The challenge of the war

Front matter

of Ihe War

HENRY FRANK

Copyriglit};^.

Preface

About twenty years ago I delivered a series of lectures on Immortality in New York City. The interest in the lectures was so pronounced that in response to requests I published a small pamphlet entitled "Scientific Demonstration of Immortality" (a misnomer, as on calmer and more serious investigation I discovered).

Some years later, 1909, I published "Modern Light on Immortality" in which I undertook to survey the entire historical origin and development of the conception and to question the attitude of recent science toward the problem.

That compelled me to write a larger and more thorough-going work to include the marvels of psychological and psychic phenomena. In that work I undertook to show how all those wonders could probably be explained by scientific laws recently discovered.

These two books aroused a considerable discussion,' especially because of my venturing to attempt an explanation of spiritism by natural law and because of the apparent proof of potential future life which the argument tentatively undertook.

Among the many interesting letters I received was one from Ernst Haeckel, the deservedly distinguished head of the German school of mechanistic Monism, which I herewith present:

vii

PREFACE

**Mr. Henry Frank, Author of 'Modem Light on Immortality/ etc., (N. Y.) Jena, Oct. 9, 1911.

**Most Respected Sir: — You had the goodness to send me your interesting work on * Immortality. ' As I have been sick for a long time and unfit for any occupation, I have just come sufficiently to myself to study your very learned work, and am able but now to express my thanks.

**In 'Part I' you have with great knowledge of the literature presented the historical development of the problems of Everlasting Life and in 'Part II* you have endeavored to harmonize the modem deductions of Philosophy and the science of Biology with the poetical imagery of the Future Life. With full recognition of your widespread scholarship, and the keenness of your speculations, nevertheless, I do not find that you succeed in your original 'New Solution of the Problem,' or that the reality of a peculiar 'Psychical Immortality' is scientifically demonstrated. As you are familiar with my own views as expressed in my 'Riddle of the Universe' (Chapter XI), I need not further analyze the difference between our conclusions. I am a Naturalist Monist and must regard activity of the soul (and all the phenomena of self-consciousness) as physiological functions of the 'Phronema;' namely the work of the neurons or phronetal cells, which compose the grey rind of our brains. In my 'Anthropogeny' ('Evolution of Man') I have shown how the identical organization and development of the brain, both in Man and in the other

viii

PREFACE

Mammals, are to be explained from tlie same physiological origin. As you are primarily a Theologian and a Metaphysician, therefore a Dualist (even as our friend, Paul Cams, in spite of his most excellent writings on Monism), it is inevitable that our final deductions should be opposed. When you have given many years to the exhaustive study of Biology, and examined into every treatise of Comparative Morphology and Physiology, you will even on the ground of your observations, very likely arrive at the identical Monistic convictions that I have. **With very great respect

''Yours faithfully,

''ERNST HAECKEL.''

In the present treatise I have undertaken to show that resting even upon Dr. Haeckel's own "exhaustive study of Biology and examination into every treatise of comparative Morphology and Physiology,'' the deductions which he himself makes negativing not only the probability but the possibility of an after existence cannot be accepted as logically valid or convincing. To this end I have analyzed and undertaken to prove the false conclusions to which both he and Dr. Ostwald and other mechanicians have been led by the interpretation which they place on their own scientific data.

In the second edition of my second work on Immortality (Psychic Phenomena Science and Immortality), I have included my replies to numerous other critics occupying some thirty pages, so I will make no further reference to them in this book. But I have

PREFACE

undertaken in the present volume to show how the stock arguments of scientific mechanism or materialism, do not disprove the possible truth of future existence, and have followed up the discussion by reenforcing the arguments based on recent discoveries, especially in physics and biology which seem to me to establish the logical possibility, not to say probability, of such an existence.

I have laid particular stress on the electron theory of thought which I think overcomes many difficulties involved in the problem. This theory is particularly elucidated in Chapters XXVIII and XXIX. In Chapter XXXI I have examined in detail Lodge's "Raymond" and carefully weighed its alleged evidence of personal continuity after death.

Foreword

(Written before the signing of the Armistice.)

At no time in the world's history, perhaps, has the mind of man been so riveted on the problem of death and its possible issue, as at present.

The greatest and most destructive war in the annals of time is devouring more millions of human beings than, a few centuries ago, existed on the entire planet.

This gigantic holocaust has left its wounds and scars in almost every household of the earth. From the farmost distance of the sometime effete Orient, to the pulsing conjSnes of the Occident, the flames of the vast conflagration have spread and engulfed inconceivable hordes of human beings in their grasp.

In normal times the average death rate runs from 16 to 20 per thousand of the population. But when in the course of only four years 25,000,000 casualties have been registered, with millions more each year to be hurled into the hungry maw of death, it need not surprise us that humankind stand aghast at the edge of the grave and gaze, with startled eyes, into its mysterious gloom, praying that some voice may arise to give consolation and hope to the bereaved and mourning.

Whether humanity will, in consequence, regain a new assurance of the after life, because of this universal tragedy, or whether the gloom and agony will

xi

FOREWORD

tend to increase doubt and despair, is the problem that addresses itself to every thinking person.

There are those who approach the subject, in the face of the universal woe, with awakened emotions that give wings to sorrow and suffer it to soar away to realms of prophetic bliss. Some of those who have returned from the front bring tales of the rejuvenescence of faith, of the deepening desire for an after life, and of a disposition to return to orthodox forms of belief.

Such individuals, as Harry Lauder, for example, whose heart has been very tenderly affected by his own sad experience, come with words of universal assurance upon their lips, and declare that the war has overcast the grave with golden beams of promised joy and beauty.

The thrilling thought, he asseverates, that is now sweeping the trenches, is that death has lost its sting and the grave its victory, because the boys on the battlefield now know that life here is but the doorway to a life to come.

Other writers who have not been at the front and still cling to their prepossessions, such as Ernst Haeckel, the German scientist, look on this increase of death but as a natural phenomenon and calculated to awaken no profounder contemplations of future possibilities, than the sudden casualties that befall earthquakes, or other disasters on land and sea.

Nevertheless, we cannot refrain from realizing that such declarations, whether of faith or doubt, are chiefly the articulation of emotions or predispositions

xii

FOREWORD

that lie deeply buried in the breast, and whether or not they truly reflect the verity which inheres in Nature as the Supreme Fact, is the last and stupendous problem that must finally be solved.

For what reckons it, or what ultimate value, that we are told this or that, that one speaks of increased faith and exalted anticipations of a coming paradise, made more vivid by the gloom and horror of war; or whether they proclaim a profounder doubt than ever before, because Nature or God suffers such an incalculable slaughter of human beings, and thus, by implication, demonstrates the cheapness of life and its indifferent abandonment ?

After all, these are but emotional expressions or vain contemplations; crude deductions based on vague scientific data or insecure and unfounded imagination.

Confronting the appalling conditions that now affright the world, and halted by the serious misgivings that beset the race, the author has undertaken calmly, and without bias or predilection, to ask, once again, for an utterance of Nature herself, and the revelation of the truth that inheres in her laws.

Believing that this problem can never be solved save as Nature herself shall solve it for us, when we shall acquire such a discernment of her secret as shall be clear and indubitable, he has set before himself the arduous task of analyzing every scientific objection which in the name of Nature has been proclaimed against the possibility of an after life; and having traversed this far-reaching historic research, he finally

FOREWORD

attempts to show wherein Nature, evinced in the discoveries and logical deductions of science, presents genuine grounds for hope, at least, whereon Man may build a faith that need not rest on slipping sands.

XIV

By Herewaed Carrington, Ph. D.

The point-of-view assumed by Dr. Henry Frank, in his book, seems to me to be an eminently sound and sensible one; and it is one, moreover, which has seldom been taken in the past by psychical researchers, or by those who write upon this subject. Yet it is one, nevertheless, which has been sorely neglected in the past — I refer to the attempt here made to show the relationship between psychical and supernormal phenomena, and general scientific facts, as accepted today by orthodox science. All scientific advance has been made by the process of dovetailing the unknown into the known, and showing their points of connection, and their relationship ; and unless this connection can be shown at one point, or a series of points, the facts in question remain outside the field of legitimate science, and inexplicable. One of the chief objections to psychic phenomena has always been that they are contrary to the laws of Nature; they are contrary to accepted facts ; and until some connection can be shown to exist between these phenomena and the ordinary facts of science, this attitude of scepticism will probably continue to prevail.

How is this deadlock ever to be broken ? Doubtless, in the first place, by the accumulation of more facts and facts which are better attested ; and in the second place, by showing that these phenomena are not out-

XV side the laws of Nature and inherently impossible, but, rightly understood, are possibly scientifically explicable, and related in some hitherto unsuspected manner with other well-known phenomena.

Now, this is just what Mr. Frank has endeavored to do, to a certain extent, in the book before us, and this is the sort of effort which is surely in the right direction. This most interesting book is not only of value intrinsically, but because of the bold attitude assumed in relation to the facts discussed within it.

If psychic phenomena exist, they must bear some relation to the facts of biology, physics, chemistry, and other sciences. In some way, they must be connected with them; or at least their possible correlations should be investigated. Approaching the problems of psychical research from the standpoint of the official sciences is one of the surest ways of understanding them.

Now, although I cannot agree with all Mr. Frank's views, as will be seen later on, yet I none the less believe that the author of this book has contributed one of the most thoughtful and illuminating works so far issued upon this subject. And particularly I would commend his attitude towards Vitalism, which he has enunciated and defended quite fully in Chapter XV and elsewhere throughout this book. While it is true that many facts have, of late, been adduced in favor of the mechanistic interpretation of life, and numerous well-known authors have defended this view, it is none the less true that the distinct tendency of modern biology is towards some form of vitalism ; and the work of Bergson, Lodge, Driesch

xvi and others, has given this belief a new and a stronger foothold than it has enjoyed for many years. Professor E. B. Wilson, indeed, the eminent biologist, has lately asserted that :

* * .... The story of the cell has on the whole seemed to widen rather than to narrow the enormous gap that separates even the lowest forms of life from the inorganic word." {The Cell, p. 434.)

This question — of the nature of the life force — is a far more important one, both theoretically and practically, than most researchers are aware of. Whether or not life can exist apart from the body is, of course, the great crux of modern science. The mechanistic view is that vitality — life — is associated with the functioning of the nervous system, and indeed is its product, so that all talk of life existing apart from nervous tissue is so much rubbish. If it were definitely proved, however, that such was actually the case — that life could exist apart from matter and a material organism, it would give us a tremendous leverage, and a vital point of attack upon the mechanist — just as the phenomena of thought-photography seem to show the possibility of thoughts existing apart from brain activity, as Mr. Frank has said in his book. This question of the nature of the vital energy within us is so important, indeed, that, as I have contended elsewhere: *'When the phenomena of psychical research come to be generally accepted, we shall have to recast many of our conceptions and beliefs, and one of the first of these will be our idea of vitality and the life force. Much hinges on this for psychic research, and, if its advo-

xvii eates could but see it, the battle might be practically won on this issue alone." The reason for this is simply that we have ia this way a very good chance of proving that life can exist apart from nervous tissue ; and if that should ever be demonstrated, then good-bye to the older mechanistic views of life, and its nature and connection with the organism!

In discussing the question of immortality — or rather the natural indestructibility of the cell and of protoplasm, Mr. Frank has quoted the work of Weismann, Loeb, and others ; and it is indeed curious to note the attitude assumed by many of these men — the most rigorous and eminent men of science today — with regard to this problem. Many biologists could be found who would declare that there is no known reason why the human organism should ever wear out and die, since it has somehow learned to repair itself. But their arguments have (perhaps naturally enough) never gained wide acceptance in accredited circles, and the bare fact that all men do die seemed completely to refute their views. Yet, as Mr. Frank has shown, the death of the body is in a sense as mysterious as its life; and J. Loeb, for instance, in his latest work, ^^TKe Organism as a Whole/* says: —

^ ' The idea that the body cells are naturally immortal, and die only if exposed to extreme injuries, such as prolonged lack of oxygen or too high a temperature, helps to make one problem more intelligible. . . . It seems indeed uncanny that so delicate a mechanism (as the heart) should function so regulary for so many years. The mysticism connected with this and other phenomena of adaptation would disappear if

xviii we would be certain that all cells are really immortal, and that the fact which demands an explanation is not the continued activity but the cessation of activity in death. Thus we see that the idea of the immortality of the body cell, if it can be generalized may be destined to become one of the main supports for a complete physico-chemical analysis of life phenomena, since it makes the durability of organisms intelligible." (pp. 32-33.)

Thus the whirligig of Time justifies even our veriest dreams !

Mr. Frank is, I believe, quite right in arguing for a certain form of dualism — a belief which is also gaining wider and wider acceptance in the scientific and philosophical worlds. The logical monistic doctrine has such inconsistencies within itself, when analyzed, that one wonders why men ever accepted it as they have done — not as theoretical ultimate belief, but as a practical and immediate working theory. The only reason for their belief, it seems to me, lies in the fact that it has presented the only immediate alternative to admitting some form of dualism, with all that implies — and Orthodox Science would do anything but that! Yet it is quite possible that science will one day, in the near future, prove dualism to be a fact; and then all the metaphysical and philosophical arguments which have been advanced in the past will have to be relegated to the scrap heap, like so many other *^ worldtheories" of the past, — all of which were the accepted and respectable theories of their own day and time.

In Chapter XX, Mr. Frank has argued for the

XIX necessity of conceiving some sort of ether vehicle or intermediary between the mind and the body, enabling the former to act on the latter; and in this he is, I believe, quite right. He has also endeavored to state in what this vehicle consists. It is a sort of etheric organism, possibly radio-active in character. So far I might follow Mr. Frank ; but when he contends that radio-activity also 7^ the thought and consciousness behind this organism, animating and inhabiting it, I must indicate my dissent. I may have misunderstood Mr. Frank's argument in some important particular, but it seems to me that while the expression or manifestation in the physical or etheric world might be designated as radio-active — that is, its outward manifestation or expression, — the essence of the thought is something quite different from that, lying in the psychological world, and not in the physical world at all. All that we know of the physical energies in our universe goes to show that they are blind; that they can be directed or manipulated; but are not of themselves conscious or mental in essence. It is the same here. Mental energy might conceivably be brought within the law of the conservation of energy, in some form or another, — as Ostwald and others have lately tried to show, in their doctrine of * ' Energetics ; '' but they have one and all neglected to include, in their conception of the facts, the noumenon, the inner meaning or essence of the thought. As Dr. MacDougaLL pointed out and insisted upon so strongly (in his Body and Mind) meaning is that which distinguishes thought from all else; and he is even inclined to defend the view that meaning, as such, has no cerebral correlate or equivalent! This being true, it seems to me that meaning, the inner essence of thought and consciousness, can no more be attributed to radio-activity than to any other form of physial energy in this world; since it is no more distinctly psychological than they/ With this reservation, however, I may say that I consider Mr. Frank *s views and analogies both ingenious and illuminating; and more than that, very probably right, — as recent investigations in the field of psychism have shown.

Mr. Frank has rightly drawn attention to the fact that the newer electric theories of matter have not, as yet, sufficiently modified the other practical sciences — such as medicine — which nevertheless deal with matter, but continue to regard it in the older light of material substance, — on the older atomic view. Dr. Albert Abrams, of San Francisco, has well pointed out, in his Spondylotherapy and elsewhere, that the new theories of matter should have profoundly modified the practice of medicine, — since the body can no longer be regarded as a mere bundle of matter, but rather as the expression of electrons, which constitute the atoms and molecules of its structure. An electrical theory of medicine should therefore replace, to a very large extent, the older class physical views; the body should be regarded as an electric, rather than a physical, organism. This being so, a profound change in our views as to treatment should have resulted ; but, as a matter of fact, such changes have not as yet been observed in any branch of med-

1 See my comment, Appendix "A" (Author).

XXI ical literature, save only in a limited circle, and among electrical specialists.

The author of this book is assuredly correct in maintaining that the older philosophical and ethical and moral arguments, aiming to prove immortality are quite incapable of performing that task, — just as the older teleological and orthodox arguments were. As Professor Hyslop has remarked, "Philosophy is useless and helpless for proving a future life. ' ' We might thereby raise a presumption in its favor; we cannot offer proof, and proof is what is wanted. In an argument of this kind, we must appeal to facts and facts alone, and meet the sceptic upon his own ground, and better him with weapons of his own choosing. This is the ad hominem argument. We must use it in dealing with this question. Are there or are there not facts which go to prove survival? We do not want inferences; we want demonstration.

This demonstration Mr. Frank has tried to make in the present volume, and he has made the attempt from a rather novel standpoint. Arguing from the duly accredited facts of biology, physics, chemistry, etc., he has sought to show that these very facts, — rightly interpreted, and extended as we have a right to extend them, — prove that ''something" in man survives the shock of death — and hence that death does not end all in the sense that the materialist would contend. But what is this "something" which survives? Is it the personality itself — the friend we once knew on earth? or is it some fragment of that personality? or is it a mere persistence of a form of energy, which continues to persist for some time after

xxii

INTEODUCTION

the destruction of the body, merely by reason of its own inertia and momentum, — in much the same way that a train continues on its way for some time after its power has been shut off, merely by reason of its impetus and velocity? Well, it seems to me that this is the very question at issue, and which can only be solved by continued experiment and research, carried over a number of years — such experiments as the psychical researchers are now carrying on, and which the spiritualists, theosophists and others are also making in their own way. Again, it will be seen, we have a question of fact.

After all, Christianity itself is founded not upon moral or ethical teachings, nor upon the Bible; but upon a psychical phenomenon — a fact. In the resurrection of Christ we have this fact — this psychical phenomenon; and St. Paul himself said that: **If Christ be not risen, then is our preaching vain, and your faith is also vain/' (I. Corinthians, XV., 14). That is precisely the view of the psychical researcher, and could not express it more exactly. All scientific religion must depend upon evidence, and scientific evidence at that. That is why Mr. F. W. H. Myers called psychical research **The preamble to all religions.'' That is why Mr. Gladstone, in his oft-quoted remark, spoke of it as '*The most important work in the world today — ^by far the most important."

It is just here, however, that Mr. Frank and I again find ourselves in some form of disagreement. For he says in Chapter XXVII: **I believe that the further investigation and test of this principle in connection with the marvelous claims made by spiritists

xxiii and psychics will show that they bear no relation whatever to the world of spirits or anything contrary to the discovered laws of matter, and are amenable to the same planetary laws of existence." And again: ' ' It is incumbent on the medium to prove the identity of the professed personality, which has thus far been quite an impossible achievement. ' ' And again : * * One may therefore accept the hypothesis of the continuity of thought-forms, and even spirit-personalities, without at the same time being compelled to accept the hypothesis of spirit return or the genuineness of spirit communion. Even though the personality may survive, we have yet no proof that such personality may communicate thoughts to the dwellers in the flesh ; for as far as we have been able yet to discover, all the communications are but repetitions of thoughts once existing in the minds of those who at one time dwelt on the earth; and, palpably, if they communicate other thoughts, then we are unable to determine that the personality sending such thoughts is the same as it may pretend to be, namely a spirit of one who once dwelt on earth. Here is the great bridge to be crossed in the problem of psychic phenomena: and until the evidence of identity can be demonstrated to be absolute, or at least as convincing and conclusive as what is demanded in a court of justice, we do not seem to be justified in accepting any alleged proofs of such intercommunication."

Much that Mr. Frank says here is doubtless true; communications in the past which are in any way convincing are indeed rare; the problem involved is the crux of psychics. At the same time, I contend

xxiv that the question can only be solved satisfactorily in this manner and in none other. We can only prove the actuality of ''spirits" by their communications — by getting them to communicate with us through the instrumentality of mediums or psychics, and proving their identity. If they fail to do so, the whole case remains ''unproven," as the Scotch would say. And I would be the last to say that this stage of uncertainty has as yet been passed. At the same time, I cannot but feel that the method is the correct one; and that actual proof can come in no other way. Mr. Frank himself seems to admit this in speaking of thought-photography, for here he says: **That fact (of thought-photography) once established would lead to the question of the continuity and possible perpetuation of such external thought-forms, and the possibility of an aggregation of such thought-forms in an ultra-material substance that might constitute a personal frame for future existence." Quite so. The continuity of thoughts after the destruction of the physical brain. But that is simply the problem in different words. If any such entity continues to exist, what is to prevent its communication with those still in the flesh, — ^provided it can find a suitable instrument to render such communication possible ? In other words, why should not spirit-communication be a fact,^ — once granted the existence of some form of spirit?

Of course, it is all a question of evidence, of fact. Have such communications taken place; are they

2 Not necessarily a fact — but a possibility. (The author.)

XXV taking place now? Many answers would be given to this question: A positive **Yes*' from the spiritualist ; a positive " No " from the materialist and the sceptic; and all the various grades of hesitation and doubt between. It is a question of evidence — and individual experience and prejudice. What will convince one may often not convince another. And I think Mr. Frank is quite right in saying that positive evidence of the sort desired is very rarely (he says never) obtained. I quite agree with him, also, in his analysis of certain cases recently published, in which he shows their inherent weakness — particularly the evidence brought forward by Sir Oliver Lodge in his book ''Raymond,'* which I myself have elsewhere critisized, coming to the conclusion that there is really no good evidence at all here in favor of spirit return. I, myself, however, should be inclined to attach greater weight to pure chance coincidence and guessing, in this case, than Mr. Frank has done, — since it would be quite possible to produce any number of "photographs'* of this description — every group of oflScers who went to the front has probably had one or more such photographs taken, in much the same form of grouping. The evidence as it stands, in this case, is extremely weak.

In conclusion, I wish to state that I believe Mr. Frank has, in his book, summed up the evidence both pro and con, in relation to accepted scientific facts and their bearing upon the great question of survival, in a thoroughly interesting, scholarly and instructive manner; and has thrown many illuminative side-lights upon the questions involved. If he differs

xxvi in some respects from the present writer, that is only to be expected in so involved and problematical a field as this ; but on the other hand, our agreement is very close in aU the main issues involved. Mr. Frank has approached these baffling questions from the point-ofview of physical science, and has taken no step which was not justified by the facts, — save here and there, where he has ventured upon hypothesis — ^which is the privilege of all original thinkers and writers. Mr. Frank's book deserves to be widely read and appreciated, and it is in the hope that this will be the case that I am pleased to furnish my mite in the way of drawing attention to it by recommending it as a scholarly and interesting resum6 and presentation of the views of modern thought upon that most vital of all modern questions — one which should be foremost in the minds of all thinking persons at the present time, viz. : Can Science Answer the Riddle of the Grave ?