The sun. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1833-1916, 1901-12-15
IMMORTALITY or THE SOUL.
A neJecsor Of the Dogma Replies TO Mr..
oldwin Smiths Dis cussions Of the subject.

letteT on tDt tuDJtCL OF nv al 'oi''s " w
soul In THE Sun Of Dec. I, IL no exception
to this rule. But he Is not always consistent,
and his many utterances on this ana slmhar
subjects afford some peculiar contrasts. 10
which I would draw his attention. In his
"Gnesses at the Riddle OF Existence. he says
Science. moreover. Darwinian and genera has
put an end 10 the traditional belief In 'he soul as
a being separate from the body. breathed into the
body BY a distinct act OF the Creator. pcnt up In II
as In a prison house. beating spiritually against
the bars OF the flesh. and looking 10 be set Tree by
death. Soul and body. we now know, form an
indiyisiblc whole. the nature Of man being ono,
EMBODIED at nrst In the same embryo. advancing In
all It's parts and aspects through the same stages
To maturity. and succumblng al last TO the same
decay.
In this passage there is a clear-cut eI.
preston OF opinion that science has destroyed
the belief In immortality: and Mr.. Smith
follow It up with a series OF
which conclusively prove that this Is his
de- CELEBRATE judgment. For instance:
The thought Of eternal existence. even OF q life
OF eternal happiness. u we dwell upon H. turns the
brain glddy: II Is a sort OF mental torture 10 at
tempt 10 realize the idea. . . The dlspro-
portion Of eternal rewards and punlshments to the
merits or sins OF mans short life Is profoundly
repugnant to our moral sense.
Many other passage might be cited to
the same effect; and may we not ASK II
modern science has really. for Intelligent
men, disposed Of the idea Of immortality.
Is it not rather late 20 call for some substi-
tute rs n foundation for our ethical SANCTION
for the 'pha 40 Of religious belief which has
passed away? 1t seems to me that, even In
his present letter, as well IA in his 'Guesses,
| Mr.. Smith supplies his own answer. He
tells us that. IF this life ends all, ! do not
see how conscience can retain Its authority
but he has already told us that
Whatever turn may ultimately be taken by our
| rnnVistipna about A hereafter, society VIII upnOiu
by law or social influence rules necessary 10 Us
own security and convenience here. IL may even
uphold Them more vigorously, perhaps SrueIly:
II Il Is convinced that the present ne Is an, Jhe
natural affections. parental. con)usa' anu socin'
win also retain their force
It seems to me that Mr. Smith supplies q
complete answer to his own o0upts va
lized expression OF the consciences, OF the
Well, beiSs OF society, as the object Of those
laws ard CUSTOMS, Is really tnst iIn and
complete sa5IS y ! 0u ESeri ard a system
Of future rewards and punishments nave
often been claimed az sanctions for human
of society has always been tie, real SANCTION
OF all moral codes, When the bodies OF men
we're tortured and burnt In order TO sa ahe
claim that this was done to project society
from heresy. and the conseauent divine VEN
IT is Meas sing to listen 70 the testimony
borne by Mr. Smith to the "sPecial value OF
the ancient masters OF etulcs, flhlti
Marcus hurelius and Epictetus." that while
they looked at human nature, with eyes a
clear as ours. they were free from theo!ogia
gal pps,sRo'sesSions' In his "De''s' !"
In the great Stoics, ~Epictetus ana Marcus Aur.;
liys there !, no snP5essi9wH S al t Ssrei SEEM .e q 70 expect
is absorption In the universe which, ~ personam,y
: %s.s'S On ~ sss o ss rae h satiaf sasg 81 show SSr be Rs,'P PPoi
foundest faith in the divinity Of the moral law
and In the INFINITE reward OF virtue.
Will MIR. smith tell us. II these. perhaps the
noblest examples Of the influence OF the
categorical IMPERATIVE as .he pass had fa,th
IN a future life. with is rewards and punish
ments. as It's ultimate SANCTION; what other
sahG.,pn 'h eSnf FSSia na II Plato Pat ii Thought he
discerned a distinct connection Of virtue
SguIn. Kim w ss0 may set Marcus Aursiips.
DC. and our own Matthew Arnold. with his
Power. not man. that makes foT righteous
expressions as these our ethical, teachers
have Sniy, .scoEded their doubts in an aditt
seems 70 be admitted by. NIL that q utilitariaI
basis is all that is needed for the coarser and
coInnonsr actions OF men. sShe o n n9nla,n The
so-cnilcd nobler actions Of the - f-sacrifcins
martyr. patriot, or philanthropist 10 That.
Tho sense OF duty. Il seems to me that. in
attributine Il TO a belief in a future lie oI
Few foSnd sna eT upon a BASIS Of the meanestt
and most desplcable personal utilitarianism.
leslie stephen veil remarked Una, tne sr rdG
man understand the duty OF doing what Is
for the general Including his own and uIti-
THntaa sOe sta;na. In the Say' We ali honor
the soldier or the philanthropi-t who Per.
good Of his fellow men. u is. indeed: inn
possible 70 carry on society unless parents
and children, friends and ncishnors: lssscnne
n@ces-for Others but l. IL not true that IA
all these cases. the action chosen may Justly
iormer III. highest satl-fActi?nl
submit sir. that on the leading question.
the fact 81 import atty the facts Of science
fully Justify Mr. smiths assertion. quoted
above. that immortality has D'rh Il-piuNeu
hmhryolgsy n9d larceny md Ie1 hdSSv Pom
sist= Of fa,tOrs the result Of the UNION OF
germs from both parent eng ~ - Imply
ming must have an end surely, man.
craving for immortality craving e9lAll"d
SSsnn ~, ~ TegsrdedT a. any inndlcation Of IT,
possibility The fst that Ny 60 t9s thHs
passed beyond the veil has ever T.app.sf,d
u a suoqs afsam,nt as,lPsf 3t ~,
I. hot Immortal, bu, that u ths sou'. i.
not about um- that this lat II a." str'hs-
..6Sa,adii l.. Sriinn'.,, 'l,ni ,hs it,nght. - b.
t~~lltsruf Wruf n hHs haru If"ts iFi NAV
,a, -'gi 81 r. alrt. 1.es.d IId dei.
Hi,ant un ~ faor 81 e % q go, widen,
,hs sod 4. s.uisttiur Il vb,h ~ lnos
h%oihiusl + u - aoar th.' 'uf h.'rg.
%. s ,aa. .hna ,mriaaa i,a, aali 49,
"a y us h'tf "fsai y "t l'i'r, ani
a4t ,
satfsl arsrsnt hom hass - 49,. -
sn.sls bat 80 slaali a. lU.u uursslt go