按键盘上方向键 ← 或 → 可快速上下翻页，按键盘上的 Enter 键可回到本书目录页，按键盘上方向键 ↑ 可回到本页顶部！
————未阅读完？加入书签已便下次继续阅读！
on materialistic grounds； but this is altogether too hasty an assumption。 Our authors； indeed； are not philosophical materialists； like Dr。 Priestley；who nevertheless believed in a future life；but one of the primary doctrines of materialism lies at the bottom of their argument。 Materialism holds for one thing that consciousness is a product of a peculiar organization of matter； and for another thing that consciousness cannot survive the disorganization of the material body with which it is associated。 As held by philosophical materialists； like Buchner and Moleschott； these two opinions are strictly consistent with each other； nay； the latter seems to be the inevitable inference from the former； though Priestley did not so regard it。 Now our authors very properly refuse to commit themselves to the opinion that mind is the product of matter； but their argument nevertheless implies that some sort of material vehicle is necessary for the continuance of mind in a future state of existence。 This material vehicle they seek to supply in the theory which connects by invisible bonds of transmitted energy the perishable material body with its counterpart in the world of ether。 The materialism of the argument is indeed partly veiled by the terminology in which this counterpart is called a 〃spiritual body；〃 but in this novel use or abuse of scriptural language there seems to me to be a strange confusion of ideas。 Bear in mind that the 〃invisible universe〃 into which energy is constantly passing is simply the luminiferous ether； which our authors； to suit the requirements of their hypothesis； have gratuitously endowed with a complexity and variety of structure analogous to that of the visible world of matter。 Their language is not always quite so precise as one could desire； for while they sometimes speak of the ether itself as the 〃unseen universe；〃 they sometimes allude to a primordial medium yet subtler in constitution and presumably more immaterial。 Herein lies the confusion。 Why should the luminiferous ether； or any primordial medium in which it may have been generated； be regarded as in any way 〃spiritual〃？ Great physicists； like less trained thinkers； are sometimes liable to be unconsciously influenced by old associations of ideas which； ostensibly repudiated； still lurk under cover of the words we use。 I fear that the old associations which led the ancients to describe the soul as a breath or a shadow； and which account for the etymologies of such words as 〃ghost〃 and 〃spirit；〃 have had something to do with this spiritualization of the interstellar ether。 Some share may also have been contributed by the Platonic notion of the 〃grossness〃 or 〃bruteness〃 of tangible matter；a notion which has survived in Christian theology； and which educated men of the present day have by no means universally outgrown。 Save for some such old associations as these； why should it be supposed that matter becomes 〃spriritualized〃 as it diminishes in apparent substantiality？ Why should matter be pronounced respectable in the inverse ratio of its density or ponderability？ Why is a diamond any more chargeable with 〃grossness〃 than a cubic centimetre of hydrogen？ Obviously such fancies are purely of mythologic parentage。 Now the luminiferous ether； upon which our authors make such extensive demands； may be physically 〃ethereal〃 enough； in spite of the enormous elasticity which leads Professor Jevons to characterize it as 〃adamantine〃； but most assuredly we have not the slightest reason for speaking of it as 〃immaterial〃 or 〃spiritual。〃 Though we are unable to weigh it in the balance； we at least know it as a transmitter of undulatory movements； the size and shape of which we can accurately measure。 Its force…relations with ponderable matter are not only universally and incessantly maintained； but they have that precisely quantitative character which implies an essential identity between the innermost natures of the two substances。 We have seen reason for thinking it probable that ether and ordinary matter are alike composed of vortex…rings in a quasi…frictionless fluid； but whatever be the fate of this subtle hypothesis； we may be sure that no theory will ever be entertained in which the analysis of ether shall require different symbols from that of ordinary matter。 In our authors' theory； therefore； the putting on of immortality is in no wise the passage from a material to a spiritual state。 It is the passage from one kind of materially conditioned state to another。 The theory thus appeals directly to our experiences of the behaviour of matter； and in deriving so little support as it does from these experiences； it remains an essentially weak speculation； whatever we may think of its ingenuity。 For so long as we are asked to accept conclusions drawn from our experiences of the material world； we are justified in demanding something more than mere unconditioned possibility。 We require some positive evidence； be it ever so little in amount； and no theory which cannot furnish such positive evidence is likely to carry to our minds much practical conviction。
This is what I meant by saying that the great weakness of the hypothesis here criticized lies in its materialistic character。 In contrast with this we shall presently see that the assertion of a future life which is not materially conditioned； though unsupported by any item of experience whatever； may nevertheless be an impregnable assertion。 But first I would conclude the foregoing criticism by ruling out altogether the sense in which our authors use the expression 〃Unseen Universe。〃 Scientific inference； however remote； is connected by such insensible gradations with ordinary perception； that one may well question the propriety of applying the term 〃unseen〃 to that which is presented to 〃the mind's eye〃 as inevitable matter of inference。 It is true that we cannot see the ocean of ether in which visible matter floats； but there are many other invisible things which yet we do not regard as part of the 〃unseen world。〃 I do not see the air which I am now breathing within the four walls of my study； yet its existence is sufficiently a matter of sense…perception as it fills my lungs and fans my cheek。 The atoms which compose a drop of water are not only invisible； but cannot in any way be made the objects of sense…perception； yet by proper inferences from their behaviour we can single them out for measurement； so that Sir William Thomson can tell us that if the drop of water were magnified to the size of the earth； the constituent atoms would be larger than peas； but not so large as billiard…balls。 If we do not see such atoms with our eyes； we have one adequate reason in their tiny dimensions； though there are further reasons than this。 It would be hard to say why the luminiferous ether should be relegated to the 〃unseen world〃 any more than the material atom。 Whatever we know as possessing resistance and extension； whatever we can subject to mathematical processes of measurement； we also conceive as existing in such shape that； with appropriate eyes and under proper visual conditions； we MIGHT see it； and we are not entitled to draw any line of demarcation between such an object of inference and others which may be made objects of sense…perception。 To set apart the ether as constituting an 〃unseen universe〃 is therefore illegitimate and confusing。 It introduces a distinction where there is none； and obscures the fact that both invisible ether and visible matter form but one grand universe in which the sum of energy remains constant； though the order of its distribution endlessly varies。
Very different would be the logical position of a theory which should assume the existence of an 〃Unseen World〃 entirely spiritual in constitution； and in which material conditions like those of the visible world should have neither place nor meaning。 Such a world would not consist of ethers or gases or ghosts； but of purely psychical relations akin to such as constitute thoughts and feelings when our minds are least solicited by sense…perceptions。 In thus marking off the 〃Unseen World〃 from the objective universe of which we have knowledge； our line of demarcation would at least be drawn in the right place。 The distinction between psychical and material phenomena is a distinction of a different order from all other distinctions known to philosophy； and it immeasurably transcends all others。 The progress of modern discovery has in no respect weakened the force of Descartes's remark； that between that of which the differential attribute is Thought and that of which the differential attribute is Extension； there can be no similarity； no community of nature whatever。 By no scientific cunning of experiment or deduction can Thought be weighed or measured or in any way assimilated to such things as may be made the actual or possible objects of sense…perception。 Modern discovery； so far from bridging over the chasm between Mind and Matter； tends rather to exhibit the distinction between them as absolute。 It has； indeed； been rendered highly probable that every act of consciousness is accompanied by a molecular motion in the cells and fibres of the brain； and materialists have found great comfort in this fact； while theologians and persons of