The Catholic times. [volume] (Columbus, Ohio) 1951-current, 1952-06-06
Just Among Ourselves
Passing Comment censidersd or ineon.isersts

Doctor Alfred McClung Lee president Of the
Unitarian Fellowship for Social Justice. recently
told convention of Unitarians that dogma Is =
phony crutch" for man to rely upon He said "Iu
world IN which all is relative to all else and in
winch all Is constantly changing there is no Ger.
tainty, no valid absolute or dogma"
Ponder that statement Have you ever heard one
more dogmatc? Have you ever heard an absolute
more clearly expressed? Surely if there is no valid
absolute at all, the absolute statement that there is
no absolute is not valid statement Dr. A. Nice. Lee
stands self contradcted Out of his own mouth he is
condemned.
The trouble with the skeptca or agnostic posi-.
ton is that il cannot be properly stated To state il
is to call 1t false. And the man who states il wishes
to state 1t as true. The minute you conclude that
there is no certainty you confess that your concu-
sion is not certain
Now, this is not quibble II is the plainest of
common sense. The solemn gentleman who arises
on occasion The is always at it, this gentlemam
TO say that there is no enduring truth is not only
a quack IN his doctrine, he is also uuack in his
soemnity His bearing and his heavy language
suggest that he embodies all that is enlightened all
that is learned, and all that is modern Ponderously
ne explains that there is valid absolute or dogma
And when his opponent briefly indicates the folly
ScOrnfuIly
brushes aside the devastating crisicsm as mere
bit OF trfling and flippaney.
But Old Ponderosity is as ridiculous in his al
htude and mode of utterance as he is in what he
says Only minds enveloped in the fog of Modern
Enlightenment and afflicted by the paresis OF sci
ence worship are impressed by the pose and the
pronouncement. Such minds are apt to think "Sure.
ly, this learned man. speaking out of the abundance
OF his knowledge and calling upon whole junk
yard OF research to support his conclusions is not
to be answered by swift and simple phrase"
Yet he is to be so answered. The biggest gas.bag can
be deflated by simple pn-prick
The skeptic agnostic sometimes as in the pres
ent instance, expresses his self.contradicng doc
rine in the form OF universal reatvism: "a is con-
stanty changing; all is relative to all else" But
all is changing, how can there be constancy even in
the change? If all is relative to all else how can the
terms of relationship be fixed? You cannot have
relationship without basis OF absolutes If two
things stand related similar, for example you
cannot know the relationship state it, without an
absolute knowledge of what similarity means
Certainly the world is full of change and of re-
ationships. But II is utter folly to conclude that
because there is great deal of change and great
many relationships in the changing world there
is nothing else in the world. Universal relativism
is not only logically inept and selfconfcting; but
is is also factlay unscientific il is based on very
incomplete and very carelessy formed induction.
GKC. once said that if careless observer las
careless of facts as relativisD were to consider
mans bodily structure, he would conclude that man
is made up of pairs of organic parts. He would find
that man has two hands two feet two arms two
legs, two similar sides, two eyes, two ears two nos
trils to cranial hemspheres two Semi.circles of
teeth, two lungs Then, in view of this mounting
evidence, he would conclude that man has two
hearts 10 hc Inst tho inf
when his scientific research seemed to justify the
conclusion that all parts of the human body came in
pairs, real science would contradict him.
Suppose however, that like true relatvist. the
gentleman ignored the facts of real science and
clung to his own scientism. Suppose he prepared
heavy address for Unitarian Fellowship for So
cial Justice mo absolute justice? No enduring Eel
lowship? No unalterable Unitaranism?) Suppose that
after half hour of eloquent discourse on the
Duality of Man, and long litany of the pairs of
organs that evidence the theory of duaty-two
eyes, two ears, two lungs, and so on a member of
the audience should cry What about hearts,"
Would the lecturer be taken aback? Not bit of
il. Being modern and relativist, he would merely
feel annoyed that his solid and scientific address
should be subjected to cheap hecklng. He would
feel. and likely say, that solemn and ponderous ut
terance is not to be nullified by bubbles or flip
paneies And he would have warm sympathzers.
Many would say Who does this upStart think he rs,
coming in with three word question to de-
stroy great theory built up by years of
study and devoted scientific research" And still in
very fact that hree-word question would have done
the business
To conclude that because many things change.
nothing exists but change; to think that because
there countless relationships in the world, the
world consists of nothing but relationships is as silly
as TO conclude that because many human organs
come in pairs, all human organs come in pairs. II
is as silly as to conclude that because has two
hands and two eyes and two lungs, he must have
two hearts
II may console Or. Lee to realize that speeches
delivered before Unitarian Fellowshps are relative
things, expressing certainty, absolute valid
dogma Indeed, such speeches make "phony
crutch" for the Unitarian auditory to lean upon.