RATIONALISM AND REASON [To the Editor of THE SPECTATOR.]
Sut,—In reply to Mr. W; E. J. Lindfield's letter on Rationalism and Reason, I should say that " human ideals," which happily for humanity are not static but progressive, have never been more to the front than they are today. To describe them as " wreckage . . . which has been steadily accumulating since the seventeenth century " (sic. Were there none earlier ?) is an opinion which scarcely needs to be refuted by the Rationalist.
It is true that Rationalism does not voice such ideals— recognised as often conflicting in an imperfect world—in " the language of the Christian religion : " much of which, so Mr. Lindfield writes, " is of necessity mythological, but not therefore superstitious." Nor, speaking for myself, does Rationalism admit that a line can be drawn between mythology and superstition, but regards both as primitive interpretations of natural law, and, in some cases, of outstanding personages whom it raises to the status of gods.
May I add that I should think there are few, if any, Rationalists who would disagree with the attitude of your other corre- spondent, Mr. J. W. Poynter ?—I am, &c.,