Is There a Life Beyond the Grave?
Is There a Life Beyond the Grave?
A Reply to R.B. Westbrook, AM., D.D. (1894)
by Charles
Watts
It has been aptly remarked that it does not necessarily follow, because an
opponent has been replied to, that his arguments have been answered. The truth
of this statement never appeared to me so evident as when I read the comments of
Dr. Westbrook (which appeared in SECULAR THOUGHT of the 2nd and 9th of December
last) on my lecture, "Is there a Life Beyond the Grave?" Instead of endeavoring
to refute my arguments, the doctor contented himself with presenting to the
reader a conglomeration of meaningless phrases, contradictory statements, and
reckless assertions. His article, moreover, was marred by undignified
imputation, more indicative of an irritable schoolboy, who had undertaken a task
which he found himself unable to perform, than of a debater who felt conscious
of his ability to refute the arguments of his opponent. To designate my lecture
as "flimsy argument," and to suggest that I "cavilled," but without attempting
by any ordinary reasoning process to prove his statements, was a marked specimen
of controversial weakness. Dr. Westbrook's elegant (?) remark, "Did he (Mr.
Watts) not bellow and paw up the dirt, and rush around furiously with hay on his
horns like a wild bull of Bashan, for an hour and a half?" was a proof that in
his case "a firm faith in a future state" has not had a "salutiry influence."
Such vulgar imputations may be the result of an "evil spirit;" but it is opposed
to that material refinement and courtesy which as a rule characterize a real
gentleman in controversy. The only "dirt" that I "pawed up" consisted in
exposing the fallacies indulged in by those who assume a knowledge which they do
not possess. That some of the "dirt" fell on Dr. Westbrook is clear from the
blemishes that disfigure his reply to me.
The doctor commences by saying: "I do not accept the ordinary distinctions
which are made in speaking of man, as consisting of a body and soul. The body is
not the man, the soul is not the man, the mind is not the man; but it requires
what is intended by these three terms, and much more, to make a man." Now, what
is the "much more" here referred to? If there is something more in man than
"body, soul and mind," the doctor should have stated what it is. Again, he says:
"I make no distinction between the material and immaterial, the natural and the
supernatural, as I do not know where to draw the line." Then, if he makes no
distinction and if he knows not where to draw the line, why does he mention the
"supernatural" at all, particularly when he further observes "I can
think of nothing separate from matter"? If he is correct in this
last assertion, he by his own confession knows nothing of any "supernatural,"
and any "argument," therefore, drawn from such meaningless phrases must be
"flimsy" indeed.
Dr. Westbrook alleges that I admit that the doctrine of future life "is
beyond the limits of controversy. If he (Mr. Watts) has any logical argument
that could be used against the theory of a future life would he not have
produced it?" I have made no such admission; on the contrary, my lecture was a
proof that, in my opinion, the doctrine did come within "the limits of
controversy." Surely there is a difference between debating a doctrine and
admitting that what the doctrine represents is capable of demonstration. "The
fact is," as the doctor observes, "it is easy to cavil." As to my producing
arguments against the theory of a future life, that is precisely what I did in
my lecture but whether they were "logical" or not the doctor made no effort to
show. For instance, I pointed out that the term "soul" has never been defined;
that, if we possess one, it is not known in what part of the body it is to be
found, or when it enters or when it leaves the human frame; that the only "soul"
known is the brain of man, and if that brain does not properly exercise its
functions, the manifestations of life will be proportionally impaired. In proof
of this I referred to persons in lunatic asylums who had diseased brains, whose
judgment was dethroned, and whose reason had deserted them. Had the soul, I
asked, in their case lost its power of control? If so, what is its value? When a
drunkard becomes intoxicated and loses all control over himself has his soul
lost its power? Again, as regards the "soul" leaving the body, I enquired if it
did so immediately at death, if it goes straight to heaven, or hell, without
waiting for the judgment day? If it does not leave the body, till some time
after death, how can a decaying body retain the soul? To any one of these
questions the doctor did not even attempt to give an answer.
Further quoting from "The Creed of Science," by Professor Graham. I showed
that science taught that immortality is not and cannot be proved, that the chief
function of the brain is that which is known by the term "mental activity" that
nothing is known, and nothing can be known of a life beyond the grave, In
support of my contention I produced the evidence of several scientific men
concluding with the testimony of the late Professor Tyndell, who said: "But to
return to the hypothesis of a human soul, offered as an explanation or a
simplification of a series of obscure phenomena. Adequate reflection shows that,
instead of introducing light into our minds, it increases our darkness. You do
not, in this case, explain the unknown in terms of the known, which is the
method of science, but you explain the unknown in terms of the more unknown."
Now, upon all this Dr. Westbrook was silent in his reply, and he coolly asserted
that I produced no "logical argument" against the theory of a future life. If
what I did produce were illogical, why did not the doctor endeavor to prove this
was so?
I am further charged with denying a future life, whereas in my lecture I
distinctly stated in answer to the question, "If a man die shall he live again?"
that by its very nature, and by the very nature of our mentality, it is utterly
impossible to give a
definite opinion pro or con. Referring to
Spiritualism, I said that I had studied it for five years, and had found nothing
in it; not that I wished to deny that there might be something but -- depending
on my own reason and judgment, by which I stand or fall -- I had found nothing.
But, says Dr. Westbrook, "What does this prove? Why, that Mr, Watts did not find
anything in Spiritualism! But does his failure show that nobody else ever
succeeded? Does he know every thing?" Of course my failure to discover anything
in Spiritualism only proves what I stated, that I found nothing in it. It is not
my custom to dogmatize as to what others have seen, or thought they have seen. I
am reminded that I don't "know everything" That is so, and in this particular
the doctor and myself are on equal terms. I am asked if I can "mention one thing
which man actually desires, which has not a palpable existence." Certainly I
can. Men desire universal happiness, justice for all, and a fair distribution of
wealth, but these conditions have no "palpable existence."
I repeat that it is impossible to long for that of which nothing is known.
The doctor takes exception to this, but he gives no instance to prove that I am
wrong. If, as he says, -- "Life beyond the grave is this: a continuation of the
present life, nothing more, nothing less," then the future is not another life,
and the doctor has to show how the "continuation of the present life" can go on
in the absence of the conditions that we know are necessary to its
manifestations now. We have positive proof that the body, including the brain,
the heart and the lungs, are indispensable to what we term life; let it,
therefore, be shown how this life can continue when the body and its organs have
disappeared. The doctor, however, refutes himself, for he says that in the next
world we shall be "as the angels," and not subject to the conditions that govern
us here. If this will be so, it will be another life after all, inasmuch as
existence here is not regulated on the "angelic" principle, therefore,
continuity ceases.
Apart from such "flimsy arguments" as the above, the doctor bases his belief
in "a life beyond the grave" upon the opinions of great men, the alleged
universality of the belief and the general desire that is supposed to exist for
such a life. As these objections to the Agnostic position involve probably the
strongest arguments that can be urged in favor of a future life, I shall
examine, them one by one.
Dr. Westbrook, in his reply, does not content himself by modestly asking, "Is
there a life beyond the grave?" but he positively asserts that there is such an
existence, This is a bold allegation, to prove the truth of which will require
more knowledge than the doctor has hitherto given evidence that he possesses.
What is meant by the term "life"? Our answer is, that we only know of it as
"functional activity" in organized existence, such as we behold in the animal
and vegetal kingdoms. The question, however, of a future life concerns chiefly
man, who possesses an organism and functions of various kinds. Before we can
accept as true, the statement "there is a life beyond the grave," we must have
some knowledge of the conditions of that supposed existence, and whether or not
they are suitable to man as we now know him. But up to the present we have not
met any one who possesses the required
knowledge and, therefore,
no information is forthcoming as to the nature of a future life. We certainly
decline to accept the proposition as being self-evident. If, as the doctor
alleges, there is presumptive in favor of a future life, the most that can be
reasonably argued is that there may be such a life. Of course we do not contend
that a visit to the planet Mars would be necessary before we could believe that
life existed there, but we do assert that some kind of communication with the
inhabitants would be necessary before we could positively allege that life was
there. It is not unreasonable to demand at least reliable testimony in matters
beyond our experience. It is one thing to have a mind open to conviction, and
quite another to meet the man who can convince us. When similar evidence is
presented in favor of future existence to that which obtains for the operation
of natural law throughout the universe, and when such evidence can be tested by
the ordinary rules of observation and experiment, the question of a life beyond
the grave will deserve serious consideration.
The doctor's proposition, although put in the positive form, is really an
assumption, based on the fact of the continuity of life on our globe. But what
is understood by such continuity? Simply a succession of animated forms of
existence, beings who continue to possess the attributes of life, in whom the
living principle appears in a series of individual representations. But a life
beyond the grave involves much more than this; it assumes a continuity of life
in the same individual, a condition of which we know nothing. Man exists
generation after generation, but every succeeding one is new. Life on this globe
ceases in the individual man when his organism becomes disintegrated and when
its functions are unable to continue their operations. Death is a condition the
very opposite to that of life; both therefore cannot be conceived as being one,
as the doctor's contention requires. A living dead man is a contradiction, for
it is a self-evident fact that if man always lived he Would never die. Death
occurs every moment, but we have no instance of the perpetual continuation of
one living individual. A body in action must be present, somewhere, but. when it
has disappeared in the grave and gone to ashes, it is no longer in organized
body. In other words, a body must act where it is, or where it is not. It cannot
act where it is, in the grave, for there its functions have ceased; it cannot
act elsewhere because it is not there to act; This appears as self-evident as
that the whole is greater than the part. The denial, that a future state has
been proved is held to be the converse of the proposition that there is one, and
therefore it is equally unphilosophical and presumptuous. People fail to
discriminate between the thing itself and what is said about it, although there
is a manifest difference between the two cases. What we deny is the validity of
the evidence, the conclusiveness of the reasons given in support of the theory
of a future life.
The doctor relies much upon what great men have said and written on the
subject. Of course the opinions of eminent men are entitled to respect, but they
are also open to dispute, inasmuch as all men are fallible. Great men have
entertained the most erroneous and childish ideas. We must not confound Newton
and the apple with Newton and the Bible, nor Faraday the chemist with Faraday
the Muggletonian. Our estimate of great men is based upon what they do
or what, they prove. When they defend the abominations of slavery
and witchcraft, or when they give their support to miracles and orthodox
doctrines, because they are sanctioned by the Bible, we change our estimate of
them. Great men have held mistaken views about creation, the laws of motion, and
the possessible disappearance of all existing things, but that is no reason why
the humblest of their fellow men should endorse their mistakes. Professor
Wallace's views on development may be, accepted, if the facts he submits prove
his case, and so also may his other views be accepted for the same reason. But
in our opinion his contentions in reference to a future life cannot be proved by
candid investigation and sound reasoning.
The alleged universality of opinion is quoted by Dr. Westbrook as a proof of
the reality of a future life. The fact is the belief in all kinds of error has
been general in all ages and in all nations. Because the multitude once believed
in the moving sun, in the stationary earth and in the existence of angels and
devils, it is no conclusive proof to us that their belief was correct. Have we
then the audacity to reject the verdict of ages, and to declare that the
majority of men have been mistaken? On certain matters we do so most decidedly,
for the reason that nothing is clearer to-day than that our forefathers were
wrong upon many things which were objects of "universal belief." The notion that
the stars were drawn by the gods or guided by spirits, has had to give way
before the discoveries of attraction and gravitation, and the creation theory is
refuted by the facts of evolution. Those who base their faith in a future life
on the common beliefs are like the man who is said to have built his house upon
the sand. The flood of science will sweep all false beliefs away, as surely as
the morning sun disperses the vapors of the night.
The doctor fires off his syllogistic cannon and he supposes that we are
fatally wounded. But it is not so, for we would remind the doctor that the value
of a syllogism depends mostly upon the first premiss. For instance, take the
following: "The future will be a continuance of the present, the present is
manifest and undisputable, therefore, so is the future." Now if the first
premiss were proved, the conclusion may follow, but as it is only an assumption,
based on general belief and on great men's opinions, the conclusion is also of
the same nature, and is a part of the assumption. Dr. Westbrook ought to know
that the greatest absurdity might be made to appear feasible to the uneducated
mind by the syllogistic mode of pleading. For instance, "Nothing is better than
heaven, a chop is better than nothing, therefore a chop is better than heaven."
It is commonly held that any conception formed by man must have a
corresponding reality somewhere. Yet the conception which was formed as to the
origin of things has been shown by modern researches to be absolutely groundless
in reality, Modern investigation has exploded the old theories of the genesis of
things. Men have had to unlearn much that the dame schools taught and that the
Sunday-school endorsed. Take the illustration of the general conception of the
dragon. We may be able to trace the idea
to some extinct animal
but that does not prove the existence of the dragon or attest the truth of the
belief that such an animal ever existed. If an artist paints a picture of the
Devil it is perfectly certain that his Satanic Majesty never sat for the
portrait.
Perhaps the strongest element in the argument for a future life is derived
from what is called the desires of mankind. These, it is said, must be accounted
for, which we think can easily be done. We submit that the instinctive love of
life found in man is sufficient to explain the desire for its continuation. No
doubt there is some connection between desires and their realization in
reference to things that are attainable, for the very desire may be a factor in
the sum of the causes that enable us to realize our ideal. But the mere fact of
having the desire is no evidence that its realization will follow. A desire for
food and comfort is very general, but many are destitute of both. The longing
that all members of the human family should be equally well off is extensive,
but such an enviable state of things does not exist. We must not, in reasoning,
take refuge in incongruities. Those who argue that without an endless future,
this life is not worth having, must regard the present existence as being
exceedingly defective. Why, then, should its continuation be desired? And yet
the doctor argues for a prolongation of such a life. If it is said that in
another world there will be a change for the better, we ask, where is the proof
that any improvement will take place? It is another instance that the wish is
father to the thought. Endless existence and interminable motion may be laws of
thought which it is impossible to banish from our minds, although we are unable
to conceive of an infinite past, which is involved in the statement. But it is
otherwise with the forms of existence that possess life, these can be conceived
of as coming to an end. Intense heat or intense cold may terminate all living
things in a brief space of time. The truth is that it is only dreamers who
contend that any part of the compound being called man will
"flourish in immorial youth,
Unhurt amidst the war of elements,
The wrecks of matter, and the crash of worlds."
Many persons who do not admit that Secularism is the best
philosophy of existence, acknowledge that its principles are excellent so far
as this life is concerned; but they assert that those principles are
insufficient to sustain its believers in the hour of death. With a view of
showing that this position is not a sound one, and that it misrepresents the
Secular views as to death, we purpose answering the following three queries,
which are frequently put by our opponents.
- What are the Secular views in reference to death?
- Is there sufficient reason to justify the Agnostic attitude as to a future
life?
- Is the Secular position a safe one?
In the first place, what are the Secular views as to death? They are these.
That there is not sufficient evidence to justify the assertion that there is, or
that there is not, a life beyond the grave. Many centuries ago, an oriental sage
is said to have asked, "If a man die, Shall he live again? Although many
generations have passed away since the supposed query was submitted, no definite
or satisfactory answer has been given. It is a problem to the solution of which
the philosopher has devoted his wisdom, the poet has dedicated his poetry, and
the scientist has directed his attention, and yet the problem remains unsolved.
Secularists, therefore, agree with Thomas Carlyle when he said: What went
before, and what will follow me, I regard as two impenetrable curtains which
hang down at the two extremities of human life, and which no man has drawn
aside." The Secularists adopt, in reference to a future life, the Agnostic
position, and they refuse to dogmatize, either pro or con., upon a matter in
reference to which, with the present limited knowledge in the world, it is
impossible to KNOW anything. Mr. Hugh O. Pentecost thus puts the case; "The
Freethinker looks at death just as it is, so far as we know anything about it --
the end of life. He does not hope, nor expect to live after death. He admits
that he may, just as there may be a planet in which water runs up-hill. He
therefore maps out his life with absolutely no reference to alleged heavens or
hells, or to any kind of spirit world. He goes through this world seeking his
own welfare and knowing, from the open book of history and his own experience,
that he can promote his own welfare only by promoting the welfare of every other
man, woman and child in the world; knowing that he cannot be as happy as he
might while anyone else is miserable. He knows that death is as natural as
birth. He knows that, as we were unconscious of our birth, we will be
unconscious of our death. He knows that, if death puts a final end to him as a
person, as science seems to prove, it cannot be an evil. He suffered nothing
before he was; he will suffer nothing if he ceases to be. He will not even know
that he is dead."
The Secularist accepts this Freethought view of death. He is not sufficiently
dogmatic to assert there is an existence beyond the present one, neither is he
presumptuous enough to say there is not. Knowing only of one existence,
Secularists content themselves therewith, feeling assured that the best
credentials to secure any possible immortality is the wisest and most
intellectual use of the life we now have. They further allege that, to the man
who is sincere and true to his conscience through life, "hereafter" has no
terrors. The man who has lived well has made the best preparation to die well,
and he will find that the principles which supported him in health can sustain
him in sickness. When the last grand scene arrives, the Secularist, having done
his duty, lies down quietly to rest, and sleeps the long sleep from which, so
far as we know, there is no waking. What has he to fear? He knows that death is
the consequence of life, that nothing possesses immortality. The plant that
blooms in the garden, the bird that flutters in the summer sun, the bee that
flies from flower to flower, and the lower animals of every kind, all pass into
a state of unconsciousness when their part is played and their work is done. Why
should man be an exception to the universal law? His body is built up on the
same principle as that of everything else that breathes, and his mental
faculties differ in degree, but not in character, from theirs. He
is subject to the same law as the rest of existence, and to repine
at death is as absurd as it would be to weep because he did not live in some
other planet or at some other time. Nature is imperative in her decrees, and
must be obeyed. Death is the common lot of all. The atoms of matter of which one
organism is made up are required for the construction of another, so they must
be given up for that purpose, and to repine at it argues an ill-tutored mind.
The work is done, and if it has been done well there is nothing to fear, either
in this or any other life. Such are the views of Secularists as to death, and,
holding such views, they can die without fear, as they have lived without
hypocrisy.
Now as to the second query -- Is there sufficient reason to justify this
Agnostic position? It must be understood that this position not only admits the
"don't know," but it goes further, and alleges that as we are at present
constituted, we cannot know of anything beyond the present life. Moreover, be it
observed, our position is still more comprehensive than this; for we contend
that the facts of existence do not substantiate the positive statement that
there is a life beyond the grave. Professor Graham, in his "Creeds of Science,"
in giving a summary of modern scientific opinion on this subject, observes: "And
now what is the scientific doctrine of the great theme of immortality? Is there
any hope for man? In one word, No. For any such hope, if men must continue to
indulge in it after hearing the scientific arguments, they must go elsewhere --
to the theologian, the metaphysician, the mystic, the poet. These men,
habitually dwelling in their several spheres of illusion and unreality, may find
suggestions of the phantasy, which they persuade themselves are arguments in
favor of a future life; the man of science, for his part, and the positive
thinker, building on science, consider no proposition more certain than that the
soul is mortal as well as the body which supported it, and of which it was
merely the final flower and product. ... Our modern physiologist has ascertained
that thought is but a function of the brain and nerves. Why should it not perish
with these? ... Way should it not collapse with the general break-up of the
machinery? Why should it not cease when no longer supported by the various
physical energies whose transformations within the bodily machine alone made its
existence possible? ... But science, for her part, finds no grounds for the
beliefs of theology or metaphysics in a future life -- beliefs, moreover, which
she regards as little comforting at the best. ... Science, we think, has made
out the dependence of our mind and present consciousness on bodily conditions,
so far as to justify the conclusion that the dissolution of the body carries
with it the dissolution of our present consciousness and memory, which are
reared on the bodily basis. At least, it raises apprehension in the highest
degree that this will be the case. Again, Science -- partly by what Darwin has
established, partly by other evidence only recently accessible, respecting the
low state of the primitive man -- has brought the human species into the general
circle of the animal kingdom in a sense for more deep and essential than was
formerly dreamed of; and she has thereby deepened the belief, though without
producing absolute conviction, that the arguments proving a possible future life
for man hold likewise for the lower animals; so that if man be judged immortal,
they should be also, and if they be mortal, so also is man. Thirdly, Science has
called attention to the fact that
there is something like a
general law discoverable in the history of Species, that they all have their
term of years, though the term is usually a long one, and that probably,
therefore, the human Species itself, as well is all other existing Species, will
disappear, giving place to wholly different, though derivative types of life.
And all these things taken together undoubtedly tend strongly to produce the
conviction that death closes the career of the existing individual." In support
of the conclusions here arrived at, Professor J.P. Lesley says Science cannot
possibly either teach or deny immortality." professor Lester F. Ward observes
that, "So far as science can speak on the subject, consciousness persists as
long as the organized brain, and no longer." And Professor E.S. Morse writes I
have never yet seen anything in the discoveries of science which would in the
slightest degree support or strengthen a belief in immorality."
It is alleged that the "soul" is the "thinking principle." If this be so,
wherein is man's superiority over the lower animals so far as immortality is
concerned? Herbert Spencer, Dr. W.B. Carpenter, and many other eminent writers,
have contended that the reasoning powers in man differ only in degree from those
in the general animal kingdom. In other words, if the above allegation be
correct, the lower animals, as they possess the "thinking principle," have
"souls," and will live forever. Indeed, Bishop Butler granted this, for he
assures us "that there is no true analogy in all nature which would lead us to
think that death will prove the destruction of a living creation." Moreover, we
read in the Bible: "For that which befalleth the sons of man befalleth the
beasts; even one thing befalleth them: as the one dieth, so dieth the other;
yea, they have all one breath: so that a man hath no pre-eminence above a beast:
for all is vanity." Besides, the thinking principle, so far as we know, depends
upon a mental organization for its manifestation: is it, therefore, not
reasonable to conclude that when the organization is destroyed the principle
will no longer exist? When the cause is gone the effect must cease.
Those persons who dogmatically assert that there is a future life,
erroneously, confound something they call a "soul" with the mind and they then
assert that the mind is a distinct, entity. Now as Dr. Wigan observes The mind
every anatomist knows to be a set of functions of the brain, differing only in
number and degree from the intellect of animals. Of the mind we know much, but
of the soul we know nothing. Can the mind, then, be a thing per se, distinct and
separate from the body? No more than the motion can exist independent of the
watch, and all the arguments of theologians and metaphysicians on this subject
are founded on the confusion of terms." It is said that a future life is proved
by the fact that development has been always taking place in the organic
kingdom. First came animals low in the scale, then of higher and higher type,
and so on up to man. Why, then, it is asked, may not man pass at death into a
still higher condition? Now the merest tyro in logic can recognize that there is
no analogy whatever in the two cases. The higher animals are not the lower in
another stage, but an improvement upon them, a new individuality. The only
argument that could logically be drawn from the development theory on this point
is that after man beings of a still higher order might make
their appearance, but then they would no more be individual men of
a previous age than we are the Iguanodons of the "age of reptiles." Besides, all
the changes that we know of in the organic kingdom have taken place upon the
earth, whereas the condition which believers in a future life contend for is to
be in some far-off land of shadows occupied by what is termed disembodied
spirits." The case of the caterpillar is frequently, given as an illustration of
changes from a lower to a higher state of existence. But the caterpillar becomes
transformed into the butterfly before our eyes; we can see it in both
conditions, and can observe the process of change going on. The butterfly is an
improvement upon the caterpillar in point of organization, but in every other
respect they are both similar. Both are material, and each is liable to
destruction and decay, The spirit, however, that is supposed to be evolved from
the human form at death, is said to be immaterial and immortal, and, therefore,
totally unlike that material organization from which it has escaped. The change
is not observed, the body dies and the elements of which it was composed pass
into other forms -- this is all that we see and all that we know. Beyond this
everything is mere conjecture and vague speculation.
As to how the belief in a future life originated, the statement of Professor
Graham is a pertinent explanation. He says A strange and extravagant fancy that
arose one day in the breast of one more aspiring than the rest, became soon
afterwards a wish; the wish became a fixed idea that drew around itself vain and
spurious arguments in its favor; and at length the fancy, the wish, the idea,
was erected into an established doctrine of belief. Such, in sum, is the natural
history of the famous dogma of a future life. Not by any means, however, was it
a primitive and universal belief of all nations. Arising probably at first with
the Egyptians, it was only after a long time taken up by the Jews, then, or
possibly earlier. by the Greeks, with whom, however, the life held out, thin and
unsubstantial even at best, was far from being desirable. It was only in the
Christian and Mohammedan religions that the notion of a future and an eternal
life was fully developed, and that the doctrine was erected into a central and
an essential article of belief.
We now come to the third query -- Is the Secular position a safe one? Our
answer is, Yes; for by making the best of this life, physically, morally, and
intellectually, we are pursuing the wisest course, whatever the issues in
reference to a future life may be. If there should be another life, the
Secularist must share it with his opponent. Our opinions do not affect the
reality in the slightest degree. If we are to sleep forever, we shall so sleep
despite the belief in immortality: and if we are to live for ever, we shall so
live despite the belief that possibly, death ends all. It must also be
remembered that if man possesses a soul, that soul will be the better through
being in a body that has been properly trained; and if there is to be a future
life, that life will be the better if the higher duties of the present one have
been fully and honestly performed Secularists are, therefore, safe so far,
inasmuch as they recognize it to be their first duty to cultivate a healthy
body, and to endeavor to make the best, in its highest sense, of the present
existence. Now, in reference to the supposition that we may be punished in case
we are wrong. Our
position is, that if there be a just God,
before whom we are to appear to be judged, he will never punish those to whom he
has not vouchsafed the faculty of seeing beyond the grave because they honestly
avowed that their mental vision was limited to this side of the tomb. Thus the
Secularists feel quite safe as regards any futurity that may be worth having. If
the present be the only life, then it will be all the more valuable if we give
it our undivided attention. If, on the other hand, there is to be another life,
then, in that case, we have won the right to its advantage, through having been
faithful to our convictions, just to our fellows, and in having striven to leave
the world purer and nobler than we found it. As to the feeling of consolation,
which is said to be derived from the belief in a future life, we are safe upon
this point also. For if there be a life, beyond the grave, we have the
conviction that our Secular conduct on earth will entitle us to the realization
of its fullest pleasure. Moreover, this conviction is not marred by the belief
that the majority of the human race will be condemned to a fate "which humanity
cannot conceive without terror, nor contemplate without dismay."
Finally, Secularism asserts that, if we are to have an immortality it ought
to be one in which we can mingle with the purest of the earth, for the
anticipation of it would fill our minds with delight and would afford us the
assurance that in quitting this stage of life it would only be an exchange for
one, purer and loftier. But, pleasing as this ideal may be, consolatory as it
would undoubtedly prove, it is useless to forget that our present knowledge
teaches us that such hopes are only poetical, such anticipations only imaginary.
We therefore sternly face the truth, and as some of us cannot believe in a
future life, we seek to realize the worth of this one by striving to correct its
many errors. And in so doing we are achieving the safest of all rewards -- the
consciousness that while here on earth we are working with sincerity and
fidelity to secure that heaven of humanity, the comfort, happiness and welfare
of the human race.
Through the lack of careful study, many errors obtain and strange
misconceptions exist as to what the terms "matter" and "spirit" signify. We
desire, therefore, to endeavor to explain what they really mean, and how far,
and in what they have any relation to human conduct. For instance, are they both
existences of which we have any knowledge? and if so, do they exist separately,
or are they in any way related? When we affirm an existence, we mean an entity,
that is something that can be recognized by the senses. Whatever we are
incapable of recognizing, is to us non-existent. If attributes only are
affirmed, they must belong to some entities, without which they are to us
inconceivable; for in the absence of entities we can have no conception of
attributes. Our entire knowledge consists of entities and their properties,
qualities or attributes, these latter being the marks by which we distinguish
one thing from another. It may be said that this position affirms that we cannot
form a conception of anything apart from matter and force. It certainly does
affirm this, which is precisely what we insist upon, for whatever the nature of
the subject thought of may be, we cannot entertain any proposition unless the
terms employed are capable of being defined and understood.
conception of our minds implies not only a form of thought, but an
idea of the something thought of. When we formulate a thought, it may be said
that we at the same time define it, that is, we lay down a boundary, for to
think of a thing is to limit it. If a man owns an estate it must be separated in
some manner from all other estates, or he would be unable to identify his own
from that of others. This consideration lies at the foundation of all clear
reasoning, and however elementary it may appear to superior minds, it cannot be
dispensed with when we are forming a judgment concerning any proposition as to
alleged existences in the universe. If "there are many things in heaven and
earth than are dreamt of in your philosophy they will never be apprehended in
any other way than by the one here indicated. If we giant that matter and spirit
are only symbols, as some people contend they are, we see no necessity in using
both terms. If, as it is affirmed, spirit is separate from an entity, or its
attribute or function, and yet exercises an influence over any or all of the
three, it must follow that this spirit must be some force that can operate
without any medium connecting things that have no affinity or relation to each
other. This is equivalent to saying that we can transmit a message to America,
not only without a cable, but without any conductor at all. To postulate spirit
as the unknown is ignorance of what that cause is. But we submit that these
assumptions amount to a clear contradiction, because they imply that after we
have eliminated from the totally of existence, all entities, and their
attributes and functions, there yet remains spirit. To think of something apart
from everything is beyond our power, and to think of spirit in relation to
anything, is to make it an entity or an attribute.
Matter may be defined as "that which occupies space and is recognized by the
senses." But what is spirit? If it can be recognized it must be material, and if
it cannot be recognized it is to us as nothing. We are aware that spirit that
spirit has been defined as "refined matter," but in that case it would be
material. We can, therefore, only act consistently when we accept the decision
of the human intellect as applied to every proposition submitted to us. We
Cannot, if we act wisely, repudiate its authority in judging of the highest
conception of things. This is our standard of appeal upon all matters material,
or so-called spiritual. We accept what appears true, after the most rigorous
criticism, and we reject every error immediately it is discovered. For instance,
we regard two truths as being established so far as our present knowledge
extends -- the indestructibility of matter, and the invariable order of nature.
By nature we mean all that is, because, so far as is known, it has no limit in
space or time. The term spirit is not included in this definition, for the
reason that we have no conception of what it is. If it exist, its claims to
belief can only be established by one method, that of observation and
experiment. Should its claims be thus successfully proved, Spiritualism will
then cease to be distinguished from Materialism, inasmuch as it will then be
within our conception of the established order of things. We fail to see how
there can be two different kinds of truth in the sense of there being one that
we can apprehend by our understanding, and another that we cannot. We are aware
that theologians assert that there are two kind of truth,
one
within the reach of reason, and the other above it but we cannot believe this
theory, as no sufficient reason has been given to justify us in accepting such a
proposition. In reference to such preposterous claims, we ask the following
pertitient questions -- If there is a truth above or beyond the reason of man to
comprehend, how can it become known? Of course our inability to understand such
a truth does not prove its non-existence, but it disposes of our relation to it;
and consequently it is no truth to us.
In science it is the practice to explain things in materialistic terms and to
adopt spiritualistic phrases is in our opinion not only of no advantage, but it
tends to the confusion of ideas and leads many minds into the region of
obscurity. We see no justification for ceasing to speak of matter as a form of
thought and of thought as a property of matter, so ling as our object is to
indicate what we think and feel. The main point that we are anxious to insist
upon is that no unknown power or powers should be appealed to for the purpose of
explaining the facts of existence when we are cognizant of forces that are
sufficient to achieve the object. Moreover, an unknown power can only be of
practical service to us if its manifestations admit of verification, which those
of spiritualism do not. We therefore rely upon truths that are demonstrated by
material processes, for they give potency and dignity to nature; that nature, be
it observed, that may be termed the mother of all. From her bosom we derive the
sustenance of life, the panacea for woes and wrongs, and the solace for misery
and despair that too frequently crush the hopes of man and rob humanity of its
highest glory and its noblest service.
Is There a Life Beyond the Grave?
Is There a Life Beyond the Grave?
A Reply to R.B. Westbrook, AM., D.D. (1894)
by Charles
Watts
It has been aptly remarked that it does not necessarily follow, because an
opponent has been replied to, that his arguments have been answered. The truth
of this statement never appeared to me so evident as when I read the comments of
Dr. Westbrook (which appeared in SECULAR THOUGHT of the 2nd and 9th of December
last) on my lecture, "Is there a Life Beyond the Grave?" Instead of endeavoring
to refute my arguments, the doctor contented himself with presenting to the
reader a conglomeration of meaningless phrases, contradictory statements, and
reckless assertions. His article, moreover, was marred by undignified
imputation, more indicative of an irritable schoolboy, who had undertaken a task
which he found himself unable to perform, than of a debater who felt conscious
of his ability to refute the arguments of his opponent. To designate my lecture
as "flimsy argument," and to suggest that I "cavilled," but without attempting
by any ordinary reasoning process to prove his statements, was a marked specimen
of controversial weakness. Dr. Westbrook's elegant (?) remark, "Did he (Mr.
Watts) not bellow and paw up the dirt, and rush around furiously with hay on his
horns like a wild bull of Bashan, for an hour and a half?" was a proof that in
his case "a firm faith in a future state" has not had a "salutiry influence."
Such vulgar imputations may be the result of an "evil spirit;" but it is opposed
to that material refinement and courtesy which as a rule characterize a real
gentleman in controversy. The only "dirt" that I "pawed up" consisted in
exposing the fallacies indulged in by those who assume a knowledge which they do
not possess. That some of the "dirt" fell on Dr. Westbrook is clear from the
blemishes that disfigure his reply to me.
The doctor commences by saying: "I do not accept the ordinary distinctions
which are made in speaking of man, as consisting of a body and soul. The body is
not the man, the soul is not the man, the mind is not the man; but it requires
what is intended by these three terms, and much more, to make a man." Now, what
is the "much more" here referred to? If there is something more in man than
"body, soul and mind," the doctor should have stated what it is. Again, he says:
"I make no distinction between the material and immaterial, the natural and the
supernatural, as I do not know where to draw the line." Then, if he makes no
distinction and if he knows not where to draw the line, why does he mention the
"supernatural" at all, particularly when he further observes "I can
think of nothing separate from matter"? If he is correct in this
last assertion, he by his own confession knows nothing of any "supernatural,"
and any "argument," therefore, drawn from such meaningless phrases must be
"flimsy" indeed.
Dr. Westbrook alleges that I admit that the doctrine of future life "is
beyond the limits of controversy. If he (Mr. Watts) has any logical argument
that could be used against the theory of a future life would he not have
produced it?" I have made no such admission; on the contrary, my lecture was a
proof that, in my opinion, the doctrine did come within "the limits of
controversy." Surely there is a difference between debating a doctrine and
admitting that what the doctrine represents is capable of demonstration. "The
fact is," as the doctor observes, "it is easy to cavil." As to my producing
arguments against the theory of a future life, that is precisely what I did in
my lecture but whether they were "logical" or not the doctor made no effort to
show. For instance, I pointed out that the term "soul" has never been defined;
that, if we possess one, it is not known in what part of the body it is to be
found, or when it enters or when it leaves the human frame; that the only "soul"
known is the brain of man, and if that brain does not properly exercise its
functions, the manifestations of life will be proportionally impaired. In proof
of this I referred to persons in lunatic asylums who had diseased brains, whose
judgment was dethroned, and whose reason had deserted them. Had the soul, I
asked, in their case lost its power of control? If so, what is its value? When a
drunkard becomes intoxicated and loses all control over himself has his soul
lost its power? Again, as regards the "soul" leaving the body, I enquired if it
did so immediately at death, if it goes straight to heaven, or hell, without
waiting for the judgment day? If it does not leave the body, till some time
after death, how can a decaying body retain the soul? To any one of these
questions the doctor did not even attempt to give an answer.
Further quoting from "The Creed of Science," by Professor Graham. I showed
that science taught that immortality is not and cannot be proved, that the chief
function of the brain is that which is known by the term "mental activity" that
nothing is known, and nothing can be known of a life beyond the grave, In
support of my contention I produced the evidence of several scientific men
concluding with the testimony of the late Professor Tyndell, who said: "But to
return to the hypothesis of a human soul, offered as an explanation or a
simplification of a series of obscure phenomena. Adequate reflection shows that,
instead of introducing light into our minds, it increases our darkness. You do
not, in this case, explain the unknown in terms of the known, which is the
method of science, but you explain the unknown in terms of the more unknown."
Now, upon all this Dr. Westbrook was silent in his reply, and he coolly asserted
that I produced no "logical argument" against the theory of a future life. If
what I did produce were illogical, why did not the doctor endeavor to prove this
was so?
I am further charged with denying a future life, whereas in my lecture I
distinctly stated in answer to the question, "If a man die shall he live again?"
that by its very nature, and by the very nature of our mentality, it is utterly
impossible to give a
definite opinion pro or con. Referring to
Spiritualism, I said that I had studied it for five years, and had found nothing
in it; not that I wished to deny that there might be something but -- depending
on my own reason and judgment, by which I stand or fall -- I had found nothing.
But, says Dr. Westbrook, "What does this prove? Why, that Mr, Watts did not find
anything in Spiritualism! But does his failure show that nobody else ever
succeeded? Does he know every thing?" Of course my failure to discover anything
in Spiritualism only proves what I stated, that I found nothing in it. It is not
my custom to dogmatize as to what others have seen, or thought they have seen. I
am reminded that I don't "know everything" That is so, and in this particular
the doctor and myself are on equal terms. I am asked if I can "mention one thing
which man actually desires, which has not a palpable existence." Certainly I
can. Men desire universal happiness, justice for all, and a fair distribution of
wealth, but these conditions have no "palpable existence."
I repeat that it is impossible to long for that of which nothing is known.
The doctor takes exception to this, but he gives no instance to prove that I am
wrong. If, as he says, -- "Life beyond the grave is this: a continuation of the
present life, nothing more, nothing less," then the future is not another life,
and the doctor has to show how the "continuation of the present life" can go on
in the absence of the conditions that we know are necessary to its
manifestations now. We have positive proof that the body, including the brain,
the heart and the lungs, are indispensable to what we term life; let it,
therefore, be shown how this life can continue when the body and its organs have
disappeared. The doctor, however, refutes himself, for he says that in the next
world we shall be "as the angels," and not subject to the conditions that govern
us here. If this will be so, it will be another life after all, inasmuch as
existence here is not regulated on the "angelic" principle, therefore,
continuity ceases.
Apart from such "flimsy arguments" as the above, the doctor bases his belief
in "a life beyond the grave" upon the opinions of great men, the alleged
universality of the belief and the general desire that is supposed to exist for
such a life. As these objections to the Agnostic position involve probably the
strongest arguments that can be urged in favor of a future life, I shall
examine, them one by one.
Dr. Westbrook, in his reply, does not content himself by modestly asking, "Is
there a life beyond the grave?" but he positively asserts that there is such an
existence, This is a bold allegation, to prove the truth of which will require
more knowledge than the doctor has hitherto given evidence that he possesses.
What is meant by the term "life"? Our answer is, that we only know of it as
"functional activity" in organized existence, such as we behold in the animal
and vegetal kingdoms. The question, however, of a future life concerns chiefly
man, who possesses an organism and functions of various kinds. Before we can
accept as true, the statement "there is a life beyond the grave," we must have
some knowledge of the conditions of that supposed existence, and whether or not
they are suitable to man as we now know him. But up to the present we have not
met any one who possesses the required
knowledge and, therefore,
no information is forthcoming as to the nature of a future life. We certainly
decline to accept the proposition as being self-evident. If, as the doctor
alleges, there is presumptive in favor of a future life, the most that can be
reasonably argued is that there may be such a life. Of course we do not contend
that a visit to the planet Mars would be necessary before we could believe that
life existed there, but we do assert that some kind of communication with the
inhabitants would be necessary before we could positively allege that life was
there. It is not unreasonable to demand at least reliable testimony in matters
beyond our experience. It is one thing to have a mind open to conviction, and
quite another to meet the man who can convince us. When similar evidence is
presented in favor of future existence to that which obtains for the operation
of natural law throughout the universe, and when such evidence can be tested by
the ordinary rules of observation and experiment, the question of a life beyond
the grave will deserve serious consideration.
The doctor's proposition, although put in the positive form, is really an
assumption, based on the fact of the continuity of life on our globe. But what
is understood by such continuity? Simply a succession of animated forms of
existence, beings who continue to possess the attributes of life, in whom the
living principle appears in a series of individual representations. But a life
beyond the grave involves much more than this; it assumes a continuity of life
in the same individual, a condition of which we know nothing. Man exists
generation after generation, but every succeeding one is new. Life on this globe
ceases in the individual man when his organism becomes disintegrated and when
its functions are unable to continue their operations. Death is a condition the
very opposite to that of life; both therefore cannot be conceived as being one,
as the doctor's contention requires. A living dead man is a contradiction, for
it is a self-evident fact that if man always lived he Would never die. Death
occurs every moment, but we have no instance of the perpetual continuation of
one living individual. A body in action must be present, somewhere, but. when it
has disappeared in the grave and gone to ashes, it is no longer in organized
body. In other words, a body must act where it is, or where it is not. It cannot
act where it is, in the grave, for there its functions have ceased; it cannot
act elsewhere because it is not there to act; This appears as self-evident as
that the whole is greater than the part. The denial, that a future state has
been proved is held to be the converse of the proposition that there is one, and
therefore it is equally unphilosophical and presumptuous. People fail to
discriminate between the thing itself and what is said about it, although there
is a manifest difference between the two cases. What we deny is the validity of
the evidence, the conclusiveness of the reasons given in support of the theory
of a future life.
The doctor relies much upon what great men have said and written on the
subject. Of course the opinions of eminent men are entitled to respect, but they
are also open to dispute, inasmuch as all men are fallible. Great men have
entertained the most erroneous and childish ideas. We must not confound Newton
and the apple with Newton and the Bible, nor Faraday the chemist with Faraday
the Muggletonian. Our estimate of great men is based upon what they do
or what, they prove. When they defend the abominations of slavery
and witchcraft, or when they give their support to miracles and orthodox
doctrines, because they are sanctioned by the Bible, we change our estimate of
them. Great men have held mistaken views about creation, the laws of motion, and
the possessible disappearance of all existing things, but that is no reason why
the humblest of their fellow men should endorse their mistakes. Professor
Wallace's views on development may be, accepted, if the facts he submits prove
his case, and so also may his other views be accepted for the same reason. But
in our opinion his contentions in reference to a future life cannot be proved by
candid investigation and sound reasoning.
The alleged universality of opinion is quoted by Dr. Westbrook as a proof of
the reality of a future life. The fact is the belief in all kinds of error has
been general in all ages and in all nations. Because the multitude once believed
in the moving sun, in the stationary earth and in the existence of angels and
devils, it is no conclusive proof to us that their belief was correct. Have we
then the audacity to reject the verdict of ages, and to declare that the
majority of men have been mistaken? On certain matters we do so most decidedly,
for the reason that nothing is clearer to-day than that our forefathers were
wrong upon many things which were objects of "universal belief." The notion that
the stars were drawn by the gods or guided by spirits, has had to give way
before the discoveries of attraction and gravitation, and the creation theory is
refuted by the facts of evolution. Those who base their faith in a future life
on the common beliefs are like the man who is said to have built his house upon
the sand. The flood of science will sweep all false beliefs away, as surely as
the morning sun disperses the vapors of the night.
The doctor fires off his syllogistic cannon and he supposes that we are
fatally wounded. But it is not so, for we would remind the doctor that the value
of a syllogism depends mostly upon the first premiss. For instance, take the
following: "The future will be a continuance of the present, the present is
manifest and undisputable, therefore, so is the future." Now if the first
premiss were proved, the conclusion may follow, but as it is only an assumption,
based on general belief and on great men's opinions, the conclusion is also of
the same nature, and is a part of the assumption. Dr. Westbrook ought to know
that the greatest absurdity might be made to appear feasible to the uneducated
mind by the syllogistic mode of pleading. For instance, "Nothing is better than
heaven, a chop is better than nothing, therefore a chop is better than heaven."
It is commonly held that any conception formed by man must have a
corresponding reality somewhere. Yet the conception which was formed as to the
origin of things has been shown by modern researches to be absolutely groundless
in reality, Modern investigation has exploded the old theories of the genesis of
things. Men have had to unlearn much that the dame schools taught and that the
Sunday-school endorsed. Take the illustration of the general conception of the
dragon. We may be able to trace the idea
to some extinct animal
but that does not prove the existence of the dragon or attest the truth of the
belief that such an animal ever existed. If an artist paints a picture of the
Devil it is perfectly certain that his Satanic Majesty never sat for the
portrait.
Perhaps the strongest element in the argument for a future life is derived
from what is called the desires of mankind. These, it is said, must be accounted
for, which we think can easily be done. We submit that the instinctive love of
life found in man is sufficient to explain the desire for its continuation. No
doubt there is some connection between desires and their realization in
reference to things that are attainable, for the very desire may be a factor in
the sum of the causes that enable us to realize our ideal. But the mere fact of
having the desire is no evidence that its realization will follow. A desire for
food and comfort is very general, but many are destitute of both. The longing
that all members of the human family should be equally well off is extensive,
but such an enviable state of things does not exist. We must not, in reasoning,
take refuge in incongruities. Those who argue that without an endless future,
this life is not worth having, must regard the present existence as being
exceedingly defective. Why, then, should its continuation be desired? And yet
the doctor argues for a prolongation of such a life. If it is said that in
another world there will be a change for the better, we ask, where is the proof
that any improvement will take place? It is another instance that the wish is
father to the thought. Endless existence and interminable motion may be laws of
thought which it is impossible to banish from our minds, although we are unable
to conceive of an infinite past, which is involved in the statement. But it is
otherwise with the forms of existence that possess life, these can be conceived
of as coming to an end. Intense heat or intense cold may terminate all living
things in a brief space of time. The truth is that it is only dreamers who
contend that any part of the compound being called man will
"flourish in immorial youth,
Unhurt amidst the war of elements,
The wrecks of matter, and the crash of worlds."
Many persons who do not admit that Secularism is the best
philosophy of existence, acknowledge that its principles are excellent so far
as this life is concerned; but they assert that those principles are
insufficient to sustain its believers in the hour of death. With a view of
showing that this position is not a sound one, and that it misrepresents the
Secular views as to death, we purpose answering the following three queries,
which are frequently put by our opponents.
- What are the Secular views in reference to death?
- Is there sufficient reason to justify the Agnostic attitude as to a future
life?
- Is the Secular position a safe one?
In the first place, what are the Secular views as to death? They are these.
That there is not sufficient evidence to justify the assertion that there is, or
that there is not, a life beyond the grave. Many centuries ago, an oriental sage
is said to have asked, "If a man die, Shall he live again? Although many
generations have passed away since the supposed query was submitted, no definite
or satisfactory answer has been given. It is a problem to the solution of which
the philosopher has devoted his wisdom, the poet has dedicated his poetry, and
the scientist has directed his attention, and yet the problem remains unsolved.
Secularists, therefore, agree with Thomas Carlyle when he said: What went
before, and what will follow me, I regard as two impenetrable curtains which
hang down at the two extremities of human life, and which no man has drawn
aside." The Secularists adopt, in reference to a future life, the Agnostic
position, and they refuse to dogmatize, either pro or con., upon a matter in
reference to which, with the present limited knowledge in the world, it is
impossible to KNOW anything. Mr. Hugh O. Pentecost thus puts the case; "The
Freethinker looks at death just as it is, so far as we know anything about it --
the end of life. He does not hope, nor expect to live after death. He admits
that he may, just as there may be a planet in which water runs up-hill. He
therefore maps out his life with absolutely no reference to alleged heavens or
hells, or to any kind of spirit world. He goes through this world seeking his
own welfare and knowing, from the open book of history and his own experience,
that he can promote his own welfare only by promoting the welfare of every other
man, woman and child in the world; knowing that he cannot be as happy as he
might while anyone else is miserable. He knows that death is as natural as
birth. He knows that, as we were unconscious of our birth, we will be
unconscious of our death. He knows that, if death puts a final end to him as a
person, as science seems to prove, it cannot be an evil. He suffered nothing
before he was; he will suffer nothing if he ceases to be. He will not even know
that he is dead."
The Secularist accepts this Freethought view of death. He is not sufficiently
dogmatic to assert there is an existence beyond the present one, neither is he
presumptuous enough to say there is not. Knowing only of one existence,
Secularists content themselves therewith, feeling assured that the best
credentials to secure any possible immortality is the wisest and most
intellectual use of the life we now have. They further allege that, to the man
who is sincere and true to his conscience through life, "hereafter" has no
terrors. The man who has lived well has made the best preparation to die well,
and he will find that the principles which supported him in health can sustain
him in sickness. When the last grand scene arrives, the Secularist, having done
his duty, lies down quietly to rest, and sleeps the long sleep from which, so
far as we know, there is no waking. What has he to fear? He knows that death is
the consequence of life, that nothing possesses immortality. The plant that
blooms in the garden, the bird that flutters in the summer sun, the bee that
flies from flower to flower, and the lower animals of every kind, all pass into
a state of unconsciousness when their part is played and their work is done. Why
should man be an exception to the universal law? His body is built up on the
same principle as that of everything else that breathes, and his mental
faculties differ in degree, but not in character, from theirs. He
is subject to the same law as the rest of existence, and to repine
at death is as absurd as it would be to weep because he did not live in some
other planet or at some other time. Nature is imperative in her decrees, and
must be obeyed. Death is the common lot of all. The atoms of matter of which one
organism is made up are required for the construction of another, so they must
be given up for that purpose, and to repine at it argues an ill-tutored mind.
The work is done, and if it has been done well there is nothing to fear, either
in this or any other life. Such are the views of Secularists as to death, and,
holding such views, they can die without fear, as they have lived without
hypocrisy.
Now as to the second query -- Is there sufficient reason to justify this
Agnostic position? It must be understood that this position not only admits the
"don't know," but it goes further, and alleges that as we are at present
constituted, we cannot know of anything beyond the present life. Moreover, be it
observed, our position is still more comprehensive than this; for we contend
that the facts of existence do not substantiate the positive statement that
there is a life beyond the grave. Professor Graham, in his "Creeds of Science,"
in giving a summary of modern scientific opinion on this subject, observes: "And
now what is the scientific doctrine of the great theme of immortality? Is there
any hope for man? In one word, No. For any such hope, if men must continue to
indulge in it after hearing the scientific arguments, they must go elsewhere --
to the theologian, the metaphysician, the mystic, the poet. These men,
habitually dwelling in their several spheres of illusion and unreality, may find
suggestions of the phantasy, which they persuade themselves are arguments in
favor of a future life; the man of science, for his part, and the positive
thinker, building on science, consider no proposition more certain than that the
soul is mortal as well as the body which supported it, and of which it was
merely the final flower and product. ... Our modern physiologist has ascertained
that thought is but a function of the brain and nerves. Why should it not perish
with these? ... Way should it not collapse with the general break-up of the
machinery? Why should it not cease when no longer supported by the various
physical energies whose transformations within the bodily machine alone made its
existence possible? ... But science, for her part, finds no grounds for the
beliefs of theology or metaphysics in a future life -- beliefs, moreover, which
she regards as little comforting at the best. ... Science, we think, has made
out the dependence of our mind and present consciousness on bodily conditions,
so far as to justify the conclusion that the dissolution of the body carries
with it the dissolution of our present consciousness and memory, which are
reared on the bodily basis. At least, it raises apprehension in the highest
degree that this will be the case. Again, Science -- partly by what Darwin has
established, partly by other evidence only recently accessible, respecting the
low state of the primitive man -- has brought the human species into the general
circle of the animal kingdom in a sense for more deep and essential than was
formerly dreamed of; and she has thereby deepened the belief, though without
producing absolute conviction, that the arguments proving a possible future life
for man hold likewise for the lower animals; so that if man be judged immortal,
they should be also, and if they be mortal, so also is man. Thirdly, Science has
called attention to the fact that
there is something like a
general law discoverable in the history of Species, that they all have their
term of years, though the term is usually a long one, and that probably,
therefore, the human Species itself, as well is all other existing Species, will
disappear, giving place to wholly different, though derivative types of life.
And all these things taken together undoubtedly tend strongly to produce the
conviction that death closes the career of the existing individual." In support
of the conclusions here arrived at, Professor J.P. Lesley says Science cannot
possibly either teach or deny immortality." professor Lester F. Ward observes
that, "So far as science can speak on the subject, consciousness persists as
long as the organized brain, and no longer." And Professor E.S. Morse writes I
have never yet seen anything in the discoveries of science which would in the
slightest degree support or strengthen a belief in immorality."
It is alleged that the "soul" is the "thinking principle." If this be so,
wherein is man's superiority over the lower animals so far as immortality is
concerned? Herbert Spencer, Dr. W.B. Carpenter, and many other eminent writers,
have contended that the reasoning powers in man differ only in degree from those
in the general animal kingdom. In other words, if the above allegation be
correct, the lower animals, as they possess the "thinking principle," have
"souls," and will live forever. Indeed, Bishop Butler granted this, for he
assures us "that there is no true analogy in all nature which would lead us to
think that death will prove the destruction of a living creation." Moreover, we
read in the Bible: "For that which befalleth the sons of man befalleth the
beasts; even one thing befalleth them: as the one dieth, so dieth the other;
yea, they have all one breath: so that a man hath no pre-eminence above a beast:
for all is vanity." Besides, the thinking principle, so far as we know, depends
upon a mental organization for its manifestation: is it, therefore, not
reasonable to conclude that when the organization is destroyed the principle
will no longer exist? When the cause is gone the effect must cease.
Those persons who dogmatically assert that there is a future life,
erroneously, confound something they call a "soul" with the mind and they then
assert that the mind is a distinct, entity. Now as Dr. Wigan observes The mind
every anatomist knows to be a set of functions of the brain, differing only in
number and degree from the intellect of animals. Of the mind we know much, but
of the soul we know nothing. Can the mind, then, be a thing per se, distinct and
separate from the body? No more than the motion can exist independent of the
watch, and all the arguments of theologians and metaphysicians on this subject
are founded on the confusion of terms." It is said that a future life is proved
by the fact that development has been always taking place in the organic
kingdom. First came animals low in the scale, then of higher and higher type,
and so on up to man. Why, then, it is asked, may not man pass at death into a
still higher condition? Now the merest tyro in logic can recognize that there is
no analogy whatever in the two cases. The higher animals are not the lower in
another stage, but an improvement upon them, a new individuality. The only
argument that could logically be drawn from the development theory on this point
is that after man beings of a still higher order might make
their appearance, but then they would no more be individual men of
a previous age than we are the Iguanodons of the "age of reptiles." Besides, all
the changes that we know of in the organic kingdom have taken place upon the
earth, whereas the condition which believers in a future life contend for is to
be in some far-off land of shadows occupied by what is termed disembodied
spirits." The case of the caterpillar is frequently, given as an illustration of
changes from a lower to a higher state of existence. But the caterpillar becomes
transformed into the butterfly before our eyes; we can see it in both
conditions, and can observe the process of change going on. The butterfly is an
improvement upon the caterpillar in point of organization, but in every other
respect they are both similar. Both are material, and each is liable to
destruction and decay, The spirit, however, that is supposed to be evolved from
the human form at death, is said to be immaterial and immortal, and, therefore,
totally unlike that material organization from which it has escaped. The change
is not observed, the body dies and the elements of which it was composed pass
into other forms -- this is all that we see and all that we know. Beyond this
everything is mere conjecture and vague speculation.
As to how the belief in a future life originated, the statement of Professor
Graham is a pertinent explanation. He says A strange and extravagant fancy that
arose one day in the breast of one more aspiring than the rest, became soon
afterwards a wish; the wish became a fixed idea that drew around itself vain and
spurious arguments in its favor; and at length the fancy, the wish, the idea,
was erected into an established doctrine of belief. Such, in sum, is the natural
history of the famous dogma of a future life. Not by any means, however, was it
a primitive and universal belief of all nations. Arising probably at first with
the Egyptians, it was only after a long time taken up by the Jews, then, or
possibly earlier. by the Greeks, with whom, however, the life held out, thin and
unsubstantial even at best, was far from being desirable. It was only in the
Christian and Mohammedan religions that the notion of a future and an eternal
life was fully developed, and that the doctrine was erected into a central and
an essential article of belief.
We now come to the third query -- Is the Secular position a safe one? Our
answer is, Yes; for by making the best of this life, physically, morally, and
intellectually, we are pursuing the wisest course, whatever the issues in
reference to a future life may be. If there should be another life, the
Secularist must share it with his opponent. Our opinions do not affect the
reality in the slightest degree. If we are to sleep forever, we shall so sleep
despite the belief in immortality: and if we are to live for ever, we shall so
live despite the belief that possibly, death ends all. It must also be
remembered that if man possesses a soul, that soul will be the better through
being in a body that has been properly trained; and if there is to be a future
life, that life will be the better if the higher duties of the present one have
been fully and honestly performed Secularists are, therefore, safe so far,
inasmuch as they recognize it to be their first duty to cultivate a healthy
body, and to endeavor to make the best, in its highest sense, of the present
existence. Now, in reference to the supposition that we may be punished in case
we are wrong. Our
position is, that if there be a just God,
before whom we are to appear to be judged, he will never punish those to whom he
has not vouchsafed the faculty of seeing beyond the grave because they honestly
avowed that their mental vision was limited to this side of the tomb. Thus the
Secularists feel quite safe as regards any futurity that may be worth having. If
the present be the only life, then it will be all the more valuable if we give
it our undivided attention. If, on the other hand, there is to be another life,
then, in that case, we have won the right to its advantage, through having been
faithful to our convictions, just to our fellows, and in having striven to leave
the world purer and nobler than we found it. As to the feeling of consolation,
which is said to be derived from the belief in a future life, we are safe upon
this point also. For if there be a life, beyond the grave, we have the
conviction that our Secular conduct on earth will entitle us to the realization
of its fullest pleasure. Moreover, this conviction is not marred by the belief
that the majority of the human race will be condemned to a fate "which humanity
cannot conceive without terror, nor contemplate without dismay."
Finally, Secularism asserts that, if we are to have an immortality it ought
to be one in which we can mingle with the purest of the earth, for the
anticipation of it would fill our minds with delight and would afford us the
assurance that in quitting this stage of life it would only be an exchange for
one, purer and loftier. But, pleasing as this ideal may be, consolatory as it
would undoubtedly prove, it is useless to forget that our present knowledge
teaches us that such hopes are only poetical, such anticipations only imaginary.
We therefore sternly face the truth, and as some of us cannot believe in a
future life, we seek to realize the worth of this one by striving to correct its
many errors. And in so doing we are achieving the safest of all rewards -- the
consciousness that while here on earth we are working with sincerity and
fidelity to secure that heaven of humanity, the comfort, happiness and welfare
of the human race.
Through the lack of careful study, many errors obtain and strange
misconceptions exist as to what the terms "matter" and "spirit" signify. We
desire, therefore, to endeavor to explain what they really mean, and how far,
and in what they have any relation to human conduct. For instance, are they both
existences of which we have any knowledge? and if so, do they exist separately,
or are they in any way related? When we affirm an existence, we mean an entity,
that is something that can be recognized by the senses. Whatever we are
incapable of recognizing, is to us non-existent. If attributes only are
affirmed, they must belong to some entities, without which they are to us
inconceivable; for in the absence of entities we can have no conception of
attributes. Our entire knowledge consists of entities and their properties,
qualities or attributes, these latter being the marks by which we distinguish
one thing from another. It may be said that this position affirms that we cannot
form a conception of anything apart from matter and force. It certainly does
affirm this, which is precisely what we insist upon, for whatever the nature of
the subject thought of may be, we cannot entertain any proposition unless the
terms employed are capable of being defined and understood.
conception of our minds implies not only a form of thought, but an
idea of the something thought of. When we formulate a thought, it may be said
that we at the same time define it, that is, we lay down a boundary, for to
think of a thing is to limit it. If a man owns an estate it must be separated in
some manner from all other estates, or he would be unable to identify his own
from that of others. This consideration lies at the foundation of all clear
reasoning, and however elementary it may appear to superior minds, it cannot be
dispensed with when we are forming a judgment concerning any proposition as to
alleged existences in the universe. If "there are many things in heaven and
earth than are dreamt of in your philosophy they will never be apprehended in
any other way than by the one here indicated. If we giant that matter and spirit
are only symbols, as some people contend they are, we see no necessity in using
both terms. If, as it is affirmed, spirit is separate from an entity, or its
attribute or function, and yet exercises an influence over any or all of the
three, it must follow that this spirit must be some force that can operate
without any medium connecting things that have no affinity or relation to each
other. This is equivalent to saying that we can transmit a message to America,
not only without a cable, but without any conductor at all. To postulate spirit
as the unknown is ignorance of what that cause is. But we submit that these
assumptions amount to a clear contradiction, because they imply that after we
have eliminated from the totally of existence, all entities, and their
attributes and functions, there yet remains spirit. To think of something apart
from everything is beyond our power, and to think of spirit in relation to
anything, is to make it an entity or an attribute.
Matter may be defined as "that which occupies space and is recognized by the
senses." But what is spirit? If it can be recognized it must be material, and if
it cannot be recognized it is to us as nothing. We are aware that spirit that
spirit has been defined as "refined matter," but in that case it would be
material. We can, therefore, only act consistently when we accept the decision
of the human intellect as applied to every proposition submitted to us. We
Cannot, if we act wisely, repudiate its authority in judging of the highest
conception of things. This is our standard of appeal upon all matters material,
or so-called spiritual. We accept what appears true, after the most rigorous
criticism, and we reject every error immediately it is discovered. For instance,
we regard two truths as being established so far as our present knowledge
extends -- the indestructibility of matter, and the invariable order of nature.
By nature we mean all that is, because, so far as is known, it has no limit in
space or time. The term spirit is not included in this definition, for the
reason that we have no conception of what it is. If it exist, its claims to
belief can only be established by one method, that of observation and
experiment. Should its claims be thus successfully proved, Spiritualism will
then cease to be distinguished from Materialism, inasmuch as it will then be
within our conception of the established order of things. We fail to see how
there can be two different kinds of truth in the sense of there being one that
we can apprehend by our understanding, and another that we cannot. We are aware
that theologians assert that there are two kind of truth,
one
within the reach of reason, and the other above it but we cannot believe this
theory, as no sufficient reason has been given to justify us in accepting such a
proposition. In reference to such preposterous claims, we ask the following
pertitient questions -- If there is a truth above or beyond the reason of man to
comprehend, how can it become known? Of course our inability to understand such
a truth does not prove its non-existence, but it disposes of our relation to it;
and consequently it is no truth to us.
In science it is the practice to explain things in materialistic terms and to
adopt spiritualistic phrases is in our opinion not only of no advantage, but it
tends to the confusion of ideas and leads many minds into the region of
obscurity. We see no justification for ceasing to speak of matter as a form of
thought and of thought as a property of matter, so ling as our object is to
indicate what we think and feel. The main point that we are anxious to insist
upon is that no unknown power or powers should be appealed to for the purpose of
explaining the facts of existence when we are cognizant of forces that are
sufficient to achieve the object. Moreover, an unknown power can only be of
practical service to us if its manifestations admit of verification, which those
of spiritualism do not. We therefore rely upon truths that are demonstrated by
material processes, for they give potency and dignity to nature; that nature, be
it observed, that may be termed the mother of all. From her bosom we derive the
sustenance of life, the panacea for woes and wrongs, and the solace for misery
and despair that too frequently crush the hopes of man and rob humanity of its
highest glory and its noblest service.