[Tasrouss se Goo—By Laurence Olver Thor Nicholson & Watton, Londo.
There is a kind of "Be-Christian, Jérat-you" tone about this book which makes it different from the usual run lof defences of revealed Christianity. The difference Is. refreshing. Noi lonce can there be any doubt. about e" author's sincerity. Tis earnestness, in fact, leads him into some of the same argumentative fallacies as exposes in those who attempt explain religion away" altogether, hough this does not deprive his book of its interest and its real value in these days of spiritual uncertainty.
The bool it divided into three parts: the first two analysing and Schoots which, with the. best. will he: world. but with unfortunate. inconsistency, try 1 show that ranking [has outgrown the need for pellet in Wells and George Bernard Shaw mentatity—have always. assumed the deductions of empirical science to be Srmly established facts, and upon such' shifting foundations have built an utopian' structure which has appealed to the popular fancy because the popular mind has never the opportunity to distinguish between legitimate deductions, made jas the stepping-off place for further putable. research and inquiry, and the indis-
The author is, perhaps, a little unkind to the empirical scientist by tarring him with the same brush as that with which his popular expound-Jers have" messed "themselves up. The true scientist is only a scientist because of his scepticism, and this acuity extends in the genuine article also to the syntheses he contrives out Jot a great variety of research. He, therefore, is in quite a different category from the man who accepts the fyntheres as facts -without knowing, '2s does the one who compiled them the: flimsiness of their construction.
This applies to the author's! ldentnciation of the Theory of Pro-[gress.. Most people would agree with him. They could hardly refrain from Jdoing £0 were his denunciation less Sweeping and did it not, as it seems do, include the phenomenon of Change." The author's argument suffers from its vehemence here as does in its denunciation of the [Theory of Evolution. Over this theory there have been two collective assumptions, the one that it is quite right, and the other that it is quite "wrong: whereas the truth probably lies somewhere midway Between the two.
Generally speaking, however, the frst two parts come as a douche commonsense in the confusion of Feligious thought to-day. Most this thought fs, of course, misdirected. Recently a bishop of the Church of
Text read from the printed page and cleaned; old type leaves the occasional error.