Page images
PDF
EPUB

according to such method. The only cause adequate to produce all living organisms by any conceivable method is at spiritual, omniscient, omnipresent and omnipotent Creator. It is thus seen that the theory of the spontaneous generation of living things, even were it true, would not show that matter was the efficient cause of life, and failing in that it could. not prove the truth of materialism. But chemical and vital

The one builds
In

forces are so unlike in their action as to show an unlikeness in nature. They act in different ways, move in opposite directions, and produce different results. Vital force is constructive, chemical force is destructive; the vital is an organizing, the chemical a disorganizing, force. up an organism, the other disintegrates and destroys it. all the living processes of nature vital force controls, governs, and directs the chemical forces. The vital is master, and the chemical forces servants, in all the building and organizing work of Nature.3 Forces so unlike in their nature, action and function could not have been evolved the one from the other.4 Involution must be equal to evolution, because it is a self-evident proposition that from nothing nothing can come. Nothing can be evolved from matter that was not previously contained in it; and as life and mind are not essential properties of matter, they can never be evolved from it. This is selfevident. There is no known power or process in nature by which the living is derived from the dead without an act of divine creative quickening. Life is not the result of organization, but organization is the result of the action of life. Life is a force which reveals its presence by the production of living forms, vital organisms.5 It resists the action of chemical forces on living plants, animals and men, and at the same time directs them to co-operate with it in the construction of living forms.6

Life as it thus controls matter and governs physical forces, shows its superiority to matter, which would not be the case if the cause of all life was material. The origin of life is

Liebig's Chemistry.

4 Tideman's Physiology of Man, p. 14.

5 Liebig's Animal Chemistry. Paine's Institutes of Medicine, 112
6 Mulder's Chemistry of Vegetable and Animal Physiology, pp. 54–59,

spiritual, and its presence and power cannot be explained by the hypothesis of materialism. The theory that all mind is the result of the molecular activity of the brain, though held by some Christian scientists in common with materialists, tends to materialism. Professor A. E. Dolbeare, of Tufts College, says, "We find mind associated with matter, protoplasm in some form. We have no knowledge of mind apart from such association. And furthermore, wherever we find mind thus manifested we find an organ called a brain, made of nerve tissue of complex chemical composition, and furnished with a wonderful supply of blood vessels."7 If this statement of the Professor were true, it would only prove that brain structure and a nervous organization were necessary as instruments to the manifestation of mind, and not as the active cause in its creation. But the statement is not correct, for we find creative mind revealed or manifested in nature in the absence of brain structure. It is only true where we find mind manifested in connection with the living organisms of men or animals. It does not touch the larger question of the manifes ation of creative and controlling mind in the universe. But nature reveals the presence of mind in the wise, benevolent, orderly and harmonious movement of her forces, as really as man does in his rational actions. scious of mental action in either case. ence of mind because the actions of men and the move. ents of nature are rational. And brain structure is no more the cause of the presence of mind in man, than it is of the presence of mind in nature. Material forms are the instruments of the manifestation of mind in both.

We are not conWe infer the pres

The Professor thinks the instrumental relation of brain to mind will not account for the influence of food and stimulants on mental manifestations. But why not? The brain is a living organism, and food and stimulants wil! affect its action as a living organ, whether the relation of that action to the mind is instrumental or causal. Whatever disturbs the healthy and 7 UNIVERSALIST QUARTERLY for April, 1876, pp. 215, 216. 8 UNIVERSALIST QUARTERLY, April, 1876, p. 217.

normal action of the brain will modify the manifestations o mind as really if the brain were the instrument of thought, as it would if it were the cause of thought. If the brain manifest mind in thought, emotion and volition, it does it by action; and whatever disturbs this action will modify the mental manifestation. The effect of food and stimulants on the healthy action of the brain is the only question that the science of physiology can answer. Whether that action sustains a causal or instrumental relation to thought and its manifestation is a question of psychology and not of physiology. It is a question for philosophy, and not for science, for science deals only with phenomena. It is the function of philosophy to deal with causes. Physiology as a science can only deal with the functions of a living, material organism, and is, therefore, wholly incompetent to determine what is the cause of thought, emotion, volition and action. It can show the instrumental relation of brain to mind, but it cannot show any causal relation between the two. It can show, and has shown, by the researches of its most eminent investigators, that the brain is not the cause of mind. They have pointed to the fact that the very structure of the organ shows that it is an instrument of the mind and not its cause. The whole nervous system, the brain included, is a mechanism, and requires a force to move it. This force is mind.

This shows that the claim made by Professor Dolbeare and others in the interest of materialism, that the cause of mental phenomena is purely a question for physiologists,10 is unscientific and unphilosophical. Physiologists can study the phenomena of the material instrument of mind, but cannot determine the question of the spiritual cause of thought, emotion and volition. This is not a question of physiology alone. Psychology and philosophy must contribute something to the solution of the problem presented in the relations of body and mind. To qualify an author to speak with authority on this subject, he should not only be a physiologist, but a psycholo Draper's Physiology. Vol. i.; pp. 285, 287, 321.

10 UNIVERSALIST QUARTERLY, April, 1876, p. 119.

gist, and should not only understand science, but philosophy. There are investigators who have studied both sides of this problem, and have investigated the relations of mind and matter as philosophers and scientists, and from the standpoint of consciousness and physiology. Lotze of Germany, Carpenter, Beal and Murphy, of England, and Draper, Paine and Ray of America are writers of this class. They are men of large culture, large attainment, and profound erudition. Any one will be convinced of this who will carefully study their works. To my mind, their science, philosophy and logic are profound and convincing. The conclusions of such men eminent as scientific specialists cannot be set aside by the mere dictum of materialists. Only conclusive reasoning, established facts and verified hypotheses can do this. Materialism as a system of thought is not sustained by this class of evidence; and therefore is not prepared to meet and answer the arguments of these writers against its claims and theories.12

Dr. Draper, on the subject of the relations of brain and mind, states in his physiology, which is a work of recognized authority, that

The convolutions of the brain and other nervous arcs as structures are merely automatic, and it can display no phenomena as an organism of itself, but requires the influence of an external agent. If the optical apparatus be inert and without value save under the influence of light; if the auditory apparatus yields no result save under the impressions of sound; since there is between these structures and the elementary structure of the cerebrum a perfect analogy, we are entitled to come to the same conclusion in this instance as in those, and asserting the absolute inertness of the cerebral structure in itself, to impute the phenomena it displays to an agent as perfectly external to the body, and as independent of it, as light and sound, and that agent is the soul."

"And thus it may be proved that those actions which we term intellectual do not spring from mere matter alone, nor are they functions of mere material combinations; for though 11 See Lotze Lectures, Carpenter's Mental Physiology, Beal's Physical Theories of Life and Mind.

12 Murphy's Habit and Intelligence, Draper's Physiology, Paine's Soul and Instinct, Ray's Insanity.

it is indisputably true that mind seems to grow with the bodily structure and declines with it, exhibiting the full perfection of its powers at the period of bodily maturity, it may be demonstrated that all this arises from the increase, perfection and diminution of the instrument through which it is working. An accomplished artisan cannot display his power through an imperfect tool, nor if the tool should be broken or become useless through impairment, is it any proof that the artisan has ceased to exist; and so though we admit that there is a correspondence between the development of the mind and the growth of the body, we deny that it follows from that, either that the mind did not pre-exist, or that the death of the body implies its annihilation." "The physiologist admits the existence of an external nature, and recognizes equally the existence of an immaterial spirit, and to their action or relation to each other traces the resulting phenomena." 13

This is the language of a philosopher and scientist, and shows that in the judgment of an eminent physiologist, there is nothing in this science to support the claims of materialism. Its phenomena show that man is a spiritual and immortal being.

Dr. Draper, in meeting the charge that the study of physiology leads to materialism, says:

"But what if it should turn out that from the study of the cerebral mechanism, distinct proof can be obtained on this point,-proof of just as cogent a nature in support of the existence of the soul, as that which we have of the existence of the external world, and of precisely the same character." After describing the constitution of the nervous arc, he continues: "Thus constituted this mechanism is ready to receive external impressions, which, if such language may appropriately be used, are converted or reflected in part by the ganglions into motions, and the residue retained. But the arc, viewed by itself, is a mere instrument, ready, it is true, for action, but possessing no interior power of its own. It is as automatic as any mechanical contrivance in which, before a given motion can be made, a certain spring must be touched. The essential condition of the activity of such a nervous arc is, therefore, the presence and influence of an external agent -a something which can commence the primitive impression, for without it the mechanism can display no kind of result. 18 Draper's Physiology, pp. 285, 286, 287. VOL. XXI. 5

NEW SERIES.

« PreviousContinue »