C. J. Ducasse - A Critical Examination of the Belief in a Life After Death

7/31/2019 C. J. Ducasse - A Critical Examination of the Belief in a Life After Death

1/171

C.J.Ducasse-ACriticalExaminationoftheBeliefinaLifeAfterDeath

Publisher:CharlesCThomasPublished:1961Pages:318Availability:OutofPrint-----------------------------------------------Preface

PART1:Immortality,ReligionandScience

Chapter1:BeliefandDisbeliefinaLifeAfterDeathChapter2:ReligionandtheBeliefinaLifeAfterDeathChapter3:TheCaseAgainstthePossibilityofaLifeAfterDeath

PART2:TheKeyConcepts

Chapter4:Whatis"Material";andWhatis"Living"?Chapter5:Whatis"Mental"?Chapter6:Whatis"AMind"?

PART3:TheRelationBetweenMindandBody

Chapter7:WhatWouldEstablishthePossibilityofSurvival?Chapter8:MindConceivedasBodilyProcesses;MatterConceivedasSetsofIdeasChapter9:TwoVersionsofPsycho-physicalParallelismChapter10:Mindas"TheHaloOvertheSaint"Chapter11:Hypophenomenalism:TheLifeofOrganismasProductofMindChapter12:MindandBodyasActingEachontheOtherChapter13:Lamont'sAttackonMind-BodyDualism

PART4:DiscarnateLifeAfterDeathandtheOstensiblyRelevantEmpiricalEvidenceforit

Chapter14:VariousSenseoftheQuestionRegardingSurvivalAfterDeathChapter15:SurvivalandParanormalOccurrences

Chapter16:ParanormalOccurrences,ScienceandScientistsChapter17:InstancesofOccurrencesPrimaFacieIndicativeofSurvivalChapter18:AdditionalOccurrencesRelevanttotheQuestionofSurvivalChapter19:HowStandstheCasefortheRealityofSurvival

PART5:DiscarnateLifeAfterDeathandtheOstensiblyRelevantEmpiricalEvidenceforit

Chapter20:TheDoctrineofReincarnationintheHistoryofThoughtChapter21:DifficultiesintheReincarnationHypothesisChapter22:IncompetentKindsofEvidenceforandAgainstReincarnationChapter23:VerificationsofOstensibleMemoriesofEarlierLivesChapter24:RegressionstothePastThroughHypnosis

Chapter25:TheCaseof"TheSearchforBrideyMurphy"Chapter26:HowStandstheCasefortheRealityofSurvivalasReincarnation?------------------------------------------------Preface

THEQUESTIONwhetherthereis,orcanbe,orcannotbealifeafterdeathfortheindividualisseldomformulatedunambiguously,orapproachedwithagenuinelyopenmind,ordiscussedobjectivelyonthebasisoftherelevantempiricalortheoreticalconsiderations.Personsinwhomsurvivalafterdeathisana


2/171

rticleofreligiousfaithgenerallyassumethatitandotherdogmasoftheirreligionare,assuch,authoritative;andhencethatthepointofengagingindiscussionsofthematterisnottotrytofindoutwhetherornotsurvivalisafact,butonlytoconvinceothersthatitisafact-oratleasttoshowthemthatthereasonswhichleadthemtodoubtortodenyitareinvalid.

Persons,ontheotherhand,whohavehadtraininginscience,oratleastthoseamongthemwhodonotlayasidetheirscientifichabitsofthoughtwhensubjectsreputedlyreligiousareconcerned,commonlytakeitforgrantedtodaythattheprogressofphysiologicalandbehavioristicpsychologyhasfinallyprovedthattheconsciousnessandpersonalityofmanis-astheyarewonttophraseit-afunctionofthenervoussystemandofcertainotherconstituentsofthelivinghumanbody;andhencethattherecannotpossiblybefortheindividualanylifeorconsciousnessafterthebodyhasdied.

ApositioninsomewaysintermediatebetweenthetwojustdescribedisthatoftheSpiritistsorSpiritualists.Survivalofthepersonalityafterdeathisheldbythemtobenotanarticleoffaithbutamatterofknowledge.Thatis,theyholditassomethingforthetruthofwhichtheyhaveadequateempiricalevidenceinthecommunications,receivedthroughthepersonstheycallmediums,thatpurporttoemanatefromthesurvivingspiritsofthedeceased.Thus,irrespectiveofwhetherornotthatevidencereallyproveswhatitisallegedtoprove,thefactthatempirical-ormorespecificallytestimonial-evidenceiswhatSpiritualistsappealtoforsupportoftheirbeliefmeansthat,insofar,theyconceive

thequestionofsurvivalasascientificratherthanasareligiousone.Ontheotherhand,twofactorshavecooperatedinmakingSpiritismorSpiritualismclaimforitselfalsothestatusofareligion.Oneofthesefactorshasbeentheneedtoprotecttheactivitiesofmediumsfromtheapplicationofordinancesorlawsagainstfortune-telling.Theotherhasbeenthat,becauseofthewidespreadvaguenessastowhatquestionsareorarenotessentiallyreligious,andbecauseofthefactthatmostreligionshaveassertedthatthereisfortheindividualalifeafterdeath,thereforebelieforknowledgeastosuchlifehasuncriticallybeenassumedtobereligiousinherently,ratherthanperhapsonlyinstrumentally.

Inthepresentbook,thequestionastothepossibility,reality,orimpossibili

tyofalifeafterdeathisapproachedwithoutcommitment,explicitorimplicit,toanyoneofthethreepositionsconcerningitjustdescribed.Whatthebookattemptsisaphilosophicalscrutinyoftheideaofalifeafterdeath.Thatis,itattemptstosetforth,asadequatelyaspossible,thevariousquestionswhich,onreflection,ariseonthesubject;topurgethembothofambiguityandofvagueness;topointoutwhatconnectionthesubjectdoes,anddoesnot,havewithreligion;toexaminewithoutprejudicethemeritsoftheconsiderations-theologicalorscientific,empiricalortheoretical-whichhavebeenallegedvariouslytomakecertain,orprobable,orpossible,orimpossible,thatthehumanpersonalitysurvivesbodilydeath;tostatewhatkindofevidencewould,ifweshouldhaveit,conclusivelyprovethatahumanpersonality,orsomespecifiedcomponentofit,hassurvivedafterdeath;andtoconsiderthevarietyofformswhichalifeafterdeath,ifany,couldwithanyplausibilitybeconceivedtotake.

Needlesstosay,thisambitiousprogramisnotlikelytobecarriedthroughwithcompletesuccess.Nor-inviewoftheprejudicesandthewishfulthinkingeitherontheprooronthecontrasidewhichinfectthegreatmajorityofpersonswhotakesomeinterestinthequestion-ismuchofwhatwillbesaidlikelytobefoundagreeablebyallreaders;forthesacrednessofanumberofthe"sacredcows"whichhaveinfluencedthebeliefsordisbeliefsentertainedonthesubjectofsurvivalafterdeathwillhavetobequestioned.

Moreover,atafewplaces,theissuestobeconsideredcannot,bytheirverynat


3/171

ure,bediscussedwithanyprospectofdecidingtheminaresponsiblemannerunlesstheyarefirstformulatedwithgreaterprecision,andtheirimplicationsthendevelopedmorerigorously,thanhasusuallybeendoneindiscussionsofthequestionastoalifeafterdeath.Butprecisionandrigor-evenwhenutmostcareistaken,asitwillbe,tomakeitsliteraryformaspsychologicallypainlessaspossible-entailstheneedonthereader'spartofcloserattentionthanmanyarewillingtogive.Foritismucheasiertojumptoconclusionsthantodrawthemresponsibly-tojumptoconclusionsprovidedtheybefavorable,ifoneismovedbywishtobelieve;ortojumptoconclusionsprovidedtheybeadverse,ifoneismovedbywishtodisbelieve.

Theissuesinvolved,however,areultimatelysoimportantthatwishfulthinking,oneitherside,will,tothebestoftheauthor'sability,beexcludedinthisbookfromhisconsiderationoftheirmerits.

Theauthor'sobligationstotheworksofthevariouswritersdiscussedorreferredtointhetextareindicatedbythefootnotes.Someportionsofthetexthaveappearedasarticlesinperiodicals.SeveralSectionsofChapterXIformedpartofacommunicationpresentedbytheauthoratthe1957InteramericanCongressofPhilosophy,whichlaterappearedinthejournal,PhilosophyandPhenomenologicalResearch,asanarticleentitled"Life,Telism,andMechanism."ChapterXVIborrowsextensivelyfromanaddressbytheauthoratthecelebrationin1956oftheFiftiethAnniversaryofthefoundingoftheAmericanSocietyforPsychicalResearch,which,withtheotheraddresses,waspublishedintheSociety'sjournal.

ChaptersXXandXXVwerepublishedasarticles,respectivelyintheInternationalJournalofParapsychology,andintheJournaloftheAmericanSocietyforPsychicalResearch.Gratefulacknowledgementisheremadetotheeditorsoftheseperiodicalsforpermissiontoincorporateintothetextthematerialsmentioned.-----------------------------------------------Chapter1:BeliefandDisbeliefinaLifeAfterDeath

THATTHEREisforthehumanindividualsomesortoflifeafterdeathhasbeenandstilliswidelybelieved.Tothemajorityofmankind,thisideahasnotseemedparadoxicalnoralifeafterdeathdifficulttoimagine.Ithasoftenbeenconceivedaslivedinabodyandsurroundingsnearlyorquiteasmaterialasourpresentones,thoughthefutureenvironmentandtheexperiencestobehadinithavegenerallybeenthoughtofasratherdifferentwhetherforthebetter

ortheworse,fromthoseoflifeonearth.1.Life:physiologicalorpsychological?

Persons,however,whofindsuchamaterialconceptionofafuturelifeincredibleeitherbecauseofitscrudityorbecauseofthedestructionthebodyundeniablyundergoesafterithasdied,arelikelytothinkofsurvivalinessentiallypsychologicaltermsandthereforetomeanby"personalsurvival"moreorlesswhatDeanW.R.Matthewsdoes,towit,-thatthecenterofconsciousnesswhichwasinexistencebeforedeathdoesnotceasetobeinexistenceafterdeathandthattheexperienceofthiscenterafterdeathhasthesamekindofcontinuitywithitsexperiencebeforedeathasthatofamanwhosleepsforawhileandwakesagain."(1)

(1)PsychicalResearchandTheology,TheSixthMyersMemorialLecture,Proc.Soc.forPsychicalResearch,Vol.46:15,1940-41.

Asweshallseeeventually,anumberofdifficultiesareimpliciteveninthisseeminglyclearstatement.Yet,somemeaningthuspsychologicalratherthanphysiologicalhastobegiventotheword"life,"ifthehypothesisofalifeafterdeathistohaveanyofthepersonalandsocialinterestitcommonlyhas.Forlifeinthemerelybiologicalsenseoftheword-thesenseinwhicheventhebodyofamanincoma.oravegetable,haslife-has,byitself,onlyanimpersonal


4/171

scientificinterestforus.Itacquiresanyotheronlyif,orinsofaras,anorganismaliveinthisphysiologicalsenseisanecessarybasisforlifeinthesenseofconsciouspsychologicalexperience.Inthesepages,therefore,thewords,"lifeafterdeath"-exceptatplaceswhereadifferentsensemaybeindicatedspecificallyorbycontext-willbetakentomeanatleastconsciouspsychologicalexperienceofsomesort,nomatterhowcausedandwhetherincarnateordiscarnate.

2.Survival,immortality,eternallife

Ishallrefertothebeliefthatthereisfortheindividualalifeafterdeathasbeliefinsurvivalratherthanasbeliefinimmortality;forimmortality,strictlyspeaking,isincapacitytodie,which,asascribedtoahumanconsciousness,entailssurvivalofitforeverafterbodilydeath.Butsurvivalforsomeindeterminatethoughconsiderableperiod,ratherthanspecificallyforever,isprobablywhatmostpersonsactuallyhaveinmindwhentheythinkofalifeafterdeath.Assuranceofsurvivalforathousandyears,orevenahundred,would,forthoseofuswhodesiresurvival,havevirtuallyasmuchpresentpsychologicalvalueaswouldassuranceofsurvivalforever:weshouldbetroubledverylittlebytheideaofindividualextinctionatsodistantatime-evenlesstroubledthanisnowahealthyandhappyyouthbytheknowledgethathewilldiewithinfiftyorsixtyyears.

Persons,ontheotherhand,whoaretiredoflife;orwhohavefoundittohave

forthemnegativeratherthanpositivevalueandbelievethistobeofitsessence;orwho,likeProfessorC.D.Broadwouldforsomeotherreasonwelcomeassuranceofnon-survival;wouldbemoredistressedbyprospectofsurvivalforalongperiod,andevenmorebyprospectofsurvivalforever,thanbythatofsurvivalforonlyashorttime.

Theexpression"eternallife"issometimesusedtoexpress,inapositiveway,what"immortality"-distinguishedfromsimplysurvival-expressesnegatively."Eternal"life,assoused,thengenerallymeanslifethatiseverlastinginthefuture-lifewithoutendthoughnotwithoutbeginning.Conceivably,however,lifemightbewithoutbeginningaswellaswithoutend.Thisiswhattheoriessuchasthatofmetempsychosisassume,whichregardnotonlythehumanbodybutalsothehumanmindorconsciousnessorsoulasanevolutionaryproduct.

Similarly,whenGod'sbeingisspokenofas"eternal"whatismeantissometimesthatheisbothwithoutbeginningandwithoutend-thathealwaysdidandalwayswillexist.Perhapsmoreoften,however,whatismeantisthatGod'sconsciousnessistimeless.Eternallife,then,orconsciousnessofeternity,whetherexperiencedbyGodinherentlyorbymanonrareoccasions,meansaformofconsciousnessthatdoesnotincludeorthattranscendsconsciousnessoftime.

Forapersonthecontentofwhoseconsciousnesswerethustimeless,thequestionwhetherthatcontentenduredbutamoment,orathousandyears,wouldhavenomeaningsincehewouldhavenoconsciousnesseitherofdurationorofchange.Indeed,thequestioncouldnotevenpresentitselftohim.Butwereexternalobservationpossibleoftheconsciousnessofsuchaperson-forexample,ofamystic

inecstasy-theobservercouldmeaningfullysaythattheotherexperiencedeternallife,orlivedineternity,forfiveminutes,orasthecasemightbe,forfifteen,orforsomeotherfinitetime,onagivenoccasion.

3.Causesofbeliefinsurvival

Thefirstquestionwhicharisesinconnectionwiththeideathatthereisfortheindividualanafter-deathlifeiswhythebeliefinitissowidespread.

Thecluetotheansweristobefoundinthefactthateachofushasalwaysbee


5/171

naliveandconsciousasfarbackashecanremember.Itistrue,ofcourse,thathisbodyissometimessunkindeepsleep,orinafaint,orincomafromsomeinjuryorgraveillness;orthattheinhalingofetherorsomeotheranaestheticmakeshimunconsciousofthesurgicaloperationhethenundergoes.But,evenatthosetimesapersondoesnotexperienceunconsciousness,fortoexperienceitwouldmeanbeingconsciousofbeingunconscious;andthis,beingacontradiction,isimpossible.Indeed,atsuchtimes,hemaybehavingvividdreams;andtheseareonekindofconsciousness.Theonlyexperienceofunconsciousnessapersoneverhasis,notoftotalunconsciousness,butofunconsciousnessofthisorthat;aswhenhereports:"Iamnotconsciousofanypain,"or"ofanydifferencebetweenthecolorofthisandofthat,"etc.

Nordoweeverexperienceaspresentinanotherpersonunconsciousnessitself,butonlythefactthat,sometimes,someoralloftheordinaryactivitiesofhisbody,throughwhichhisbeingconsciouspreviouslymanifesteditselftous,ceasetooccur.Thatconsciousnessitselfisextinguishedatsuchtimesisonlyahypothesiswhichweconstructtoaccountforcertainchangesinthebehaviorofanotherperson'sbody;ortoexplaintheeventuallackinhim-or,asthecasemaybe,inourselves-ofmemoriesrelatingtotheperiodduringwhichthebody-hisorourownwasinaninert,unresponsivestate.

Lackofpresentmemoryofhavingbeenconsciousataparticularpasttimeobviouslyisnoproofatallthatonewasunconsciousatthattime;forifitwere,thenitwouldprovethatonewasunconsciousduringthefirstfewyearsofone'sl

ife,andindeedduringthevastmajorityofitsdays,sinceonehasnomemorywhateverofone'sexperiencesonanybutaverysmallminorityofone'spastdays.Thatwewereconsciousontheothersisknowntousnotbymemoryofthem,butonlybyinferencefromfactsofvariouskinds.

Thefact,then,isthateachpersonhasbeenaliveandconsciousatalltimeshecanremember.Beingaliveandconscioushasthereforebecomeinhimaningrainedhabit;andhabitautomaticallyentailsbothtacitexpectationsandtacitbeliefthatwhatistacitlyexpectedwilloccur(2).Justaseverystepwhichfindsgroundunderfootbuildsuptacitbeliefthatsowillthesubsequentsteps,andeverybreathwhichfindsairtobreathe,tacitbeliefthatsowillthesubsequentbreaths,justsodoesthefactthateverypastdayofone'slifewasfoundtohaveamorrowcontributetogeneratetacitexpectationandbeliefthateverydayof

one'slifewillhavealivingmorrow.AsJ.B.Pratthaspointedout,thechildtakesthecontinuityoflifeforgranted.Itisthefactofdeaththathastobetaughthim.Butwhenhehaslearnedit,andtheideaofafuturelifeisthenputexplicitlybeforehismind,itseemstohimthemostnaturalthingintheworld(3).

(2)Cf.C.D.Broad:TheMindanditsPlaceinNature,p.524.(3)S.B.Pratt:TheReligiousConsciousness,Macmillan,NewYork,1943,p.225.

Such,undoubtedly,isthepsychologicaloriginofthewidespreadingenuousbeliefthatone'slifeandthatofone'sfellowsdoesnotendatdeath.

Anotherrootoftheideaandbeliefthatpersonswhowereknowntousandhaved

iedcontinuetolive-andhencethatwetooshallsurviveafterdeath-isthefactthatsometimesthosepersons,aswellaspersonswhoarestillintheflesh,appeartousindreams.Especiallywhenthedreamwasbothvividandplausible,iteasilysuggestsaviewofthehumanpersonalitywhichisrathercommonamongprimitivepeoplesandwhichhasbeenheldevenbysomeeducatedandcriticalpersons.Itisthateachperson'sbodyoffleshhasasubtlecounterpartordouble,whichcanbecomedetachedfromandfunctionindependentlyofthatbody;thisseparationbeingtemporaryasitoccursinperiodsofsleepduringlife,butpermanentatthedeathofthebody.


6/171

Evidently,suchanideaoftheconstitutionofmanfitsinverywellwiththeingenuousnaturalbeliefinlifebeyonddeath,foritprovidesconcreteimagesinwhichtoclothetheotherwiseelusiveabstractnotionofapersonalitylivingon,discarnate.

Beliefinalifeafterdeath,however,mightconceivablyoriginateinagivenpersonineitheroneoftwowayslessingenuousthanthosedescribedinwhatprecedes.Oneofthesemorecriticalwayswouldbeoutofattentiontocertainoccurrencesobservedorreported,andtheninterpretedasempiricalevidenceofthesurvivalofadeceasedperson.Communicationspurportedlyfromsuchapersonandcontainingidentifyingdetails,receivedeitherthrougha"medium"orbyoneselfthroughautomaticwriting;orsightofan"apparition"ofthedeadperson,wouldbeexamplesofthekindsofexperienceinview.

Theotherpossiblekindofrationaloriginwhichbeliefinalifeafterdeathmighthaveinagivenpersonwouldbeattentionbyhimtoargumentswhich,whetherreallyoronlyseemingly,cogent,purporttoproveimmortalityonmetaphysicalgrounds.Itissafetosay,however,thatthebeliefcanhavethisoriginonlyinaveryfewpersons,andthatthosearguments,irrespectiveoftheircogencyorlackofit,functioninfactforthemajorityofthosewhoknowandacceptthem,muchratheronlyasrationalizationsofabeliefinimmortalitytheyhadpreviouslyacquiredeitherintheautomaticmannerdescribedearlier,oroutofwishfulthinking,oroutofuncriticallyacceptedchildhoodteachings.

Weshalleventuallyconsiderthemeritsofbothoftheabovekinds-empiricalandtheoretical-ofprimafacieevidenceforsurvival.Atthispoint,however,whatwemustaskiswhysurvivalisdesiredbythemanypersonswhododesireit;andwhatgeneralconnectionobtainsbetweendesireandbelief,lackofdesireandlackofbelief.

4.Whyalifeafterdeathisdesired

Onedoesnotactuallydesirevaluedthingswhichonealreadyhasorassumesonehas.Theygetdesiredonlywhenlossofthemoccursorthreatens.This,whichistrueforinstanceofdesireforairtobreatheorforearthtostandon,isequallytrueofdesireforcontinuationoflife.Itisnotuntilthewitnessingortheawarenessofdeaththrustsuponthemindthequestionwhetherthelifethat

wascontinuessomehow,thatactualdesireforlifebeyonddeatharises.Fromthenon,thedesireoperatesautomaticallytobolstertheshakennaivebeliefinsurvival,andthebeliefinsofarbecomesa"wishfulbelief."

Thedesireforsurvivalofoneselfandofotherpersonshasitsrootsinavarietyofmorespecificdesireswhichdeathimmediatelyfrustrates,butsatisfactionofwhichalifebeyonddeathwouldmakepossibleevenifnotautomaticallyinsure.Insomepersons.thechiefoftheseisdesireforreunionwithpersonsdearlyloved.Inothers,whoseliveshavebeenwretched,itisdesireforanotherchanceatthehappinesstheyhavemissed.Inothersyet,itisdesireforfurtheropportunitytogrowinability,knowledge,character,wisdom;ortogooncontributingsignificantachievements.Again,afuturelifeforoneselfandothersisoftendesiredinorderthattheredressingofthemanyinjusticesofthepresent

lifeshallbepossible.

Eveninpersonswhobelievethatdeathmeanscompleteandfinalextinctionoftheindividual'sconsciousness,thecravingforcontinuedexistenceistestifiedtobythecomforttheyoftenfindinvarioussubstitutebutassuredformsof"survival."Theymay,forinstance,dwellonthecontinuityoftheindividual'sgermplasminhisdescendants.Ortheyfindsolaceinthethoughtthat,thepastbeingindestructible,theparticularlifetheylivewillremaineverafteranintrinsicpartofthehistoryoftheworld.Also-andmoresatisfyingtothecravingforpersonalimportancethereisthefactthatsincetheactsofone'slifehave


7/171

effects,andtheseinturnfurthereffects,andsoon,thereforewhatonehasdonegoesonforeverinfluencingremotely,andsometimesgreatly,thecourseoffutureevents.

Gratifyingtoone'svanity,too,istheprospectthat,iftheachievementsofone'slifehavebeenimportantorevenonlyconspicuous,orone'sbenefactionsorevildeedsnotable,thenone'snamemayberememberednotonlybyacquaintancesandrelativesforalittlewhile,butmayliveoninrecordedhistory.

Evidently,survivalinanyofthesesensesisbutaconsolationprizeforthecertaintyofbodilydeath-athinsubstituteforthecontinuationofconsciousindividuallife,whichmaybedisbelieved,butthenaturalcravingforwhichneverthelessisevidencedbythecomfortwhichtheconsiderationsjustmentionedeventhenprovide.

5.Causesofdisinterestorofdisbeliefinsurvival

LackofbeliefandevenpositivedisbeliefinsurvivalarecertainlymorewidespreadnowinWesterncountriesthanwasthecaseinearliertimes.Ofthevariouscauseswhichaccountforthis,oneofthechiefisprobably"thegreaterattractivenessofthisworldinourtimesandtheincreaseofinterestsofallsortswhichkeepone'sattentiontoofirmlyfastenedheretoallowofmuchthoughtbeingspentontheotherworld."(4)

(4)J.B.Pratt:TheReligiousConsciousness,TheMacmillanCo.N.Y.1943,p.238.

Ascomparedwithearlierages,thestandardoflivingisnowhighforthelargemajorityofthepopulationsofWesterncountries.Leisurehasgreatlyincreased,andsohavepoliticalliberties.Classdistinctionsnolongerfirmlystand,asformerly,inthewayofpersonalambition.Andwhenthereispieatthebaker'sandmoneyforitinone'spocket,"pieinthesky"isnotthoughtofandhencenotdesired.Itiswhenlifeishard,joyless,andhopelessthatonedreamsofandlongsforescapetoanotherworldwherethosewhoonearthwerethemiserablelastshallbethehappyfirst.

Again,inthepresentAgeofSciencethespiritofcriticalinquiry,withitsde

mandforproofs,hasrobbedtheteachingsofreligionoftheauthoritytheyhadearlier.Oneconsequenceofthis,andofthematerialisticconceptionofthenatureofmanfosteredbycontemporaryscience,hasbeenthattheunplausibility-tousenostrongerterm-ofthepicturesqueideasofthelifeafterdeathwhichhadbeentraditionalintheWesternworldhasbecomeglaring.Andthisinturnhasdeprivedtheideaofafuturelifeofthesupportwhichdesireforithadpreviouslylentit;for,asPrattpointedlyremarks,"somesortofbeliefinatleastthepossibilityoftheobjectisaconditionofanyrealdesireforit."(5)

(5)Op.Cit.p.239.

Thesearethechieffactorswhichhavecausedsubstantialnumbersofpersonstodaytodoubtorpositivelydisbelievethatthereisfortheindividualconsciousn

essanylifeafterthebody'sdeath;oratleasttoviewtheideaofitwithlittleornointerest.Thesepersons,however,althoughnumerous,areprobablystillarathersmallminorityofthepopulation;fordeathgoesonfrustratingofexpressionone'sloveofpersonswhoweredear,andtherebythrustinguponthelivingtheideaofalifeafterdeath,stimulatinginthemthedesirethatsuchlifebeafact;and,throughthisdesire,fosteringthebeliefthatitisafact.

6.Causesof,distinguishedfromgroundsfor,beliefordisbelief

Itmaynotbeamisstostresshere,however,thatthearguments,theempiricalf


8/171


9/171

hatoneormoregodsexistbutthatthereisnopostmortemhumanlife,orinsupposingthatthereisalifeafterdeathbutnoGodorgods.

Butalthoughthebeliefinalifeafterdeathisthusnotinherentlyreligious,neverthelessacloseconnectionbetweenitandreligionhasobtainedthroughoutthehistoryofman.WhatIshallnowattemptistomakeclearthenatureofthisconnection;thatis,whatitpresupposeswithregardtoman'spersonality,andwithregardtotherelationbetweenhislifeonearthandthepostmortemlifewhichthereligionshavetaughthewillhave.Forthispurpose,whatreligionitselfessentiallyismustfirstbeconsideredbriefly.

2.Religionandreligiousbeliefs

Evenasketchyacquaintancewiththehistoryofreligionsufficestoshowthatthebeliefsandpracticeswhichhavebeentaughtbythereligionsofmankindhavebeenverydiverseandinmanycasesirreconcilable.Thisentailsthatnopossibilityexistsofconceivingtheessenceofreligionintermsofsomecoreofbeliefsor/andpracticescommontoallthereligions-tothenon-theisticaswellastothemonotheistic,thepolytheistic,andthepantheistic,andtothereligionsofprimitiveaswellasofhighlycivilizedpeoples-forthereisnosuchcommoncore.Nor,ofcourse,cantheessenceofreligionbeconceivedresponsiblyasconsistingoftheteachingsofsomeoneparticularreligion,heldtobetheonly"true"religiononthegroundthatitsteachingsaredivinerevelations;forthequestionwouldthenremainastowhetherthebeliefthatitsteachingsare,

andaloneare,divinerevelationsisdemonstrablytrue,oronthecontraryisitselfbutoneamongotherpiousbutgroundlessbeliefs.

Itfollowsthatonlyafunctionalconceptionofreligioncanbecomprehensiveenoughtoapplytoallthereligions;aconception,thatistosay,accordingtowhichreligionisessentiallyapsychologicalinstrumentfortheperformanceofcertainfunctionsubiquitouslyimportanttohumanwelfare,whicharenototherwiseperformedadequatelyinanybutafewexceptionalcasesandwhichevenreligionhasoftenperformednonetoowell.

Morespecifically,thisconceptionisthatareligionisanysetofbeliefsthataremattersoffaith-togethertheobservances,attitudes,injunctions,andfeelingstiedupwiththebeliefswhich,insofarasdominantinaperson,tendt

operformtwofunctions,onesocialandtheotherpersonal.Thesocialfunctionistoprovide,forconductheldtobesociallybeneficial,asanctionthatwilloperateonoccasionswhereconflictexistsbetweentheprivateinterestoftheindividualandthe(realorfancied)socialinterest,andwhereneitherthelegalsanctions,northoseofpublicopinion,northeindividual'sownmoralimpulses,wouldbythemselvesbeenoughtocausehimtobehavemorally.Insuchcases,anadditionalandsometimessufficientmotivationformoralconductisprovidedbyreligiousbeliefs,andinparticularbyabeliefinalifeafterdeathifthisbeliefisconjoined,asusuallyithasbeen,withabeliefthat,inthatlife,immoralconductthatescapedpunishmentonearthandmoralconductthatwentunrewardedeachgetsitsjustdesertsthroughtheinescapableoperationofsomepersonalorimpersonalagencyofcosmicjustice.

Toprovidethemotivationcalledfor,thesecondofthesetwobeliefsisofcoursenecessaryinadditiontothefirst;forbeliefinafuturelifewhoseparticularcontentwereinnowaydependentonthemanner-virtuousorvicious-inwhichtheindividuallivedonearthwouldexertnopsychologicalleverageonhimforvirtuousconductnow.Toexertthisleverageisthefunctionofthepicturesofhells,heavens,paradises,purgatories,andotherformsofrewardorpunishment,paintedbythereligions.

Itistobenotedthat,insofarasthosetwobeliefs,actingjointly,causethe


10/171

individualtobehavemorally,i.e.,justlyoraltruistically,incaseswhereheotherwisewouldbehaveselfishlyormaliciously,thosebeliefsfosterinhimthedevelopmentofmoralfeelingsandimpulses;forasapersonacts,sodoeshetendtofeeland,onlateroccasions,tendtofeelimpelledfromwithintoactagain.Thelong-runeffectoftheharboringofbeliefsreligiousinthesensestatedcouldthereforebedescribedas"educationoftheheart,"-arousalandcultivationintheindividualofthefeelingsandimpulsesoutofwhich,evenatcosttohimself,issuesconductbeneficialorassumedbeneficialtohisfellows.

Theindividual,however,islikelytobemuchmoredirectlyawareofthevaluehisreligiousbeliefshaveforhimpersonallythanofthevaluetheyhaveforsocietythroughthepersonalsacrificestheyrequireofhimforthesocialbenefit.Andwhattheindividual'sreligiousbeliefsdoforhimpersonallyinproportiontotheirdepthandfirmnessandtothefaithfulnesswithwhichhelivesuptothemistogivehimacertainequanimityintheupsanddownsoflife-acertainfreedomfromanxietyintimesoftrouble,andfromself-complacencyintimesofworldlygoodfortune.Tothereligiousman,hisreligiousbeliefscanbringcourageinadversity,hopeintimesofdespair,anddignityintimesofobloquyorfrustration.Also,humilityonoccasionsofpride,prudenceintimesofsuccess,moderationandasenseofresponsibilityintheexerciseofpower;inbrief,adegreeofabidingserenitybasedonaconceptionofman'sdestinyandonthecorrespondingscaleofvalues.

Thebeliefinalifeafterdeath,infuturecompensationtherefortheinjustice

sofearth,infuturereunionwithlovedoneswhohavedied,andinfutureopportunitiesforgrowthandhappiness,undoubtedlyoperatestogivepersonswhohaveitameasureoftheequanimitytheyneedwherewithtofacethetrialsofthisworld,thedeathofthosedeartothem,andtheprospect,nearordistant,oftheirowndeath.Butinordertooperatepsychologicallyinthiswayfortheindividual,andthroughhimforthewelfareofsocietyinthewaydescribedbefore,thebeliefinsurvivalandtheotherbeliefsthereligionshavetaughtdonotatallneedtobeinfacttrue,butonlytobefirmlybelieved.Nordotheircontentsneedtobeconceivedclearly,butonlybelievably.Indeed,thevaguenesswhichcommonlycharacterizesthemisoftenaconditionoftheirbelievability,foritinsulatesfromdetectiontheabsurditiesinsomeofthemwhichwouldbeevidentifthebeliefswereclearinsteadofvague.Inorderthatthebeliefsshouldfunction,whatneedstobeclearisonlythesortofconductandattitudetheydic

tate.Thefact,then,thatbeliefinalifeafterdeathhasprominentlyfiguredinmostreligionsandhaswithvaryingdegreesofefficacyparticipatedinperformancethereofthesocialandpersonalfunctionsdescribedabove,constitutesnoevidenceatallthatthereisreallyfortheindividualsomekindoflifeafterdeath.

Ontheotherhand,thepsychologicalfactthatwhathasoperatedtowardsperformanceofthosefunctionsisnottruthof,butsimplybeliefof,theideaofsurvival,constitutesnoevidenceatallthatthatideaisuntrue.Forhereaselsewhereitisimperativetodistinguishsharplybetweenthequestionastowhetheragivenbeliefistrue-whichisaquestionadrem;andquestionsastohowthe

givenbeliefaffectsthepersonswhoholdit,orastohowtheycametoholdit-whicharequestionsadhominem,i.e.,biographicalquestions.Thatagivenpersoncametobelieveortodisbelieveagivenpropositiondoesnotentailanythingconcerningthetruthorfalsityofthepropositionunlesswhatcausedhimtobelieveortodisbelieveitconsistedofevidenceadequatetoprove,oratleasttomakeobjectivelyprobable,thatthepropositionistrue,orasthecasemaybe,thatitisfalse.Butifwhatinducedthebeliefordisbeliefdidnotconsistofsuchevidence,thenitleaveswhollyopenthequestionoftruthorfalsityofthepropositionconcerned.


11/171

3.GroundsonwhichbeliefinsurvivalisbasedinChristiantheology

ThegroundsonwhichChristiantheologianshavecontendedthatthehumanpersonalitysurvivesafterdeatharechieflyoftwokinds-empirical,andmoral.

TheempiricalargumentconsistsinpointingattheresurrectionofJesus:ThatJesus,havingdied,rosebodilyfromthedeadproves,itisargued,thatthehumanpersonalityisnotdestroyedbydeathandthatthehumanbodyadmitsofbeingresurrectedafterithasdied.Thisproofof"immortality"hasbeenacceptedbymillionsofChristiansandhasbeenregardedasoneofthemostpreciousassurancesbroughttomankindbyJesus.

YetthelogicoftheinferencebywhichhumanimmortalityisdeducedfromtheresurrectionofJesusissofallaciousthattheargumenthasbeencharacterizedbyProfessorC.D.Broadasoneoftheworld'sworst."Inthefirstplace,"hewrites,"ifChristianitybetrue,thoughJesuswashuman,Hewasalsodivine.NootherhumanbeingresemblesHiminthisrespect."Hencetheresurrectionofonesoradicallydifferentfrommeremenisnoevidencethattheytoosurvivethedeathoftheirbodies.

Thefallacyofthereasoningwhichwouldinferthesecondfromthefirstbecomesglaringifoneconsidersareasoningofexactlythesameform,buttheparticulartermsofwhicharefreefromthebiasingreligiouscommitmentsthatobtainfororthodoxChristiansinthecaseoftheResurrection:Obviously,fromthefact

thatTomJones,whofallsoutofanairplaneandhasaparachute,survivesthefall,itdoesnotfollowthatJohnSmith,whofallsoutofthesameplanebuthasnoparachute,willalsosurvive.

Moreover,BroadpointsoutthatthecaseofmanisunlikethatofJesusinanotherrespectalso:"thebodyofJesusdidnotdecayinthetomb,butwastransformed;whilstthebodyofeveryordinarymanrotsanddisintegratessoonafterhisdeath.Therefore,ifmendosurvivethedeathoftheirbodies,theprocessmustbeutterlyunlikethatwhichtookplacewhenJesussurvivedHisdeathonthecross.Thustheanalogybreaksdownineveryrelevantrespect,andsoanargumentfromtheresurrectionofJesustothesurvivalofbodilydeathbyordinarymenisutterlyworthless."(1)

(1)Religion,Philosophy,andPsychicalResearch,HarcourtN.Y.1953,pp.236-7.

Butanyway,thefactsconcerningtheresurrectionofJesustakenaspremiseinthatargument-arenotknowntousexactly,orindetail,orwithcertainty.ThementowhomthepassagesoftheNewTestamentbearingonthesubjectare(rightlyorwrongly)ascribed,andthemenwhopassedonfromonegenerationtoanothertheirownaccountofwhattheyhadheardaboutthelife,thedeath,andtheresurrectionofJesus,werenotdispassionatehistorianscarefultochecktheobjectivityofthereportswhichcametothemandtorecordthemaccurately.Rather,theywereessentiallyzealouspropagandistsofaninspiringmessage,bentonspreadingitandgettingitaccepted.AsH.L.Willettpointsout,"thefriendsofJesuswerenotinterestedinthewritingofbooks.Theywerenotwriters,they

werepreachers.TheMasterhimselfwasnotawriter.Heleftnodocumentfromhisownhand.ThefirstdisciplesweretoobusywiththenewproblemsandactivitiesoftheChristiansocietytogivethoughttothemakingofrecords."(2)ThetextoftheGospelswasinprocessofgettingformulatedforseveralgenerations.MostofitdidnotreachtheforminwhichwehaveituntilsometimenearthemiddleofthesecondcenturyA.D.Indeed,"theveryoldestmanuscriptoftheNewTestamentisaslateasthefourthcenturyA.D.Alltheoriginals,theautographs,perishedataveryearlydate-eventhefirstcopiesoftheoriginalsareutterlygone."(3)


12/171

(2)TheBiblethroughtheCenturies.Willett,Clark&Colby,Chicago1929,p.220.(3)ErnestR.Trattner:UnravellingtheBookofBooks,Ch.Scribner'sSons,N.Y.1929,p.244.Cf.AlfredLoisy:TheBirthoftheChristianReligion,prefacebyGilbertMurray,Allen&Unwin,London1948,pp.41.53.

Thesefactseasilyaccountforthediscrepancieswefind,forinstance,betweentheseveralstatementsintheGospelsconcerningthediscoveryoftheemptytomb.Also,forthescantinessofthedescriptionsoftheappearancesofthe"risen"Jesusduringtheweeksfollowinghisdeath.Atthefirstoftheseappearances-toMaryMagdaleneatthetomb-heisunaccountablymistakenbyher,whohadknownhimwell,forthegardener(John20-15);andlaterissimilarlyunrecognizedatfirstbythedisciplesfishingintheseaofTiberias(John21-4).Noristhereanyclear-cutstatementthathisappearancesweretouchedaswellasseen.For,atthetomb,heenjoinsMarynottotouchhim;andThomas,whenJesusappearedtohimandtotheotherdisciples,apparentlythenfeltnoneedtoavailhimselfoftheopportunityhehaddesiredearliertoverifybytouchthematerialrealityofthevisibleappearance.AndthestatementinMatthew28-9thatthetwowomen,beingmetbyJesusontheirwayfromthetomb,"tookholdofhisfeet"maywellmeanonlythat,inreverence,theyprostratedthemselvesathisfeet.

Thatthebodywhichthedisciplesandothersrepeatedlysawappearinganddisappearingsuddenlyindoorsirrespectiveofwallsandcloseddoors,andlikewiseout

ofdoors,wasnotthematerialbodyofJesusisfurthersuggestedbytheaccountsofhisfinaldisappearance;forthestatementthathethen"wastakenup;andacloudreceivedhim"outofthedisciples'sight(Acts1-9),orthat,whileblessingthem,he"wascarriedupintoheaven"(Luke25-51)couldbetakenliterallyonlyintimeswhenastronomicalknowledgewassolackingastopermitthesuppositionthattheearthisthecenteroftheuniverse,andthatheavenissomedistanceabovethebluevaultofthesky.

Inthelightoftheseconsiderations,andofthecompletelackoffactsastowhatbecameofthematerialbodyofJesus,thestatementsintheNewTestamentconcerningtheseveralappearancesofJesusafterhisdeathmakesenseonlyifinterpretedasreportsofwhatarecommonlycalled"apparitions"or"phantasms"ofthedead-aninterpretationwhich,incidentally,isconsonantwithPaul'sstatemen

t(ICorinthians15-40/44)thattheresurrectionofthedead,which"issowninanaturalbody;...israisedinaspiritualbody.Ifthereisanaturalbody,thereisalsoaspiritualbody,"whichPaul,inverse44,callsalsoa"celestial"bodyanddistinguishesfromthe"terrestrial."(4)

(4)ThatthepostmortemappearancesofJesuswerenothisphysicalbody,butwere"apparitions"inthesenseofhallucinationstelepathicallyinducedbythethendiscarnateJesus,isablycontendedbytheRev.MichaelC.Perryinascholarlywork,TheEasterEnigma,Faber&Faber,London1959,publishedsincethepresentchapterwaswritten.

Itisappropriateinthisconnectiontonotethatapparitionsofthedead(andoccasionallyoftheliving)areatypeofphenomenonofwhichnumerouswell-attes

tedandfarmorerecentinstancesareonrecord;(5)anditisinterestingtocomparetheearliesttestimonywehaveforthepostmortemappearancesofJesuswhichwasfirstreducedtowritingsometwenty-fiveyearsaftertheevents;whichreachesusthroughcopiesofcopiesoftheoriginalwrittenrecord;andwhichconcernseventsdatingbacknearlytwothousandyears-with,forexample,thetestimonywehaveforthenumerousappearancesinMaineintheyear1800ofawoman,thefirstwifeofaCaptainButler,afterherdeath.

(5)SeeforexampleG.N.M.Tyrrell:Apparitions,withaprefacebyProf.H.H.Price,London,Duckworth&Co.Ltd.,Rev.ed.,1953.


13/171

Itiscontainedinapamphletnowveryrare,butofwhichthereisanoriginalintheNewYorkPublicLibraryandaphotostatcopynowbeforeme.Itwaspublishedin1826bytheRev.AbrahamCummings(1755-1827)A.B.,A.M.,BrownUniversity,1776.HewasanitinerantBaptistministerwhovisitedandpreachedinthesmallvillagesonthecoastofMaine.Thepamphlet,of77pages,isentitledImmortalityProvedbytheTestimonyofSense.ItrelatestheapparitionsofthedeceasedMrs.GeorgeButleratavillagenearMachiasport."TheSpecter,"astheRev.Cummingstermsherapparition,manifesteditselfnot,asinmostreportsofapparitions,justonceandtobutoneperson,butmanytimesoveraperiodofsomemonthsandtogroupsnumberingasmanyasfortypersonstogether,bothinandoutofdoors;andtoCummingshimselfinafield,ontheoccasionwhen,havingbeennotifiedofitsappearance,hewasonhiswaytoexposewhathehadthoughtmustbeadelusionorafraud.

The"Specter"wasbothseenandheard;itdeliveredlengthydiscoursestothepersonspresent,andmovedamongthem;itpredictedbirthsanddeathswhichcametopass;andonseveraloccasionssharplyintervenedintheaffairsofthevillage.Moreover,theRev.Cummingshadtheraregoodsensetoobtainatthetimeoverthirtyaffidavits-reproducedinthepamphlet-fromsomeofthehundredormorepersonswhohadheardand/orseenthe"Specter."(6)

(6)Areadilyaccessible,detailedaccountofthisextraordinaryaffaircanbefoundinWilliamOliverStevens'UnbiddenGuests,N.Y.1945,Dodd,Mead&Co.pp.

261-9wheretheessentialfactsrecordedinthepamphletarepresentedinmoreorderlymannerthanbyCummings,whoseliteraryabilitywaslow,andwhoserecitalofthefactsisencumberedbytedioustheologicalreflections.

ItissafetosaythatmostreadersoftheabovesummaryaccountoftheapparitionsofthedeceasedMrs.Butlerwillreceiveitwithconsiderableskepticism.Howmuchmoreskepticism,then,wouldonpurelyobjectivegroundsbejustifiedaboutaseriesofapparitionsdatingbacknearlytwentycenturiesinsteadofonlyahundredandfiftyyears,andconcerningwhichwehavenonebutremotelyindirectevidence;whereasinthemorerecentserieswehaveasevidenceoverthirtyverbatimstatementsfromasmanyoftheverypersonswhoobservedtheapparitions.judgingbothcasesobjectively-intermsofthecriteriaappliedincourttotheweightoftestimony-thereisnodoubtthatthecaseforthehistoricityof

theappearancesofJesusisfarweakerthanthatforthehistoricityoftheappearancesofMrs.Butler.Andyet,althoughwefindthelatterdubiousandperhapsdismisstheaccountofitas"amereghoststory,"we-oranywaymillionsofChristiansacceptonthecontraryasliterallytruethetraditionalaccountoftheappearancesofJesus.

Theexplanationofthisirresponsibilityis,ofcourse,tobefoundinthegreatdifferencesbetweenthepersonalitiesconcernedandbetweenthehistoricalsettingandemotionalimportofthelivesanddeathsofthetwo.Forthepersonality,thelife,andthedeathofMrs.Butlerwerecommonplaceandattractednowideattention.Theonlythingthatdidsoinhercasewastheseriesofherapparitionsafterdeath.Onthecontrary,thepersonalityandthelifeandthedeathofJesuswereheroicandspectacular;andthis,togetherwiththeinspiringnature

ofhismessage,givesgreatemotionalinteresttoeverythingconnectedwithhim.Thisinterest,thehungertobelieveitbegets,theimplantingofthetraditionalstoriesinchildhood,andthefactthatitiseasytoacceptbuthardtodoubtwhatisbelievedandvaluedbyeverybodyinone'senvironment-thesearethepsychologicalcauseswhichaccountforthefactthatmostChristiansto-dayfinditeasyandnaturaltobelieveinthe"resurrection,"i.e.,inthereappearanceofJesusafterdeath,evenwhentheweaknessoftheevidenceforitispointedouttothem;butonthecontraryfindthereappearanceofMrs.Butlerafterherdeathdifficulttobelieveevenwhenthemuchgreaterstrengthoftheevidenceforitisbroughttotheirattention.


14/171

4.Themoralargumentsfortherealityofafuturelife

FromthecontentionthattheresurrectionofJesusassuresmanoflifebeyonddeath,wenowturntotheso-calledmoralargumentsalsoappealedtoinsupportofthebeliefinpersonalsurvival.

Thepremiseoftheseargumentsisthegoodness,justice,andmightascribedtoGod.Summarilyput,thereasoningisthat"ifGodisgoodandGodissufficientlypowerful,howcansuchaGodallowthevalues(potentialoractual)boundupwithindividualstobecomeforeverlost?...Theworldwouldbeirrationalif,afterhavingbroughtintobeinghumanbeingswhoaspireagainstsomanyalmostoverwhelmingoddstoachievehighervalues,itshoulddashthemintonothingness."(7)

(7)VergiliusFerm:FirstChaptersinReligiousPhilosophy,RoundTablePress,N.Y.1937,p.279.

Again,divinejusticeassuresafuturelifetoman,for,withoutone,theinnumerableinjusticesofthepresentlifewouldneverberedressed.Thewickedwhosewickednesswentunpunishedonearthorperhapsevenprosperedthemwouldatdeathbeescapingpunishmentaltogether;andthevirtuouswhomadesacrificesinobediencetodutyoroutofregardforthewelfareofotherswouldatdeathbegoingfinallyunrewarded.Ifmoralpersonswerenoteventuallytogainhappiness,th

enmorality,inthemanycaseswhereitbringsnorecompenseonearth,wouldbejuststupidity.

Such,insubstance,arethemoralarguments.Dotheyprove,oratleastmakeprobable,thatthereisformanalifeafterdeath?

Letusexaminefirstthecontentionthatitwouldbeirrationaltobehavemorallyatpresentcosttooneselfifsuchbehaviorisnoteventuallyrewardedbyhappiness.

Sotocontendistacitlytoequaterationalityinmoraldecisionswithfosteringofone'sowndistantwelfare.Thetruthis,however,thattobehaverationallyissimplytobehaveinwayswhichonebelievesbestpromoteattainmentofone's

ends,suchasthesemaybe.Andthefactisthatmendohavenotonlyegoisticbutalsoaltruisticends:mostmendogenuinelycare,invaryingdegrees,aboutthewelfareofotherhumanbeings,orofcertainonesamongthese,aswellasabouttheirownpersonalwelfare.Hence,behaviordesignedtopromotethewelfareofanotherpersonwhosewelfareonehappenstodesire-andperhapstodesiremorethanone'sown-isquiteasrationalasbehaviorintendedandshapedtopromoteone'spersonalwelfare.Thus,ifaman'sbehaviortowardsothersismotivatedontheonehandbybeliefthattheparticularformsofbehaviortermedmoralmakeforthewelfareofsuchofhisfellowbeingsasareaffectedbythem,andontheotherbythefactthathedoesdesiretheirwelfareenoughtosubordinatehisowntotheirs,thenhisbehavinginthewaystermedmoralisperfectlyrational.Indeed,sobehavingistheessenceofgenuinelove;thatis,oflovethatpromptstoactionforthebeloved'swelfare;asdistinguishedfromlovemerelysent

imentalwhichseesthelovedoneessentiallyasobjectthatarousesbeautifullove-feelingandwhichthereforeusesthebelovedasemotionalcandy,cripplinghimintheprocessifneedbe.

Moralbehavior,ontheotherhand,isirrationalorrathernon-rational,whenitconsistsonlyofuncomprehending,machinelikeobediencetowhatevercodeofbehaviorhappenstohavebeenpsychologicallyplantedinthemindduringchildhoodyears.

Thebearingoftheseremarksonthecontentionthatmoralityunrewardedonearth


15/171

isirrationalifnotrewardedafterdeathisthattruemoralityisrootedinintelligentloveand,forthepersonwhosemoralityitis,constitutesself-expressionandisself-rewarding.Beingnotinvestmentbutgenerousgift,ittakesnothoughtofdividendswhetheronearthorinafuturelife.

AsregardsnowthecontentionthatifGodisgoodandissufficientlypowerful,hecannotallowtheactualandpotentialvaluesboundupwithindividualstobecomeforeverlost,itsobviousweaknessisthatitspremiseisaltogether"iffy":ifthereisaGod,ifheisgood,ifheispowerfulenoughtopreservethesoulwhenthebodydies,iftheworldisrational,ifjusticeultimatelyobtains,thenthereisformanalifeafterdeath!Itmaybethatthese"ifs"aretrue,butsolongastheyhavenotbeenprovedtrue,neitherhastherealityofthefuturelife,whichtheirbeingtruewouldentail,beenproved.

Andthefactisthattheirtruthhasneveryetbeenprovednorevenshowntobemoreprobablethannot.Allthewould-beproofsoftheexistenceofanomnipotent,omniscient,andperfectlygoodcreatoroftheworld,whichtheologiansandtheologizingphilosophershaveelaboratedinthecourseofthecenturieshave,oncriticalexamination,turnedouttobeonlyingeniouspiecesofwishfulreasoning.Indeed,ifaGodofthatdescriptionexistedandhadcreatedtheworld,therecouldbenoevilinit;fortheendlesssophistrieswhichhavebeenpackedintothenotionof"freewill"forthepurposeofeludingthisineludibleconclusionhavepatentlyfailedtodoso.Hence,iftheworldwasevercreated,andifitwascreatedbyaGod,thenthatGodwasfinitewhetherinpoweroringoodnesso

rinknowledge,orintwoorinalloftheserespects.EvensuchaGod,however,couldbeapowerful,wiseandgoodfriend,andassuchwellworthhaving.

Inanycase,thatannihilationofthepersonalityatdeathwouldbeanevil-andhencethatGodwouldpreventitifhecould-isfarfromevident.Forthereisultimatelynosuchthingasevilthatnobodyexperiences;hence,iftheindividualistotallyannihilatedatdeath,thenon-fulfilmentofhisdesireforapostmortemlifeisnotanevilexperiencedbyhimsince,exhypothesi,hethennolongerexistsandthereforedoesnotexperiencedisappointmentoranythingelse.But,ifGoddoesnotdesirethatman'sdesireforalifeafterdeathbefulfilled,andknowsthatitwillnotbe,thenon-fulfilmentofman'sdesireforitisnotadisappointmenttoGodeither,andisthereforenotanevilatall.Ontheotherhand,whatisanevil-andthisirrespectiveofwhetherthereisorisno

talifeafterdeath-isthedistressexperiencedbythelivingduetodoubtbythemthattheywill,orthattheirdeceasedlovedonesdo,surviveafterdeath.

Theremarksinthischapterconcerningthenatureandfunctionsofreligion,theallegedproofsoftheexistenceofaGodofthetraditionalkind,thenatureofevil,andtheimplicationsofthefactthatthereisavastamountofevilonearth,haveperforcebeenmuchtoobrieftodealadequatelywithquestionssoheavilyloadedwithbiassingemotion.(8)Ifthoseremarksaresound,however,theyentailthatneitherreligionnortheologyreallyprovidesanyevidencethatthereisformanalifeafterdeath.

(8)Readerswhomightwishtoseewhatmoreelaboratedefenseofthemthewriterwouldgivearereferredtowhathehaswrittenonthesubjectelsewhere.Inpar

ticular,toChapts.8,15,16,and17,respectivelyonWhatReligionis,Gods,TheProblemofEvil,andLifeafterDeath,oftheauthor'sAPhilosophicalScrutinyofReligion,RonaldPress,NewYork,1953.

Butevenifthereisnot,believingthatthereisdoesaffectthebeliever'sfeelings,attitudes,andconduct;andtoaffecttheseinthevaluablewaysdescribedearlieristhefunctionofreligion,whichithasperformedwithvaryingdegreesofsuccess.Thefunction,ontheotherhand,oftheargumentsonwhichtheologybasesitsaffirmativeanswertothequestionastoalifeafterdeath,istomaketheideathatthereissuchalifepsychologicallybelievablebythevastn


16/171

umbersofhumanbeingswho,forobviousreasons,turntoreligionratherthantoscienceortophilosophyforananswertothatmomentousquestion.

Thattheseargumentsachievethisbutnothingmore,i.e.,convincemanyofthepersonstowhomtheyareaddressednotwithstandingthattheyreallyprovenothing,doesnotmeanthatthosewhopropoundthemarenotsincere.Itmeansonlythat,exceptinthecaseofoutstandinglyrationalpersons,becomingconvincedandconvincingothersis,aspointedoutearlier,mostlyamatterofrhetoric,ofsuggestion,ofappealtoprejudicesortofearsorhopes;whereasprovingorestablishingprobabilitiesisamatteroflogicorofempiricalevidence.----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Chapter3:TheCaseAgainstthePossibilityofaLifeAfterDeath

INCHAPT.Iwewereoccupiedmainlywiththevarietyofpsychologicalfactorswhichcausepeopletobelieve,orasthecasemaybetodisbelieve,thatthereisorcanbealifeafterdeathfortheindividual.AspointedoutinSec.6ofthatchapterandagainattheendofChapt.II,someconsiderationsmayinducebelief,ordisbelief,andyetconstitutenoevidenceorinsufficientevidencethatwhatisbelievedistrueorwhatisdisbelievedfalse;fortoconvinceisonething,andtoproveisanother.

Inthepresentchapter,ontheotherhand,whatweshallconsideraretheground

s,empiricalandtheoretical,onwhichisbasedthenowwidespreadbeliefthattheNaturalScienceshavebythistimedefinitelyprovedthatanylifeafterdeathisanimpossibility.AsProfessorJ.B.Rhinenotesinarecentarticle,"thecontinuedadvanceofbiologyandpsychologyduringthelasthalf-centuryhas...madethespirit[survival]hypothesisappearincreasinglymoreimprobabletothescholarlymind.Themechanistic(orphysicalistic)viewofmanhasbecomethementalhabitofthestudentofscience;andwiththewidepopularinfluenceofscience,theeffectoneducatedmeniswell-nighuniversal."(1)

(1)ResearchonSpiritSurvivalRe-examinedJournalofParapsychology,Vol.20:124,No.2,June1956.

Whatthenare,insomedetail,thegroundsonwhichthescholarlymindismainta

iningthatsurvivalisimpossibleoratbestimprobable?1.Empiricalfactsthatappeartoruleoutthepossibilityofsurvival

Thereareanumberoffacts-someofcommonobservationandothersbroughttolightbytheNaturalSciences-which,ithasbeencontended,definitelyshowboththattheexistenceofconsciousnessiswhollydependentonthatofalivingorganism,and-someofthem-thattheparticularnatureoftheconsciousnessatgiventimeslikewisewhollydependsontheparticularstateoftheorganismatthosetimes.

a)Forone,itispointedoutthatnowhereexceptinlivingorganismsareevidencesofconsciousnessfound.

b)Again,asobservationpassesfromthelowertothehigheranimalorganisms,thefactbecomesevidentthatthemoreelaboratelyorganizedthebodyandespeciallythenervoussystemis,thegreater,moresubtleandmorecapableoffinediscriminationsistheconsciousnessassociatedwithit.

c)Again,everyoneknowsthatwhenthebodydies,thefamiliarevidencesoftheconsciousnessithadpossessedceasetooccur;andthat,evenwhenthebodyisstillliving,asevereblowontheheadorotherinjurieswill,temporarily,havethesameresult


17/171

d)Thedependenceofconsciousnessonthebrain,moreover,isnotonlythuswholesalebutobtainsinsomedetail.Lesion,whetherbyexternalorbyinternalcauses,ofcertainregionsofthecortexofthebraineliminatesorimpairsparticularmentalcapacities-forexample,thecapacitytounderstandwrittenwords;orasthecasemaybe,spokenwords;orthecapacitytospeak,oritmaybetowrite,notwithstandingthatthecapacitytoproducesoundsortomovethehandandfingersisunimpaired.

Similarly,thecapacityforthevariouskindsofsensations-visual,auditory,tactual,etc.-isconnectedinthecaseofeachwithadifferentregionofthebrain;andthecapacityforvoluntarymotionofdifferentpartsofthebodyisdependentondifferentpartsofthebraincortexsituatedalongthefissureofRolando.Thepartsofthebrainwhichgovernthesevarioussensoryandmotorcapacitiesvarysomewhatfrompersontoperson;and,inagivenperson,acapacitydestroyedbylesionofthecorticalcenterforitoftenreturnsgraduallyas,presumably,adifferentpartofthecortextakesonthelostfunction.Butthefactthatthementalpowersaredependentonthefunctioningofthebrainremains.(2)

(2)Concerningthegeneralplanofthenervoussystem,andthedependenceofvariousmentalcapacitiesonparticularregionsofthebrain,seeforexamplepp.24-35,andthediagramsthere,inWarren&Carmichael'sElementsofHumanPsychology,HoughtonMifflin&Co.Boston,1930.

e)Thedependenceisfurtherdemonstratedwhencertainregionsofthebrainareradicallydisconnectedfromtherest,asbytheoperationcalledprefrontallobotomy;formarkedchangesinthepersonalitythenresult.

f)Again,changesinthechemicalcompositionofthebodyfluidsaffectthestatesofconsciousness.Thepsychologicaleffectsofalcoholandofcaffeinearefamiliartoeverybody.Variousdrugs-mescalin,lysergicaciddiethylamide,sodiumamytal,sodiumpentothal,heroin,opium,benzedrin,etc.-affectindiverseremarkablewaysthecontentsofconsciousness,theimpulses,dispositions,andattitudes.Consciousnessisaffectedalsobythequantityofoxygen,andofcarbondioxide,intheblood.Andtheretardationinbodilyandmentaldevelopmentknownascretinismcanberemediedbyadministrationofthyroidextract.

g)Tothesamegeneraleffectisthefactthat,bystimulatinginappropriatewaysthebody'ssenseorgans,correspondingstatesofconsciousness,towit,theseveralkindsofsensations,canbecausedatwillinaperson;and,conversely,thecapacityforthemcanbedoneawaywithbydestroyingtherespectivesenseorgansorcuttingthesensorynerves.

h)Again,thetypicaldifferencesbetweenthemaleandthefemalepersonalityarerelatedtothedifferencesbetweenthesexfunctionsofthebodyofmanandthoseofthebodyofwoman.

i)Thefactsofheredityshowthattheparticularpersonalityanindividualdevelopsdependsinpartontheaptitudeshisbodyinheritsfromthegermplasmofhisprogenitors.Andobservationshowsthattherestdependsontheenvironmental

conditionstowhichheissubjectedfromthetimeofbirthonward.Howimportantinparticulartheseareduringchildhoodisstrikinglyshownbysuchcasesasthatofthetwo"wolfchildren"ofIndia,theoldercaseofthe"wildboyofAveyron,"andafewotherswhereyoungchildrenhadsomehowmanagedtomaintainlifeandtogrowupamonganimalswithouthumancontactsuntillaterdiscoveredandstudied.Theyhaddevelopedvariousanimalskills,andvirtuallylostthecapacitytoacquiretheskills,e.g.,forspeech,whichachildautomaticallypicksupatacertainagewhensituatedinahumanenvironment.(3)

(3)TheWildBoyofAveyron,byJ-M-GItard,TheCenturyCo.London1932(tr.fr


18/171

omthe1894Frenchedition.)WolfChildrenofIndia,byP.C.Squires,Am.J.ofPsychol.,1927,No.38,p.313.Wolf-ChildrenandFeralMan,byJ.A.L.SinghandR.M.Zinng,Harper&Bros.NewYork1942.WolfChildandHumanChild,byA.Gesell,Harper&Bros.NewYork1941.

2.Theoreticalconsiderationsthatappeartoprecludesurvival

Thatcontinuedexistenceofconsciousnessafterdeathisimpossiblehasbeenarguedalsoonthebasisoftheoreticalconsiderations.

j)Ithasbeencontended,forinstance,thatwhatwecallstatesofconsciousness-ideas,sensations,volitions,feelings,andsoon-areinfactnothingbuttheminutechemicalorphysicaleventsthemselves,whichtakeplaceinthetissuesofthebrain;forexample,thechemicalchangewecallanervecurrent,whichpropagatesitselffromoneendofanervefibertotheother,andthenontothedendritesofanotherfiber;theelectricalphenomena,externallydetectablebyelectroencephalography,whichaccompanynervecurrents;thealterationswhich,atthesynapseoftwoneurons,facilitateorinhibitthepropagationofanervecurrentfromonetotheother;andsoon.

k)Thatthesevariousbrainprocessesmustbetheveryprocessesthemselves,whichweordinarilycallmental,follows,ithasbeencontended,fromthefactthatthealternativesupposition-namely,thatideas,volitions,sensations,emotions,andother"mental"statesarenotphysicaleventsatall-wouldentailthe

absurditythatnon-physicaleventscancause,andbecausedby,physicalevents.For,itisasked,howcouldanon-physicalvolitionorideapushorpullthephysicalmoleculesinthebrain?Or,conversely,howcouldamotionofmoleculesinthebraincauseavisualorauditoryorotherkindofsensationifsensationswerenotthemselvesphysicalevents?

l)Thepossibilityofit,oneistold,isanywayruledoutaprioribytheprincipleoftheconservationofenergy;forcausationofamaterialeventinthebrainbyamental,i.e.,byanimmaterialevent,wouldmeanthatsomeadditionalquantityofenergysuddenlypopsintothephysicalworldoutofnowhere;andcausationofamentaleventbyaphysicalnervecurrentwouldmeandissipationofsomequantityofenergyoutofthephysicalworld.

Theconclusionisthereforedrawnthattheeventswecallmental"cannotbeeithereffectsorcausesofthemolecularprocessesinthenervecellsofthebrain,butmustbethoseveryprocessesthemselves.Andthen,necessarily,cessationoftheseprocessesiscessationofconsciousness.

m)Anotherconceptionofconsciousness,whichismoreoftenmetwithtodaythanthechemico-physicalonejustdescribed,butwhichalsoimpliesthatconsciousnesscannotpossiblysurviveafterbodilydeath,isthat"consciousness"isthenamebywhichwedesignatemerelycertaintypesofbehavior-those,namely,whichdifferentiatetheanimalsfromallotherthingsinnature.Accordingtothisview,forexample,ananimal'sconsciousnessofadifferencebetweentwoobjectsconsistsinthedifferenceofitsbehaviortowardseach.Moreexplicitly,thismeansthatthedifferenceofbehavioriswhatconsciousnessofdifferencebetween

thetwoobjectsis;not,ascommonlyassumed,thatthedifferenceofbehaviorisonlythebehavioralsignthat,intheanimal,somethingnotpubliclyobservableandnotphysical-called"consciousnessthatthetwoobjectsaredifferent"-isoccurring.

Oragain,consciousnessofthetypicallyhumankindcalled"thought,"isidentifiedwiththetypicallyhumansortofbehaviorcalled"speech;"andthis,againnotinthesensethatspeechexpressesormanifestssomethingdifferentfromitself,called"thought,"butinthesensethatspeech-whetherutteredoronlywhispered-isthoughtitself.Andobviouslyifthought,oranymentalactivity,is


19/171

thusbutsomemodeofbehaviorofthelivingbody,themindorconsciousnesscannotpossiblysurvivethebody'sdeath.

n)Insupportofthemonisticconceptionofmanwhichtheforegoingfactsandreflectionspointtoasagainstthedualisticconceptionofmaterialbody-immaterialmind,themethodologicalprincipleknownastheLawofParsimonyhasalsobeeninvoked.Thisisdone,forexample,inthethirdchapterofabook,TheIllusionofImmortality,whichisprobablythebestrecentstatementinextensoofthecaseagainstthepossibilityofanylifeafterdeath(4).Dr.Lamonttherestatesthatthelawofparsimony"makesthedualisttheoryappeardistinctlysuperfluous.Itrulesoutdualismbymakingitunnecessary.Inconjunctionwiththemonisticalternativeitpushestheseparateandindependentsupernaturalsoulintothelimboofunneededandunwantedhypotheses...thecomplexityofthecerebralcortex,togetherwiththeintricatestructureoftherestofthenervoussystemandthemechanismofspeech,makesanyexplanationofthoughtandconsciousnessinotherthannaturalistictermswhollyunnecessary.Ifsomekindofsupernaturalsoulorspiritisdoingourthinkingforus,thenwhydidthereevolvethroughnumberlessaeonsanorgansowelladaptedforthispurposeasthehumanbrain?"(pp.114-18)

(4)CorlissLamont:TheIllusionofImmortality,PhilosophicalLibrary,NewYork,1950,Ch.IllTheVerdictofScience,pp.114-16.Dr.Lamontstates,erroneously,thatthelawofparsimony"wasfirstformulatedinthefourteenthcenturyby...WilliamofOccam,inthewords:'Entities(ofexplanation)arenottobemu

ltipliedbeyondneed.-Thefact,however,appearstobethattheformEntianonsuntmultiplicandaPraeternecessitatem,towhichSirWm.Hamiltonin1852gavethename"Occam'srazor,"originatedwithJohnPonceofCorkin1639;andthatthelawofparsimonywasformulated,priortoOccam,byhisteacherDunsScotusandsomeothermediaevalphilosophers,invariousforms;notably,frustrafitPerpluraquodfieripotestperpauciora,i.e.,themoreisinvainwhenthelesswillserve(toaccountforthefactstobeexplained.)SeeW.M.Thorburn,TheMythofOccam'sRazor.Mind,XXVII(1927)pp.345ff.

3.Thecontentionthatnoplausibleformofpostmortemlifeisimaginable

Anotherconsiderationstillhasbeenbroughtup,notablybyLamontinthebookcited,asstandinginthewayofthepossibilityofalifeafterdeath.Itis:

o)thedifficultyofimaginingatallplausiblywhatformalifecouldtakethatwerediscarnateandyetwerenotonlypersonalbutofthesamepersonastheantemortemone.Fortosupposethatagivenpersonalitysurvivesistosupposenotsimplypersistenceofconsciousness,butpersistencealsooftheindividual'scharacter,acquiredknowledge,culturalskillsandinterests,habits,memories,andawarenessofpersonalidentity.Indeed,persistencemerelyofthesewouldhardlyconstitutepersistenceoflife;for,inthecaseofmananyway,toliveistogoonmeetingnewsituationsand,byexertingoneselftodealwiththem,toenlargeone'sexperience,acquirenewinsights,developone'slatentcapacities,andaccomplishobjectivelysignificanttasks.Butitishardtoimagineallthispossiblewithoutabodyandanenvironmentforit,uponwhichtoactandfromwhichtoreceiveimpressions.Ontheotherhand,ifabodyandanenvironmentwer

esupposed,butofsome"etheric"or"spiritual"kind,i.e.,ofakindradicallydifferentfrombodiesoffleshandtheirmaterialenvironment,thenitisparadoxicaltosupposethat,undersuchdrasticallydifferentconditions,apersonalitycouldremainthesameasbeforetoanextentatallcomparabletothatofthesamenesswenowretainfromdaytodayorevenfromyeartoyear.

Totakeacrudebuttellinganalogy,itispastbeliefthat,ifthebodyofanyoneofusweresuddenlychangedintothatofasharkoranoctopusandplacedintheocean,hispersonalitycould,formorethanaveryshorttimeifatall,recognizablysurvivesoradicalachangeofenvironment,ofbodilyform,ofbodily


20/171

needs,andofbodilycapacities.

Theconsiderationssetforthinthischapterconstitutetheessentialsofthebasisforthecontentionthatpersistenceoftheindividual'sconsciousnessorpersonalityafterthedeathofhisbodyisimpossible.Suchpersistence,Lamontargues,isruledoutbythekindofrelationbetweenbodyandmindtestifiedtobythoseconsiderations.Theconnectionbetweenmindandbodyis,hewrites,"soexceedinglyintimatethatitbecomesinconceivablehowonecouldfunctionproperlywithouttheother...manisaunifiedwholeofmind-bodyorpersonality-bodysocloselyandcompletelyintegratedthatdividinghimupintotwoseparateandmoreorlessindependentpartsbecomesimpermissibleandunintelligible."(5)

(5)TheIllusionofImmortality.PhilosophicalLibrary,NewYork1950,pp.89-113.

Itshouldbenoted.however,thatbothintheallegationthattheconsiderationsreviewedestablishtheimpossibilityofsurvival,andinthecontentionthatthoseconsiderationsonthecontraryfailtoestablishthis,certainkeyconceptsareemployed.Amongthechiefoftheseare"material,""mental,""body,""mind,""consciousness,""life,"andanumberofsubsidiaryothers.Usually,incontroversiesregardingsurvival,littleornoattemptismadetospecifyexactlythemeaningthosetermsaretakentohave,forallofthembelongtothevocabularyofordinarylanguageanditisthereforenaturaltoassumethattheyarewell-understood.Andsoindeedtheyare-intheingenuousmanner,habit-begottenandun

analytical,thatisadequateforordinaryconversationalandliterarypurposes.Butsuchunderstandingofthemisfarfrompreciseenoughtopermitcleardiscernmentoftheissuesinsospecialandelusiveaquestionasthatofthepossibilityorrealityofalifeafterdeathfortheindividual.

Thefactisthat,solongasourunderstandingofthosetermsremainsthusrelativelyvague,wedonotevenknowjustwhatitiswewanttoknowwhenweaskthatseeminglyplainquestion-nor,afortiori,dowethenknowwhatevidence,ifwehadit,wouldconclusivelydecidethequestionoratleastestablishadefiniteprobabilityononesideortheother.Hence,ifoureventualinquiryintothemeritsofthecaseoutlinedinthischapteragainstthepossibilityofsurvivalistohaveanyprospectofreachingconclusionsworthierofthenameofknowledgethanhavebeenthefindingsofearlierinquirers,thenwemustfirstofallu

ndertakeananalysisofthepivotalconceptsmentionedabove.Thatanalysis,moreover,mustbenotonlypreciseenoughtodefinesharplytheissuestowhichthoseconceptsarerelevant,butmustalsoberesponsibleinthesenseofempirical,notarbitrarilyprescriptive.

ThisisthetasktowhichweshalladdressourselvesinPart2.-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Chapter4:Whatis"Material"andWhatis"Living"?

UNTILTHElastyearsofthenineteenthcentury,physicistsbelievedthattherocks,metals,water,wood,andalltheothersubstancesaboutusareult

imatelycomposedofatomsofoneormoreofsomeseventy-eightkinds-thoseatoms,astheverywordsignifies,beingindivisible,i.e.,notthemselvescomposedofmoreminuteparts.

Sincethen,however,theprogressofphysicshasrevealedthesub-atomicelectrons,protons,neutrons,positrons,mesons,etc.Thesub-atomic"particles"areatdistancesfromoneanotherthatarevastrelativelytotheirownsize,sothatamaterialobject,suchasatable,turnsouttoconsistmostlyofspaceemptyofanythingmoresubstantialthanelectricchargesorelectromagneticfields.


21/171

Thisstateofaffairsiswhatismeantbythestatementoccasionallyheardthatmodernphysicshas"dematerialized"matter-fromwhichitissometimesconcludedthatthetraditionallysharpdistinctionbetweenmatterandmind,ormaterialandmental,hasbeeninvalidatedoratleastundermined.

Yet,ifinthedarkonewalksintoatable,onedoesnotpassthroughitbutgetsabruise.Whatevermaybethereconditesubatomicconstitutionofthetableandofother"solid"objects,theydoanywayhavethecapacitytoresistpenetrationbyothersuchobjects.Physicshasnotdematerializedmatterinthesenseofhavingshownthatwood,water,air,livingbodies,andotherfamiliarsubstancesdonotreallyhavethepropertiesweperceivethemtohave.Whatphysicshasshownisthattheirfamiliarpropertiesareverydifferentindeedfromthoseoftheirsub-atomicconstituents.

1.Twoquestionstobedistinguished

Theallegationthatphysicshasnowshownthatthethingswecallmaterialarenotreallymaterialrestsonlyonafailuretodistinguishbetweentwoquitedifferentquestions.

Oneofthemisaboutthenatureoftheultimateconstituentsofallmaterialthingsandaboutthelawsgoverningtherelationsofthoseconstituentstooneanother.Thisisthequestiontowhichtheoreticalphysicsaddressesitself.Thetaskofansweringitislong,highlytechnical,andstillunfinished.Andtheanswe

rs,sofarastheyhaveyetbeenobtained,havenoobviousbearingontheproblemofthepossibilityorrealityofalifeafterdeath.

Theotherquestionisonthecontraryeasytoanswer;andtheanswer,asweshalleventuallysee,hasbearingonthevalidityorinvalidityofsomeoftheconsiderationsallegedtoruleoutsurvival.Theonlythingdifficultaboutthesecondquestionistorealizethatwealreadyknowperfectlywelltheanswertoit,andthatourfailuretonoticethisisdueonlytothefactthatwedonotclearlydistinguishthesecondquestionfromthefirst.

Forpurposesofcontrast,thefirstmaybephrased:Whatdophysicistsfindwhentheysearchfortheultimateconstituentsofthethingswecall"material?"Ontheotherhand,thesecondbutofcoursemethodologicallypriorquestionis:Whi

chthingsaretheonescalled"material?"2.Whichthingsare"material?"

Theanswertothesecondofthesetwoquestionsobviouslyisthatthethingscalled"material"aretherocks,air,water,plants,animalbodies,andsoon,aboutus;thatis,comprehensively,thesubstances,processes,events,relations,characteristics,etc.,thatareperceptuallypublicorcanbemadeso.

Nodoubtispossiblethat,originallyandfundamentally,thesethingsaretheonesdenominated"material"or"physical;"i.e.,thattheyaretheonesdenoted-pointedat-bythesenames.Moreover,unlessthephysicistalreadyknew,thusasamatteroflinguisticusage,thatthosethingsaretheoneswerefertowhen

wespeakof"material"things,hewouldnotevenknowwhichthingsaretheoneswhoseultimateconstituentsweareaskinghimtoinvestigateandtorevealtous.

Thepoint,then,whichisherecrucialisthattheobjects,events,etc.,thatareperceptuallypublicarecalled"material"or"physical"notbecausetechnicalresearchhaddetectedashiddeninallofthemsomereconditepeculiaritythatconstitutedtheirmateriality,butsimplybecausesomenamewasneeded-andthename,"material,"wasadopted-bywhichtorefercomprehensivelytoallperceptuallypublicthings.


22/171

Thecasewithregardtothesethingsandtoourcallingthem"material"isthusparallelinallessentialstothatofagivenboycalledGeorge.Heisnotsocalledbecausescrutinyofhimafterbirthdisclosedtohisparentspresenceinhimofapeculiarcharacteristic,towit,Georgeness.Rather,"George"issimplythenameortagassignedtohimbyhisparentsinordertobeabletorefertohimwithoutactuallypointingathim.Similarly,"material"or"physical"issimplythenameortagassignedbycustomtothepartoftheworldthatisperceptuallypublicoriscapableofbeingmadeso.

Hencethequestionastowhatreconditepeculiaritiesarepossessedbymaterialthingsisintelligibleatallandiscapableatallofbeingempiricallyinvestigated,onlyafteroneknowswhichthingsaretheonestobeexaminedinordertoanswerit;thatis,knowswhichthingsaretheonesnamed"material"-justasonecandiscoverthereconditepeculiaritiesofGeorgeonlyafteroneknowswhichboyistheonenamedGeorge.

3."Material,"derivativelyvs.fundamentally

Something,however,mustnowbeaddedtothestatementmadeabovethat,originallyandfundamentally,whattheexpressions"thematerialworld"or"thephysicalworld"denoteisthethings,events,processes,characteristics,etc.,thatareorcanbemadeperceptuallypublic.

Theadditioncalledforisthat,secondlyandderivatively,thoseexpressionsdenotealsotheminuteorotherwiseunperceivableconstituentsofwhateverisorcanbemadeperceptuallypublic.Theexistenceandthecharacteristicsofthesereconditeconstituentsarediscovered,notofcoursebyperceptualobservationofthemsincetheyarenotperceptible;butbytheoreticalinferencefromcertainperceivedoccurrenceswhichturnouttobeinexplicableandunpredictableexceptonthesuppositionthattheyareeffectsofcertainprocessesamongunperceivableconstituentsoftheperceivedthings-constituents,namely,havingtheverypropertiesintermsofwhichwedefinethenatureofthe"atoms,""electrons,"etc.,whichwepostulateexist.Therealityoftheseisthenconfirmedempiricallyinsofarasthepostulatingofthemturnsouttoenableustopredictandsometimestocontroloccurrencesthatarecapableofbeingperceivedbutthatuntilthenhadremainedunobservedorunexplained.

Thetitle,then,ofthosereconditetheoreticalentitiesandeventstobecalled"material"or"physical"isnot,likethatoftrees,stones,water,etc.,thattheyareperceptuallypublicsincetheyarenotso;butthattheyareexistentiallyimplicitinthethingsthatareperceptuallypublic.

4.Whatis"living."

InanarticlecirculatedtonewspapersbytheAssociatedPressearlyinDecember1957,Dr.SelmanWaksman,Nobelprizewinnerinbiology,rightlypointsoutthatthequestionwhetherlifeafterdeathispossiblecannotbeanswereduntilitsmeaninghasfirstbeenmadeclear.Hethenproceeds-todefinethemeaningheattachesto"life"andto"death"bylistingcertainobservableandmeasurablef

unctions-growth,metabolism,respiration,reproduction,adaptationtoenvironment,andintelligence-asbeingthosewhich,together,differentiatelivingfromnon-livingmaterialandconstitutethe"life"oftheformer;andbydefining"death"asterminationofthosefunctions.

Aftersometechnicalbiologicalelaboration,hecomestotheconclusionthat"anybeliefinlifeafterdeathisindisagreementwithalltheaccumulatedwisdomandknowledgeofmodembiology"-aconclusion,however,which,notwithstandingitsimpressiveallusiontobiologicalscience,thenreducestothemeretruismthatwhenthefunctionsconstitutinglifeterminatetheydonotpersist!


23/171

But,aswestatedbrieflyatthebeginningofChapt.I,therearetwosensesinwhichamanmaybesaidto"live."Oneisthebiologicalsense,definedasbyDr.Waksmanintermsofcertainpublic,measurableprocesses.Theotheristhepsychologicalsense.Itisdefinedintermsofoccurrenceofstatesofconsciousness-occurrenceofthesensations,images,feelings,emotions,attitudes,thoughts,desires,etc.,privatelyexperienceddirectlybyeachofus:thatamanis"living"inthepsychologicalsensemeansthatonesandothersofthesekeepoccurring.Moreoverlife,inthispsychologicalsenseoftheterm,iswhatmanessentiallyprizesandisusuallywhathemeanswhenhespeaksofa"life"afterthedeathanddecayofthebody.

Abiologistwouldofcoursebelikelytosaythat,anyway,statesofconsciousnessareeffectsofcertainoftheprocessesgoingoninbodiesthatarebiologically"living";andhencethatwhenthesediethestreamofstatesofconsciousnessnecessarilyterminates.Butthisdoesnotlogicallyfollowfromtheknownfacts;foralthoughthebiologistknowsthatsomestatesofconsciousnessareeffectsofbodilyprocesses,hedoesnotknowbutonlypiouslypostulatesthatallofthemwithoutexceptionareso.Moreover,hedoesnotknowthatsomeatleastofthestatesofconsciousnesswhichcertainbodilyprocessescausemightnotpossiblybecausablealsoinsomeotherway,andhencemightnotgoonoccurringafterbiologicallifeterminates.Inanycase,thequestionastowhethertheythencanordogoonisnotansweredbythetruismthatwhenbiologicallifeterminates,itdoesnotcontinue.

Dr.Waksman'sconclusionthatbiologicallifeafterbiologicaldeathisbiologicallyimpossibleescapesvacuousnessonlyiftakentoreferspecificallytotheideathat"lifeafterdeath"meansresurrectionoftheflesh;thatis,(a)reconstitutionofthebodyafterithasdiedanditsmaterialhasbeendispersedbydecayorbyworms,vultures,sharks,orcremation;andthen,(b)resumptioninthereconstitutedbodyoftheprocessesofgrowth,metabolism,respiration,etc.,whichconstitutebiological"life."

Suchreconstitutionandresumptioniswhatindeedis"indisagreementwithalltheaccumulatedwisdomandknowledgeofmodernbiology."

Thedistinctionbetweenbiologicalandpsychologicallifehavingnowbeenmades

harp,itisappropriatetonoticethat,inthecaseofeither,beingaliveisnotamatterofwhollyornotatall.Whenthebodyisincoma,underanesthesia,inafaint,orindeepsleep,theprocessesof"vegetative"lifestillgoon,butsuchbodilyactivitiesaseating,drinking,seekingfood,hidingfromorfightingenemies,etc.,whicharetypicalofthebody's"animal"life,areinabeyance,aswellasthebodilyactivitiesdistinctiveof"human"life-examplesofwhichwouldbespeaking,writing,reading,constructinginstrumentsandoperatingthem,trading,andtheother"cultural"activities.

Inthepsychologicallifeofhumanbeings,variouslevelsmaylikewisebedistinguished.Theneonate'spsychologicallifecomprisesonlysensations,feelings,emotions,andblindimpulses.Memory,associationofideas,expectations,consciouspurpose,donotyetenterintoit.Soon,however,somestatesofconsciousnes

scometofunctionassigns-signsofeventsorfactsotherthanthemselves.Atlaterstagesofindividualdevelopment,psychologicallifeatagiventimemayconsistonlyofuncontrolleddreaming,whetherbydayornight.Atothertimespsychologicallifeisonthecontraryactive-inventive,heuristic,critical,consciouslypurposive.Anditisconceivablethat,ifthereisanylifeinthepsychologicalsenseafterbiologicaldeath,suchlifemayconsistofonlycertainonesofthesevariouskindsofpsychologicalprocesses.----------------------------------------------Chapter5:Whatis"Mental"?


24/171

FROMTHEthings,events,etc.,called"physical"or"material,"wenowturntothosecalled"psychical"or"mental."Withregardtothese,thesametwoquestionsariseasdidconcerningtheothers.Statedhereintheirrightmethodologicalorder,theyare:(1)Whichevents,processes,etc.,aretheonesnamed"psychical"or"mental?"and(2)Whatcharacteristicdoesempiricalexaminationdiscoveraspeculiartoallofthem?

1.Whichoccurrencesaredenominated"mental"

Theanswertothefirstofthosetwoquestionsisthat,originallyandfundamentally,theevents,processes,etc.denotedbytheterms"psychical"or"mental"aretheinherentlyprivateoneseachpersoncan,inhimselfandonlyinhimself,attendtointhedirectmannerwhich-whetherfelicitouslyornot-iscalledIntrospection."Mental"or"psychological"eventsarethus,fundamentally,theimmediateexperiences,familiaratfirsthandtoeachofus,ofwhichthevariousspeciesarecalled"thoughts,""ideas,""desires,""emotions,""cravings,""moods,""sensations,""mentalimages,""volitions,"andsoon;orcomprehensively,"statesormodesofconsciousness."

Whatintrospectiondisclosesmaytosomeextentbepublishedbythepersonconcerned,butisneveritselfpublic.Topublishthefactthatatagiventimeone'sstateofconsciousnessisofacertainkindconsistsinperformingcertainperceptuallypublicacts-vocal,graphic,gestural,facial,orother-thataresuc

hastocausethepercipientsofthemtothinkofastateofconsciousnessofthatkindandtobelievethatthestateofconsciousnessoftheperformerofthoseactsisofthatkindatthetime.Thisiswhat,forexample,utteranceofthewords"Iamanxious,"or"IwonderwhereIparkedmycar,"or"Irememberhim,"etc.ordinarilycausestooccurinthepersonwhohearsthem.Buttheutterer'sstateofconsciousness,whichsuchwordssymbolized,isneveritselfpublicinthesenseinwhichthesoundofthosewords,orthewrittenwords,arepublic.Thatstateofconsciousnessisinherentlyprivatetotheparticularperson,ofwhosehistoryaloneitisanitem-privateinthesensethatnootherpersoncanexamineit,whereaseachpersoncanexaminehisownstatesofconsciousness;can,forinstance,comparedirectlythefeelinghecalls"anxiety"withthefeelinghecalls"wonder,"etc.

2.Introspection,Inspection,IntuitionInthecaseofsensations,attentiondirectlytothem-vs.towhattheymaybesignsofortowhattheymaybecausedby-istermedbysomewritersInspectionratherthanIntrospection.Inspectioninthistechnicalsense,then,nolessthanIntrospection,isattentiondirectlytoexperiencesthatareinherentlyprivate;for,evidently,wecannotattendtoanotherperson'ssensationsthemselves,butonlytohisappearanceorbehavior.Suchknowledgeaswehaveconcerninghissensationsresultsfromourautomaticallyinterpretingcertainmodesofhisbehaviorassignsthat,ingivensituations,he-isexperiencingsensationssimilarto,orasthecasemaybe,differentfrom,thoseweareexperiencing.

Forexample,wedonotandcannotdiscoverthatanotherpersonis,say,color-bl

indtored-green,byinspectingthesensationshehaswhenhelooksatgrassandatapoppy,andcomparingthemwiththesensationswehavewhenwelookatthesameobjects.Wediscoveritbyattendingtohisperceptuallypublicbehavioronsuchoccasions,bynoticingthatincertainwaysitisconsistentlydifferentfromourownonthesameoccasions,andbytakingthisassignifyingthathiscolor-sensationscorrespondinglydifferfromours.

Forthedirectkindofexperience,whetherattentiveorinattentive,whichwhenattentiveiscalledspecificallyIntrospection,orbysomewritersintheparticularcaseofsensations,Inspection,agenericnameisneeded;butnosuchgener


25/171

icnamelesscumbersomethan"Stateofconsciousness,assuch"appearstoexistinordinarylanguage.Ihavethereforeproposedforthiselsewhere,indefaultofabetter,thenameIntuition-definingIntuitionasoccurrenceofsomestateofconsciousness,assuch,i.e.,asdistinguishedfromwhatitmaybeconsciousnessof,inthesenseofmaysignify.

Intuition,then,maybeattentive(clear)orinattentive(dispersed,dim;)and,insofarasattentive,itistheninspective,orintrospective,accordingasthestateofconsciousnessattendedtoisasensation,orisotherthanasensation.

3."Content"vs."object"ofconsciousness

Thesecondofthetwoquestionsmentionedattheoutset,namely,whatinternalcharacterispeculiartoalltheevents,processes,etc.thatareintuitionsasjustdefined,i.e.,are"mental"or"psychical,"ismoretechnicalthanthefirst.Fortunately,itdoesnotneedtobegoneintoatanylengthforpresentpurposes.Ishallthereforesayhere,withoutattemptingtoarguethepoint,onlythatinthecaseoftheevents,processes,etc.inviewandonlyintheircase,existingconsistssolelyinbeingexperiencedandbeingexperiencedconstitutesthewholeofexisting.Thatis,intheircasebutonlyintheircase,esseestpercipi.Thisisthepeculiaritythatdifferentiatesthemfromallotherthings,events,orprocesses.Theterm"Intuition"thusdesignatestheexperiencingofsuchanexperience-anintuitionstandingtotheintuitingthereofinthesamekind

ofrelationas,forexample,astrokebeingstruckstandstothestrikingthereof(not,totheobjectstruck;)thatis,inbothcasesequally,asthe"connate"or"internal"accusativeoftheactivityconcerned,asdistinguishedfromthe"alien"or"objective"accusativeofit.Similarly,comparetastingatastewithtastingasubstance,tastingbittertastewithtastingquinine,thinkingathoughtwiththinkingofNewYork,etc.

Introspection,then,andlikewise"Inspection,"isintuitionattentivetoitsownmodalityofthemoment,insteadof,asnormally,inattentivetoit.ItsparticularmodalityatanymomentItermthecontentofconsciousnessatthemoment,asdistinguishedfromtheobjectofconsciousnessatthemoment.(1)

(1)Thecontentionsandtheterminologicalproposalssketchedinthisandthepr

ecedingtwosectionsareexplicatedanddefendedindetailinChapts.12,13,and14ofmyNature,Mind,andDeathOpenCourtPub.Co.LaSalle,Ill.1951.Seeinparticularpp.230-40,275-80,293-5,302.

Inconnectionwiththeaboveaccountofstatesofconsciousness,itwillbeappropriatetocommentherebrieflyonthefact,ofwhichmuchisbeingmadethesedays,thatweallpossessavocabulary,understoodbyourfellows,formentalstatesorstatesofconsciousness.This,itisalleged,meansthatmentalstatescannot,asgenerallyhasbeenassumedandasassertedinthetextabove,beoccurrencesunobservablebyotherpersonsthantheparticularoneinwhomtheyoccur,i.e.,beinherentlyprivate.

Rather,itiscontended,thedenotationofthewordswhichdenotementalstates

musthavebeenlearnedbyusinthesamemannerasthatofthewordswhichdenotephysicalobjectsandevents;namely,byourhearingthemappliedbyotherpersonstopublicoccurrenceswhichtheyandourselveswerewitnessing-these,however,beingdenominatedspecifically"mental"whentheyconsistedofmodesofbehaviorofcertainspecialkinds;e.g.,anger-behavior,goal-seeking-behavior,listening-behavior,seeing-behavior,etc.

Acrucialfact,however,isoverlookedbythiswould-be-inclusivebehavioristicaccountofthemannerinwhichmenhaveacquiredasharedvocabularyformentalstatesnotwithstandingthelatter'sinherentprivacy.Thatcrucialfactisthat


26/171

whenthebehavior,witnessedbyanotherperson,whichmoveshimtoemployoneoranotherofthe"mental"wordsincharacterizingit,isourownbehavior-e.g.,whenhesaystous:"Now,don'tbesoangry,"or"Don'tyouseethatbird?"or"WhatwereyoudreamingjustbeforeIwokeyou?"or"Youarewonderingatmyappearancetoday,"etc.-thenthewordsitalicizeddonotdenoteforusourbehavior,whichtheotherpersonisattendingtobutwearenot.Insteadandautomatically,theydenoteforusineachcasethementalstateitselfwhichwearesubjectivelyexperiencing-feeling,intuiting,immediatelyapprehending-andwhich,irrespectiveofhowinparticularitmaybeconnectedwithourbehavioratthemoment,isanywaynotthatbehavioritselfbutsomethingradicallydifferentandinherentlyprivate.InEnglish,"anger-behavior"denotesonething,whichispublic;and"anger"denotesanotherthing,whichispublishablebutneveritselfpublic.ItisonlyinBehaviorese-thedoctrinairelanguageofthecreedofradicalbehaviorism-that"anger"denotesanger-behavior.

Arecentwidelydiscussedwork,GilbertRyle'sTheConceptofMind,appearslargelybasedonitsauthor'soverlookingthecrucialfactjustmentioned.Andonecontentioninitofwhichmuchhasbeenmade,towit,thattherearenoactsofwillorvolitions,isbasedmerelyonfailuretonoticethatalthoughmanyvoluntaryactsindeedarenotcausedbyanyactofwill,neverthelesscertainotheractsthatarevoluntaryactsareinadditionwilledacts,i.e.,areinitiatedbydeliberatevolitions.

4."Mental,"derivativelyvs.fundamentally

Therenowremainstopointoutthat,justastheexpression"thematerialworld"denotesnotalonewhateverevents,processes,things,etc.areorcanbemadeperceptuallypublic,butalso,derivatively,theimperceptibleconstituentsofthem;solikewisetheevents,processes,etc.denominated"psychical"or"mental"includenotonlythose,suchasmentionedabove,thatareintrospectivelyor"inspectively"scrutinizable,butalso,derivatively,certainotherswhicharenotaccessibleto"inspection"orintrospectionandarethereforetermed"subconscious"or"unconsciou"insteadof"conscious."

Thesewouldcomprisesuchitemsastherepressedwishesorimpulses,theforgottenemotionalexperiences,thecomplexes,censors,etc.whichpsychoanalystsfindthemselvesledtopostulateashiddenconstituentsoractivitiesofthehumanm

ind,inordertoaccountforsomeotherwiseinexplicablepsychologicalpeculiaritiesofsomepersons.

Suchhiddenconstituentscansometimesbebroughttoconsciousnessunderthedirectionofthepsychoanalyst;buttheexplorationofthesenormallyunintrospectablepsychologicalfactorsisstillinitsinfancyascomparedwiththeexplorationoftheatomicandsub-atomiclevelsofmateriality.Themerefact,however,nowdefinitelyknown,thattherearesuchthingsasunconscious,i.e.,atthetimeunintrospectable,psychologicalprocesses,is,whentakentogetherwitheventhelimitedknowledgeofthemsofarobtained,ofvastimportanceforassessmentofthesignificanceofcertainofthephenomenaallegedtoconstituteempiricalevidenceofsurvivalofthepersonalityafterdeath.

Moreover,althoughtheterms"theunconscious,""thesubconscious,-arecommonlyemployedinconnectionwiththefactorsbroughttolightintherapeuticpsychoanalysis,neverthelessfactorsofthesamekindsundoubtedlyoperate,butordinarilyinanon-pathologicalmanner,inallofus.

Unconsciousalso,ofcourse,arevariousassumptionsunderwhichaparticularpersonhappenstoproceed,butwhichhedoesnotrealizehemakesbecausehehasneverformulatedthemandnothinginhisexperiencehashappenedthatwouldhavechallengedtheirvalidityandthusmadehimconsciousofthem.Unconsciousalsoatagiventimeareallthoseofhismemorieswhichheisnotthenremembering,


27/171

andallthoseofhiscapacitiesordispositionswhichheisnotthenexercising.------------------------------------------------------------------------Chapter6:Whatis"aMind"?

INAbookcitedearlier,Dr.Lamontdefinesmindas"thepowerofabstractreasoning,"referringtotheexerciseofitas"theexperienceofthinkingorhavingideas,"andstatingthatideas"arenon-materialmeaningsexpressingtherelationsbetweenthingsandevents."(1)

(1)TheIllusionofImmortality,pp.70,100,101.

Butalthoughthepowerofabstractreasoningmaywellbewhatdifferentiateshumanmindsfromthemindsofanimals,anddevelopedhumanmindsfromthemindsofhumaninfants,yethumanmindscomprise,besidesthepowerofabstractreasoning,variousothers,whollyorpartlyindependentofit.Thispowercouldatmostbeclaimedtoconstitutetheintellectualpartofthemindofman;forminds,humanaswellasanimalhavealsoaffectiveandconativecapacities,theexistenceofwhichLamontacknowledgesbutdoesnotincludeinhisdefinitionofmind.Hisdefinitionisthereforearbitraryandunrealistic.

1.Thetraitsintermsofwhichonedescribesparticularminds

Whenweareaskedtostatethecharacteristicsinwhichagivenperson'sminddi

ffersfromthatofanother,whatwesayis,forexample,thatheispatientwhereastheotherisirritable;intelligent,andtheotherstupid;widelyinformed,andtheotherignorant;self-disciplined,andtheotherself-indulgent;andweaddwhateverelsewehappentoknowabouthisparticulartastes,opinions,habits,intellectualskills,attitudes,knowledge,personalmemories,character,ideals,ambitions,andsoon.

Itisintermsofsuchtraitsthatwespontaneouslydescribetheparticularnatureofaparticularmind.Correspondingly,thegenericnatureofthehumanmindwouldbedescribedintermsoftraitssharedbyallnormalhumanminds.Examplesofsuchgenerictraitswouldbethecapacitytoexperiencesensations-dizziness,thirst,warmth,pain,color,tone,etc.;thecapacitytoformmentalimages-visual,auditory,orother-asindreams,inday-dreams,inmemories,andinv

oluntaryimagination;thecapacitytoexperienceemotions,moods,cravings,andimpulses;thecapacitytoimagineanddesireexperiencesorsituationsnotatthemomentoccurring;andsoon.

2.Whatisapower,capacity,ordisposition

Lamont'sdefinitionofmind,however,althoughinadequateforthereasonstated,issoundtotheextentthatitconceivesmindsintermsof"powers."

Theterm"power"isnowadaysoutoffavor,asisitsvirtualsynonym,"faculty,"theutilityofwhichwasdestroyedbymisuseofitasanswertothequestion"Why?"Theclassicalhorribleexampleofsuchmisuseisthevisdormitivaofferedasanswertothequestionwhyopiumputspeopletosleep.

Butapower,orfaculty,orcapacity,orability,or-tousethetermcurrentlyinfashion-adisposition,isnotaneventandthereforenevercanitselfbeacause.Apowerordispositionisamoreorlessabidingcausalconnectionbetweeneventsofparticularkinds.(2)

(2)Noneedarisesheretogointothequestionofthenatureofcausalityitself.Ishallthereforesayonlythatacausalconnectionbetweeneventsofspecifiedkindsisacausallaw,andthatacausallawisalawofcausationnotinvirtueofitsbeingalaw(sincesomeempiricallawsarenotlawsofcausation)but


28/171

invirtueofthefactthateachoftheparticularsequences,ofwhichthelawisaninductivegeneralization,was,initsownindividualright,acausalsequence.Fortheanalysisofthenatureofcausalitythisassumes,interestedreadersarereferredtoChs.7,8,and9ofthewriter'sNature,Mind,andDeath,OpenCourtPub.Co.LaSalIe,111.1951.

Morespecifically,thatsomethingT-whetherTbeamaterialthingoramind-hasapower,capacity,ordispositionDmeansthatTissuchthatwheneverthestateofaffairsexternalor/andinternaltoTisofaparticularkindS,thenoccurrenceofchangeofaparticularkindCinthatstateofaffairscausesoccurrenceinitofachangeofanotherparticularkindE.

Forexample,solubilityinwaterisapower,faculty,ability,capacity,ordispositionofsugar.Thismeans,notthatthesugar'ssolubilitycausesthesugartodissolvewhenitisplacedinwater;butthatsugarissuchthat(i.e.,behavesaccordingtothelawthat)wheneveraneventofthekinddescribedas"placingthesugarinwater"occurs,then,inordinarycircumstances,thateventcausesaneventofacertainotherkind,towit,thekinddescribedas"sugar'sdissolvinginwater."

Thisillustrationconcernsamaterialthing-sugar.Butthementaltraitsofpersonsarecapacitiesordispositionsinexactlythesamegenericsenseoftheseterms,definedabove,asarethematerialtraitsofsugarandofothermaterialthings.

Forexample,thatapersonpossessesamemoryofcertainpersonalexperiences,orofsomeimpersonalfactsuchasthatSocratesdiedin399B.C.,doesnotconsistsimplyofoccurrencesinhim,atsomeparticulartime,ofmentalimagesofthosepersonalexperiences,orofword-imagesformulatingthatimpersonalfact,togetherwithoccurrenceofwhathasbeentermedthefeelingoffamiliarity.Rather,itconsistsinthatperson'sbeingsuchthatwheneveraquestionorother"reminder"relatingtothosepersonalexperiencesortothatimpersonalfactpresentsitselftohisattention,then,providedthatthecircumstancesinwhichheisatthetimebenotabnormal,theadventofthe"reminder"causesthoseimages,togetherwiththefeelingoffamiliarity,toariseinhim.

Again,thatapersonis,say,irritable,doesnotmeanthatheisatthetimeex

periencingthefeelingcalledIrritation;butthatheissuchthateventsofkindswhichinmostotherpersonswouldnotinordinarycircumstancescausethefeelingofIrritationtoariseinthemdo,insimilarcircumstances,regularlycauseittoariseinhim.Andsoonwiththetastes,theskills,thegifts-intellectual,artistic,orother-thehabits,etc.,whichapersonpossesses.Allofthemanalyzeascapacitiesordispositions,i.e.,asabidingcausalconnectionsinhimbetweenanyeventofsomeparticularkindandaneventofsomeotherparticularkind,undercircumstancesofsomeparticularkind.

Theterm"dispositions",however,althoughcurrentlyingreaterfavorthan"powers"or"capacities,"isreallylessf

C. J. Ducasse - A Critical Examination of the Belief in a Life After Death

Documents

Transcript of C. J. Ducasse - A Critical Examination of the Belief in a Life After Death