The sun. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1833-1916, 1899-10-11
THE SOUL AND MlTTER.
The Savage and the Philosophio View Of
Immortality.

answer to mine Of sept 81. is highly interest
ing In that 1t clearly shows to what extremes
and difficulties the disputant is forced who
tries to maintain tho Christian doctrine Of per-
sonal Immortality on purely philosophic. scen-
tinc or rational grounds. II the mag
nihcent discussion OF the subject which
your columns have lately afforded
shows anything. II shows clearly that
this special doctrine cannot be maintained or
demonstrated on rational grounds at all. but
must find its basis and qualification In faith
ana dogma only. In fact. think a majority OF
your religious or Christian correspondents
have clearly seen and freely admitted this al
ready. and the majority also seems to have
admitted the contention that the Christian and
jewish Scriptures themselves do not really
teach inherent personal mortality In any
clear or positive manner at all.
The facts being as stated. the man who at
tempts to prove tho case on the grounds OF pure
reason always has my sympathy. and In many
cases my admiration also for his temerity.
These are my feelings for Solicitations" who
shows not only courage but also extreme as
surance OF the coolest possible kind. Witness
his desperate attempt to shift tho burden OF
proof from his own shoulders by that magnih-
cent piece OF philosophic and logical bluff
which he uses. viz, his contention that the
burden OF proof does not rest on those who as
sert the souls i'm m ortality. but on those who
assert or believe that 1t is or may be mortal. In
his first letter. which criticised. he made this
audacious state ment: There Is not particle OF
proof for asserting that the soul dies with the
body" Now. have tried to get him to define
what 1t ia that does not die with the body,
which he calls the soul" but he has failed to
define himself think. however. that We may
fairly put the idea OF personality" as being
the nearest thing we can get In one word to ex-
press what he means by the soul" Now. II IL
were seli-evident or apparent fact that the
real and essential person OF the man continued
to live after he was apparently dead. the bur-
den OF proof would OF course lie on the man
who denied such evident or apparent facts. The
burden OF proof 10 always on him who
denies the evident or apparent not ON him
who asserts the evident or apparent. and any
other contention 10 obviously absurd ON its
face. IL there any self evident fact or any ap-
parent fact whatever that any OF the vital
qualities OF the man-any OF the powers OF tho
real person-continue to exist after he 10 ayi-
IDENTITY and actually dead2 Did any dead man
that 'Scholasticus" ever knew show the least
evidence after his death that he had any power
whatever OF will. memory or understanding.
whIclh, are said to be the three powers OF the
The selt-evident or apparent fact is therefore
Just the reverse OF what "Scho!astieus" says.
that hsIe is not Ei
ues after the death Of the body, II, therefore.
.seholasticus" knows OF any rational evidence
having now reduced his present contention to
the absurd Logic on my SIDE can 60 no farther.
at this point. for being an aEnostic as we'll as
Tationali1t / 40 not pretend to say that
form or degree after death. As to this really
have no knowledge; But what do say Is that
has any personal existence after DEATH but
that the evidence. such as It Is. is against this
n osic eontention. and tHink i is und%nia.
Bile that the real or apparent facts are wholly
on my side aud assertions and dogmas only on
his.
As to the argument that the, soul is i'm
mortal. note that 'Scholasticus" now denies
argument. viii therefore accept his expia-
nation. but nevertheless think that my infer
the Inc Gs In eer r0R
appsas pow nowsySerb that schoiastieus"
PS5s ss ihs h"msn @ Ss soul s
MES that matter, Is, immortal or inde-
structibe. for he asks this question. But who
f@ woGi here ans wer him that mod@rn ph-
osophy and chemistry assert most positively
that all &, and We has snTw ebsO
and life The atomic theory to which he refers
enough, but tho indestructi6ility, OF matter and
the s,m p ~ potency oil matter is no theory"
II scholastlcus has not yet learned this fact or
does not believe it. will now ask him to please
point out to us some instance he or any one
ton OF matter or OF some instance OF any life
or power whatever apart from matter. | am
philosophy. and / would ask him to give a liz,
tie more regard to that won ierful atomic and
material T1s sd oFGnSsd
vived and amplined in the nineteenth century
after Christ, He has evidently such poor
viii advise him to revise his opinion in tho
light Of this old and new philosophy. and |
that matter 10 the most wonderful! and potent
thing known to man without any execution. for
= it not. after all. ,hs real thing in which we
live and move and have our benG?" And is
there really anything existing outside OF or in
Deepen dent Of It, 30 far as we know? Can he
"souI or spirit torcs or POWER. Intellect cor or
will. sentiment or love. apart from this de-
Is 1t not an actual fact. therefore, that matter
| in its entirety presents q hettcr embodiment
| Tor our conception Of what we term God y
really the Very sSbstancc Of the Infinite no" or
"God. In which wo live and die and Of which
our bodie. are formed And is it not not fact
that We have never been out OF and never can
ont mt Of 4,, ,hs 6 G'n% Of matter which "
Why. therefore. does ''seholastcus" hesitate
| to believe that matter 10 Immortal" or indie
| structible. and why does he hesitate to say that
| tho soul or personality Is material in its ele-
ments or essentials. and still seem to incline to
| the idea that 1t Ia a simple ''su bstance2" 10
| there any substance that 10 not natter
Has ''scholastieusn really after all, any definite
| positively insists is immortal: and has he
| really any definite conception OF matter which
he seems to as positively say ia not i'm m orta? II
| 10 strange he should ella i'm to have 40 much
knowledge Of the intangible soul" and so little
| OF tho tangible matter" and will he please
| tell us what superior knowledge he has that
| lends him to contend that man Is personally
| immortal ,prima Jdcie but that matter is not
| immOrtalr
| He will remember that previously said that
| modern science clearly shows that while ele-
| ments or atoms are immortal or indestructib be.
| compounds are mortal or destructiblo. and
that 1t seemed to me that man was more
analogous 10 a com pound than an element and
that hence the only kind OF Immortality that
| was really scientific" or partly dem on strated
| on rational grounds was that OF the Platonic or
Buddhstic type for which 1t seems a fairly
good case can be made out on the grounds OF
pure reason or philosophy, while for the nsr-
| Christian and SOcratIc schools, no good
case can be made out at the bar OF
pure reason and philosophy. The personal