The sun. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1833-1916, 1899-07-21
AND NATURAL EVIDENCE.
A Further and Final Argument by Mr..
Francis e. Moore.

A Further and Final Argument by Mr..
Francis G. Moore.
To THE EDITOR OF The SuN-Sir: had not
intended again trespassing uDon your columns.
but some Of my critics appear not TO have un
derstood my line OF argument. probably be-
cause was not sufficiently clear. Mr. Pilgrim.
for example. in The Sun OF to-day. contends
that have mistaken tho point OF Issue, for
religious dogmas are not analogous facts" i.e..
analogous to the facts OF the visible universe.
This correspondent adds: 1t is not is there
such thing as n star &C.. because We k-ow
there are such things. and We know 1t because
we have seen them"
Now, maintain we d. not know that there
Is a star. although we feel sure OF II. and Mr..
Pilgrim has never seen one: all he or any one
else has ever seen is the light coming from a
luminous point In the sky and We argue there
must be light giving body behind 1t. The
Lick telescope reveals no moro than this lumi-
nous point. and we do not know what the point
Is The light OF some Of the stars is still com
ing to US. and we think we see them, when
they may have been extinRuished before Adam
Commenting on this fact. member OF the
California Legislature refused to vote for an
appropriation for the Lick Observatory ex-
planning that one OF the professors had told
him this and he would not consent to waste
any more OF the States money looking at
stale light like thatv'
Adams and LeverrIer believed in the exist
ence OF the planet Neptune. because they had
computed It's position by mathematics and the
law OF Rravitation. though they could not see
1t Just as thoroughly as the astronomer OF
Berlin. who had the big glass and. at their
suggestion. turned 1t upon the point where the
planet should be. They believed in gravita-
ton Just as much as did Newton. who discov-
cred it; but neither Newton nor any other
philosopher has ever understood gravity or It's
cause or magnetism or its cause. although
they have given both names and assigned laws
based upon observation OF their operation.
Why do we not dispute both principles be-
cause they cannot be proved?
Ny argument is that. IL we accept the dogma
or belief whatever you choose to call it,. OF the
astronomer because we see the light OF q star.
rs honest and logical investigators we ought.
by the same reasoning process-what Bishop
Potter terms the spiritual intuitions. the con-
science and the reason TO believe in the
SAVIOUR when we see that He is the Light of
Mr.. Pilgrim says; The, inquiry Is, not Does
&c f Paul tbs ee nS and
heard Jesus Christ on the road TO Damascus.
he dd ch5st must have risen from the
Is q. hereafter. What are the evidences Of
PAUL. sincerity Had trpthfpness2 Dd he be-
see his faith leading him contrary to his world
gave up place, fortune. comfort. happiness.
fame and his life to endure infringement.
and m 70
the conversion OF St Paul. His life and test-
mony by all The rules Of evidence, are SUFFICIENT
Christ on the road to Damascus. ! therefore
believe in tho resurrection of the dead and in
nay e. S m 3 the ss sa%s
to eyerSaay s and that the honest EG Sef:
rev or seoing searehe, after truth viii
Mr. FSm snys se0 % ask to be
snred by the most conclusive proof that these
S9r an shsk "E$" s'n
assurance Of those Whom we S Si ' fath I'm IN
the tmus PAPER We baeve that we ses be-
%as Sc hare ?e in fs BUT % vision
e is matter Of filth a in the
has rings. simply because he could not see y,
them; and refused to look through a telescope
va have faith in the fact tina, one of the most
va liable remedial agents known to the medi-
with precisely tho same inarcdients in diner r.
ent proportion. deadly poison, corrosive sub
sodium hecomes the s"dicchlorde Of t our salt 10
cellars; We take the salt on faith. for we can
not claim to know. that tis salt: nor can any
one be sure though none OF uS will doubt it i.
that the chemical renction OF these two ele-
ments will always be the same. or that by some
| ditions may not be changed so that we may be
poisoned while acting upon f1ith.
acceptance Of something as true which appears
| to MS to be rue. whether the evidence reaches
our comprehension through the senses or In
| any other way.
What is demonstration or proof? 1t is the
| presentation OF evidence to the individual to
| whom thing is to be demonstrated or proved
| which shall be acceptable or satisfactory to his
mind, comprehension or soul az evidence. no
his senses Of sight hearing. touch. &C. or he
| reaches n conclusion in some other way or by
itua or emotional side OF his nature. Tor Eek ex-
| ample. What matters it, therefore. whether
due to- the aGt e
ual processes which reach and convince the
some scientific Investigators seem to rely on
them entirely and to refuse to believe things
which cannot be subjected to the test of the
-, II divine. eternal truths and the attributes Of
and wee he'd they Would be cheapened, and we we
should lose respect for them. MY old friend.
besHs IN w the Ts
things, do not understand believe in the
| most
| shaI not attempt to elaborate upon the best
unon the truest evidences OF Christianity. 81
| all your corresCondents. it seems to me none
has more clearly treated OF this side OF the
| letter was published IN THE Sun Of the 10Th
| inst. am now prepared to drop this discus
| sion. thanking You for the privilege OF taking
| part in Il and Of replying to my critics
NEW YORK. July TO- FRANCIS c. MOORE.
Tho Question of Logic.
To THE EDITOR OF The HuN-Sir. DR.