SCIENCE AND NATURAL LAW

Wanganui Chronicle, Volume LXXXIII, Issue 19983, 28 October 1927, Page 6

SCIENCE AND NATURAL LAW

Sir, —Mr Talbot has continued his discourse on the above subject and comments upon my last reply to his views. His statement about the human mind creating natural law is only a quibble.

The human mind gave a certain name to a certain effect noticed when «n. apple fell off a tree and said this is the result of gravitation, but this law was in force long before man was an intellectual being. Cause and effect, and other instances, could be given to refute that statement and prove it absurd. To reason on thp basis of cause and effect must inevitably come back to the First Cause and, apart from the belief in the Deo idea, you come to n dead end. You cannot produce something out of nothing.

I am surprised that Mr Talbot can only dig up instances of the. Middle Ages in support of his argument about loose thinking of theologians. Even his quotation from Mr Balfour does not prove his point, for there are other factors besides reason and science tbal I must be taken into account when deal* ing with Christianity. However. th< subject is not theology but prejudice. Mr Talbot pointedly abstains frort the main issue and goes off on his pH quotation?. I still maintain that youi correspondent is too biassed to discus* the main issue and to give us his views on the matter instead of the views of< other folk. As to the divisions in the Church, let us consider a scientific body. How about the medical profession f The disagreement between doctor* is proverbial, and even Lord Lister ha-’ a hard struggle to gain his point ol view. Yet, we do not disparage that profession. Finally, Mr Talbot strikes a great note; that the scientist deals with the knowable. Here is a test! Ask the genuine scientist what he knows, and he will tell you practically nothing. The more we know the less we know. Mr Talbot must bo extremely prejudiced or he would not serve up such information to your readers. PLAIN JIMMY. October 26.