THE CHALLENGE TO RELIGIOUS ORTHODOXY—SCIENCE AND GOD
[To the Editor of the SrEenvroa.]
&a, Mr. Langdon-Davies's article will excel in giving surprise to scientists of a reverent mind and to religious folk possessed of scientific knowledge. I say this with conviction based on my own religious faith and (perhaps rudimentary) gleanings of science. His article is singularly lacking in elemental knowledge of religious faith and doctrine. His scientific attainments I do not question, but his religious instinct and appreciation of orthodox' Christian belief, thought, and practice are absent. Were this not so he would not offend so grossly Christian ideals by wrongful application of science to religion. His definitions of religion and God, and the evidence of the Fatherhood of God, are unknown to Christians of any school of thought. His reference to the redemption of the world and passion of Christ as the murder by the Father of His own Son is a distortion of doctrine and offensively brutal. Never has the most ignorant Christian regarded the crucifixion of Christ as murder done by the Father. The doctrine surrounding the birth, life and death of Cliiist is based on the willingness of the Son to make the, supreme sacrifice involved in human birth, life and death. At no moment was there compulsion. " Murder " presupposes compulsion and an evil intent of force by the Father against the will of the Son. The use of the term is unscientific. Mr. Langdon-Davies is unscientific not only in his methods of applying science to religion but also in the applicationof science to the Universe. To say, as he does, that it is no concern of the scientist to argue about first causes is lamentable. First causes cannot be swept on one side in this, anyway. Neither scientists of repute nor Christian or non-Christian religionists will • be content with this.—I am,
Previous page
