GOD OR NO-GOD IN THE SCHOOLS?

New Zealand Tablet, 29 June 1911, Page 1191

GOD OR NO-GOD IN THE SCHOOLS?

PART 111. - ;. THE DISCUSSION : A CRITICAL SUMMARY The Rt. Rev. Henry W. Cleary, D D. ; ~;*: 'THOSE THAT FLY MAY FIGHT AGAIN.' t One of the fine drolleries of Dickens' Nicholas Nickleby is his description of the staging of Havilet by Mr. Vincent Crummies' dramatic company. In the third act, the Hamlet of the piece is described as thrusting the point of his sword in all directions, except where the legs of the eavesdropping Polomus ; (at whom he was supposed to be \f\r' eT Painty . vwibk through the threadbare screen. The Wellington Evening Post played a similar bit of comedy during this discussion. From first to last it kept driving its pen-point, in all directions except where the one grand issue of the discussion (winch it was supposed to encounter) was all along in full plain view. The Post, as the accredited champion and expert of the purely secular school system, had upon its shoulders the burden of justifying on Christian and educational principles—if it could—the utter exclusion of religion, by Act of Parliament, from public instruction m New Zealand. But it had 'no stomach to this fight.' So it turned its back and bolted from the task. But (as Samuel Butler saith)

.'Those that fly may fight again.' T propose, with ; the blessing of God, to afford the Evening Post abundant ; opportunities of fighting' again' upon the fundamental issue which it — well as all:other New Zealand journals that sharevits views—has, thus far,- avoided with elaborate care. : While it is gathering materialand courage— face this issue squarely, some more valiant (or less discreet) journalistic, or political knight of the secular system may, possibly, advance into the lists and take the place from which the old and accredited champion boldly ran away —to ! roam over a wide expanse of irrelevancies and come to grief through tilting at sundry shadows and windmills that it met along the zig-zag line of its retreat. '/'' .. It will, perhaps, interest and greatly aid the reader to find here thrown into consecutive and commented form all that properly belongs to this discussion, as well as the confusing tangle of unrelated matter introduced by the Evening Post. _ This reasoned summary ' (as the French would call it) is set forth hereunder under the following heads: •~"'" : . '■''' ~ ::■ ;•<■■■,■■ ■■-,;. > I. The case stated. 11. The Evening Post's ' defence ' of the secular system. 111. Misquotations and Misrepresentations. THE CASE STATED. A.—ON BED-ROCK. 1. (a) Education is a preparation for life. (This is not disputed.) (b) Herbert Spencer defines education as a 'preparation for complete living.' (This view of education is likewise not disputed.) 2. (a) The nature of the educational ' preparation for life' naturally and logically depends upon the view which the educator takes of lifeof its origin, its duties,- its destiny. (This obvious truth is -not disputed). A view of life, of its origin, its duties and destiny, constitutes what is termed, for convenience, ' a philosophy of life.' ' (b) Manifestly, no living, and no preparation for living, can be ' complete,' if it leaves out of consideration the ultimate purpose of life, or if it ignores, or sets aside, or thwarts, the duties of life. (This is not -disputed.).. The view of life (as above) supplies education with a unifying purpose, with a goal to be attained, with a central aim to-be achieved, with a direction for activities, with a motive and an inspiration for sustained effort. Education is thus a life-training with a life-purpose. And, purposeful education (as Professor Foerster, of the Zurich University, shows in regard to purposeful civilisation) cannot be realised without a dominating view of life, with its ethical standards, to serve as a central unifying position. In his Heretics (pp. 286-7, 301), Chesterton, dealing with this philosophy of life,' says: —' We have a general view of existence, whether we like it or not; it alters, or, to speak more accurately, it creates and involves everything we say or do, whether we like it or not. . . Every man in the street must hold a metaphysical system, and hold it firmly.' Without a central aim m life, without a unifying view of life, men are (as Professors Caird and Foerster strongly insist) sure to end by becoming absolute individualists; and this 'mere individualism' (says the former) 'is.nothing but anarchy.' The freethinker Comte describes it as ' the disease of Western civilisation.' But if the absence of a central view of life, and of a central aim in life, leads to anarchy in life, so must it likewise lead to anarchy in education, which is the ' preparation for life.' EXAMPLES: TWO OPPOSING VIEWS OF LIFE RESULT IN TWO OPPOSING SCHOOL SYSTEMS. 1. The Catholic View of Life. —(a)The Catholic (and, generally speaking, the Christian) view of life (or philosophy of life) has been summarily set forth on pp. 1-10, 23-24 of this publication, and at greater length in Secular vs. Bcligioiis Education. It may be briefly recapitulated as follows:—Human, life _ came from God. Man's destiny is to return to God, and in Him to attain the perfection cf his being in the eternal after-life. Our earthly life; is a period or state of probation and preparation for the deeper and wider and truer life that follows bodily death. The chief part of that. preparation consists in knowing and rightly ■ discharging certain duties towards God (to know, love, and serve Him), and towards our fellow-men in God That preparation lasts from the dawn of reason till death. Neither childhood: nor-manhood can afford to belittle or ignore any duty of life, even those of the worldly or social order, since duties towards God define; color, and give 'a text and powerful motive for all other human duties. But true child-progress, as well as true adult-progress, is to 'seek first the kingdom of God and His righteousness,' to advance in wisdom and grace before God and' men'; and the -wisdom is J, to know Christ, and Him crucified.' (The statements of the Christian view of life—or philosophy of life— not disputed.) ;'-," Of the Christian view of life (or : philosophy of life), the brilliant non-Catholic Professor W 7. Foerster, 'of the Zurich University, says "in one of his latest works: —' It simplifies all the , involved problems of life by referring them back to a cleflp, fundamental truth— > re-birth of the human spirit. It calls men back from all that is transitory and superficial, to the central question, which means life or death in all things.

It leads from the periphery to the centre, and educates mankind to see everything, and work at everything, from the .vantage-ground: of a great central position: To find and maintain this central position is the whole salvation of manand all social work is without foundation if it be not inspired and directed from thence.' v - ! ''S '■■ ■; .? (b) The Catholic '- School Preparation for Life.— Such a view of life as that summarised above 'will naturally impart a religious and spiritual ' atmosphere '' to the educational •'preparation for life,' for its duties, and for its destiny, (a) It will establish 'proportions'—that is, it will attach due importance (as above) to all duties, both spiritual and secular, to every phase of the ' preparation for life '—both for the present life and for the after-life; but it will, naturally, strongly emphasise ' the great central position;' and values will, in their last resort, be determined by the standard of man's eternal destiny. (b) The school '.preparation for complete living will include the due and harmonious development of all the faculties arid capacities of the child —body, mind, will, conscience, feelingsfor all duties, the < elevation of all relationships, the 'leading of the individual soul back to its Creator,' . all of which forms the essential characteristic of Christianity as an educational influence.' (Nothing in this paragraph has been questioned or denied.) 'f- 2. The Unbeliever's View of Life: (a) Radically different is the atheistic (and, generally, the unbelieving) view of life and its destiny. It asserts that there is no Personal God, and no duties (such as those of religion) arising from or connected with belief in Him; that there is no undying soul and no future life; that all begins and ends with this present world; and that, after death, there is nothing to differentiate man from ' the horse and the mule which have not understanding,' from the dog that has had his day. (This is not questioned or denied.) ...(b) The Unbeliever's School Preparation for Life: Such a view of life reduces life (and, therefore, the educational preparation for life) to a mere materialistic or mechanical or this-worldly level; it naturally and logically results in a godless school systemdevoid of all religion, religious teaching, religious worship, and religious influences.' Such a preparation for life' trains only such faculties of the child as suit the purposes of this world, and the whole course of development will be directed for a purely utilitarian, or at least ,temporal, aim and use. (This is not disputed.) (To be continued.)