Other formats

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

Connect

    mail icontwitter iconBlogspot iconrss icon

Salient. An Organ of Student Opinion at Victoria College, Wellington, N.Z. Vol. 12, No. 9. August 10th 1949

— No Man's Land — — Letters to the Editor

page 3

No Man's Land

Letters to the Editor

Yah, Cowards!

Sir,

Recently the Debating Society debated the subject "That Atheism is Intellectually Unjustifiable".

At that debate there was a small attendance. The most notable fact was the absence of representatives of that most vocal group of University Atheists: the Marxists. It may be that they were assisting the anticonscription campaign, but nevertheless this subject is clearly concerned with a cornerstone of their philosophy and just as clearly judging by the placings of the speakers and the resulting vote there is plenty to be said for the theistic view. They are therefore not entitled to claim, as a solitary person who seemed their way inclined attempted to do, that religion is a dying force and that all the most competent and sound thinking men (with no examples—except a Professor of Philosophy in Moscow) think that religion is a dying force and atheism in the form of dialectical materialism the coming thing.

Nor are they entitled to say that Marx presumed that this is the case and that he was right so why argue. They are not entitled to presume anything of the sort since the evidence against this prime fallacy of Marx and his adherents is so strong.

Perhaps some of the most vocal group of Atheists in the College may be willing to publish in Salient the reasons why they did not accept this challenge to their basic tenets. At most other debates, particularly those where the arguments against their case are not as strong, they have attended in force to establish their point of view. This time one speaker tried to defend atheism from their viewpoint. It is curiously like a case of intellectual cowardice.

There was little support from some of the religious organisations either. They can only be excused on the ground that they are not so vocal about their theism and should not be expected to defend it very vigorously. This is a very poor excuse.

Perhaps the weather may have kept both sides away, but it was not that bad. It will be interesting to see why—if anyone is able to say why.

"Curious."

Ordinis Tranquilities

Take comfort, heart! Peace knows her own and they
Know her. She needs not the blatant blabber;
He, who in his act makes peace, passivity,
And holds no friend, nor love, nor even
Peace itself, as dear enough to die for;
Nor he, who sleeps his soon-to-be-bloodied sword,
But bums the hearts of men to bitter ash
in strife's fierce fire and [unclear: holoiaust] of hate.

Fear nothing, heart! Confusion is self confounded.
Peace needs no advocate. Her voice is thine;
Thy dearest yearnings speak her very soul.
Her nature still is sweet tranquility;
Her home, the heart self-chastened now at rest
Where justice sits, a monarch absolute,
And rules each least and greatest want and wish;
The right of that true man who makes his blade
Fair pledge of peace, his battlecry safeguard
And herald of tomorrow. He stands fast
To seize upon the wild and fearful future
And steadfast hold it firm in faith,
His lovely hope,
The [unclear: nursling-heir] of all his own courageous soul.

R. H. Donovan.

Congreve!

The next Drama Club entertainment is to be held this Friday, August 12, in the Little Theatre at 8 p.m. It is hoped to present a reading of an English I set play, "The Way of the World", by William Congreve. This is an excellent sketch of life in England during the Restoration period. The involved plot will be greatly simplified by the expression of competent readers. This should be of great help to all taking Stage I English this year.

Owing to circumstances entirely beyond the control of the Drama Club the advertised "Non-stop Revue" will not be held, as had been hoped for; instead there will be a production of Tournament play on September 16. The original cast will be acting.

Don't forget those dates: Friday, August 12, and Friday, September 16 in the Little Theatre at 8 p.m.

Finals Protest

Sir,

It is quite common knowledge that this year's internal Stage III exams will be held between 17th and 27th October. Surely this measure is right in the other extreme to that of last year? We had three to four weeks between Stages I and II and Stage III then, and now we are being subjected to having Stages I, II and III all in the one week. Why can't it be arranged that Stage III exams are held in the beginning of November so that there is a little bit of time to clear the brain? Let's see some action by the Exec.!

Brainstorm.

Please Note

Sir,

This is a small protest concerning the college notice-boards. There are usually so many notices that the average student hasn't time to read them all. But the problem is accentuated by the mass of obsolete notices which clutter up the boards and the Cafeteria. Some of the club notices are often a week or more, and those of the College Offices are often a year, out of date. There are frequently notices instructing Bursars to collect past instalments, when the latest notice would suffice. This is not only irritating, but also means that sometimes important notices are overlooked in the scramble to sort them out from the mass of obsolete rubbish. This is an appeal to those who put these things up to take them down when they are no longer needed.

"Irritated."

Protest

Sir,

I have a small note of misrepresentation to make, and would be pleased if you would publish same in the next issue of Salient.

The article "The Cross and Conscription" appearing over my name was not so entitled by myself. The title I gave with the manuscript was in fact "Conscription as Some Christians See It".

In addition, the quotation "the blood of the martyrs is the blood of the church" should read" . . . the seed of the church".

J. E. Weblin.

(Salient at no time has necessarily used the title given by the contributor in this case, it was too long, and it could, we felt, be replaced by something shorter and more pointed. We do not think that it in any way misrepresented the tone of the article or detracted from the standard of it. In fact, it is possible that the more pithy headline caused some to read it who would otherwise have passed it over.

—Ed.)

More Moaning

Dear Sir,

The criticism of the law course in a recent Salient article was justified and overdue.. The inflexibility of the course, the' often unimaginative teaching methods and the deference to the pockets of the profession seen in the proportion of out-of-hours lectures make it perhaps the most exhausting course at Victoria.

I do not plead for an "easy" course. Standards there must be; [unclear: highffctandards] there should be. But having endured the course for virtually its full length, I have strong opinions on its faults. I agree that in late years something has been done, but not nearly enough.

The compulsory arts units have at present no relevance to the law units, and are almost useless. If there must be arts units, and the case for them is strong, let them be linked with the law units to form an integral course. A little elementary logic, or a background of the social sciences—political science, history and economics—would be far more useful than the present compulsory Latin.

In the law units teaching is confined to lectures. The necessity of trying to take notes of all that is said makes even an interesting lecture an ordeal. Class discussion must be made an integral part of the course. I think its absence is the fault of the teachers, not of the students. We are forced to judge everything in relation to exams—hence the copious note-taking aimed at parrot-fashion reproduction. We are not encouraged to think that exams are only one part of a university education. Most of us, too in our earlier years at any rate, are diffident about putting forward our ideas on legal topics in the presence of a presumed expert. It is for the teachers to devise means of overcoming this diffidence. The mere invitation of questions at the tail-end of lectures is not enough. Discussion should be as much a part of the course as the lecture.

The writing of opinions is rightly looked on as important. It makes the students look for things for themselves. But why not first show them how to go about looking for things, how to find their material, and how to make use of it? Even the written notes on individual opinions by the marker have been lacking until this year.

I think most students appreciate the necessity for hard work. That is no reason why our course should also be dull, vexatious and often unintelligent.

—I remain,

"Opinio Necessitatis."

Question?

Sir,

Allow me to congratulate Veritas on his article setting out proofs of the existence of God. I imagine Junior Atheist along with, many others will now be obliged to admit the necesity to seek further knowledge if they are to carry the matter to its logical conclusion. To admit that God exists is not of course to identify oneself with any particular religion. But surely as our Creator it is necessary for us to observe His will by performing certain duties to Him. The question is: what are those duties? There seems to be some doubt and confusion as to their nature and extent in our community—supposedly a Christian community. What is necessary for a member of our community to do his duty to God? Do all these necessities follow a logical pattern or is it supplemented by [unclear: jgyperfluous] practicalities and [unclear: increduuos] feats of [unclear: cedulity] on the part of the believer? They are only necessary if they follow the pattern directly. Can Veritas follow his proof to a final conclusion or is he, too, another—

[unclear: Utiifled Christian.]

Via Media, Deo Volente

Sir,

Swen and Veritas are at opposite ends of the scale of bias and cannot see the full scale for this reason. I hope you will approach a third opinion to clear the problem.

I agree with Veritas that we cannot definitely state there is no God. Some force propels our life and universe, and until this can be explained mechanistically there is always a possibility that the force is some Conscious Being. But allow me to consider Veritas's proofs for such a Conscious Being.

Proof I: It is clear that there must be something which makes things move, but it does not follow that this force is an eternal being. It is just as conceivable that the force is mechanistic, and in our existing state of knowledge we have proof of neither possibility. Theism or atheism in this sense are a matter of faith, although the mechanistic approach certainly explains the facts as we know them in a more realistic manner. To postulate a God is to add nothing to knowledge.

Proof II: It must also be admitted that there is order in the universe: order "being a human concept of the arrangement of means for some end. Granting that there is order, thus does not imply there is a conscious end. Surely means may grope blindly through order to some end unknown to any consciousness. Because we cannot know ends we have no theoretical right to postulate that someone must know the end.

"This order we find in things requires a final ultimate cause or the problem is recreated." A typical statement from a soul-bound fanatic. Why should the order require an ultimate cause? No useful assertion can be made on this matter. Further, postulating an Infinite Being to solve the problem explains nothing: if the Being is not finite, the problem of motion is not solved but merely postponed. A useless link is added to the chain of knowledge.

An example of Veritas's confusion is illustrated by a small inconsistency in his letter. A very true statement is made in the first paragraph:—"It is impossible for anyone to give a full explanation of an infinite problem." If he believes this, why is it that "a series of movers cannot be produced into an infinite number"? He surely means we cannot conceive of such a process, not that it is impossible. The main contention that Swen puts forwards, the doubtful existence of a Conscious Being's influence in our world, is of interest in this connection: it points away from the use of God as a cause, and indicates a mechanistic approach as a better description.

I would advise Veritas to think clearly for himself, not take his views from books and attempt to combine them by the use of words: his piecemeal effort leads to inconsistency. After this minor homily, allow me a final summing-up.

We can see some force in the universe but as yet there is no proof for either a Conscious God or mechanism. The mechanistic ideal has an advantage by explaining what we think we know much more satisfactorily than the idea of a God does. And mechanism has a future, it may explain more as knowledge progresses, while the idea of a Conscious God confuses the issue by placing an extra stage between what [unclear: we] know and what we would like to know.

For who made God? . . . Yours,

F.U.