THE ANDOVER REVIEW: A RELIGIOUS AND THEOLOGICAL MONTHLY. VOL. XIV.-JULY, 1890.-No. LXXIX. THE NATURAL GROUNDS OF BELIEF IN A PERSONAL IMMORTALITY.1 In this statement of my subject I would emphasize two words : First, Natural. There may be other grounds of belief in immortality. I am here concerned only with those derived from the study of nature external and internal. Again, Personal. By personality I of course mean not bodily but spiritual personality —that is, self-consciousness, free will, and rational thought. So much was necessary lest you carry in your mind a false impression of my real subject. My mode of treating it, I fear, may seem to you a little abstruse. But what could I do? The seriousness of the subject is so extreme that it will not submit itself to the mere forms of rhetoric. It would seem almost an impertinence to attempt to popularize in the ordinary sense of that word. Nevertheless, I believe that with your earnest attention I can make it perfectly intelligible. Contrary to my frequent practice I have written out what I shall say. I have done so because I dared not trust myself to extemporaneous delivery in a subject on which every word ought to be weighed. Many of the thoughts here embodied may be found scattered about in my published writings, but in other connections, and expressed in different words. I have gathered them here in con 1 This article was prepared as an address to the University branch of the Young Men's Christian Association in March, 1889. On account of sickness it was not delivered. By request it was delivered to a popular audience at the Methodist Church in Berkeley, Cal., in March last. Copyright, 1890, by HOUGHTON, MIFFLIN & Co. densed form, in order to bring them to bear on this one subject. I have, however, added several other points which will not be found elsewhere. With this explanation I now proceed with the subject. Few persons, I think, realize how much our beliefs are affected by our mental environment, that is, by the spirit of the age in which we live. Doubt, and even utter disbelief in immortality, has never been so widespread as now. Modern science, and especially biology, seems to many superficial thinkers to be nothing less than a demonstration of a universal materialism. It is necessary, therefore, first of all to remove, if possible, these modern difficulties out of the way, and thus to clear the ground for real evidence. The biological objection has two branches, namely, the physiological branch and the evolution branch. I take up these successively. The physiological branch is drawn from the invariable association of mental phenomena with brain-changes; the mental phenomena moreover varying both in degree and kind with the brain changes in such wise as apparently to show a necessary relation of cause and effect. "Thus," says the materialist, "we identify mind with matter and mental forces with material forces. Thought, emotion, and will become products of the brain in the same sense as bile is a product of the liver or gastric juice of the peptic glands." If, therefore, we accord how can we consistently The evolution branch of the objection is derived from the undoubted fact of the existence in animals, especially in the higher animals, of psychical phenomena similar to those found in man. Consciousness, intelligence, will, love, hate, fear, desire are plainly exhibited in animals as well as in man. The difference is appar ently one of degree only and not of kind. immortality to the psychic nature of man, withhold it from the higher animals. But if we extend it to these, then must we extend it also to the lowest animals: for the gradation among animals is complete and without break. And if to these, then also to the vital principle of plants; for the lowest animals and plants merge into one another in such wise that it is impossible to separate them sharply. Thus immortality, if there be any, becomes coextensive with life. But we cannot stop even here, for vital force is correlated with, transmutable into, and derivable from, physical and chemical forces. Thus our boasted immortality, by continued extension, becomes thinner and thinner until it finally evaporates into thin air. It becomes naught else than "conservation of energy," and not, as we hoped, conservation of self-conscious personality. Such an immortality will hardly satisfy the longings of the human heart. Of what value to us is a continued existence in the form of heat, electricity, or some other physical force? I shall now take up successively these two objections, and try to remove them. I wish especially to show, contrary to the assertion of many modern biologists, that there is betwixt the psychic nature of man and that of animals, even the highest animals, a difference not only in degree but also in kind. 1. The physiological objection. Suppose I remove the skull or brain-cap of one of you and expose the brain in a state of intense activity. Suppose, farther, that my senses were infinitely perfect, so that I could see, absolutely, everything going on there. What would I see? Evidently nothing but molecular motions, physical and chemical, molecular vibrations or agitations, chemical decompositions and recompositions. There would be nothing else there to be seen. But you, the subject of this experiment, would observe nothing of all this. Your observed experiences are of a totally different order, namely, consciousness, thought, desires, will. Here, then, there are two opposite kinds of phenomena occurring at the same time and in the same place, but never both observed by the same person, nor by the same kind of senses. By the outside observer with his bodily senses are perceived only physical phenomena; by the inside observer, with his inner or spiritual senses, only psychical phenomena. The relation between these two sets of phenomena is forever inscrutable. An impression on a nerveterminal, a vibratory thrill along a nerve-fibre, a molecular change of some kind in a brain-cell. Thus much we can understand. But now there suddenly emerges, how we know not, nor shall we ever be able to imagine, but somehow there emerges, consciousness, thought, emotion, will. A brain-cell is agitated and thought appears. Aladdin's lamp is rubbed, and the Genie appears. There is just as much intelligible relation between the two sets of phenomena in the one case as in the other. And this, mind you, is not the result of the imperfection of our science. To an absolutely perfect science the mystery of this relation would be even deeper than it is to us, because the two sets of phenomena would be brought closer together, even in contact, and yet their relation still remain wholly unintelligible. They are of entirely different orders and cannot be construed, the one in terms of the other. Every thoughtful materialist frankly admits the absolute impassableness of this chasm. Here, then, we have two sets of phenomena of entirely different orders: an outside set and an inside set. Here are two entirely different worlds: an outer world of sense and an inner world of consciousness, a macrocosm and a microcosm. Now - mark this one of these, the inner world, is entirely peculiar to man. To him alone psychical phenomena become objects of observation. In animals many of these psychical phenomena are, indeed, present, but are not objects of observation. Animals, certainly, have no self-consciousness; no turning of thought inward in observation of self, no inside view of brain-phenomena. Is there not here a whole world of phenomena, and that, too, of the highest kind, known to man alone? Man, therefore, and man alone, lives in two worlds. Is there not here an enormous difference in kind? It is exactly this life in another world, namely, the inner world of consciousness, which is the distinguishing characteristic of spirit, self-conscious, self-active, and, as we hope, immortal spirit. But, it will be asked, "How do we know that there is in animals no turning of thought inward upon itself? How do we know that the whole inner world of self-consciousness is unknown to them?" I answer: It is true that we cannot enter into the consciousness of animals any more than we can enter into that of our fellow men; but we do know that all that is characteristic of man, namely, indefinite progressiveness, with its accompanying religion, science, philosophy, and fine art, has come out of this power of reflection on the facts of consciousness. This power cannot exist in animals, or they, too, would be capable of indefinite voluntary progress; they, too, would have their religion, science, and philosophy. 2. Evolution branch of the objection. I assume the truth of evolution. I must do so because to the philosophical thinker evolution is nothing less than a necessary law. It is only an extension of the law of continuity or law of causation, to forms as well as phenomena. Phenomena follow one another in unbroken succession, each derived from a preceding as its cause, and giving origin to a succeeding as its effect. We call this the law of causation, and say that it is necessary, or axiomatic. Its opposite is unthinkable. We might call it a law of derivation. So, also, organic forms follow one another in unbroken succession, each derived by generation from a preceding and giving origin to a succeeding. We call this a law of derivation. We might well call it a law of causation, and say that it also is necessary or axiomatic. Physical phenomena sometimes occur of which we know not the cause; but we never think to doubt that they have a natural cause. For so to doubt is to impeach the validity of reason and to doubt the rational constitution of Nature. So, also, in the geologic history of the organic kingdom we find forms of which the origin is inexplicable; but we ought not therefore to doubt that they had a natural cause and came by a natural process. For so to doubt is again to doubt the validity of reason and the rational constitution of nature. Evolution is naught else than the rational mode of thinking about the origins of things. I assume, also, the existence of God, whether personal or impersonal, it matters not for our argument now. I assume, farther, that a divine energy pervades all nature, and constitutes what we call the forces of nature; and that what we call the laws of nature are naught else than the modes of operation of this divine energy. As scientific thinkers we must assume this, because an anthropomorphic deity operating on nature from the outside, as on foreign material, is incompatible with scientific thought. For science, either God is immanent in nature, operating at all times and in all places, or else Nature operates itself and has no use for any God at all. On these assumptions it seems to me probable nay, certain that a portion of this all-pervasive divine energy which we call the forces of nature individuated itself more and more, by a law of evolution, until it attained complete individuality in the spirit of man. This is the general statement. I wish now to explain it. -- The universal divine energy in its diffused unindividuated state we call physical and chemical forces. A portion of the same energy individuating matter and itself individuated, but only slightly, attaining the power in itself of growth and reproduction, but not of sensation and consciousness, we call the vital force or principle of plants. The same, individuating matter (material individuality), and itself individuated (kinetic individuality) more perfectly, attaining now sensation, consciousness, and will, but not yet self-consciousness and free will, we call the anima or intelligent principle, or soul of animals. Still the same, at last completely individuated, and in some sense separated from nature as an independent entity, attaining now not only consciousness but self-consciousness, not only will, but self-determining will, not only intelligence, but rational thought, we call the spirit of man. |