Manchester Democrat. [volume] (Manchester, Iowa) 1875-1930, 1905-01-25
THE ROSE AND THEsoUI
THE IMPOTENCE OF THE BLOSSOM,
THE POWER OF THE MAN.

the Soul-Science Shows Us Change
without Destruction, Censeless
TRANSFORMATIONS and No Annihfla-
ton.
In responding to an argument for the
Immortality of the soul presented in
Balance: The fundamental Verify"
MI. w. II. Mallock, the author of as
Life Worth Livingy" says:
Science. he 1.-THE author of "Balance"l
says, shows us that the individual life
must be immortal. because science shows
| US that nothing which exists can be de-
stroyed. That nothing can be destroyed
| is In one sense perfectly true. but in an
| other 1t Is equally false. If science shows
/! us that in one sense nothing is de-
! stroyed. 1t shows us also that in another
| sense nothing endures. The material of
| the rose is indestructible, but the same
rose never blossoms twice. Mr.. Smiths
| argument can apply to the soul only on
the assumption that the soul is a nom
composite unity. His assumption may be
true. but 1t has no foundation in science
To this the author of Balance" re-
spends:
hold that the theory of the indie
structibility of matter and force sus-
tains, but do not claim that it proves,
separately and alone, the Immortality
of the soul. The theory Of universal
conservation forms one link in chain
of evidence which appears to me to be
conclusive. cannot agree with Mr..
Mallock in his statement, "If science
shows us that in one sense nothing is
destroyed, it shows us also that in IN
other sense nothing endures" Science
shows us ceaseless transformation and
no humiliation. Matter, which is sense
less, appears constantly in new forms
in leaf, n rose, an animal. There is
also thing which is not senseless;
whether it be destructible or indestruc-
tble, let us call it the soul. Is it also
subject to transformation? Yes; it is
constantly changing, growing wiser or
duller, stronger or weaker, better or
worse. Under our observation it sur
wives these changes. 1t may descend,
and yet ascend again, and again de-
scend. 1t may suffer thousand de-
feats, and yet triumph over all. One
soul may dominate millions of other
souls; it has the power to produce
roses and fruits and mechanisms and
music, to harness the forces and to ex-
plore the secrets Of nature. It is a
wonderful thing, this soul.
Turning to Mr.. Mallock's rose. Has
1t the power Of self recuperation?
Weakening, may 1t regain its strength?
May it grow better or worse through
Its own powers or consent? Has it any
dominion over other roses or over the
forces of nature? No; the rose, we
Judge, is nonconscious, senseless, with
no powers Of self preservation, self
help, self advancement, self assertion.
There IRE other distinctions between
! the rose and the soul. The rose devel-
ops well only under favorable condi-
lions. In good soil, well protected, with
SO much Of heat and moisture, 1t as
cends in definite time to its maxi
mum and then descends regularly and
definitely to its transformation. The
soul, on the other hand, often develops
under unfavorable physical conditions.
A grent soul thrlves in solitude or in
facing difficulties, dangers, pain and
persecution. The soul has no definite
rise to maximum or descent to min
imum. The souls maximum Is, often
reached in old age, when its body is
weakest. The perfection Of the rose de-
ponds upon the strength of It's roots
and Of the stalk rron which 1t grows,
and these upon their phya,csl nutr1-
ment II its roots or stalk be mutilat-
ed the rose will be injured or destroy
ed. The souls body, on the other hand,
may be mutilated, its legs and arms
may be amputated, without any mutt
lation Of the soul. The strength of the
soul does not depend upon the strength
Of the physical body with which 1t is
for the time associated. Strong bodies
often contain weak souls. Science has
discovered no definite relation between
the perfection Of the physical body and
the perfection Of the soul, between di-
gestion and intelligence or between
muscles and morals. No bread or meat
no system Of diet or physical culture
has been found that will make fool
wise or rascal honest. The culture Of
the soul Is within the soul 1t thrives
upon knowledge and high ideals; igno-
rance and vice degrade it. No force ex-
ternal to it can withhold the souls
food. The supply Of good and evil, Of
things uplifting and things degrading,
Is inexhaustible and subject to the de-
mand of the soul. The soul pays in its
own coinage for its own food.
The materialists hold that man Is
wholly physical; that the soul is a
product Of and necessarily inseparable
from the physical body. If this conten-
ton be sound there should be shown
the same reactions between the body
and soul that exist between the rose
plant and the rose-it should be shown
that healthy bodies nre invariably es-
sential to healthy souls; that strong
bodies produce strong souls and weak
bodies weak souls; that nm injury to
the body produces corresponding In
jury to the soul. If such reactions,
complete to the minutest degree, can
not be shown between the soul and the
body, IL the soul does not necessarily
sicken with the body's sickness or de-
cay with the body's decay, why should
we assume that the soul must die with
the body's death?
These unvarying reactions between
the body and the soul cannot be shown
They do not exist. To the contrary ex-
perience shows that the soul is as COM
pletely Independent of the body here
and now as is possible in view of the
present relations between the two. AS
an imprisonment, even If it be for
lifetime, does not impeach the ability
of the prisoner to exist apart from his
cell or to walk forth II its walls should
decay, so the present close relation be-
tween the soul and the body does not
impeach the ability of the soul to exist
apart from the body or to survive the
decay of the body.
The soul is confined at present in one
sense to the body, and yet in larger
sense 1t is free from the body. The
poorest lnborer, living under forlorn
conditions, may rise and separate him
self from his body, even as his BODY