💾 Archived View for gemini.spam.works › mirrors › textfiles › occult › grave.d captured on 2023-01-29 at 10:09:26.
⬅️ Previous capture (2020-10-31)
-=-=-=-=-=-=-
13 page printout
Reproducible Electronic Publishing can defeat censorship.
This disk, its printout, or copies of either
are to be copied and given away, but NOT sold.
Bank of Wisdom, Box 926, Louisville, KY 40201
**** ****
Pamphlets by Charles Watts, Vol. I.
IS THERE A LIFE BEYOND THE GRAVE?
A Reply to R.B. Westbrook, AM., D.D.
by Charles Watts
1894
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
Bank of Wisdom
Box 926, Louisville, KY 40201
1
IS THERE A LIFE BEYOND THE GRAVE?
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
Bank of Wisdom
Box 926, Louisville, KY 40201
2
IS THERE A LIFE BEYOND THE GRAVE?
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
Bank of Wisdom
Box 926, Louisville, KY 40201
3
IS THERE A LIFE BEYOND THE GRAVE?
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
Bank of Wisdom
Box 926, Louisville, KY 40201
4
IS THERE A LIFE BEYOND THE GRAVE?
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
Bank of Wisdom
Box 926, Louisville, KY 40201
5
IS THERE A LIFE BEYOND THE GRAVE?
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.
1. What are the Secular views in reference to death?
2. Is there sufficient reason to justify the Agnostic attitude
as to a future life?
3. Is the Secular position a safe one?
Bank of Wisdom
Box 926, Louisville, KY 40201
6
IS THERE A LIFE BEYOND THE GRAVE?
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
Bank of Wisdom
Box 926, Louisville, KY 40201
7
IS THERE A LIFE BEYOND THE GRAVE?
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
Bank of Wisdom
Box 926, Louisville, KY 40201
8
IS THERE A LIFE BEYOND THE GRAVE?
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
Bank of Wisdom
Box 926, Louisville, KY 40201
9
IS THERE A LIFE BEYOND THE GRAVE?
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
Bank of Wisdom
Box 926, Louisville, KY 40201
10
IS THERE A LIFE BEYOND THE GRAVE?
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.
Bank of Wisdom
Box 926, Louisville, KY 40201
11
IS THERE A LIFE BEYOND THE GRAVE?
We wish to emphasize this particular point, because every
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,
Bank of Wisdom
Box 926, Louisville, KY 40201
12
IS THERE A LIFE BEYOND THE GRAVE?
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.
**** ****
Reproducible Electronic Publishing can defeat censorship.
The Bank of Wisdom is a collection of the most thoughtful,
scholarly and factual books. These computer books are reprints of
suppressed books and will cover American and world history; the
Biographies and writings of famous persons, and especially of our
nations Founding Fathers. They will include philosophy and
religion. all these subjects, and more, will be made available to
the public in electronic form, easily copied and distributed, so
that America can again become what its Founders intended --
The Free Market-Place of Ideas.
The Bank of Wisdom is always looking for more of these old,
hidden, suppressed and forgotten books that contain needed facts
and information for today. If you have such books, magazines,
newspapers, pamphlets, etc. please contact us, we need to give them
back to America. If you have such books please send us a list that
includes Title, Author, publication date, condition and price.
**** ****
Bank of Wisdom
Box 926, Louisville, KY 40201
13