JUNE, 1946
243
A SCHOOLTEACHER has to keep on studying all his life. While living in Illinois, I used to take courses in Chicago. Now that I am in New York, up on things the younger people are constantly meeting in the classroom. A S A GRADUATE student, I was invited some time ago to attend the monthly meeting of The Philosophy Club, a group made up of graduate students and teachers from several nearby universities. The topic for the first meeting I attended was, “Scientific Evidence; Is There Any Other Way of Attaining Truth?” There was no principal speaker that evening, so the topic was intro duced and the meeting immediately thrown open for discussion. It soon developed that many shades of opin ion were represented in the small circle of polite and refined people who were gathered in the professor’s home. Some were avowed atheists, disciples of Santa yana or John Dewey; some were Roman Catholics; some were modernists; some, mystics; some, Barthians. It seemed that no one had ever heard of old-fashioned Christian evidences as they have been presented through the generations on the pattern of Psalm 19 and Romans 1:20. No one seemed to have heard the names of Butler, Paley, James Orr, Robert Flint, Warfield, or Machen. A ROMAN Catholic lay-brother was declaring that scl- entific evidence availed very little. Said I, “But Brother B------, you would surely say ‘Christus vere res- urrexit,’ would you not?” I had hoped that he might open up the subject of Christian evidences, but was dis appointed, for he threw up his hands and said, “I don’t know any Latin!” AT THIS POINT, the question was put to me. I sup pose my fundamentalist elbows were sticking out and my “oontending-for-the-:’.aith” disposition was ap parent, At any rate, I was aiked quite directly, “Do you
think it is right to teach a child something which is not based upon at least probable evidence?” These are not exactly the words in which the topic for the evening had been stated, but they gave me a better opportunity. I thought something needed to be said which would shock them, so I replied emphatically, “No, I wouldn’t teach it to a dog! I should not teach any child anything whleh is not based, upon reasonable evidence.” rpHAT THEY were dumfounded was quite apparent. “What do you mean?” came from all sides. Appar ently no one present had ever heard that the Christian Gospel is substantiated by evidence which may be pub licly examined in a scientific way. fpHIS PHILOSOPHY group is quite typical of a large class of educated people in this country. They know only three types of Christian arguments: ■ ' 1. The Roman Catholic authoritarian presentation: God is true by definition, derived from Aristotle through Thomas Aquinas. You accept the definition by arbitrary authoritative demand. Then from the definition every thing else must follow. 2. The mystical presentation of the Gospel. They had heard people say, “I had a dream and I saw the angels; therefore you must believe the Gospel.” The reader will recognize that I am not in the least minimiz ing the value of the experiences of the heart. My point is that they had not heard the evidences of historical fact. Some thought mysticism was the only manner of presenting the Christian faith. 3. The mythical presentation of the Gospel as it is found in the writings of Edwin Lewis. In his book, A Philosophy of the Christian Revelation, Lewis in beauti ful rhetoric declares his belief in the doctrine of the vir gin birth of Christ, and then explains: “The birth and
I have a marvelous opportunity to brush up and keep
Made with FlippingBook - Online magazine maker