Other formats

    Adobe Portable Document Format file (facsimile images)   TEI XML file   ePub eBook file  

Connect

    mail icontwitter iconBlogspot iconrss icon

Salient. Victoria University of Wellington Students' Newspaper. Volume 31, No. 25. October 8, 1968

Thanks!

Thanks!

Sir-As might have been expected (and hoped for) my recent article, headed "The Death of God", provoked a good deal of thought and discussion. To those few students who actually became vocal (or rather, literary) in their protests, I am grateful, for the contents reveal, if admittedly no sympathy, at least the fact that I may have touched a few raw points somewhere. After all few people bother to react defensively if this is not the case. The literary few were outraged and unconvinced by my argument when all is said and done, no-can be argued into anything that he does not want to be argued into. Present all the rational arguments you please, all the absolute proofs and their conclusions for any thesis-the plain fact of human nature dictates that nobody will be convinced about anything unless he is willing to be. Recognising this, I do not propose to carry the argument any further myself. In the last analysis my only plea is this: that you may reject or accept the Christian position as you wish (my article was written to defend its intellectual integrity, not for the purpose of instant conversion), but please, let there be honesty in thhe motives for your choice. My original point remains-that if Christianity is rejected (and one is entitled and free to think as one pleases), let it not be on the grounds of so-so-called 'irrationality', or because it fails to satisfy the demands of the intelligent thinker. I believe that the Christian position is able to hold its own against any alternative philosophy, and that it provides a good deal more than intellectual satisfaction. Let it be openly admitted that the real factors behind its rejection or acceptance involve a good deal more than cut-and-dried consistency, although a system must he consistent before any thinking person should be expected to follow it. They involve the will and disposition of the individual, who for reasons other than necessarily logical ones may not be prepared or inclined to accept the responsibilities and implications of this or any position.

Finally, thank you Mr. Pettigrow, Mr. Silver, Miss Follick and Mr. Cropp for your inspiring and courteous attempts to state the Opposing position with the dignity and integrity worthy of those who have the human capacity to think and to reason.

Yours faithfully,

Julie Belding.