MASTER 
 
 NEGA TIVE 
 
 NO. 93-81223-20 
 
MICROFILMED 1993 
 COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY LIBRARIES/NEW YORK 
 
 as part of the 
 "Foundations of Western Civilization Preservation Project" 
 
 Funded by the 
 NATIONAL ENDOWMENT FOR THE HUMANITIES 
 
 Reproductions may not be made without permission from 
 
 Columbia University Library 
 
COPYRIGHT STATEMENT 
 
 The copyright law of the United States - Title 1 7, United 
 States Code - concerns the making of photocopies or 
 other reproductions of copyrighted material. 
 
 Under certain conditions specified In the law, libraries and 
 archives are authorized to furnish a photocopy or other 
 reproduction. One of these specified conditions is that the 
 photocopy or other reproduction Is not to be "used for any 
 purpose other than private study, scholarship, or 
 research." If a user makes a request for, or later uses, a 
 photocopy or reproduction for purposes In excess of "fair 
 use," that user may be liable for copyright infringement. 
 
 This Institution reserves the right to refuse to accept a 
 copy order If, in its judgement, fulfillment of the order 
 would Involve violation of the copyright law. 
 
AUTHOR: 
 
 PHILLIPS, JOHN HERBERT 
 
 TITLE: 
 
 SCIENCE AND HUMAN 
 IMMORTALITY 
 
 PLACE: 
 
 [BIRMINGHAM] 
 
 DA TE : 
 
 [1 909] 
 
COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY LIBRARIES 
 PRESERVATION DEPARTMENT 
 
 DIDLIOGRAPHIC MICROFORM TARHHT 
 
 Master Negative # 
 
 Restrictions on Use: 
 
 Original Material as Filmed - Existing Bibliographic Record 
 
 108 
 Z3 
 [ V.2 
 
 > l ' m ■ f I f > 
 
 ■■^"^ip^»^«»r«^»(" 
 
 ■< , w I I l| 
 
 1% *t 
 
 Phillips, John Herbert, 1853-1921. 
 
 Science and hurian imnortality, by J. H. Phil- 
 liX)0 ... ^a paper read before the Quid pro quo 
 club. Birninghan, Ala., 1909n 
 
 12 p. 
 
 22tj- cm in 25-|- en. 
 
 Half title. 
 
 Volume of pamphlets 
 
 |! 
 
 TECHNICAL MICROFORM DATA 
 
 FILM SIZE:. 2.5_iYkm_._ 
 
 IMAGE PLACEMENT: lA ,^II^ ' 
 
 REDUCTION RATIO: jj><r 
 iM/u^b i-LAUhMENT: lA /IIA; IB IIB 
 
 DAfE FILMED: 3JL3.0^^^ INITIALS__i2^P 
 
 HLMEDBY: RESEARClTpUBLICATION?;. TMC wnonnRinnR 
 
 PUBLICATIONS. INC WOODBRIDGR. CT 
 
^^. 
 
 >^ 
 
 V" 
 
 ^^, 
 
 r 
 
 Association for information and image iManagement 
 
 1 1 00 Wayne Avenue, Suite 1 1 00 
 Silver Spring, Maryland 20910 
 
 301/587-8202 
 
 Centimeter 
 
 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 mm 
 
 lllllllllilllllllllillllllllllllMlllMllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllli 
 
 1 
 
 Inches 
 
 f\ 
 
 f( 
 
 n 
 
 T 
 
 rrjTT 
 2 3 4 
 
 ^ 
 
 1.0 
 
 1^ 1^-^ Hill 2.2 
 
 I.I 
 
 ■iteu 
 
 1.4 
 
 12.0 
 1.8 
 
 1.6 
 
 1.25 
 
 I II i I I I 
 5 
 
 MPNUFfiCTURED TO RUM STRNDRRDS 
 BY APPLIED IMRGE- INC. 
 
^' 
 
 .0 
 
 VU5 J i 
 
 V- 
 
 ♦^ 
 
 Science 
 
 and 
 
 Human Immortality 
 
 By J. H. PHILLIPS, 
 Birmingbaiiiy Ala. 
 
 /fo? 
 
<r r K 
 
 y 
 
 -ts 
 
 i 
 
 . • r *• 
 
 ^ 
 
 City Paper Company 
 
 Printers, Birmingham. Alabama 
 
 1909 
 
 
 4 
 
 Xi 
 
 y 4 
 
 
 Science and Human Immortality 
 
 *By J. H. Philups, Birmingham, Axa. 
 
 The question of human immortaHty has long been one 
 of the world's greatest enigmas. Of all the great questions 
 asked by man, the most persistent, the most momentous, is 
 this: *'Does my personality involve any element that can 
 survive the death of the body?" In varying degrees this 
 question interests all mankind, — the sinner and the saint, the 
 fool and the philosopher, the illiterate peasant and the cul- 
 tured man of science. 
 
 The subject has usually been relegated to the realm of 
 religion and metaphysics, and for the vast majority of man- 
 kind, no doubt, faith rather than reason must ever be the basis 
 of hope for a life beyond the grave. 
 
 In this brief study I wish to consider the attitude of 
 modern science towards this question and to present some of 
 the modern phases of scientific inquiry with special reference 
 to their implications and future possibilities. 
 
 Natural science professes to treat only of that which may 
 be tested by human experience and explained by the opera- 
 tion of natural law. The majority of our physicists^ have 
 therefore fought shy of the great question of the souFs im- 
 mortality, and have passed it over without ceremony to theol- 
 ogy and metaphysics. Huxley tells us that he invented the 
 word "agnostic" to denote people like himself, who con- 
 fessed themselves hopelessly ignorant concerning a variety 
 of matters, about which metaphysicians and theologians, both 
 orthodox and heterdox, dogmatize with the utmost confidence. 
 One of the questions covered by the term "agnostic' is that 
 of the soul's immortality. The word "agnostic" is thus a 
 colorless term, used to denote a lack of scientific evidence 
 as a basis of belief, and expresses the natural attitude of 
 science as such with regard to the matter. On the other 
 hand, John Fiske, the most profound and scientific exponent 
 of the evolutionary theory that America has yet produced 
 confesses that this question must ever remain an aflFair of re- 
 ligion rather than of science ; that "it is not likely that we 
 shall ever succeed in making it a matter of scientific demon- 
 
 *A paper read before the Quid Pro Quo Club, 
 
 •s 
 

 4H 
 
 stration, because we lack the requisite data." Many scientists, 
 however, notwithstanding the limitations of the subject, have 
 not hesitated to overleap the boundaries of the field of experi- 
 ence and to express conclusions that must be regarded as dog- 
 matic and irrelevant. As an example of the position of this 
 class of positive scientists, I may quote from Buchner's Force 
 and Matter: "In the eternal cycle of matters and forces, 
 nothing is mortal; but this only holds good collectively and 
 for the whole, while the individual is subject to unceasing 
 changes of genesis and decay. While force and matter as 
 such manifest their indestructibility in an incontrovertible 
 manner, which rests upon experiments, the same cannot be 
 said of the soul, which is only the effect or product of a de- 
 finite combination of materials and forces, subject to dis- 
 association. If we break a watch, it will no longer tell the 
 time of day; if we kill the nightingale, its song subsides." 
 
 Professor Haeckel of Jena occupies practically the same 
 position, and concludes that the **belief in the immortality of 
 the human soul is a dogma which is in hopeless contradiction 
 with the most solid empirical truth of modern science." He 
 says, "when we take the idea of immortality in the widest 
 sense and extend it to the totality of the knowable universe, 
 it has a scientific significance; it is then not merely accept- 
 able, but self-evident to the monistic philosopher. In that 
 sense the thesis of the indestructibility and eternal duration 
 of all that exists is equivalent to our supreme law of nature, — 
 the law of substance." ... "If we adhere to the mon- 
 istic idea of substance, — the simplest element of our whole 
 world system, we find energy and matter inseparably asso- 
 ciated in it. We must therefore distinguish in the substance 
 of the soul the characteristic psychic energy which is all we 
 perceive, and the psychic matter which is the inseparable basis 
 of its activity, — that is, the living protoplasm." 
 
 It is evident from the statements of these eminent scien- 
 tists that their conclusions are based, in the first place, upon 
 the hypothesis that matter is the only reality and the sole ex- 
 pression of the universal substance; and, in the second place, 
 upon the assumption that the mind, with all its manifesta- 
 tions, is to be interpreted as a product of the physical or- 
 ganism; that thought is a function of the brain; that the soul 
 is an effect with matter as a cause. 
 
 The first of these positions is obviously beyond the realm 
 of experimental proof, and is based upon assumed metaphys- 
 ical grounds. If I deal in metaphysical terms, it is because 
 science in her conclusions has shifted her position into the 
 field of metaphysics. Matter itself is an abstraction ; it is a 
 convenient generalization invented to designate the sub- 
 stratum of forces and their operations in the physical 
 world. All that we know of matter are its sensible quali- 
 ties which come to us through forces — ^gravitative, cohesive, 
 
 -^ 
 
 
 s, f -^ 
 
 ^¥ ^■ 
 
 -c 7 t~ 
 
 a ' h 
 
 \ 
 
 . ' "W ^ 
 
 repulsive, chemical and electrical, or through forms of mo- 
 tion like heat, light and sound. Matter itself is unknown 
 and unknowable; it is merely a metaphysical fiction used to 
 designate the phenomena of the physical series. That mmd 
 or soul or spirit is likewise an abstraction used to designate 
 another parallel series of phenomena known as the psychical 
 series we must also admit. But it is obviously unphilosophic- 
 al for the scientist to take one abstraction as a club to des- 
 troy another abstraction. We know not what matter is in its es- 
 sence any more than we know what mind is. All that we 
 do know consists of two parallel series of phenomena, the 
 physical and the psychical. Which is the cause and which 
 the effect, we have no means of knowing; nor have we any 
 basis for asserting that either is a cause and the other an 
 effect. Materialistic monism claims reality for the physical 
 series only, and is expressed tersely by the famous remark of 
 Cabaniss that "the brain secretes thought as the liver secretes 
 bile." Spiritualism, following the idealism of Berkeley, as- 
 sumes that the psychical series is the only real, and may be 
 expressed in the words of Charles Kingsley— "Your soul 
 makes your body as the snail makes its shell." Against these 
 two extreme views, philosophical dualism asserts the genetic 
 independence of both series,— that both mind and matter are 
 real and separable essences = As a compromise between the 
 dualist and the materialistic monist, we find the analytical 
 monist, who asserts that the universe is one, that body and 
 soul, matter and spirit, are but different aspects, the out- 
 side and the inside of the same thing— the original substance ; 
 that nature is one, with a dual aspect, distinguishable in 
 thought, but inseparable in existence. 
 
 I have given this brief analysis of the fundamental prob- 
 lem of philosophy in order that we may more clearly un- 
 derstand the position of those scientists who adhere to what 
 Professor James calls the "theory of production as applied 
 to the origin of the human soul. The position of material- 
 istic monism, as represented by Haeckel and Buchner, seems 
 to be in its last analysis practically the same as that of the 
 analytical monist, who interprets matter and mind as dual as- 
 pects of the one original substance. Haeckel in defining his 
 position says: "Matter, or infinitely extended substance, and 
 spirit or energy, or sensitive and thinking substance, are the 
 fundamental attributes or principal properties of the all-em- 
 bracing divine essence of the world, the universal substance. 
 This "universal substance" is the ultimate monad,— the some- 
 thing elemental and indivisible, and matter and spiritual en- 
 ergv are its co-ordinate attributes. His law of substance.— 
 the persistence of matter and energy, he applies to the one 
 but not to the other. He concedes immortality to matter, 
 one of the attributes of the "universal substance, but de- 
 nies it to spirit, its co-ordinate attribute. He invests the 
 
iU 
 
 atom with a spiritual as well as a material property; the 
 latter he immortalizes, the former he destroys. This seems 
 to me to be his fatal point of departure from the tnie rpirit 
 of the monistic interpretation which he professes to follow. 
 Here he diverges from the mature conclusions of Kant, Vir- 
 chow and DuBois Raymond, and joins company with Buch- 
 ner, Vogt, and Cabaniss. He has a perfect right to assume 
 that what cannot be scientifically proven in soul life does 
 not exist, but he must carry the satne assumption into the 
 realm of matter. Consistent treatment requires that to both 
 matter and mind, as co-ordinate attributes, immortality must 
 be either positively ascribed or as positively denied. In the 
 conclusion of his notable book, Haeckel with noble candor 
 confesses that "We do not know 'the thing in itself/ that 
 lies behind these knowable phenomena." 
 
 The second contention of these scientists now remains to 
 be considered: The organism of the body in its relation to 
 the mind, they hold, bears the relation of cause to an effect; 
 spirit is a force or energy developed by molecular activity 
 in the brain. Perhaps the most explicit statement of the pro- 
 duction theory is that given by Cabaniss: "To acquire a 
 just idea of the operations from which thought results, we 
 must consider the brain as a particular organ especially des- 
 tined to produce it; just as the stomach and intestines are 
 destined to operate digestion, the liver to filter bile, the 
 parotid and maxillary glands to prepare the salivary juices. 
 The function proper of the brain is that of receiving each 
 particular impression, of attaching signs to it, of combining 
 the different impressions, of comparing them with each other, 
 of drawing from them judgments and resolves; just as the 
 function of the stomach is to act upon the nutritive sub- 
 stances whose presence excites it, to dissolve them, and to 
 assimilate their juices to our nature. We see the food ma- 
 terials fall into the viscus (of the stomach) with their own 
 proper qualities; we see them emerge with new qualities, 
 and we infer that the stomach is really the author of this 
 alteration. Similarly, we see the impressions reaching the 
 brain by the intermediation of the nerves; they then are iso- 
 lated and without coherence. The viscus enters into action ; it 
 acts upon them and soon it emits them metamorphosed into 
 ideas, to which the language of physiognomy or gesture, or 
 the signs of speech and writing, give an outward expression. 
 We conclude then, with an equal certitude, that the brain 
 digests, as it were, the impressions; that it performs or- 
 ganically the secretion of thought." 
 
 The main scientific objection to a belief in the immortal- 
 ity of the soul is thus clearly stated by Cabaniss, and is a 
 plausible physiological argument; it is certainly exercising a 
 tremendous influence today among men of science, and is 
 
 » _ 
 > 1 ^ 
 
 -• -. 
 
 J^ 
 
 >• 
 
 
 either tacitly encouraged or directly taught in a great many 
 of our medical colleges and scientific schools. 
 
 It will be noted that the word "impression" on account 
 of its ambiguity is made to play an important part in Caba- 
 niss* statement. "To conclude with certitude," that the brain 
 "digests impressions and performs organically the secretion 
 of thought," is an excellent example of an argument by an- 
 alogy and of a conclusion based upon metaphor instead of 
 scientific fact. Other and more recent statements of the pro- 
 duction theory regard thought as a kind of force liberated 
 by chemical changes in the brain, which give rise to ideas and 
 emotions." Herbert Spencer, usually classed with Huxley 
 as an agnostic, upon this question seems to favor this theory. 
 "The law of metamorphosis," he says, "which holds good 
 among the physical forces, holds equally between them and 
 the mental forces." "How this is done," he further says, 
 "is a mystery which it is impossible to fathom." 
 
 Professor James, in his IngersoU Lecture at Harvard on 
 Human Immortality, has answered this physiological objection 
 in a unique and interesting manner. He admits the state- 
 ment of facts as given by the materialist, and even assumes 
 the correctness of the much quoted formula — "Thought is a 
 function of the brain." But he maintains as his thesis that per- 
 sonal immortality is not incompatible with such a statement. 
 When the physiologist uses the phrase — "Thought is a func- 
 tion of the brain," he thinks of it just as he does when he 
 says — "Steam is a function of the tea-kettle," or, "Light is 
 a function of the electric current." These material objects 
 create or generate their effects; so the brain is supposed by 
 the materialist to create or generate thought. Of course, if this 
 creation or generation is the function of the brain, then, when 
 the brain perishes, the soul must die. But, in the physical 
 world, productive function is not the only kind of function 
 with which we are familiar. We have a releasing function, as 
 when the trigger of the crossbow releases the string and lets 
 the bow fly back to its natural shape; or when the hammer 
 falls upon a detonating compound, releases the molecular ob- 
 struction and lets the gases resume their normal bulk. We are 
 also familiar with the transmissive function; in the case of 
 a prism or refracting lens, the energy of light is sifted, limited 
 in color, and determined as to its shape, direction and inten- 
 sity. The lens does not produce the light, it merely limits 
 and determines its transmission. James maintains that in 
 regarding thought as a function of the brain, it is not neces- 
 sary to think of the productive function only; we are entitled 
 to consider what the scientist usually leaves out of account, 
 the permissive or transmissive function of the brain. "Suppose 
 the whole universe of material things to be a surf ace- veil, hid- 
 ing and keeping back the world of genuine realities that are 
 seeking expression through material things. Suppose our 
 
 t. 
 
 X ^ 
 
• 
 
 y. 
 
 brains are such thin and half-transparent places in this sur- 
 rounding veil ; then the genuine reality, the life of the soul, as 
 it is in its fullness, may break through our several brains 
 into this world in all sorts of restricted, imperfect and dis- 
 torted forms, according to the peculiarities of the individual 
 brain which forms the medium of transmission." But, it may 
 be asked, is there any evidence in favor of this transmission 
 theory? Has any one ever discovered gleams of thought 
 breaking through this brain-veil from the larger consciousness 
 without? No. What then? Ask for any proof or evidence 
 of the fact that the brain produces thought, and science has 
 none to give. If one theory is fantastic, so is the other. If the 
 transmission theory is transcendental, the production theory is 
 equally so. Ask for an explanation of the exact process of 
 either theory, and science confesses herself impotent. In 
 speaking of thought as a function of the brain, science can 
 mean nothing but concomitant variation. All that science 
 can gather from observation of facts is uniform concomitance. 
 Along with every act of consciousness we will find a molecular 
 change in the substance of the brain which involves a waste of 
 tissue and disintegration of cellular matter. This is all that 
 science can assert, and all "talk about either production or 
 transmission as a process is pure metaphysical hypothesis." 
 
 James' interpretation of brain function as transmission 
 rather than production robs materialism of its fatal conse- 
 quence. It admits all the real facts that science presents, and 
 at the same time makes possible, if not probable, the survival 
 of the soul after death. Professor James in his argument sim- 
 ply demonstrates the invalidity of the objections of science 
 to the doctrine of immortality. If science objects to the reason- 
 ing of the idealist as metaphysical, James proves that science 
 herself in the very statement of her objections enters the 
 field of metaphysics, and must be driven back to her own 
 domain. No real science should be content to rest the validity 
 of her conclusions upon abstractions, inferences and analo- 
 gies. 
 
 The theory of transmission as an explanation of the re- 
 lation of the spiritual to the material has already assumed 
 prominence in the philosophy of pragmatism. Schiller, in his 
 great work entitled the ^'Riddles of the Sphinx," develops 
 the theory at length from the standpoint of evolution. He 
 says: *'The fact that material organization rises in complex- 
 ity and power with the development of consciousness does not 
 justify the inference that it is the cause of the development 
 of consciousness. If growth in complexity is accepted as the 
 universal law of evolution in all things, there need be no 
 causal relation between the increasing complexity of physical 
 organism and gradual development of consciousness." Again, 
 "If the world process represents a gradual harmonizing of 
 the Deity and the Ego, it must bring with it an increase in 
 
 
 ♦ m v 
 
 ■iy'f^ 
 
 
 
 -^V 
 
 x\ I ^^ 
 
 the intercourse and interaction between them. The greater 
 intensity and the greater number of relations between the Ego 
 and the Deity would generate an intenser consciousness on 
 the one side (i. e., the Soul) and a more complex organization 
 on the other (the body). Thus the materialist explanation of 
 the fact would in both of these cases be a fallacy of cum hoc 
 ergo propter hoc, and confuse a parallelism due to a common 
 origin, with causal dependence. . . . The material organization 
 in the evolution of the individual is a mechanism which sets 
 free consciousness. . . . Matter is an admirably calculated 
 machinery for regulating, limiting and restraining the con- 
 sciousness which it encases. So, if the organism is coarse 
 and simple, as in the lower animals; it permits only a little 
 intelligence to permeate through; if delicate and complex, 
 there are greater possibilities for the manifestations of con- 
 sciousness." Schiller makes the present life unreal on ac- 
 count of the resistance of the physical organism to the in- 
 pressing consciousness of the Divine, and says that the hypnotic 
 or dream-consciousness bears the same relation to the normal 
 consciousness that the normal bears to the ultimate. "In each 
 case," he says, "the lower is related to the higher as the actual 
 to the potential ; while we sleep, our dream-consciousness is all 
 that is actual, and our waking self exists only potentially; 
 while we live on earth, our normal consciousness alone is 
 actual, and our true selves are the ideals of unrealized aspira- 
 tions. On this analogy then we may say that the lower ani- 
 mals are still entranced in the lower stages of brute lethargy, 
 while we have passed into the higher phase of somnambulism, 
 which already permits us strange glimpses of a lucidity that 
 divines the realities of a transcendent world. In the course 
 of evolution our conception of the interaction between us and 
 the Deity would come to correspond more and more to reality, 
 until at the completion of the process, the last thin veil 
 would be rent asunder, and the perfected spirits would be- 
 hold the undimmed splendor of truth in the light of the 
 countenance of God." The pragmatic philosophy of Schil-. 
 ler seems to find most striking and substantial confirmation 
 in that of St. Paul— For now we see through a glass darkly ; 
 but then face to face: now I know in part; but then shall I 
 know even also as I am known. 
 
 It is evident that neither the production theory nor the 
 transmission theory offers any conclusive scientific explana- 
 tion of the genesis of the soul or of its relation to the body. 
 Nervous physiology teaches us only that each particular mental 
 act is accompanied by a particular cerebral act. Science is 
 nothing but the codification of experience and is helpless with- 
 out the data furnished by observation. The belief in immor- 
 tality requires evidence that the phenomena we call mental 
 can subsist apart from the phenomena we call material. This 
 evidence science cannot furnish until we have had some de- 
 
monstrable experimental knowledge of a human soul disas- 
 sociated from the human body. 
 
 If we grant that the two theories presented, — the production 
 theory and the transmission theory, — are of equal validity or in- 
 validity, as you please; if we admit that the two simply bal- 
 ance each other in their evidential claims, which should we as 
 pragmatists prefer? Let us apply the test of pragmatism. 
 Both theories being admittedly equal so far as scientific evi- 
 dence is concerned, we must trace the practical consequences 
 of each. What difference would it make to anybody whether 
 the one or the other be true? If no practical difference in 
 their consequences for the future can be seen, then the alter- 
 natives mean practically the same thing and further discus- 
 sion would be useless. But it does make an enormous differ- 
 ence, and as a matter of fact, pragmatism finds in the trans- 
 mission explanation overwhelming practical reasons for pref- 
 erence. With John Fiske, we find it difficult to believe that 
 man's highest spiritual qualities, upon the development of 
 which so much creative energy has been expended, must at 
 last prove ephemeral, *'like a bubble that bursts or a vision 
 that fades." To say nothing of the various theological and 
 metaphysical reasons for a belief in a future life, the value 
 of such a belief as a practical incentive for the right ordering 
 of our present life becomes an important element in the 
 scale of reason, and with Voltaire and Rousseau, we must de- 
 fend the life of the soul after the decay of the body in 
 spite of theoretical difficulties, on the ground of its prac- 
 tical necessity. The pragmatist takes this chance, because, 
 as Edmund Gurney says, — "It is this that makes all the differ- 
 ence between a life of which the keynote is resignation and 
 a life of which the keynote is hope." 
 
 There is still another reason for the pragmatistic assump- 
 tion. Psycho-physics and physiological psychology by the 
 production theory and its inevitable consequences, lead us up 
 against a blind wall; they abruptly close and seal the book of 
 4ife both for this world and the next, with the last human 
 breath. The transmission theory, on the other hand, leaves 
 an open door for a future science of psychology to receive and 
 interpret an important class of alleged psychic facts, which 
 ultimately may be found to harmonize with it, and which 
 eventually may provide the desired experimental proof of 
 human immortality. 
 
 Psychology as a science today has done little more than 
 to record the leading facts of our normal consciousness. As 
 a science of the soul in its totality of manifestation, it must 
 be still regarded as in a nascent stage. It is little more 
 than what chemistry and astronomy were a few hundred years 
 ago in their dim and blind beginnings, when a few Monks 
 in their cloisters sought the philosopher's stone and the elixir 
 of life, and the Chaldean shepherds reverently watched the 
 
 10 
 
 • \ 
 
 4^^|4^ 
 
 
 . .♦•' 
 
 /; 
 
 7^ 
 
 J* .i 
 
 
 courses of the stars. Pragmatism recognizes as a possibility 
 the rise of another Priestly or Newton who will yet reduce 
 psychology to a practical science like chemistry and astronomy. 
 It awaits the advent of another Columbus, who shall discover 
 for us a new world. 
 
 It is a mistaken idea that science needs only facts for the 
 advancement of truth. Of what use are facts, if men having 
 eyes, see not, and having ears, hear not? The facts of elec- 
 tricity, radium and the Roentgen ray bombarded mankind for 
 ages before they found the observant eye and the attentive 
 ear. "The three important factors in the progress of science," 
 says Schiller, "are fact, interpretation and prejudice, and th©. 
 greatest of these is prejudice." It is prejudice that determines 
 the interpretation, and interpretation in turn selects and de- 
 termines the facts. A formidable array of eccentric psychic 
 phenomena have bombarded humanity for ages, and they still 
 continue to interest and entertain us; but as they chance to 
 run counter to the preconceived ideas of theology and science, 
 they generally meet with ridicule and jest rather than serious 
 investigation. The phenomena of Witchcraft, Swedenborg- 
 I'anism, Dream-consciousness, Multiple Personality, Spiritism 
 and a long line of exceptional psychic manifestations extending 
 down to Christian Science and the Emanuel Movement of 
 our day, stand out boldly as a challenge to modern science. 
 The Society of Psychical Research during the past twenty-five 
 years, under the leadership of such eminent scientists as 
 Myers, Podmore, Gurney, Hodgson, Wallace and Sir William 
 Crookes, has accumulated a mass of facts and experimental 
 data; and while these pioneers have exposed much of fraud, 
 humbug and imposture, they have also succeeded in establish- 
 ing at least the canons of a new science. The most important 
 exposition of the society's investigations up to the present 
 time is the great work of Frederick Myers on "Human Per- 
 sonality." Of this work Mr. Schiller says, after a critical 
 review, that "Myers' interpretation has for the first time 
 rendered a future life scientifically conceivable and rendered 
 much more probable the other considerations in its favor. 
 And, above all, it has rendered it definitely provable." One 
 of the great merits of Myers' work is the fact that it is 
 thoroughly scientific in its spirit and method. His demand 
 throughout is for further observation and keener experimenta- 
 tion. It may well be that in the future the successors of 
 Meyers and his colleagues may gradually develop a body 
 of consistent interpretations of the human consciousness as 
 a whole, "and then," as Mr. Schiller remarks, "human immor- 
 tality will be scientifically proved. Until then, it will remain a 
 matter of belief, however probable it grows." 
 
 All these exceptional psychic experiences will naturally 
 prove paradoxical and meaningless under the production 
 theory of mental life; but under the transmission theory we 
 
 11 
 
if 
 
 need only to suppose our normal consciousness to be in touch 
 with a larger consciousness beyond, and the variations will 
 be explicable by the possible changes in the brain as the me- 
 dium of transmission. 
 
 We are prepared today to recognize the operation of natural 
 law in the spiritual world; we have become familiar with its 
 operation within spheres hitherto regarded as supernatural. 
 Superstition is gradually yielding to knowledge and faith still 
 presses forward into the larger fields beyond. The natural- 
 ization of the supernatural is a historical process upon which 
 we dare not impose a limit. Side by side with tliis process, 
 we find the increasing spiritualization of matter. The gulf 
 between the properties of matter and those of spirit is con- 
 stantly diminishing, and the analogies between material and 
 spiritual phenomena are becoming more and more conspicuous. 
 The modern scientific conception of matter, with its invisible 
 forces, its impalpable energies, and its imponderable sub- 
 stances, is something quite different from the simple matter of 
 primitive experience and common life. The spiritualization 
 of matter and the naturalization of the supernatural seem to 
 indicate the development of matter and spirit along converg- 
 ing lines, and when their processes transcend the limits of the 
 sensible and the powers of the finite, their manifestations 
 may merge into the one ultimate and indestructible reality, 
 existent under forms and conditions now incomprehensible. 
 
 But, at present, in the absence of demonstrable evidence 
 of the truth of any scientific theory as to the origin or destiny 
 of the human soul, I am willing to risk my personal belief 
 in human immortality upon other than scientific grounds, 
 and to conclude with Professor James: "The whole drift 
 of my education goes to persuade me that the world of our 
 present consciousness is only one out of many worlds of con- 
 sciousness that exist, and that those other worlds must con- 
 tain experiences which have a meaning for our life also; and 
 that although, in the main, their experiences and those of this 
 world keep discrete, yet the two become continuous at cer- 
 tain points, and higher energies filter in; By being faithful 
 in my poor measure to this over-belief, I seem to myself 
 to keep more sane and true." 
 
 « 
 
 i) 
 
 
 » 
 
 i 
 
 (V-.i' 
 
 (I 
 
 ^■* 
 
 •I 
 
 IS