The sun. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1833-1916, 1899-10-22
THE oUESTION or IMMORTALITY.
Not ProvRble by Heaaon Alone-The
RatIonal and Christinn Positiona.

To THE EDITOR OF The SuN-Sr: From tho
spirited and extended letters on the subject
OF immortality in the Sun OF last sunday II lis
evident that the discussion has now roacheta
most interesting and acute stage. where IL will
soon become evident on which side the pre-
ponderance OF argument and evidence lies
think. however. that tho advocates OF tho
doctrine OF a conscious personal Immortality
are finding out and are beginning to admit.
one after the other, that they cannot maintain
this doctrine on purely phosophic grounds or
by appeal to human reason aud the facts OF
nature. and that the evidence presented to tho
human reason by rational philosophy and
scisnce shows that this doctrine is not tenable.
but that the opposite contention is more
probable
Now. no matter how dear this idea OF aeon.
tinurd personality after death might be- and
doubtless II. to all OF us. yet our devotion to
rat onal truth and verifable fact ought to 10
greater than that to any personally pleasing
/ idea which might br but chimera of our cun-
ceit. II our personal extinction after due time
IL law OF our own nature. as we admit It Ia "
every other creature. then we should bow to
that la W with as reverent u resignation az to
any other law OF our being. moral or physical
II Ia with these feelings that have entered
this discussion and taken the NEGATIVE SIDE as
l believe 1t In the more rational side AMI ID
seems to me that tho doctrine we are discuss
ing is not in accordance with the facts and
conditions OF nature. and that no rational owl.
! dence can be found to support It when closely
analysed. IL Spirtualists or Christians such
az "Scholasticus" and others. object to this
| conclusion. thew must blame the facts OF nature
! and not the conclu sions OF the "materialiat"
"acnos'lc" or nationalist. such rs confess
| myself to be-
Some OF the Christian debaters who have
! entered this controversy have tried to give
| this old doctrine force by arguing that II
| came to us "a n divine revelation with tho
| Christian Gospel Now. it is obvious that
nothing con'd be truly called revelation"
that man was already well acquainted with,
| and. l have shown as an absolute fact OF
| history. that the races all around Judea in the
time OF Christ were quite familiar with this
doctrine and believed in it firmly. much moro
so than Chrsts own people. tho Jews. and
that neither Christ nor any Of his disciples
| left In their own Scriptures any such
| clear exposition OF the doctrine as can
be found in Egyptian. Greek or Oriental
| scripture now extant and written hun
| dreds OF years before Christ. Witness
for example. the teaching OF Socrates in
Platos "Phaedo." which 1 have quoted
in previous letters To Christ's people, the
| Jews, 1t might indeed be regarded as r.vela-
ton. because. strange as 1t may now appear to
| us. they seemed to possess very little idea Of
| this doctrine. which historic fact will. think.
have to be admitted even by my opponents.
| Not only does the Christian urge this doctrine
| rs divine revelation. but he also urges It as
| probable or evident on philosophical or rational
| grounds. as did also our friend "Scholasticus."
who made the bold assertion at the outset that
there is not particle Of proof to show that the
soul dies with the body have asked him re-
peatedly to define what he means by the soul.
so that m ig hit not m sun de rstand him in such
an amazing statement but he has even yet failed
| to define such an important term in such
serious discussion, and 1t Is really somewhat
| doubtful yet Just what conception he a aches
to the term soul.
| There 10 no discoverable warrant on rational
or natural grounds Tor contending that the in
dividuality or personality or essential quail
ties OF the living man continue to e1is.
after his death any more than the individuality
| OF the rose or the rock continues to exist after
It's structure has dscayed. 1t was for this
| reason that TWO OF tho deepest philosophio
thinkers that ever existed In the world.
budoah. u. y. o 10 ana fiato b. u 400.
were leo 10 oeheVs tnat man does not
survive IN mis- personality or individuality
ultimately. out may or docs survive IN
some way In his elements or substance.
ana that as MS bodily elements return 10 the
world OF matter. so the elements OF his mind
| 80
herent IN matter. ana ooth together oonsti-
tute the lnhnne. In whlch man becomes
totally ABSORBED ana ioses ms IDENTITY IN dod
or the dod-suostance itself. rms Is very
suotl" doctrine and dlhcult TO iully appreciate
al nr't' out II Is AZ near as can express my
UNDERSTANDING OF tho buduhistc or fatonlc
conception whleh. strange 10 say nearly cor
responds with the conceptions OF modern
chemica ana physieal science as regards
all matter ana iorce' IL VIII De noteu thao
echoiasticus seems 10 thihk u OF great con-
sequence 70 snow that the atomic theory OF
chemistry ID an hyPothesis ana not
theory' now this point 10 uhimportant' AZ
there 10 no very great or essential oiherehce
between theory ana hSpothesi" anyway ana II
there was II would Dc OF no moment 10 TINS
discussion az all. inc points 70 which nave
called MS attention. however are OF the
greatest Importance. VIZ, That there Is no IN
stance Known TO US OF lie. soul. force.