A new basis of belief in immortality / by John S. Farmer.

  • Farmer, John S.
Date:
1882
Catalogue details

Licence: Public Domain Mark

Credit: A new basis of belief in immortality / by John S. Farmer. Source: Wellcome Collection.

    22/132 (page 20)
    What wonder, then, that such men will tell you they cannot but doubt! They are, unquestionably, men of power and influence in the community, and their views may fairly be taken as an index of general public opinion. Thus, when told of “miracles,” of “angels who once talked with men,” of “ inspiration,” “ revelation,” and of a life beyond the grave, palpable proof thereof is naturally and justly demanded, but demanded in vain. “Give me tangible evidence that I may see, hear, and feel these things. If they are realities, I will then believe,” is the cry. Science argues, and one cannot but admit that the argument is reasonable enough, that the best evidence that these things did occur in the past under the conditions named, would be that they do occur in the present under like circumstances which can be proved, tried, and tested. This is certainly not the case with the ancient miracles. Theologians may preach theories till doomsday, but, in the absence of demonstrable proof, the labour will but be in vain. Proof, 'palpable proof oi Immortality, is what the world requires, and that the Church acknowledges herself powerless to give.* positions she has so unsuccessfully defended:—“ When Science is commanded to sur- render her intellectual convictions, may she not ask the ecclesiastic to remember the past ? The contest respecting the figure of the earth, and the location of heaven and hell, ended adversely to him. He affirmed that the earth is an extended plain, and that the sky is a firmament, the floor of heaven, through which again and again per- sons have been seen to ascend. The globular form demonstrated beyond any possi- bility of contradiction by astronomical facts, and the voyage of Magellan’s ship, he then maintained that it is the central body of the universe, all others being in sub- ordination to it, and it the grand object of God’s regard. Forced from this position, he next affirmed that it is motionless, the sun and stars actually revo'ving, as they apparently do, around it. The invention of the telescope here again j roved that he was in error. Then he maintained that all the motions of the solar system are rrga. lated by Providential intervention; the ‘Principia’ of Newton proved that they are due to irresistible law. He then affirmed that the earth and all the celestial bodies were created about 0000 years ago, and that in six days the order of nature was settled, and plants and animals in their various tribes introduced. Constrained by the accumulating mass of adverse evidence, he enlarged his days into periods of in- definite length, only, however, to find that this device was inadequate. The six ages, with their six special creations, could no longer be maintained, when it was dis- covered that species slowly emerged in one age, reached a culmination in a second, and gradually died out in a third. This overlapping from age to ago would not only have demanded creations, but re-creations also. Ho affirmed that there had been a deluge, which covered the whole earth above the tops of the highest mountains, and that the watero of this flood were removed by a wind. Corrected ideas resiiectiug the dimen- sions of the atmosphere, and of the sea, and of the operation of evaporation, proved how untenable such statements are. Of the progenitors of the human race, he declared that they had come from their Makers hands, perfect both in body and mind, and had subsequently experienced a fall. He is now considering how best to dispose of the evidence constantly accumulating respecting the savage condition of pre-historic man.” Ho further adds, Is it at all surprising that the number of those who hold the opinions of the Church in light esteem should so rapidly increase ? Can that bo received as a trustworthy guide iu the invisible, which falis into so many errors with the visible ? How can that give evidence of the moral and spiritual which has so signally failed in the physicai ? It is not possible to dispose of these conflicting facts as ‘ empty shadows,' ‘ vain devices,’ ‘ convictions coming from knowledge falsely so-called,’ ‘ errors wearing a deceitful appearance of truth,’ as the Church stigmatises them. On the contrary, they are stern wituosses, bearing emphatic and unimpeach- able testimony against the ocolesiasticai claim of infallibility, and fastening a con- viction of ignorance and blindness upon \yiiT.—Draper's History of Conflict betioeen Jieli(/ion anil Scietuo. *'ln counectiou with this thought. Epos Sargent, in his “ Proof Palpable of Immor- tality,” remarks “Is the proof palpable not wanted? Consider the deadnoss of ail