The sun. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1833-1916, 1904-10-23
DIR. OsLBR ON sCIENCE AND M
MORTALITY

To THE EprToa OF THE SuN--Sir. was
too late with postscript TO my last letter.
noticing DR. Osler's erudite and elegant leo
ture on Science and Immortality whioh
had just come into my hands.
I, DR.. Osler plays gracefully with the sub
ject. His own attitude toward the doc
trine Of future life appears. to use his own
phrase, to be SGallionian. He seems to
regard the doctrine as beautiful but per"
fectly Unparalleled hypothesis. He winds
up, indeed, with faint affirmative and Q
,nailsm errars cum Platone. To mo, l
confess, the question seemD one on which
at the present time we can no more ahord
TO err with Plato than we can TO err with
Eddy or Dowie.
Philosophio dalliance with the problem
OF q future state may be more congenial
to Dives than to Lazarus. II there In
nothing beyond this life, what spectacle
is the state Of Lazarus in the slurns OF Nov
York! What q spectacle Ia the life OF the
unfortunate generally What q spectacle
is History Sohopenhauer said. not that
this was the worst Of all conceivable, but
that it was the worst OF all possible worids'
and could not bear another grain OF evil.
There has been and Is q terribly large pro
portion OF the human race which might
think that the pessimist told the truth.
The crown OF all things, DR.. Osler says. Ia
man. II happiness is the criterion--what
CROWN
Immortality" lie uncomfortable. We must
discard the term. The question is whether
our hopes and responsibilities extend
beyond this world and life. Conscience
says that they do. Conscience tells Us
that this world, its awards and Its judg-
ments are not all, but that as we do well
or i'll In this life, It will be well or III for
US In the sum Of things. What question
can be more practical? Even taking It
on the lowest ground, what would our
social state be II vice and wickedness had
only to blk human law? Would not SELF
sacrifice be folly and martyrdom insanity?
That physical science has nothing to
say to this matter Is true. But is physical
science our only sure source Of knowiedgef
Are our moral instincts less Trustworthy
than our physical sensef AS have already
said, affirm nothing; but call attention
to the apparent fact that there 10 In man
something Of which the materialist still
owes us an account. Ali may be, and in
a sense no doubt Is, the outcome Of physical
evolution. That does not seem to me
to close the inquiry. Whatever the process
OF development. DR.. -Osler is not germ,
but man, we'll seen in the noble literature
OF the seventeenth century.
That men 60 about their daily work
thinking little OF future state, as DR..
Osler says, Is perfectly true. But Is not
the influence OF conscience, with what II
implies, always there, unless 1t has been
absolutely stifled, as in the case Of oonsuIn-
mate wickedness 1t probably is3 Does
not every man, when he obeys his con-
science against his passions or his interest,
virtually express a belief In something
beyond this world2
"Teresanism," as DR.. Osler calls the
Yervent belief. such as was that Of st.
Teresa, in the life to come has, as he adj
n,its, produced the salt Of the earth. which
a mere falsehood could hardly have done.
On the other hand, what followed when
French Jacobinism and Terrorism had writ
ten over the gate Of the cemetery: Here
is eternal sleep"f
The dull submission of the dying to the
inevitable, when, as in most cases, emo
ton Is weakened, while death 10 often q
release from pain doee not seem to me to
go far toward proving that death 10 not 9
turning point, but the end. OF the old
ecclesiastical terrors most men are now
free.
The conclusions OF extreme materialism
would be welcome to few. But II the ma
terialist proves his case, we acquiesee.
There is no no, q for US In our present per-
plexities but in the frank acceptance Of all
demonstrated truth. GOODWIN SMITH.