Modern Atheism under its forms of Pantheism, Materialism, Secularism, Development, and Natural Laws

J >> James Buchanan >> Modern Atheism under its forms of Pantheism, Materialism, Secularism, Development, and Natural Laws

Pages:
1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 | 28 | 29 | 30 | 31 | 32 | 33

But the theory which supposes the soul to be extended and divisible, and
its ideas, feelings, and volitions to be extended and divisible also,
has given place to another, which does not represent the mental
qualities as inhering in every particle of the matter with which they
are associated, but rather as _the products of organization_, the
results, not of the atomic elements, but of the form, or figure, into
which they are cast. It seems to have been felt that it would be unsafe
to ascribe the power of thinking to every particle of the brain, and it
is now represented as the result or product of "the brain in action, as
light and heat are of fire, and fragrance of the flower."[171] This idea
is illustrated by a great variety of natural examples, in which certain
effects are produced by the _arrangement of matter,_ which could not be
produced by its individual particles, existing separate and apart, or
combined in other forms. Nor is this a new phase of the theory, or an
original discovery of the present age; it was familiarly known and fully
discussed[172] in the days of Clarke and Collins, and every similitude
which is now employed to illustrate it may be found dissected in their
writings. Collins had undertaken to prove that "an individual power may
reside in a material system which consists of separate and distinct
parts,"--"an individual power which is _not_ in every one, nor in any
one, of the particles that compose it, when taken apart and considered
singly:" and he had adduced as an example the very similitude which
Atkinson employs, namely, "fragrance from the flower;" for he adds, "a
rose, for example, consists of several particles, which, separately and
singly, want a power to produce that agreeable sensation we experience
in them when united." Other instances are given; such as "the power of
the eye to contribute to the act of seeing, the power of a clock to show
the hour of the day, the power of a musical instrument to produce in us
harmonious sounds;" these, he says, "are powers not at all resulting
from any powers of _the same kind_ inhering in the parts of the system;"
and he infers that "in the same manner the power of thinking, without
being an aggregate of powers of the same kind, may yet inhere in a
system of matter." But these examples, so far from confirming, serve
rather to confute, the theory in whose support they are adduced. Could
it be shown, indeed, that the eye possesses _in itself_ the power of
vision, and that sight results solely from its peculiar texture; or,
that a clock is really an "intellectual machine," and produces an
"intellectual effect;" or, that a musical instrument possesses in itself
the soul of melody, and is conscious of its own sweet sounds,--then it
might be possible to entertain the supposition that, _in like manner_,
an organized brain may have the power of producing thought, and feeling,
and will. But what is the matter of fact? Let Dr. Clarke's answer with
reference to the case of a timepiece suffice for all: "That which you
call the power of a clock to show the time of the day is evidently
_nothing in the clock itself_, but the figure and motion of its parts,
and, consequently, not anything of a different sort or kind from the
powers inherent in the parts. Whereas 'thinking,' if it was the result
of the powers of the different parts of the machine of the body, or of
the brain in particular, would be something really inhering in the
machine itself, specifically different from all and every one of the
powers of the several parts out of which it resulted; which is an
express contradiction, a supposing the effect to have more in it than
the cause." ... "That particular and determinate _degree of velocity_ in
a wheel, whereby it turns once round precisely in twelve hours, is that
which you call _the power of a clock_ to show the time of the day; and
because such a determinate velocity of motion is _made use of by us_ for
the measure of time, is it therefore really a new quality or power
distinct from the motion itself?" The same answer is equally applicable
to all the other examples, and it may be stated generally as amounting
to this, that "it is absolutely false in fact, and impossible in the
nature of things, that any power whatsoever should inhere or reside in
any system or composition of matter, different from the powers residing
in the single parts."[173]

The two great difficulties which adhere to the theory of Materialism,
and which must ever prove insurmountable, are these: first, to account
for the power of thinking by means of material atoms, which are
individually destitute of it; and secondly, to account for the unity and
continuity of human consciousness by means of material atoms which are
constantly undergoing flux and mutation. For the first end, recourse has
been had to the theory which ascribes the power of thinking, not to the
particles of matter, but to their order, arrangement, or organization;
and for the second, the continuous sense of personal identity is
supposed to be sufficiently accounted for by supposing that, as the
particles which compose the brain are changed, the retiring atoms leave
their share of the general consciousness as a legacy to their
successors. And both these expedients for surmounting the difficulty are
exquisitely caricatured in the "Memoirs of Martinus Scriblerus," in a
chapter which is justly described as "an inimitable ridicule on Collins'
argument against Clarke, to prove the soul only a quality." The Society
of Freethinkers, addressing Martinus, propose to send him an answer to
the ill-grounded sophisms of their opponents, and likewise "an easy
mechanical explanation of perception or thinking."--"One of their chief
arguments," say they, "is that self-consciousness cannot inhere in any
system of matter, because all matter is made up of several distinct
beings which never can make up one individual thinking being. This is
easily answered by a familiar instance. In every _jack_ there is a
_meat-roasting_ quality, which neither resides in the fly, nor in the
weight, nor in any particular wheel, of the jack, but is the result of
the whole composition.... And as the general quality of meat-roasting,
with its several modifications, does not inhere in any one part of the
jack, so neither does consciousness, with its several modes of
sensation, intellection, volition, &c., inhere in any one, but is the
result from the mechanical composition of the whole animal." And then,
in regard to the _second_ difficulty: "The parts," say they, "of an
animal body are perpetually changed, ... from whence it will follow that
the idea of individual consciousness must be constantly translated from
one particle of matter to another.... We answer, this is only a fallacy
of the imagination. They make a great noise about this _individuality_,
how a man is conscious to himself that he is the same individual he was
twenty years ago, notwithstanding the flux state of the particles of
matter that compose his body. We think this is capable of a very plain
answer, and may be easily illustrated by a familiar example. Sir John
Cutler had a pair of black worsted stockings, which his maid darned so
often with silk, that they became at last a pair of silk stockings. Now,
supposing those stockings of Sir John's endued with some degree of
consciousness at every particular darning, they would have been sensible
that they were the same individual pair of stockings, both before and
after the darning!"

The subject is here presented in a ludicrous point of view, and some may
doubt whether this is a legitimate method of treating it. But it should
not be forgotten that while _ridicule is no safe test of truth, it may
be the most effective exposure of nonsense and folly_.

SECTION III.

THE RELATIONS OF MATERIALISM TO THEOLOGY.

It has been generally felt and acknowledged, that the doctrine which
preserves the distinction between matter and spirit, body and soul, is
more in accordance with the truths of Natural and Revealed Religion,
than the opposite theory which identifies them; and that, on the other
hand, a profound and serious study of these truths has a tendency to
raise our thoughts above the low level of Materialism, and to direct
them to the contemplation of a higher and nobler world,--the world of
spirits.

There are many distinct points at which the theory of Materialism comes
into contact and collision with the truths both of Natural and Revealed
Religion. By a brief enumeration of these, the practical importance of
the subject may be clearly evinced.

1. The doctrine of "the immortality of the soul" is seriously affected
by the theory of Materialism. That there is _some_ connection between
the two is apparent from the very anxiety with which infidels have
labored to undermine the doctrine of "spirit," on purpose to get rid of
the doctrine of "immortality." But in stating the connection between
them, we must exercise the utmost caution, lest we should unwarily place
the truth on a precarious or questionable basis. In arguing for the
future life of the soul, as a doctrine of Natural Religion, some writers
have spoken as if they supposed that nothing more was needful to
demonstrate its "immortality" than the bare fact of its being
"immaterial," and that, by its very nature as "spirit," it is
indestructible by God Himself. Now, we do not hold that the mere proof
of its being an immaterial substance would necessarily infer its being
also immortal. For ought we know, the principle of life, sensation,
memory, and volition _may_ belong to an immaterial substance even in the
lower animals, who are not supposed to be immortal; and the only use
which we would make of its "immateriality" in connection with its
"immortality," is simply this,--that not being material, _its
destruction is not necessarily implied in the dissolution of the body_.
It is not in the metaphysical doctrine of its immaterial nature, but in
the practical evidence of its moral responsibilities and religious
capacities, that we find the most satisfactory natural proof of its
immortality. It is perfectly possible to hold, on the one hand, that all
"immaterial substances" are not necessarily indestructible; and yet to
hold, on the other hand, that _such_ an immaterial substance as the soul
of man is known to be,--endowed with conscience, with intelligence, with
affections and aspirations, with hopes and fears such as can find no
suitable object and no adequate range within the limits of the present
life,--must be destined to an immortal existence. The "immortality," for
which alone we ought to contend, is such as implies neither a necessity
of existence in the creature, nor its independence on the will of the
Creator. The _power_ of God to annihilate the soul is not called in
question, but the _purpose_ of God to make the soul immortal is inferred
from its nature and capacities, its aspirations and hopes and fears. And
all that is necessarily implied in the doctrine of what has been called
"the natural immortality of the soul" is well stated by Dr. S. Clarke,
when he says that, "the soul may be such a substance as is able to
continue its own duration forever, by the powers given to it at its
first production, and the continuance of those general influences which
are requisite for the support of created beings in general." Mr. Baxter,
acute and metaphysical as he was, placed the argument substantially on
the same ground. "It appears," he says, "that all substance equally, as
well material as immaterial, cannot cease to exist but by an effect of
infinite power.... The human soul, having no parts, must be
indissoluble in its nature by anything that hath not power to destroy or
annihilate it. And since it hath not a natural tendency to annihilation,
nor a power to annihilate itself, nor can be annihilated by any being
finitely powerful only, without an immediate act of the omnipotent
Creator to annihilate it, it must endlessly abide an active perceptive
substance, without either fear or hopes of dying through all eternity,
which is, in other words, to be immortal as to the agency of all natural
or second causes, that is, 'naturally immortal.'"[174]

When thus stated and limited, the argument is at once safe and valid. It
is first proved that the Mind is a "substance," living, perceptive, and
active, which is simple and indivisible, and not capable, like matter,
of being separated into parts possessing the same properties or powers;
and then this distinction betwixt mind and matter is applied to prove
that it cannot be _destroyed by dissolution_, as the body may be, but
that if it be destroyed at all, it must be by _annihilation_. But no
substance, material or immaterial, can be annihilated by any _finite or
second cause_; it can be annihilated only by the will of him who created
it; and the question respecting the soul of man remains, What are the
indications of God's will concerning it? When this question is seriously
entertained, we can hardly fail to see in the structure of its powers,
in the grandeur of its capacities, in the moral and responsible
consciousness which belongs to it, a strong presumptive proof of its
being His purpose that it should continue to live after the dissolution
of the body. The Metaphysical argument is sufficient to remove
preliminary objections, the Moral argument furnishes a presumptive
proof.

The theory of Materialism, as it assumes different forms, so it admits
of being associated with different views respecting the future
prospects of the soul. When it is held in its grossest form, it stands
in a relation of direct antagonism to the doctrine of "immortality," as
is apparent in the speculations of D'Holbach, Comte, and Atkinson, who
insist at large on the proof of Materialism on purpose to undermine and
overthrow the doctrine of Immortality. The theory of Materialism has
been maintained by Dr. Priestley and others, in conjunction with a
professed, and, as we believe, sincere belief in a future state of
rewards and punishments. The sleep of the soul during the interval
between death and the resurrection, and its ultimate awakening by an
immediate and miraculous interposition of Divine power, are equally held
to be true,--the one on the ground of a natural evidence, the other on
that of the authority of Revelation. But the natural evidence is
defective, since it depends entirely on the assumption that "thought" is
produced by and dependent on a certain material organization, without
which it could not exist; and the supernatural authority is still less
to be relied on, since it _seems_, at least, to recognize the existence
of disembodied spirits, and unequivocally declares that the soul cannot
be killed as the body may. If the soul be material, as Dr. Priestley
says it is, it must be, equally with the body, affected by the stroke of
death; yet our Lord says,--and His authority cannot be declined when the
doctrine of a future resurrection is made to depend on the mere
testimony of Scripture,--"Fear not them which kill the body, but are not
able to kill the soul; but rather fear Him which is able to destroy both
soul and body in hell."[175] And the soul is represented as existing in
a state of conscious happiness or misery, even during the interval
between death and the resurrection, in the parable of the rich man and
Lazarus, as well as in the statement of the apostle that "he was in a
strait betwixt two, having a desire to depart and to be with Christ,
which is far better."[176] In its most recent and refined form, the
theory of Materialism represents "mind" as a subtle product, evolved out
of matter, and destined to an endless existence,--an ever-ascending
progression; and in this form of it, the doctrine of a distinct,
personal immortality is, no doubt, far better preserved than in its
earlier and grosser forms, which spoke of the utter destruction of
individual consciousness at the hour of death, and of our material
particles passing merely into other kinds of organic or inorganic being.
But then, it is placed on a very precarious ground,--the mere
supposition of a material product, which can never be established by
proof, and which, if there were no other objection to it, might well
seem to be sufficiently discredited by the mere fact that it ascribes to
_the effect_ properties and powers, of a very high and peculiar order,
which do not exist in _the cause_.

2. The doctrine of "future rewards and punishments," or of "man's
responsibility" as a subject of the Divine government, is also
materially affected by the theory of Materialism, in some, at least, of
its forms. When it is connected, as it often has been, with the doctrine
of "Mechanical Necessity," which represents every thought, opinion,
emotion, desire, and habit, as the unavoidable result of mere physical
influences acting on the brain, and makes no account of the spontaneity
or freedom which belongs to man as an intelligent, moral, and
responsible agent, it is manifestly impossible to discover any ground
for the doctrine of future rewards and punishments. And accordingly,
D'Holbach, Comte, and Atkinson describe man as if he were the mere
creature of circumstances, and deny that his character could possibly
have been different from what it is. But even when it is not associated
with fatalism, the theory, which denies the distinct existence of the
soul as a substantive being, has a tendency to shake our belief in the
doctrine of a "future retribution," properly so called, since that
doctrine rests on the assumption of our continued personal identity, or
the unity and continuity of our consciousness, as dying yet immortal
beings; whereas, if there be no "soul," or substantive spiritual being,
and if the "body" be in a state of perpetual flux and mutation, it is
difficult to see how _the same being that sinned can suffer_, or how the
doctrine of "retribution," properly so called, can be consistently
maintained.

3. The doctrine of "the spirituality" of the Divine nature must be
seriously affected, in different ways, by the theory of Materialism.

It is said in Scripture that "God made man in His own image," and that
He "breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and man became a
living soul." Deny the existence of "spirit" or "soul," as God's living
image on earth, and what ground of evidence, or what help of analogy,
remains for either conceiving or proving aright the existence of Him who
is "a Spirit" and "the Father of the spirits of all flesh?" And if the
"spirituality" of the Divine nature be called in question, many of the
Divine attributes must also suffer; for it is only as "a spirit" that
God can be _omnipresent_, and his omnipresence is presupposed in his
_omniscience_ and _omnipotence_. For these reasons, we incur the
greatest risk of entertaining limited and false conceptions of God, by
obliterating the distinction between "matter" and "spirit."

It is, no doubt, competent, and it may even be highly useful, to
entertain the question, how far the theory of Materialism should be held
to affect the grounds on which we believe in a living, personal,
spiritual God? In answer to this question, we have no hesitation in
avowing our conviction that the theory of Materialism, however it may be
modified, has a tendency to impair the evidence of that fundamental
article of faith. God is "a Spirit," and man was made "in the image of
God." Take away all spiritual essences; reduce every known object in
nature to matter, gross or refined; let mental and moral phenomena be
blended with the physical, and what remains to constitute the groundwork
of a "spiritual" system, or to conduct us to the recognition of a
supreme, immaterial Mind? If the material body, with its peculiar
organization, be capable of producing human thought, and sufficient to
account for the intelligence of man, why may not the material universe,
with its mysterious laws and manifold forces, be held sufficient to
explain whatever marks of a higher intelligence may appear in Nature?
and why may we not at once embrace Pantheism, and conceive of God only
as "the soul of the world?" Dr. Priestley's reply to this question
appears to us to be a mere evasion of the difficulty. In treating of
"the objection to the system of Materialism derived from the
consideration of the Divine essence," he first of all premises that "in
fact we have no proper idea of any essence whatever; that our ideas
concerning 'matter' do not go beyond the powers of which it is
possessed, and much less can our ideas go beyond powers, properties, or
attributes with respect to the Divine Being;" and then adds, "Now, the
powers and properties of the Divine mind, as clearly deduced from the
works of God, are not only so infinitely superior to those of the human
mind, when there is some analogy between them, but so essentially
different from them in other respects, that whatever term we make use of
to denote the one, it must be improperly applied to the other." He
specifies several points of "essential difference" between the human and
the Divine mind: the _first_ is, the limited intelligence of the one as
contrasted with the all-comprehensive omniscience of the other; the
_second_ is, the omnipotence which belongs to God, and in virtue of
which He can produce, or annihilate, anything at His pleasure: the
_third_ is, that "the Divine essence cannot be the object of any of our
senses, as everything else that we call 'matter' is." And on these
grounds he concludes that "as the Divine powers, so the Divine nature,
must be essentially different from ours, and, consequently, no common
term, except such comprehensive terms as _being, nature_, &c., can be
properly used to express both." He further argues that "no proof of the
materiality of man can be extended, by any just analogy, to a proof or
evidence of a similar materiality of the Divine nature; for the
properties or powers being different, the 'substance' or 'essence' (if
it be any convenience to us to use such terms at all) must be different
also."[177]

Now, we conceive this to be a mere evasion of the real difficulty:
_first_, because the same mode of reasoning, if applied to the case of
the human mind, would equally serve to prove that _it_ should be
distinguished from matter: and, _secondly_, because the alleged
_differences_ between the human and the Divine mind, great and real as
we admit them to be, afford no better reason for calling God a "spirit,"
than that which may be found in the _resemblance or analogy_ between
created and uncreated intelligence. It is as true of the human as it is
of the Divine mind, that we know nothing of its essence, except what we
learn through its properties and powers, that "it cannot be the object
of any of our senses, as everything that we call 'matter' is," and that
if it be right to give different and distinctive names to substances,
expressive of their properties in so far as these are known to us, we
are warranted in calling the human soul a "spirit" and distinguishing it
from "matter," until it can be shown that the properties of both are
identical. If this be denied, we cannot see on what ground the
distinction between "matter" and "spirit" can be maintained with
reference to God Himself. Dr. Priestley founds, not on the _resemblance
or analogy,_ but on the _essential difference_, between created and
uncreated intelligence; but, in point of fact, the _difference_, great
and real as it is, has no bearing on the only question at issue; it is
the _resemblance or analogy_ between all thinking beings and the
Supreme Mind that suggests the reason for classing them under the same
category as "spirits," and that enables us to rise from the spiritual
nature of man to the spiritual nature of God.

The personality of God, as a living, self-conscious, and active Being,
distinct from the created universe and superior to it, is dependent on
the "spirituality" of His nature; and in so far as the latter is
affected by the theory of Materialism, the evidence of the former must
also be proportionally weakened. We find, accordingly, that many
Materialists have exhibited a tendency towards a Pantheistic theory of
nature, in which the material universe is conceived of as the "body," of
which God is the "soul." Some Materialists, indeed, have stopped short
of Pantheism; but this may have arisen from their being less consequent
reasoners, or more timid thinkers, than others who were prepared to
follow out their principles fearlessly to all their logical results;
for, assuredly, if there be no evidence sufficient to show that the
"mind" is distinct from the "body," it will require a very high kind of
evidence to make it certain that "God" is distinct from "Nature."

4. The theory of Materialism comes into direct collision, at several
points, with the doctrines of Revealed Religion.

The doctrine of Scripture in regard to the "human soul" is manifestly at
variance with that theory. In the earliest pages of Genesis, we have an
account of its creation, which, when compared with other statements and
forms of expression occurring elsewhere, seems very clearly to imply
that the "soul" is a distinct substantive being, possessing properties
and powers peculiar to itself, and, although now united to the "body,"
yet capable of existing apart from it, and destined to an immortal
existence hereafter.[178] That it is a distinct substantive being,
connected with the body, but not dependent on it, at least in the sense
of being incapable of existing apart from it, appears from various
testimonies of the inspired Word. God is there pleased to call Himself
"the Father of our spirits," and that, too, in contradistinction to "the
fathers of our flesh." "We have had fathers of our 'flesh' which
corrected us, and we gave them reverence; shall we not much rather be in
subjection unto the Father of 'spirits' and live?" He is called "the God
of the 'spirits' of all flesh," and "the Lord who formeth the 'spirit'
of man within him." The historical narrative, too, of man's creation,
which declares that he was "made in the image of God," and that his
"soul" was infused by an immediate Divine afflatus, seems to imply that
there is another and a higher relation subsisting between God and the
"soul" than any that subsists between God and "matter." In other
passages, the soul is expressly represented as distinct and different
from the body:--"Fear not them which can kill the 'body,' but are not
able to kill the 'soul.'" "Into thy hands I commit my 'spirit,'" said
our Lord, just as his proto-martyr Stephen said, "Lord Jesus, receive my
'spirit.'" There are other passages still which affirm the separate
existence of disembodied spirits: "Then shall the dust return to the
earth as it was, and 'the spirit,' shall return unto God who gave it."
"A spirit hath not flesh and bones as ye see me have." Nay, _spiritual
life_, such as clearly presupposes the continuance of conscious
existence, without interruption and without end, is said to be imparted
by Christ to his people:--"I am the resurrection and the life: he that
believeth in me, though he were dead, yet shall he live again, and
whosoever liveth and believeth in me _shall never die_."--"Whoso
believeth in me ... is passed from death unto life."[179] Life is said
to be already imparted, such a life as shall survive death, and
continue without interruption and without end; and surely this is
utterly inconsistent with that theory of Materialism which affirms,
either the annihilation of the "soul" at death, or even the cessation of
its conscious existence during the interval between death and the
resurrection.

Pages:
1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 | 28 | 29 | 30 | 31 | 32 | 33