The idea of immortality, its development and value

Front matter

BT 921 . G2 5 Galloway, George.

The idea of immortality, its development and value

THE IDEA OF IMMORTALITY

Preface

IN 1915 the writer was appointed lecturer on the Baird Foundation. In normal circum¬ stances the lectures would have been given in 1917, but owing to the war their delivery was postponed for a year. This volume contains the lectures as they were read in Glasgow in January and February 1918. They include, however, a considerable amount of matter which had to be omitted then owing to limitations of time.

At present the subject of Immortality is one which provokes a great deal of interest and dis¬ cussion, and various books and essays have appeared dealing with the problem in some of its aspects. But the present work follows a line of its own, and this perhaps may serve to justify its appearance. If the line of thought here developed should prove suggestive and helpful to those whom this great theme attracts or perplexes, the author will feel well rewarded.

G. G.

St. Mary’s College, St. Andrews,

April 1919.

CHAPTER I The Problem of Immortality : Its Present Interest

and Importance.

PAGES

The rise of the problem — The mediseval and the modern attitude — Evolution and the problem — Failure of the older proofs — The temper of the age — The present crisis — The far-reaching importance of the subject —

What is meant by immortality — Outline of the sub¬ sequent treatment ....... 1-29

CHAPTER II The Development of the Idea

Value of the historic method — Problem of origin and validity — Primitive ideas of the soul — Universal belief in survival — The abode of spirits of dead — Future rewards and punishments — Slow growth of ethical ideas— Part played by Mystery- Religions— Transmigra¬ tion of souls — Greek and Hindu ideas of metempsychosis — Evolution of more spiritual conceptions — Suggestive¬ ness of this development . . . . . . 3°~65

CHAPTER III Science and the Problem of Immortality

Can Science deal with the question? — Materialism and Naturalism — Relation of mental to cerebral processes — Can organic life be explained mechanically ? —

Priority of soul : function and structure — When does immortality begin ? — Memory not a purely physiological function — Methods and results of Psychical Research — Uncertainty attaching to these results .... 66-99

vii

Vlll

Contents

Chapter IV Pages

Aim and scope of this chapter — Plato’s treatment of the question — Dualism of Descartes — Theories of Spinoza and Leibniz — Kant’s criticisms, how far relevant —

Hegel and Lotze — Views' of Hradley and Bosanquet — Suggestion of a philosophic basis for doctrine of immortality — Question of pre-existence — Is memory essential to immortality ? — The idea of a transfigured organism — Metaphysics can give no proof of immor¬ tality i oo- i 47

CHAPTER V The Ethical Argument for Immortality

Ethics, how far affected by the doctrine— The nature ot the moral proof — The argument based on justice —

Plato’s contribution to it — Is immanent justice suffi¬ cient ? — Argument form the incompleteness of man’s moral life— Kant’s statement of this argument— The two arguments tend to coalesce — Various objections examined— Values and their conservation — The possi¬ bility of corporate immortality — Can society be the end of the individual ? — What the postulate of immortality implies 148-192

CHAPTER VI Immortality and the Religious View of the World

The ethical postulate leads up to religion — Only an ethical God can guarantee immortality — The ideas of God and immortality develop together — Influence of the concep¬ tion of God’s transcendence— Immortality in relation to Pantheism, Pluralism, and Theism — Hebrew religion and immortality — The Christian religion : Christ’s statements — The Pauline and Johannine teaching — God and the nature of man — Problems raised by the tradi¬ tional eschatology — Faith in the character of God the final ground of hope . i93-23°

INDEX .

THE

Chapter I

i

PROBLEM OF IMMORTALITY: ITS PRESENT INTEREST AND IMPORTANCE

IT can hardly be denied that human im¬ mortality, if it be a fact, profoundly affects the meaning and value of life in this world. To accept or deny the existence of a world beyond the present, correspondingly influences our con¬ ception of our duty here and now : it will matter much to us all if we can reasonably regard this experience as a stage to a higher experience. To establish the reality of an existence after death has been an age-long problem. The universality of death is patent ; and though death may be robbed of its sting, the sombre fact remains. The world in which men live is a world full of change and decay, a world where nothing continues in one stay. We commonly speak of death as an evil ; yet it is evidently bound up with the

i present constitution of the world, and, in the longrun and on the whole, it works for good. The reproduction of the species is not compatible with the ultimate permanence of individuals in the present order of things. Life wears out the organism, and the species can only maintain its freshness and vigour by the constant passing away of the old and effete and the birth of the new. In the case of mankind this con¬ tinuous coming and going of individuals makes progress possible. To the lower creatures in all their manifold forms death can offer no problem. Governed by instincts and with no self-conscious purpose, they fit simply into the natural scheme of things : they have no outlook beyond it nor desires unsatisfied by it. Death in this instance is a wise provision of nature which manifestly subserves the good of the race.

To man, however, a self-conscious being who transcends the mere life of instinct, who forms ideals and deliberately strives to realise ends, death is felt to be a problem. Can man, it is asked, man who is raised above the natural order and is a living centre of spiritual value, be doomed to annihilation by the same forces which bring about the dissolution of the plant and animal ? Does he not belong to a higher realm in which the law which rules in the lower no longer holds ? Must some better fate not be reserved for a self-conscious spirit who looks before and after ? These ‘ obstinate questionings ’ are peculiarly human : the will to live beyond this narrow ‘ bourne of time and place ’ has been strong in men, and it has issued in a faith that what is essential in them survives the disintegration of the body. Hence the human claim to rise superior to the doom of death and to be the heir of immortality.

We are speaking, it is scarcely necessary to add, in broad and general terms. It is not suggested that individuals have everywhere and always precisely the same feelings and ideas on this momentous subject. As a matter of fact, belief in a life hereafter has fluctuated greatly in the course of human history, and the idea has meant much more for some races than for others. It is even possible for a religion to exist without this belief. But, since the advent of Christianity at all events, faith in immortality has formed an essential element in the religious life of Western peoples. Christians stood on common ground in their conviction that God in Christ had brought life and immortality to light. But if faith in a life to come never suffered total eclipse during the Christian centuries, the flame of hope some¬ times rose high and it sometimes sank low. In the ages of faith man’s high destiny was a sure and confident conviction on which individuals were ready to stake the most vital issues. Moreover, the growth and eventual dominance of the ecclesiastical authority tended to suppress doubt, or at least to make it speechless. Under the shadow of the Catholic Church the thought and ideals of the Middle Ages took on an ‘ other¬ worldly ’ colouring. The earthly life was deemed a passing show, and time was spoken of as the ‘ anteroom of eternity.’ The pattern of piety was to deny the world and the flesh, and to look away from this earthly scene to a bright goal in a realm above. In that religious classic of the mediaeval time, The Imitation of Christ , one remarks the tendency to regard this mundane sphere and its interests as a passing appearance of minor value, while the true and enduring good of the soul is in heaven. In truth, this preoccupation with the higher world at times became almost morbid. And one may agree with the words of a thought¬ ful writer : “ Indeed, the belief in immortality may easily become an unhealthy occupation with a future salvation, which prevents us from seeking for salvation for mankind here. ... If it be a consequence of the intellectual conditions under which we live in the present day, that the empirical evidences of a future life that seemed most sure and certain to our fathers, have for some of us lost their convincing power, this, in a religious point of view, may not be altogether a loss.” 1 1 E. Caird, The Evolution of Religion , ii. 243.

As hinted in the foregoing quotation, the temper and outlook of the modern world, as regards religion in general and the problem of immortality in particular, stand in contrast to those of the Middle Ages. The Reformation marked the beginning of a revolution in religious thought and life. The principle of spiritual freedom which underlay the Protestant movement gradually undermined the claim of the Catholic Church to exclusive authority in matters of faith and conduct ; and in the freer intellectual atmo¬ sphere which was engendered by the conflict, science and speculation had opportunities of development hitherto unknown. The intellectual achievements of science drew men away from the barren subtleties of Scholasticism, and led them to a new and rapidly growing knowledge of the world in which they lived. There came to them an enlarged vision of the universe and its bounds in space and time, and a fresh insight into the laws which were involved in the order of nature. In this ampler air a greater tolerance developed, and men felt with increasing force the need of revising the traditional doctrines of the Church in the light of their new knowledge. Individuals learned to doubt and question when their fathers were content to accept without criticism the doctrines handed down from the past. So it was inevitable that the idea of immortality should no longer receive the unhesitating acceptance which had been accorded to it in earlier times. For men had become aware of difficulties where their ancestors found things simple and easy.

But when all is said, the principle of religious authority appeals strongly to human nature, and to cast off all authority is felt to be a dangerous thing. In the case of a cardinal doctrine like that of immortality, scepticism only developed slowly. Many who were doubtful of other beliefs were not prepared to doubt this belief. It is worth noting that among the Deists of the seven¬ teenth and eighteenth centuries the belief in im¬ mortality was widely recognised as one of the features of the pure religion of nature. Men who had quarrelled with most of the doctrines of the Church still refused to relegate faith in a life after death to the lumber-room of antiquated super¬ stitions. But during the nineteenth century the spirit of criticism became more radical and sub¬ versive, and beliefs began to be questioned that in former days escaped question. And if we consider for a little the scope and trend of thought in the last century, it will be clear to us why this should be so.

A main characteristic of thought in the nine¬ teenth century was its grasp of the principle of evolution, and its far-reaching application of the principle to nature and human society. The old hard and fast division between organic types in nature, and between man and the animal world, melted away in presence of the idea of gradual development. Evolution became the solvent which reduced differences to a fundamental unity. And the whole trend of the evolutionary method, in the hands of men like Darwin and Spencer, was to draw man within the naturalistic scheme of things, even though he was acknowledged to be the culmination of the developmental process. Mankind was conceived as the product of a vast evolutionary movement which extended through untold ages. The inward and spiritual side of life was neglected, when man was construed as the product of a purely naturalistic evolution. In this vast evolving universe human beings appeared to occupy an utterly insignificant place. And it seemed plausible to ask, whether an enormous claim like that to immortality could possibly be justified. Hence religious faith in human destiny was confronted by radical doubt. The case for the sceptically minded has been vividly put by Dr. J. G. Frazer in his recent Gifford Lectures : “ When they turn their eyes from man himself to the place he occupies in the universe, how are they overwhelmed by a sense of his littleness and in¬ significance ! . . . And they ask, Shall a creature so puny and frail claim to live for ever, to outlast not only the present starry system but every other that, when earth and sun and stars have ciumbled into dust, shall be built on their ruins in the long hereafter ? It is not so, it cannot be.”1 To those of this way of thinking, man’s demand for immortality seems to rest on a supreme ex¬ aggeration of his own importance.

But perhaps we shall be told, that man’s high place in the universe and the legitimacy of his hope of a life to come are authoritative religious truths. Yet the force of this argument has been greatly weakened by historical criticism and the study of religious origins. The critical work done last century, whether we accept it or not, has certainly been an important factor in diminishing the authority of traditional religious doctrines. For its tendency has been to emphasise the human element in these doctrines. The former days of simple trust and unquestioning acceptance have passed away, and the appeal to authority has lost its convincing power in the eyes of many. To illustrate what I mean. To those who are sceptical of a future life it would be useless to urge the resurrection of Christ as a proof. The reply would be, that the resurrection is itself in need of proof, and so should not be made a basis foi further conclusions. And we have been told lecently that “it is impossible to argue from the bodily resurrection of a divine being to the survival

1 Belief in Immortality , pp. 470-471.

Its Present Importance g

of the soul of ordinary men.” 1 When doubt adopts a more radical form, the old arguments naturally fail of their effect. Take another illus¬ tration of the way in which older lines of evidence have become antiquated. Formerly people were invited to see an argument for immortality in the grain of corn which dies in the earth to live anew, or in the chrysalis which dissolves in giving birth to the butterfly. Now we -are told the analogy is not in pari materia : we cannot fairly argue from certain transformations within the terrestrial order to something which lies beyond that order alto¬ gether.

The modern world is perplexed about many things, and it has a new sense of the difficulties that beset the conception of human immortality. It notes problems and discerns objections where formerly all seemed plain and easy. The free and uncritical use of analogy is made a special subject for comment. If there be a higher world, we are reminded, it cannot be depicted after the analogy of the things on earth. The religious imagination, it is complained, has gone to ex¬ travagant lengths in drawing a picture of the next world in terms of the present. This uncritical use of the imagination has no doubt provoked

1 F. C. S. Schiller, Riddles of the Sphinx , 2nd ed., p. 373. Of course, Dr. Schiller is not denying the doctrine of immortality here, but simply criticising a particular argument for it.

io Idea of Immortality

a reaction, and has probably accentuated the tendency to sceptical doubt or denial. The feel¬ ing is intelligible, and we must frankly admit that the other world can only be described, if described at all, in terms of thought and not of sense. In these circumstances it is not surprising that the whole conception of the future life has become a perplexing one to the critically minded in these days. The very difficulty we experience when we try to form a coherent notion of an im¬ mortal state of being engenders a feeling of uncertainty. For many it stands for a possibility merely, a hypothesis more or less plausible rather than an assured fact. The late Professor Huxley has told us that on this great subject we can have no knowledge ; and Herbert Spencer has spoken of immortality as an insoluble problem. It would be too much, I think, to say that the prevailing opinion on this topic among thinkers and men of science is one of dogmatic denial. But the attitude of many is that of nescience, and the tone of clear and confident hope is lacking.

But, it may be replied, the great body of ordinary people do not share the doubts and questionings of the cultured few. And it is true that, in this country at least, there is little sign of a deliberate and widespread abandonment of the doctrine. This, however, is not tantamount to saying that belief in immortality is an active and general belief, a belief which deeply affects life and conduct. Can we affirm that the subject of immortality is one which is much in the minds and thoughts of average men and women ? Can we honestly say that the belief intimately affects their daily ways of acting? I hardly think we can do so. A recent writer on the subject boldly asserts : “ While accepting a belief in immortality, and accepting the phrases and forms of the pre¬ vailing religion, an immense majority live practi¬ cally uninfluenced by it.”1 This may be too strongly put, but it seems to me we must at least admit that the men and women who do the world’s work are not much occupied with the thought of a future life. How different the feverish interest with which multitudes follow the fortunes of a war or watch the game of politics ! Nevertheless, one may draw a too unfavourable inference from this fact. To conclude that faith in immortality had become a faded superstition because it was not constantly on men’s lips, would be an error. One must remember that even though the modern citizen’s belief in immortality is real, by the force of circumstances mundane interests and events must largely fill his day. The struggle for existence and the urgent pressure of earthly needs claim the thoughts and engross the minds of most people, whatever view they 1 Osier, Science and Immortality , pp. 16-17.

take of the ultimate goal of life. ‘ The world is too much with us/ and we cannot help it : the work of the day and its multifarious tasks seem to interpose themselves between us and our clear vision of the spiritual world. The other-worldly element in piety fades into the background, and we hear much of a religion realised in common duties.

But though the idea of a future life cannot constantly fill the foreground of a busy man’s mind, it may form a stable background which silently yet steadily influences his outlook. With¬ out being a habitual object of thought, it may none the less operate continuously. Is what is possible also actual ? Does this great conception work in the popular mind to-day steadily directing the desires and governing the valuations of men ? In some cases it may do so ; yet it is hardly open to doubt that for many, perhaps for the majority in our age, the thought of a life hereafter has only a very slender influence. The interests and ideals of many seem to lie almost entirely within the mundane sphere, and it would not be easy to say in what way, if in any way, their ostensible belief in immortality acts on their lives. Our age is certainly a worldly one, and it is worth while considering for a little the causes that have made it so.

An outstanding feature of last century was the l3 marvellous application of scientific knowledge and technical skill to the exploitation of nature in the service of man. The vastly enhanced control of the forces of nature which has been the outcome of scientific insight and mechanical invention has multiplied the means of subsistence, and it has gradually transformed the organisation of society. Hence despite an ever-increasing population, there has been a growing standard of comfort ; and with the constant emergence of new wants there has gone the means of supplying them. Material progress during the last two or three generations has been very great, and it is based on the mechanical conception of nature success¬ fully applied to the subvention of human needs. The enormous development of modern industry was rendered possible by the triumphant use of the machine to do the work of many human hands. As we look around us one of the most striking things we see is the application of mechanical skill to supply the multifarious wants of daily life : everywhere we remark the successful application of mechanical means to the ends of productive activity. Now I do not raise at this stage the question of the adequacy of the mechanical view of things. It is a working conception of nature which, within its own limits, is entirely successful : it justifies itself by its results. On the other hand, it is a conception which in itself has no spiritual or ideal value : its primary use has been the manipulation of nature for the production of material goods and the furtherance of material interests.

The most we could claim for the mechanical conception of the world in relation to man’s higher good is, that it has helped indirectly to emancipate him from illusion and superstition. Over against this we have to set the fact, that the vast production of material goods and comforts, which has been rendered possible by mechanical science, has fostered the growth of worldliness and materialism. Nature at the bidding of science seemed capable of yielding so much, it ministered so abundantly to human comfort, that men became preoccupied with this world and felt little inclined to look beyond it. Man appeared so well able to win satisfaction for himself through the manipulation of nature, that he felt no com¬ pelling motive to turn away from this world to a good above it. One can understand that in such an atmosphere, though there was no deliberate adoption of materialism as a creed, and while religion in its conventional forms was always in evidence, there was none the less a serious im¬ poverishment of the spiritual life. Life lost in spiritual inwardness and depth: thought played on the surface of things instead of penetrating to the reality. Men dwelt comfortably in the realm of appearance ; they concerned themselves little with the realm of ideal truth. Hence the com¬ plaint that modern society is superficial, frivolous, and easy-going has had some justification. And yet how little avails it to run to and fro on the earth,

“And see all sights from pole to pole,

And glance, and nod, and bustle by,

And never once possess our soul Before we die ! ”

The dominant temper of our age has been selfish and worldly. Many appear in practice, if not in theory, to adopt the sober verdict of Hume in his unpublished Essay on Immortality : “ But if any principle of nature is clear, we may affirm that the whole scope and intention of man’s creation, so far as we can judge by natural reason, is limited to this life.”

This prevailing worldliness has gone hand in hand with religious indifference and a lack of interest in the ultimate destiny of the soul. When man’s treasure is on earth, his heart will be there also : if the mind is full of this world, there is no room for the thought of a higher one. Nor can we draw much comfort from the fact that dogmatic denial of a future life is relatively infrequent, when we know that the stress of earthly interests makes men ignore the question. It is hardly in the nature of things that the worldling should ‘ think nobly of the soul ’ ; and even if a form of belief linger on, still a belief which has no working value is doomed to fade and die. One cannot expect that a real faith in immortality will maintain itself, if that faith stands in no vital relation to life. In these circumstances the stupendous crisis through which the European nations have been passing, a crisis whose effects are felt intensely through the whole structure of society, may help to emphasise truths that have lately fallen into the background. The terrible catastrophe which has overtaken Western civilisation, involving as it has done the annihila¬ tion of millions of human lives as well as the unlimited destruction of material goods, is calcu¬ lated to make the most superficial pause and reflect. The unexampled waste of wealth and of individuals who create wealth has shown, as no mere argument could do, how precarious is man’s tenure of earthly things. Those who fondly supposed that modern civilisation ensured the continuous existence of a stable society which would duly conserve an abundant supply of temporal goods for human enjoyment have been rudely disillusioned. The boundless egoism and the fierce passions of the natural man have not perished : they are still powerful, and they have shaken to its foundations the existing order of society. The European war has demonstrated the awful danger which besets modern society,

Its Present Importance ij

when men and nations become indifferent to the ethical and religious values. If our modern civilisation is to be saved from the baser elements within it, it must be through the frank and full recognition that right is higher than might, and love is better than hate. These are times of sifting and testing, when we are called to ponder well the evil which the gospel of selfishness has brought upon the earth. It may be that Provi¬ dence is purifying the world as by fire, and that after these calamities the things which cannot be shaken will stand out with new clearness. These tragic experiences will carry an ennobling element within them, if they purge society of its grossness, and cause men to turn with a fresh devotion to the spiritual and eternal values. If life becomes plainer and in some ways harder, we shall thereby learn better the lesson, that “ man cannot live by bread alone.” To know how to put the things which matter in the first place is a knowledge that is of supreme importance ; and this knowledge springs from religion as an inner life of the soul. It is not, I think, too much to expect that the future will bring a revival of religious interest ; and it is religion which can deliver the world from the obstinate delusion that a full and satisfying good is to be found in this mundane order of things. If this be the movement of human minds in the days to come, it will carry with it a fresh sympathy and interest in the problem of immortality. For faith in the higher values means faith in the destiny of the human per¬ sonality which sustains and realises these values.

The question of immortality, it has already been said, is one of the most important of all questions. The acceptance or rejection of the idea, or indiffer¬ ence in regard to it, radically affects our attitude to life. It bears most intimately on our outlook on things, whether we have to take this present world as the only reality, or if we must regard it as a stage which leads up to some higher form of experience. There is no denying that the point is a vital one, whether or no the whole meaning of life is contained within the present spatial and temporal order. A man cannot be indifferent to the way in which these questions are answered without being indifferent to the highest human interests. Those who frankly face the problem will ask themselves whether man, in the striking phrase of Berkeley, is only ‘ a thriving earth-worm/ or whether he is the living centre of powers and aspirations which cannot find a full satisfaction in the mundane system of things, and therefore point beyond it. In the Essay from which we have already quoted, Hume boldly accepts the former alternative. “ The powers of man/’ he remarks, “ are no more superior to their wants, considered merely in this life, than those of foxes and hares are, compared to their wants and their period of existence. The inference from parity of reason¬ ing is therefore obvious.” 1 But the issue on which Hume spoke with such tranquil assurance is by no means so clear as he supposed. That man’s powers in no way exceed his earthly wants is a proposition no one is entitled to assume at the outset ; and even a brief consideration will make it plain that there is evidence which tells against it. If man were a purely mundane creature, then he ought to be content with his earthly environ¬ ment and satisfied with the goods it offers. But if we find that worldly gain and enjoyment do not satisfy him ; if there is a ‘ noble discontent ’ in human nature which material goods cannot assuage ; if the inner poverty of a purely earthly life provokes a reaction of the soul against it ; — if these things are true, then there is something in human experience that should make those pause who are tempted to conclude that this present existence is all. Now, that human life does reveal such features few will care to deny. That they carry us far in the direction of a doctrine of immortality we do not assert. But here are facts which do not fit in with the natural¬ istic scheme of things, and they point clearly to the conclusion that man is something greater than the natural order in which he appears. He is in 1 Edit. Green and Grose, p. 401.