church recalls a somewhat hackneyed quotation about a lady 44 who doth protest too much.” G. H. J. Thackeray Relics Thackeray’s letter, addressed to W. S. Williams, reader to Messrs Smith, Elder, and Co., publishers, praising “Jane Eyre,” then (1847' just published by Charlotte Bronte under the pen-name of “ Currer Bell,” brought £6OO in the concluding session of a two days’ sale of the Comte de Suzannet’s library at Messrs Sotheby’s. 44 Who the author can be,”„ writes Thackeray, 44 1 can't guess—if a woman she knows her language better than most ladies do, or has had a 4 classical ’ education. . . . Some of the love passages made me cry—to the astonishment of John, who came in with the coals.” Another letter, from the author of “Vanity Fair,” to Lady Pollock, brought £l5O. In this he mentions 44 Henry Esmond,” and says of it 1 : 44 My book just out is as dreary and dull as if it were true; the author was not very cheerful when he wrote it. . . The same buyer then gave £3OO for a copy of the first edition of 44 Henry Esmond,” inscribed 44 Lady Pollock. With the author’s grateful remembrances. October 28. 1852. W. M. T.”