What Correspondents Say.

Star (Christchurch), Issue 18406, 7 March 1928, Page 3

What Correspondents Say.

INFORMAL VOTES. To the Editor. Sir,—l thank you for your leader in last evening’s issue of'the “Star” regarding the informal voting of 1925. Allow me to point out one little error, vii.’., Wellington Subscribers 174. This should have read "Wellington Suburbs.” This is the Hon the. Minister of Education's electorate, hence my reference "A little more education, etc.” It is to be hoped he has not -fallen under the “ban” of Lord Bryce’s very limited opinion of New Zealand Members of Parliament. "Lead Kindly Light,’” etc.—l am, etc., PAX C. S. PREDESTINATION. To the Editor. Sir, —Will you kindly permit me to make some reply to Mr Williams on the above subject? I am pleased that Mr Williams has returned to this subject. He says: "Mr Lee blames God for evil.” Sir, I think that Mr Williams is somewhat in error, in that respect. The question I ask Mr Williams is: Dio. God not know when Pie created the Devil, an angel of the highest order, that the Devil would rebel? Now, sir, God being All-wise, He must have known that the angel of the highest order that He created would rebel; therefore it seems to be as Dr Temple says, that it makes God, the Divine Creator, responsible for the evil. Your correspondent says the Devil before his "Fall” was made perfect. Well, sir, it seems to me to be impossible for anything made perfect to become imperfect, for from my point of view everything in life from the embryo up to adulthood is one continual transformation; our planet, and everything in life is under the law of transformation. Therefore tire Devil could not have been made perfect. There is nothing perfect. See our crude little sailing ships like I came to New Zealand in in 1870. They have been transformed into mighty ocean palaces. Our method of locomotion has been transformed from the donkey to the flying machine. I myself am not perfect. I was once in the same strain of thought as Mr Williams seems to be; in fact, I doubt not his sincerity, but he will sooner or later be again transformed on this plane or on the next. Your correspondent says with regard to predestination: There were some things laid down before the foundation of the world that should come to pass in after time. Well, in Isaiah 45:7, we find these remarks: “I form the light, and create darkness; I make peace and create evil; I the Lord do all these things.” Now this seems to me to be thus: "It’s no matter what you do or what you say, God has arranged all things in His own way.” And we find predestination in John, 6:44; Acts, 13:48; Ephesians, 1:11; John, 15:34; Hebrews, 11:40; Matthew, 25:34; 1.8. Kings, 21:29; 1.8. Peter, 4:19; Thessalonians, 11 :B, 2:11; Luke, 12:53; Mark, 13:20. The above texts all quote predestination. Now, sir, there are only two religions struggling for an existence, that is, monotheism and polytheism, and polytheism has very much the greatest number of adherents, and teeming millions in India that have never heard of the name of our God. Why? Your correspondent quotes Christ as saying that God is Spirit; but the Old Testament proves an Anthropomorphic God, seen by many of His prophets.—l am, etc., C. J. LEE. SCIENCE AND RELIGION. To. the Editor. Sir,—The defender of religion enjoys one advantage over his opponent in a newspaper controversy. It is this: All the information he wants to know, all thte knowledge he desires to know, and all that he will ever know, is contained in the Bible. He can trust and distort and interpret practically any passage therein to meet every occasion. All the pithy passages blue-pencilled, he can condemn, and eternally damn (in his ignorance) every statement announced by scientists: Not a prophecy or an established truth is broadcasted from the scientific world but it is condemned and denounced as the work of that wicked angel who was tossed out of heaven on to the earth below. The defender of religion will not even concede a palpable error, inconsistency, impossibility or absurdity narrated m the scriptures. He stakes his all on the Bible. On the other hand, the opponent ot religion must study scores of books which deal with the past and present problems of life. He is not satisfied with the mental food dished up to him by the theologian. That source of knowledge no longer appeals to him. He desires to think for himself. But he does not cling to views which new knowledge proves untenable. He realises that science is ever revising, casting out and modifying her doctrines with the advent of new knowledge. Now, take your correspondent " Crusader.” In effect, he tells us he had religion for breakfast, dinner and tea since he w r as a babe (he must have been a darling). But on the subject of evolution one could write all he knows on the back of a penny postage stamp. Now that he has answered challenge, and proved himself the fourflusher ” I thought he was, I do not intend to waste further time, ink and paper on such an ignorant, egotistical individual. I suspect he was an only child, in which case. “ 5.,” if he has read an3 r of Brill s works, could' give us some interesting reading. I welcome “ Light ” back to the fray. Whether we will ever see eye to eye on any point is doubtful. " Light’ made the remark in one of his former letters that to believe in evolution was to be considered “ fashionable and up-to-date.” He now says, concerning psychology, that " some people feel big when they can discuss learnedly about complexes, but do they get anywhere with it?” I fail to see where a little knowledge of the workings of the tnind implies any " bigness ” as " Light uses that term. Knowledge is cheap; it is within the reach of all. We have a splendid public library, and the contributions are comparatively light. I would like to tell “ Light that all members of one family do not have the same opportunities nor the same talents. Take a family of four children. One child may inherit the traits of the mother, another those of the father, another the combination of both, and the remaining one may inherit the traits of a grand or great-grand-parent. One child may turn out to be a brilliant musician or politician, though his father be a monumental mason. But possibly the potentiality was there in the father’s case, but latent for lack of the right stimulus for its expression. T can assure " Light ” that a know-

ledge of " complexes ’ is being universally recognised as a great help in diagnosing mental disorders Now a complex is an idea or group of ideas buried in the unconscious, yet influencing the conscious mind. \Y hen a complex associated with some pi imitive instinct enters the conscious mind in order to attain some object, but is denied fulfilment through family, social ur other reasons, it is v ther repressed,

that is, driven into the unconscious, or it emerges in some more conventional form. For instance, a healthy boy has the fighting instinct strongly marked. He cannot go about knocking down all and sundry, so he " lets off steam ” by indulging in some violent exercise such as boxing or football (Rugby). In other words, he has sublimated the original primitive impulse. To give one more instance. An old maid, denied the fulfilment of her maternal instinct, lavishes her affection upon other people’s children. She has sublimated the original primitive impulse. Another will repress the impulse, and. driven down intro the unconscious, it shows itself in an excessive prudery. The sight of a painting of a nude figure arouses in her feelings of disgust and repugnance. Thus we see that sublimation is really our moral and mental safety-valve.

It is the unearthing of these many and varied complexes which the psy-cho-analyist is concerned with. As I have put the matter very crudely, I would advise " Light ” to obtain and read books dealing with this subject. I certainly do not feel “ big ” because I have read a little of psychology or any other “ ology ” or “ ism.”—l am. etc., SCIENCE. AMBULANCE SPLIT. To the Editor. Sir,—Seeing that Mr Treleaven does not deny that part of the annual appeal is to equip the Ambulance Transport Corps (newly formed), I consider it a waste of public money. T was under the impression that the brigade was at fault in the split, but now it’s plain to be seen that the Association is out to eliminate the Ambulance Brigade, which has done valuable work in our city— not for pay, but to alleviate the pain and suffering of mankind. As I said in my previous Tetter, there is something wrong, and it’s up to Mr Flesher, chairman of the Association, oi the Assistant Commisisoner of the Ambulance Brigade to “out with it” and take the public into their confidence, for it’s their money that keeps the work going. Such a good work should be above suspicion.—I am, etc., INTERESTED. IS IT CRICKET? To the Editor. Sir,—l have read in to-night's "Star” about the Wellington Cricket Association not charging admission on the last day of the match against the Australians, and thus depriving itself of a considerable sum. What a different attitude from that taken by the Canterbury Cricket Association in its recent match! Last Friday night I finished work at five o’clock and walked at least a mile to Lancaster Park to see the match. On arrival I had to pay the full charge, the gatekeeper remarking that he had received no instructions to the contrary. One would-be spectator who arrived at the same time as I did refused to go in when he heard this, but I w-as keen to see the position of the game, so I paid up. When I arrived, Newman and Cunningham were associated for the last wicket partnership, and I do not consider I saw more than half an hour’s play. Nobody dislikes being thought mean more than I do, but I do consider the association’s attitude a grasping one, and the incident will not be forgotten next time I am present when a collection is taken up at Hagley Park.—l am, etc., GATE. WHERE IS LABOUR ON SAMOAN QUESTION? To the Editor. Sir,—The article of Mr E. J. Howard which appeared in your columns is interesting, because he calls for common sense as the means of settling the trouble in Samoa. We agree with him that common sense is wanted, but we cannot accept his implication that those in charge now are wanting in common sense. That members of the N.Z. Labour Party are showing a lamentable lack of the very thing Mr Howard says is wanted can be seen in the conflict of ideas put forward by Mr H. E. Holland and Mr Howard. The latter says the Samoans "are not asking that the mandate shall be taken away from New Zealand.” Mr Holland, on the other hand, declares that “the only course open to New Zealand is to return the mandate to the League of Nations.” According to Mr Howard’s version, Mr Holland wants to give the Samoans what they do not want. We should like to ask Mr Howard -whether his party has ever discussed this policy question in conference, or otherwise, and do they really know where they are on the subject? The trouble is not one of a difference between two men, but most clearly the conflict of two authorities, the mandate authority and the Mau. The Royal Commission, consisting of two of the ablest Judges in New Zealand—men not wanting in common sense—ha? stated definitely that the Mau and the mandate cannot run concurrently. "One or the other must go” is the exact language used. Mr Holland says the mandate should go. Apparently Mr Howard does not agree with this view. The question remains: Where does the party stand? It is very easy lo assume that those exercising authority under the mandate are wanting in common sense. The assumption is, however, more a proof of conceit on the part of those who use it than of any special capacity to handle the Samoan situation. Before the Labour Party members set out to instruct others on the Samoan question they should first decide as to where their party stands on the vital issue of the Mau or the mandate. Which is the party for? is the question we would like to have a plain answer to.—We are, etc., N.Z. WELFARE LEAGUE. IS INGERSOLL REFUTED? To the Editor. Sir, Unless your correspondents stick to the original headings in this controversy it is difficult to say what irrelevant topic they’ll be introducing next. From the tone of I. J. Walker’s letter it is obvious that he is unaware of what a very discredited authority his idol, the high priest of infidelity in America in the "eighties,” Colonel Ingersoll. was, when Father Lambert had finished with him. That he hasn’t read "Answers to Atheists” is evident, too; otherwise he wouldn’t, have indulged in such ridiculous “gush” concerning that much-overrated sophist. Lest my critic should claim that, my opinion on this point is of no more value than his own, I propose, Sir. with your permission, to give two or three "extracts from American papers which reviewed Father Lambert's book when it. was first published. I could quote from many others, all commen-

datory; but these must suffice for the present. From the “Bay City Chronicle” I take the following:—“Father Lambert takes a firm hold of the infidel at the very start, and keeps him in the toils until he disposes of him. Every man in the United States, of whatever religious belief, or of no belief, should have a copy of the book.” The “San Francisco Monitor” wrote thus: “We hope the pamphlet will find numerous readers . . . who desire to see the rot and rant of Ingersoll rubbed out by the learning and logic of Lambert.” “The Baltimore Methodist” hailed the book with enthusiasm. Here is a brief extract from its review: “As a scholar, logician and theologian, the author is master of the situation. He thoroughly exposes Ingersoll’s ignorance, sophistries and misrepresentations. He meets Ingersoll’s pleas for atheism fairly and squarely, and overwhelms the superficial pleader by unanswerable arguments. The whipped atheist is, in the hands of the author, like a child in the grasp of a giant." Here is a little of what the “New York Truth” had to say about it: “These notes (‘Notes on Ingersoll,’ the sub-title of the book), are the comments of a brilliant debater, and represent the very essence of clear, cold and pure logic.” The above extracts are but a fraction of what I could give did space allow. The keynote of the comments of hundreds of editors in the Englishspeaking world was that Ingersoll. when Lambert had finished wrth him. was completely “down and out,” utterly discredited, not only as a philosopher, but even as an honest, straightforward man. If anyone still doubts the truth of this, he can readily settle that doubt by a careful perusal of the book in question. It is a masterpiece as an exposition of the fallacies and methods emploj-ed by the infidel fraternity. Those who do not want to know the truth, but prefer to remain the dupes of glib charlatans of the infidel school, will, of course, decline to read it; and, in all probability, continue to advertise, per medium of the correspondence columns of the newspapers, their abysmal ignorance, and thei? colossal conceit. That they are in ignorance is their own fault. Common sense should show them the wisdom of learning what is to be said (or what is already overwhelmingly proved) against their “philosophy.” If they don’t know of abler thinkers on the other side than their own "little tin gods” are, it shows they have not been keen seekers after truth, but are content to remain under the thraldom of the superstition of unbelief. "Do Tell Us” can be dismissed with the contempt his screed deserves. Attempting to heap ridicule on me in no wise irritates me. His bad manners are not any argument in support of his case. A "monkey-gland” operation might possibly be helpful to him, es-1 pecially if it gave him celerity in with-1 drawing from a controversy in which his "talents” have been singularly barren ! Ex nihilo nihil fit! A fact so easily established as the existence of man’s freewill is also call-j ed into question. This is more than j passing strange, and shows how ration- j alism has a deadening, damning effect j on the reasoning powers of its votaries. I know I have freewill. I know I can ! cither continue writing this letter or go to bed and leave it unfinished. There to prevent my doing either -in other words, T possess free | will. If 1 have it, every other person i not “non compos mentis” has it; and the “science” that contends we are without it isn’t science at all, but sheer lunacy. I hope "Science ’ will take note and ascertain his "facts” before he again makes himself a public laugh-ing-stock.—l am, etc.,