CHAPTER VIII

THE RELIGIOUS ASPECTS OF THE HYPOTHESIS

Although I have no wish to become involved in controversial theology, I feel it incumbent on me to examine briefly the question of whether a general acceptance of the four-dimensional hypothesis would be fraught with any considerable consequences in the sphere of religious thought.

No one venturing to advocate conceptions so far-reaching as those I have been discussing, would be justified in ignoring their relation to any important stream of thought with which they might be held liable to come in contact. And it is evident that any hypothesis formulated, however tentatively, as a solution to the problems of Survival of Death and the nature of post-mortem conditions, must inevitably come into very close contact with Religion.

I shall try to show that it is a matter of contact only and not of conflict.

Even so, I might have omitted the present discussion had I not found a tendency, on the part of certain representatives of orthodox theology, to deprecate any attempt to find an intelligible solution to the problems involved.

It must be clearly understood that I am not concerned here with the defence of Psychical Research as a means of investigation, but only with the legitimacy of the end.

Generally speaking, those with whom I am so unfortunate as to disagree on this matter accuse me on two counts.

First it is suggested that I am attempting to advance by Reason or Sight rather than by Faith and, secondly, I am told that to "explain" such a matter as the Survival of Death or the nature of the connection between matter and spirit, would tend to reduce everything to terms of mere mechanism and to leave no place at all in the Cosmos for Divine Will and Purpose or for the transcendental and mystical aspects of religion.

I need hardly say that I violently resent both these accusations.

The first charge seems to me to be easy of refutation.

In the first place the idea of "Blind Faith" or "Unreasoning Belief" is one which involves a contradiction in terms.

As Whately well says in his "Logic":

"If a man resolves that he will implicitly receive _e.g._, in religious points, all the decisions of a certain Pastor, Church or Party, he has in doing so performed one act of private judgment (_i.e._, the result of reasoning), which includes all the rest."

Hence it is impossible to dissociate Faith and Reason.

Secondly, just as Courage, in its proper sense, does not mean feeling no fear but the overcoming of it; so Faith consists, not of having no doubts but of dispelling them, and this involves a deliberate exercise of the will in choosing between two possible alternatives; that is to say, an act of reasoning.

Thirdly, I submit that Life is not a sort of crazy competition in which special awards are to be received for completing the course blindfold, but a phase in the general upward progress of man--whether considered collectively or individually--and that consequently any knowledge is desirable which will enable us consciously and intelligently to co-operate in the process.

Finally, and I think that this puts the whole matter in one sentence, however clearly a man can see, he must still be able to believe his eyes.

However plainly we can see the path, we must still believe that it leads in the right direction, however conclusively we may demonstrate a proposition, we are still dependent on our Faith in the validity of Reason and the veridicity of the observations on which it is based--and this is equally the case whether the latter be scientific measurements or spiritual experiences.

The supreme effort of Faith, made by the most material of scientists no less than by the Saint, is the belief that the Cosmos, of which Reason is a part, is a coherent whole and not a Chaos.

The second argument appears to me to be equally fissiparous.

In the first place I should never dream of attempting to reduce the whole Cosmos to terms of mechanism.

Any such idea would be infinitely repugnant to me. Moreover, the attempt would inevitably be foredoomed to failure since there are problems which are essentially insoluble. The first and most obvious of all--the problem of the nature and origin of Consciousness--is one to which we can never hope to find an answer.

But quite apart from all this I entirely fail to see why the explanation of mechanism, using the word in its widest sense, should have any bearing on religion at all.

Religion, by which I mean something more than a mere code of morals, is concerned rather with motives than with methods.

If a child were to ask one why the sun and moon did not fall on to the earth, one might reply to the effect that they were prevented from doing so by the exercise of the Divine Will. Alternatively one might embark on a disquisition about the law of gravitation and planetary mechanics.

The two forms of explanation would be by no means mutually exclusive since the second does no more than expand the first by an exposition of the means employed.

If, as required by the Christian religion, we believe in the survival of the individual personality after death, it is evident that this survival must take place by virtue of certain properties inherent in the Cosmos and the necessity of Faith in our ultimate destiny will not be affected by any determination of the nature of those properties.

If our Consciousness does in fact persist after death it must do so in some state of embodiment, since the idea of pure essence is inconceivable.

For my part I utterly fail to understand why the study of the nature of the vehicle in which the consciousness functions after death, or of the conditions in which it lives, has any more to do with religion, in the proper sense of the term, than the study of the physical body and the physical world.

I need hardly say that I do not anticipate that Psychic Research will confirm the idea of the old-fashioned conventional Heaven and Hell of harps and crowns on the one hand and fire and brimstone on the other. But it would be a bold person who would be prepared to maintain now-a-days that these ideas form an integral part of Christianity.

Modern research on Evolution and the process of natural selection have somewhat notably discounted the story of Adam and Eve in the garden of Eden, considered as historical fact. But it would be difficult to maintain that the Christian religion has suffered as a consequence.

The account of the creation given in Genesis has had to be re-interpreted in the light of geological and astronomical knowledge, but Christianity is as vital a force in the world to-day as it was when that account was taken literally word for word.

Even so, if any specific revelation existed on the subject of the manner of survival, if, for instance, any of the words of Christ could be held to contain any precise information on the subject, it might be contended that no further knowledge was necessary. But this is not the case.

Immortality is insisted on, but nothing specific is said of the conditions by virtue of which it obtains. Nor, so far as I am aware, is any veto laid on endeavours to ascertain those conditions.

I repeat that in my opinion, cosmic mechanism and religion are distinct, and no knowledge, however full, as to the former can possibly either impair or replace the latter.

In short I do not see that the necessity for religion as an integral part of life would be one whit diminished even supposing we knew as much about the "next world" and conditions of life therein, as we know of this.

And this contention holds good no matter what results research may bring to light, no matter how much they may differ from our preconceived ideas.

For the truth is there all the time although at the moment we may not have grasped it and the Christian religion, if it be the true religion, as we believe, was framed, so to speak, to meet the needs of a cosmos organised in this particular way and in no other.

Unless, therefore, the Christian religion be false, it is impossible that the results of research, supposing them to be accurate and reliable,--a matter which can only be ensured by the exercise of scientific reason,--should in any way conflict with religious truth.

In case any one should feel that I ought to specify more precisely than I have done, what I mean by the Christian religion, I would refer them to the Nicene creed. Or if it is a matter of the interpretation of this in terms of conduct, I should cite "My duty towards God" and "My duty towards my neighbour" in the Church Catechism. Or in secular writings I would mention that view of Christianity which is defended by Mr. G.K. Chesterton in his book "Orthodoxy."

With these I am prepared to stand four-square, although it is conceivable that I might find myself at variance with some authorities on the precise interpretation to be given to certain clauses, as for instance "the resurrection of the dead" in the first mentioned.

But controversies about interpretation have been rife among Christian theorists from the earliest times and differences of opinion on minor points do not constitute lack of adherence in fundamentals.

Hitherto in this discussion I have been concerned only with negatives. That is to say I have been trying to show that there is nothing in the attempt which has led me to adopt the four-dimensional hypothesis which is in any way contrary to the essential teachings of Christianity.

There is however a positive side to the question.

I believe that so far from being antagonistic to Christian teaching, the general acceptance of the hypothesis would be of real value, in that it would put into the hands of the Church a very powerful weapon for the repelling of a certain form of attack, that of the scientific materialist to wit.

I do not mean to claim this as a merit of the four-dimensional hypothesis as such, for it would equally accrue to any other hypothesis which might prove to be true.

In the second chapter I gave my reasons for believing that the establishing of some such hypothesis would be calculated to remove the principle cause of dissension between religious and materialistically scientific thinkers. I there pointed out that the chief strength of the materialist lay in the reluctance or inability of the Church to give an intelligible explanation of the terms used in speaking of certain religious and spiritual matters.

I have explained that I see nothing in anyway repugnant to religion in the attempt to formulate an hypothesis to explain the mechanism of survival, etc.

Equally it should be observed that religion, considered as something more than a mere ethical and moral code, would be in no way freed from the necessity of justifying itself, _qua_ religion, by the acceptance, however unanimous, of this or any other hypothesis. Such justification is a matter for an apologetic of quite another order, of which order, by the way, I regard Mr. Chesterton's "Orthodoxy" mentioned above as a very admirable example.

What the general acceptance of such an hypothesis would do, would be finally and for ever to deprive the materialist of the possibility of maintaining that matter, as he knows it, is the final and only permanent reality and that Spirit therefore cannot exist.

It is true that this would only involve driving him back one stage. If we suppose for the sake of argument that we could finally attain to as complete a knowledge of the "next world" as we at present possess of this, he could always return to the attack, using with regard to that state the same arguments as he originally used with regard to this. But having once broken through the ring fence of matter and demonstrated that there exist other realities of which he was at one time entirely ignorant, he could never deny that there might still be realms as yet unknown to him. He could never catch us again, so to speak.

I admit that the above is a somewhat fantastical supposition and scarcely within the sphere of practical politics, but the point is, that until we are prepared to give an intelligible explanation of things we are pent up in a sort of intellectual _cul-de-sac_ bounded by matter. We may know, as the result of personal experience, that there is a way out, that matter is not the only reality; but our knowledge is a purely personal affair and the scientist is perfectly entitled, if he wishes, to decline to take the steps that led to the experiences which have convinced us, to dismiss them as mere hallucinations and to write off our alleged "revelations" as superstitious myths.

But let us once demonstrate to him, in a manner calculated to appeal to his intellect, that there may be a non-material reality and the _cul-de-sac_ is at once broken through and becomes a vista.

It may be one of which we cannot see the end, and we shall certainly require faith to believe that it leads to the right destination, but the point is that it _is_ a vista and not a _cul-de-sac_.

This is where I am convinced that the adoption of some hypothesis of the same general order as that which I have been advocating would prove of definite value to the Church and that is why I am so strongly of opinion that the Church, by which term I mean more especially those whose business it is to concern themselves with the general trend of Christian policy with regard to contemporary thought, ought to encourage and not to deprecate or oppose attempts on these lines.

In thus venturing to criticise the Church, I should like to make it clear that I only do so because I am convinced that the Church is a vital and indispensable part of human life, and because I wish to see her influence increased and extended rather than diminished. If I thought otherwise I should not take the trouble even to criticise.

So far I have said nothing about the religious significance of the four-dimensional hypothesis as such; considered that is to say as to its four-dimensionality and not merely in its capacity as a hypothesis.

The reason for this omission is simply that I do not consider that there is any such significance.

In the main concept of existence in four-dimensional space after death there is, so far as I can see, nothing either to contradict or to confirm anything taught by the Church except the bare fact of survival which both affirm.

I have carefully omitted all reference to the descriptions of post-mortem existence which have been obtained from time to time through mediumistic sources. Any such discussion would be both lengthy and out of place as it would involve a detailed critical examination of both the authenticity and interpretation of the pronouncements.

The only point about the four-dimensional hypothesis as such which I think at all likely to be called in question from the religious point of view, is that involved in the suggestion that Consciousness persists after death, not in the form of "pure essence" but embodied in some form of vehicle.

But this is a matter which is fully included under the general arguments I adduced in favour of the legitimacy of investigating the "Cosmic mechanism" to the utmost and there seems to be no need for a separate re-discussion here.

It is interesting to note however that a large number of the early Christian thinkers adhered to the view that "the soul" had some sort of material or quasi-material vehicle. A number of quotations on the subject are given in M. Leon Denis' book "Christianity and Spiritualism."