HOW TO SPEAK WITH THE DEAD
HOW TO SPEAK
WITH THE DEAD
_: : A PRACTICAL HANDBOOK : :_
BY SCIENS
AUTHOR OF RECOGNISED SCIENTIFIC TEXT-BOOKS
[Illustration]
NEW YORK
E. P. DUTTON & CO.
681 FIFTH AVENUE
PUBLISHED 1918
BY E. P. DUTTON & CO.
Printed in the United States of America
CONTENTS
CHAPTER PAGE
PREFACE vii
I. DO THE DEAD STILL LIVE? 1
II. SOUL AND LIFE 28
III. TELEPATHY AND TELE-MNEMONIKY 44
IV. DISCARNATE SPIRITS 57
V. MEDIUMS 77
VI. COMMUNICATING 90
VII. PRACTICAL INSTRUCTIONS FOR SPEAKING WITH THE DEAD 103
VIII. “SPIRITUALISM” AND “RATIONALISM” 131
PREFACE
Practical instructions for speaking with the dead are given in Chapter
VII of this book. Inasmuch, however, as rational men and women do not
care to enter upon systematic proceedings of any kind without having
some reasonable assurance that a commensurate result will follow, it
has been thought desirable to add, in Chapters I to IV, a general
outline of the scientific facts and arguments on which the certainties
of “survival” and “communication” are based. In Chapters V and VI some
necessary information as to mediums and communicating is given. And, in
Chapter VIII, the distinction between Speaking with the Dead on the one
hand, and Spiritualism faced by Rationalism on the other, is made clear.
The book is strictly impartial from all points of view--whether
Religious, Scientific, Agnostic, Spiritualistic, or Rationalistic. It
is impersonal. It sets aside the writer’s own occult experience which,
in the course of a long life devoted mainly to scientific pursuits,
has happened to be very considerable. It is a mere cold, neutral
text-book. The hard facts of the case are alone responsible for the
circumstance that it shows Science to be a sponsor for the reality of
speaking with the dead.
A few words--which many persons will read with amazement--must be added
here on the subject of _Cui bono?_ Multitudinous vials of scorn have
been poured out on the inanities of ordinary spiritualistic _séances_;
and all research into such matters is rigidly boycotted in scientific
circles as being unworthy of any intelligent individuals notice. Even
when the President of the Royal Society himself, and others who are
entitled to write F.R.S. or D.Sc. after their names, have been known
to touch the accursed and degrading thing, they have been either
ostracised or half-pardoned contemptuously. This attitude is based on
the belief that occultism is an idle and vain form of mental activity,
and cannot, with any reason, be expected to add anything to the stock
of human knowledge or to produce results of service to mankind. _Cui
bono?_ Why waste time in tomfoolery that can never be useful and may
possibly lead feeble persons into the abyss of insanity?
The defect of the attitude is that it is unscientific. The proudest
claim of Science is that she deals with the Facts of the universe
and gives her allegiance to Truth rather than to Opinion. But these
features are the characteristics of every well-conducted sitting for
the development of psychical manifestations. The search is for facts;
and the object pursued is the attainment of truth. If, then, a leader
of science denounce the sitting as being necessarily futile he does one
of two things: either he disallows the proudest claim of Science; or he
declares the limits of his own personal knowledge to be those of Fact
and Truth.
It has often happened that researches which appeared at the outset
to be a mere waste of time have in the end been found productive of
much practical and useful knowledge. The modern inquiries into the
feasibility of speaking with the dead are a case in point. They have
already brought the world of Science and Industry face to face with the
possibility and near prospect of a command over Matter and Physical
Force such as men have never hitherto enjoyed and such as must lead
inevitably to the greatest advance of material prosperity that mankind
has ever experienced. This may best be made clear by dealing with some
concrete example.
The lessons of the Great War, the utterances of expert authorities like
Lord Montagu of Beaulieu, and the newspapers generally, have taught the
public that the navigation of the air will be the great and dominating
factor of the world’s progress in future. This need not be enlarged
upon here. Everyone admits that the command of the air will solve the
problem of intercourse between all the regions of the globe, and will
bring in its train a vast improvement in all the arts of living and a
greatly-widened distribution of natural wealth.
Now the whole question of aerial navigation hinges absolutely and
completely on that of gravitation. The great desideratum is a
weightless (_i.e._, weightless in effect) aeroplane (with, of course,
a virtually weightless crew, virtually weightless passengers, and a
virtually weightless cargo) which can move fast or slowly as required,
which can come to a stop in the air and which cannot fall. Science
and industry are now within measurable distance of such virtually
weightless aircraft, thanks to the investigators who have not been
deterred by obloquy and ostracism from speaking with the dead.
It is usually assumed in scientific circles that gravity is an
unsolved mystery and is entirely beyond the scope of human control in
the present state of knowledge. The assumption is well founded if by
“knowledge” is meant merely that which is possessed by living human
beings and derived solely from normal sources. But if there be, in
reality, certain intelligences other than ordinary men and women,
they may possibly be better informed with regard to the facts of the
universe; and if intelligent communication be feasible as between the
better informed personalities and their cousins in this life, it is
conceivable that some of the latter may thus acquire information which
would otherwise be unattainable. This has actually happened with regard
to gravitation. Sir William Crookes more than forty years ago entered
into communication with supernormal intelligences and carried out
certain laboratory experiments that showed the control and modification
of gravity to lie within the compass of human ability when guided by
the intelligences in question. And many more experiences of a similar
or of an analogous kind are on record. The facts are well established
and cannot be successfully denied or explained away.
More recent researches have led to some elucidation of the knowledge at
which discarnate spirits have arrived with regard to gravitation. They
hold that human science is crippled needlessly by its non-recognition
of Motion as being in itself an entity distinct from Mass. They hold
that Matter is just as much a compound of Mass and Motion as common
salt is a compound of sodium and chlorine. They contend further that
gravitation is due to the fact that Motion, like heat, may, where
human observation is concerned, exist in either a latent or a sensible
form; and they assert the practicability of adding to or subtracting
from the quantity of Motion in any given bulk of Matter. In proof of
the truth of this assertion they point to the phenomena of what is, by
psychical enquirers, called “levitation”--phenomena which have been
observed and recorded over and over again and may be seen by any person
who takes the trouble to attend even an ordinary table-sitting. And
they occasionally rally the human personalities with whom they are
communicating upon the dullness of apprehension which has hitherto
stood in the way of a broad induction from the myriad everyday facts
of weight, coiled springs, drawn bows, artificial jumping frogs,
jacks-in-boxes, closely touching billiard-balls in a row, projectiles
at the moment of terminating their upward flight, cricket-balls at the
moment of meeting the stroke of the bat, and all other examples of
latent and sensible Motion.
These views entertained by spirits who have been spoken to on the
subject have of late been borne out very markedly by Dr. Crawford’s
experiments, referred to in Chapter I of the present book. Dr. Crawford
himself seems to be regarding his tests from the point of view of Mass
alone and to be thinking that he is on the track of a new kind of
Matter; but his results fit in still better with the long-established
facts of levitation and with the new doctrine of Motion that is fast
being accepted in Progressive Circles. It is difficult to believe that
a living woman can be deprived of a considerable portion of her Mass
without sustaining serious physiological injury. It is also difficult
to believe that the removed Mass when laid on the floor or on the
drawing-board can be invisible. But there is not any difficulty at
all in supposing Motion to have been removed from the medium, the
chair, the drawing-board and the platform, without any change of either
visibility or appearance in any of the entities concerned. When water
at 70° Fahr. is cooled down to 50° Fahr. it loses a something we call
heat, but the human eye cannot detect any difference in the liquid.
When a bowled cricket ball is arrested by the bat it loses a something
we call sensible motion, but its outward appearance remains unvaried.
We need not therefore expect a human body or a chair to look otherwise
than as usual simply because it loses some or all of its latent Motion.
That the knowledge here discussed may be applied practically and that
material substances may thus be rendered weightless and so removed from
the influence of gravitation is not a mere theory. It is an actual
fact: levitation occurs. What now remains to be done is to harness
the acquired knowledge and experience into the service of aerial
navigation. Certain Progressive Circles are at work. Whether success
will be achieved first by Dr. Crawford in his Goligher laboratory, or
by Mr. Edison in his “spook factory” where the workmen agree to become
recluses for a period of many months, or by the capable director of
the still more mysterious establishments in Florence where many a
medium has been passed under review during the last two years, or by,
haply, some other investigator of whom the present writer has not yet
heard, is a matter that must for the time being be allowed to rest on
the knees of the gods. What has already been accomplished in public and
the remarkable advances now taking place privately are a sufficient
answer to the question _Cui bono?_ Speaking with the dead is a practice
that is proving of benefit to England and the world at large.
SCIENS.
HOW TO SPEAK WITH THE DEAD
CHAPTER I
DO THE DEAD STILL LIVE?
If survival after what is called “death” be not a fact, the idea of
communication with the dead becomes nonsensical. The first question,
therefore, that has to be asked in any consideration of the subject
is--Do the Dead still live? This enquiry may be addressed both to
Religion and to Science; and in both cases it will be found that an
affirmative reply is given.
So far as Religion is concerned the case is simple enough. It is a
matter of common knowledge that nearly all the inhabitants of the
world, including a great majority of its scientific men, accept and
profess some form of religion. It is also a matter of common knowledge
that all religions teach the doctrine of survival; that is to say,
they teach that in every individual human being there exists a soul
which becomes separated from the body at death and continues to live
on in some form of existence while the body decays. The belief,
accordingly, of the great majority of mankind is now, and always has
been in historical times, that the answer “Yes” must be given to the
question--Do the Dead still live?
This is a hard fact that cannot be glossed over or explained away.
Where a belief is practically universal reasonable men may well infer
that it is not altogether unfounded. Such an inference, however,
falls a good deal short of actual proof; and when Religion is asked
to supply such proof the response, though satisfactory enough to
religious believers, is not acceptable from a scientific point of view.
The Bible, for example, and the sacred books of religions other than
the Jewish and Christian faiths, contain an abundance of testimony to
show that life after death is a reality; and history in general, both
ecclesiastical and secular, narrates many occurrences of such survival.
The body of evidence thus available is equal in quantity and quality to
that which is commonly accepted as sufficient to establish historical
facts in general or cases in the law-courts in particular.
But Science asks for something more than human testimony and records.
It turns from fallible men to infallible Nature. The only truths which
it will accept as proven are those revealed by the senses, by physical
observations and by actual experience. It demands also that every
truth thus established shall be capable of confirmation by repeated
experimental tests. What, therefore, has to be considered in this
chapter is whether survival after death is admitted by Science to be
one of Nature’s truths.
Such an admission has already been made by many of the foremost leaders
of Science in both past and present times. Sir Isaac Newton, Faraday,
Wallace, Crookes, Lodge, Barrett and other Fellows of the Royal Society
were, or are, survivalists. Their judgment of the case is not to be
lightly regarded; and by many reasonable men it is looked upon as
conclusive. It is, however, assumed that the readers of these pages
will not be content to have the matter settled by mere authority, even
of the highest degree of eminence; and as scientific men still exist
who declare in lectures, speeches and books that the doctrine of
survival is a mistaken one, it becomes necessary to make the case clear
by an appeal to fully recognised facts that no one, whether survivalist
or non-survivalist, can dispute.
The first of these facts is that Science admits the existence of
living individual personalities. When a man is made a Fellow of the
Royal Society, or when a President of the British Association for the
Advancement of Science is elected, the choice falls upon more than a
mere bulk of matter combined with a certain amount of force and energy.
Added to these there is a something characterised by knowledge, memory,
consciousness, will, conscience, morality, a perception of good and
evil, a capability of love and hatred, and all the other qualities
that go to the making up of what people mean when they speak of a
“soul.” If “non-survivalists” prefer to use some other word, well and
good. Disputes about names are a mere beating of the air. What is of
moment is that all parties are agreed as to the real existence of the
something to which reference has here been made.
The second fact is that Science admits the “soul” and body of a human
being to be distinct and separate entities, even though they may
be closely associated. This is not so clearly obvious as the first
fact; and some--though not many--scientists may feel disposed to
challenge the accuracy of the assertion. It is necessary, therefore, to
substantiate it in a detailed fashion.
It is a matter of common knowledge that if a man’s body be deprived of
an arm, a leg, an eye, etc., the “soul” is not affected thereby in any
essential way. Our hair may be shaved off, our nails cut, our teeth
extracted, and our “souls” are none the worse for the operations. A
lung may be put out of action by tuberculosis and the “soul” lives on
unaffected. A human being may be “apparently drowned” or may become
entranced. His breathing may cease, his very heart may stop beating.
The ordinary bodily mechanism by means of which the “soul” makes its
presence known may cease to be operative, and--as actually happens
now and again--the individual may be so “dead” in the judgment of
physicians that he or she is laid out for burial, aye, and is sometimes
buried in real earnest, while all the time the soul is as full of life
as ever it was. Every person of education is aware that these are
matters of frequent observation and experience. They cannot be denied.
They are not consistent with the idea of the existence of the “soul”
being limited by the existence of the body.
The case may be put even more strongly. In war it often happens that
a man is shot through the arm in such a way that a part of a nerve
controlling the muscles of certain fingers is destroyed. The fingers
thereupon become paralysed; but when a surgeon fills up the gap in the
nerve by inserting a piece of nerve taken freshly from a slaughtered
calf the brain finds itself once more able to send its messages to
the muscles, and the man finds he can move his fingers. Absolute
proof thus exists that the brain and the fingers are distinct and
separate entities; and it would be utterly unscientific to infer that
the observed paralysis indicates necessarily any disappearance of, or
change in, the brain. What really occurs is merely that the brain is
deprived, for the time being, of one of the tools it is in the habit of
using for the purpose of exercising its authority over the body.
Consider, too, what takes place when a man has a “stroke,” as it is
termed--an apoplectic fit, the breaking of a small blood-vessel in
the brain. The exuded blood forms a clot which presses upon some of
the brain-cells and interferes with the normality of their action. In
some cases the cells affected are those that influence the organs of
speech. The man becomes dumb or cannot pronounce correctly. He has the
will to speak in his ordinary manner and he makes desperate efforts to
do so. These remain unavailing until the blood-clot becomes absorbed
and ceases to interfere with the brain-cells; and then the man’s will
is once more able to exert its authority over the latter, which, in
their turn, are once more able to organise and send forward the desired
impulses to the tongue, lips, etc. Absolute proof thus exists that the
will and the brain are distinct and separate entities; and it would
be utterly unscientific to infer that the observed pressure on, and
paralysis of, the brain-cells indicates any disappearance of, or change
in, the will.
But the will is comprised in the something that is commonly called
the “soul.” We see, then, that the existence of the soul and body as
distinct and separate entities is admitted by Science and demonstrated
by the everyday experience of mankind.
It is desirable, however, to add a word or two respecting a phrase and
an idea correlated thereto which have long exercised a mischievous
influence in psychics and psychology. The phrase is that “thought may
possibly be a secretion of the brain.” The idea is that although body
and mind (or soul) are separate entities neither of them can exist
separately from the other.
To speak of thought as a secretion of the brain is to misuse the word
“secretion” and to render it meaningless, in which case the famous
phrase becomes nonsensical. A secretion is a material substance
organised from, and by, some other, parent, material substance. It
belongs to the domain of physics and can be expressed in terms of
statics and dynamics. Nothing of all this is possible with regard to
thought, which belongs to the domain of metaphysics and is immaterial.
To speak of something immaterial being organised from something
material is an abuse of language, and reduces discussion to an idle
jangle of articulate sounds.
There is not anything similarly nonsensical in the idea of body and
soul being interdependent entities. The question is one of simple fact
and observation. It is a matter of common knowledge that human bodies
continue to exist long after their separation from the something that
is called “soul.” This continued existence may even be unaccompanied
(as in the case of mummies) by ordinary decay, and in some cases may
involve a prolongation of partial vitality, such as, for instance, the
well-known phenomenon of the growth of hair and nails after “death.”
But that the soul has ceased to be united as before with the body is,
in all cases, a matter of certainty. Hence the idea now being discussed
obviously requires amendment. It is not permissible to say that body
is perpetually dependent upon soul. And the question remains whether
it is permissible to say that the existence of an individual soul is
dependent upon its remaining attached to the body it accompanied during
life.
This leads to the third of the facts to be considered--the fact,
namely, that Science admits the possibility of “souls” continuing
to exist when detached from the bodies with which they are usually
associated. The word “detached” does not mean necessarily separation
by any considerable interval of space, or the complete absence of
every means of communication. A man who speaks and a man who hears
are spoken of as being detached from each other notwithstanding that
they are connected together by a sound-conveying atmosphere. Bricks
stacked in a pile are detached separate entities even though, in
popular language, they are said to be “touching” one another. So, in
the case of a paralysed man, the affected portion of his brain is no
longer under the control of his will, and to that extent there is a
severance of his body from his soul; while in cases of complete trance
the detachment in question extends to the entire material organism, and
also to the entire psychical entity. The soul becomes, for the time
being, wholly separated from the body, which no longer is actuated
by consciousness, sensation, memory, thought or volition. All that
serves to distinguish the state of things from “death” is the absence
of bodily decomposition, together with one or two other physical
peculiarities, such as the response of the muscles to electrical
excitement and the ophthalmoscopic appearances of the fundus oculi.
Yet, when the trance comes to an end, the normal intimate association
of soul and body is resumed, and both soul and body are found to be
unchanged.
Now, this is a matter of common knowledge among educated persons and
has often been made a subject of scientific observation. It proves,
clearly enough, that souls can exist independently of material
bodies; and the proof will not be disputed by any man of science who
is concerned to speak of things as they are, and who uses words in
their ordinary plain meaning and not for the purpose of dialectical
subtleties.
Trance, however, is not the only form of separate soul-existence that
comes within the range of human experience. A very much more common
occurrence is that of sleep. Here the scientist will hesitate a little
before making any admission. The view now taken by Science of sleep is
that the phenomenon is “a natural condition of insensibility, more or
less complete, recurring normally (for the adult) with each night,”
and further, that “the cause of sleep is undetermined, but is supposed
to depend upon the production of sedative agents during our waking
activities which ultimately clog the higher functions of the brain.” It
is also held that “in natural deep sleep all the higher brain-centres
are more or less out of action, together with the senses of sight,
touch, taste, smell and hearing, though in varying degrees.” And, with
regard to dreaming, the explanation given is that “the gradual passing
of the higher nerve-centres--_i.e._ the highest centres of the cerebral
matter--from normal to subnormal activity, or rest, removes from the
lower centres a certain inhibition, and these respond more readily both
to external stimuli and to altered internal stimuli or tension of the
blood-vessels. Accompanying this functional dissolution of the higher
centres there is, in varying degrees, dissociation of consciousness
or obstructed association.... The result of such dissociation is
interference with judgment, resulting in false perception, illusion,
hallucination and perpetually altering variations of these.”
What is meant by the phrase “dissociation of consciousness”? It cannot
very well signify anything other than that consciousness during sleep
becomes detached from the brain, sometimes to a partial extent and
sometimes completely. This is the same thing as saying that soul is
found by universal experience to exist, time and again, in a state of
independence. To that extent the scientific view is well-founded and
acceptable. When, however, dreams are stated to be nothing more than
mere physical states of the lower brain-centres a doubt creeps in.
Dreams are not material. They are intangible thoughts and belong to the
domain of consciousness. Where the “removal of a certain inhibition
from the lower centres” comes in is by way of explaining that owing to
temporary physical conditions attending sleep, various brain-cells are
out of gear, as it were, and work irregularly--the case being analogous
to that of the man who is dumb or speaks badly owing to a blood-clot
in his brain. But at the back of the fantastic or imperfect appearance
are the consciousness and other elements of the soul marshalled in
regular co-ordination. It is more probable, therefore, that dreams are
distortions of realities perceived by the soul than that they originate
in disordered cerebral matter.
We see, then, that Science is faced by, and admits, three fundamental
facts, namely--
1. The existence, in this world, of human souls as well as human
bodies.
2. The existence of such souls and bodies as separate entities.
3. The possibility of souls continuing to exist when separated from
human bodies.
What has next to be considered is whether such separate existence is
limited to the case of temporary detachment during the life of the
body, or whether it is also possible when the separation is brought
about by “death.”
Reasoning by analogy may not be tantamount to direct proof; but it is,
none the less, cogent. When we reflect that the loss of an arm, a leg,
etc., is really the happening of death to the missing parts of the body
and yet that the soul is not thereby affected we are entitled to infer
that the loss of the rest of the body will leave the soul unscathed.
And when we add the reflection that in cases of trance, apparent
drowning, deep sleep, etc., the whole body is detached from the soul--a
separation that occasionally lasts many days or weeks--the inference is
greatly strengthened. Everyone knows, moreover, that in many instances
of natural death the soul remains in vigorous existence right up to the
moment of dissolution; and where death occurs from external causes,
as in warfare, both body and soul maintain their full normality until
the stroke of Fate has been dealt. Why, then, should it be assumed
that the soul ceases suddenly to exist? The body is seen to continue,
and, as regards its matter, to be imperishable. The soul is not seen;
but as it never had been seen, though known to exist, during life, no
reason can be assigned for expecting it to be visible at death. Not
even the flimsiest foundation can be discovered for the doctrine of
non-survival, which is merely the arbitrary assertion of a most patent
improbability. It is, therefore, unscientific in the highest degree.
In addition, however, to this analogical argument, which most
scientific men regard as conclusive, there exists a solid basis of
scientifically observed facts demonstrating very clearly the survival
of souls after death. The facts, it is true, are psychical rather
than physical; but this does not impair their validity. Modern men
of science are beginning to regard matter, force and energy as less
important in the scheme of the universe than are the entities that
cannot be expressed in dynamical terms; and the biologists are
fast conceding priority to will and conscious purpose over the
hitherto accepted supreme authority of Evolutionary Life. Still, the
observations above alluded to are in part of a physical character and
have been made within the sacred precincts of scientific laboratories.
Dealing first with the latter, it suffices, by way of example, to
mention the researches conducted by Mr. W. J. Crawford, D.Sc., a
gentleman who is Lecturer in Mechanical Engineering in the Belfast
Municipal Technical Institute, Extra-Mural Lecturer in Mechanical
Engineering in the Queen’s University of Belfast, etc. It is a matter
of common knowledge in scientific circles, and to a large extent in
popular circles as well, that he has, with respect to the “survival”
question, carried out a series of experiments and tests under the most
rigid conditions for ensuring accuracy of observation and correctness
of results--experiments and tests that have been witnessed by competent
persons and carefully recorded in a manner to which no valid exception
can be taken. In the ordinary way of scientific work the conclusions
arrived at by such a trained and eminently well-qualified observer
would be assented to by the scientific world as a matter of course;
and such assent should not be withheld merely because the field of
investigation lay outside the beaten tracks of Science.
Dr. Crawford’s observations and experiments are of quite recent date.
They have impressed greatly the scientific world. They are regarded as
proving the existence of the “invisible intelligent beings” mentioned
by Sir William Crookes in 1874, and as also proving that these beings
are encountered and communicated with here in this world. But the
knowledge of the work done by Dr. Crawford is not yet very widely
spread, and it is quite possible that many scientific men as well as
a good portion of the public at large are still unacquainted with its
character and the results attained. It may be well, therefore, to cite
an illustrative instance of one of the methods employed. This is done
in the scientist’s own words:--
“A drawing-board was placed on the platform of a weighing-machine
and a chair was placed on the top of the board. The medium (Miss
Goligher) sat on the chair, with her feet resting on the board.
“_Experiment 1._--I said to the operators [_i.e._ to the spirits],
‘You say the levitating cantilever contains matter from the body of
the medium. I want you to take out from her body the matter you use
in the construction of the cantilever you employ to levitate this
table (weight 12¼ lbs.) and to place this matter loosely on the
floor--not to build up the cantilever but simply to place the matter
required for it on the floor. Give three raps when you have done
this.’
“The medium’s weight began to decrease and in a few seconds became
fairly steady. Then I heard the three raps, signifying that the
operation was complete.
RESULT:
Weight of medium + chair +
board, before the experiment 9 st. 12½ lbs.
Fairly steady weight of medium
+ chair + board, after the raps
were given 8 st. 10½ lbs.
Decrease in weight of medium 0 st. 16 lbs.
“It is noteworthy that when I carried out the same test about
eighteen months previously, I obtained the same result within a pound
or two. (See ‘Reality of Psychic Phenomena,’ Experiment 63, p. 142.)
“_Experiment 2._--I asked the operators to put the matter they
said they abstracted in Experiment 1, not on the floor but on the
drawing-board under the medium’s chair (the drawing-board was resting
on the platform of the weighing-machine). They gave three raps when
the operation was complete.
RESULT:
“The medium’s weight showed no difference from her normal of 9 st.
12½ lbs.
“This, of course, is as it should be, as any actual matter taken from
her body and placed on the drawing-board would still be accounted for
by the weighing-machine, provided that such matter was acted upon by
gravity in the normal way.”
Here, as is obvious, was a laboratory experiment of the simplest nature
and not open to any doubt or cavil. It was a mere weighing operation
to determine whether any loss of weight took place in the material
objects on the platform of the machine. The medium, as a person, did
not enter into the problem at all. It was not a question of her good
faith any more than it was the question of the good faith of the chair
or the drawing-board. Nor was it the case of a phenomenon occurring in
darkness or under conditions that rendered close observation difficult;
while, as for Dr. Crawford himself, it will not be contended that he
was incompetent to read the indications of the machine or to report
them correctly. Yet his spoken instructions to something invisible
and intangible were followed by results that indicated intelligent
hearing and careful obedience. To deny that this was strict scientific
proof of the presence in Dr. Crawford’s laboratory of some kind of
consciousness, perception and will--_i.e._ of some “soul”--that was
separate and distinct from any soul in normal association with a human
body would be to speak as perversely as though one were to deny that
two and two make four.
So much for the physical category of the observations that have been
made in the scientific world respecting survival after death. We can
now turn to the psychical category.
The investigations in this direction have been carried on for so many
years and by so many observers, both scientific and lay, that a vast
mass of material has accumulated in the shape of evidence which, for
the greater part, is in favour of an affirmative answer being given
to the question--Do the Dead still live? None of the evidence is, in
fact, suggestive of a negative reply; but some is not of a trustworthy
character, while in other cases the requisite corroboration is lacking.
This is a trap for the unwary of both schools of thought--the
sceptical and the credulous. The former are struck by instances of
fraud, deceit and ignorant gullibility; and they neglect to consider
and weigh what is brought forward of a serious and genuine character.
The latter are carried away by their emotions and wishes, and prefer
the sensational rubbish to the calm and balanced testimony of honest
and careful observers.
A typical collection of the evidence here referred to--good, bad and
indifferent--is to be found in the pages of “Raymond,” the recently
published book written by Sir Oliver Lodge, F.R.S. The author, who
has for very many years been an eminent investigator of psychical
phenomena, in addition to having attained the highest rank in the
scientific world in respect of his electrical and other work, was
afflicted by the loss of a son, Raymond, in the Great War, and, in
accordance with what he considered to be possible, he endeavoured to
open up communication with the discarnate spirit of the deceased young
man. He describes his experiments and their result in the book he has
written. He does not hesitate to reject much of what he observed as
being “nonsense,” and a good deal more he describes as “unverifiable”
and doubtful. But he also brings forward an abundance of what he terms
“evidential matter,” which he deems to be genuine and convincing--a
conclusion fully accepted by serious readers who are not swayed by
prejudice. He makes many references to what has been done by other
investigators, and he expresses himself on the general question as
follows:--
“However it be accomplished, and whatever reception the present-day
scientific world may give to the assertion, there are many now who
know, _by first-hand experience_, that communication is possible
across the boundary--if there is a boundary--between the world
apprehended by our few animal-derived senses and the larger existence
concerning which our knowledge is still more limited. Communication
is not easy, but it occurs.... The more recent development of an
elaborate scheme of cross-correspondence entered upon since the
death of specially experienced and critical investigators of the
Society for Psychical Research, who were familiar with all these
difficulties, and who have taken strong and most ingenious means
to overcome them, has made the proof, already very strong, now
almost crucial.... The chief thing that the episode establishes, to
my mind, and a thing that was worth establishing, is the genuine
character of the simple domestic sittings, _without a medium_,
which are occasionally held by the family circle at Mariemont. For
it is through these chiefly that Raymond remains as much a member
of the family group as ever.... In the old days, if I sat with a
medium, I was never told of any serious imaginary bereavement which
had befallen myself--beyond the natural and inevitable losses from
an older generation which fall to the lot of every son of man. But
now if I, or any member of my family, goes anonymously to a genuine
medium, giving not the slightest normal clue, my son is quickly to
the fore and continues his clear and convincing series of evidences;
sometimes giving testimony of a critically selected kind, sometimes
contenting himself with friendly family chaff and reminiscences,
but always acting in a manner consistent with his personality and
memories and varying moods.... In every way he has shown himself
anxious to give convincing evidence. Moreover, he wants me to speak
out; and I shall. I am as convinced of continued existence, on the
other side of death, as I am of existence here.”
These personal utterances represent much more than the opinion of
a single individual. They are in effect a summary of what has been
established by the laborious investigations of many hundreds of
educated and capable enquirers--including highly-honoured leaders
of science--during the last half-century. The Society of Psychical
Research, for example--mentioned by Sir Oliver Lodge--comprises, and
has comprised, many of the foremost scientists and philosophical
thinkers of England, America, France, Italy and other countries. It
entered upon the investigation and study of psychical phenomena from a
strictly scientific point of view, without any tendency to be guided
by religious teachings and desirous of stamping out the influence of
so-called Spiritualism upon public credulity. Its work was conducted
with the utmost care and caution in every detail. Its Reports from
year to year were welcomed as sound and trustworthy text-books in a
little-known region of science. They are collections of demonstrated
facts rather than the presentation of inferences and speculative views.
So when it is found that the foremost psychologists and psychical
investigators work in harmony with the results attained by the
Society for Psychical Research, and that the conclusions announced by
authorities like Sir Oliver Lodge are largely based upon such results,
the case for the acceptance of these conclusions becomes very strong
indeed.
It has now been proved beyond all possibility of reasonable refutation
that both Religion and Science answer “Yes” when they are asked the
question--Do the Dead still live?
There is an allied question which should not be altogether ignored.
Euclid sometimes proves a proposition by showing that its denial
necessarily involves an absurdity. In like manner we may ask whether
the denial of the proposition that souls live on after death drives us
into a position that the common sense and conscience of mankind know to
be untenable.
If this life be the whole measure of the existence of a soul, if birth
mean its beginning and death its end, the something that is called
“soul” is seen to be merely a temporary evanescent affection of the
matter that constitutes the body. But it is an abuse of language to
speak of matter as being either morally good or morally bad. Even if
it be admitted that matter can live and be endowed with consciousness
and volition, there would still be a manifest absurdity in attributing
to it a knowledge of good and evil. It follows, therefore, that any
person who is a thorough-going materialist is logically debarred from
speaking of goodness, benevolence, honour, integrity, charity, truth,
piety, patriotism, profligacy, fraud, crime or wickedness. The masses
of matter to which he gives the name “human beings” are non-moral just
as much as his table or his boots. He talks nonsense when he praises
them for acting in a manner which he calls “right,” or when he blames
them for acting in a manner which he calls “wrong.” Nor is the case
bettered by conceding that “good conduct” may be beneficial and “bad
conduct” harmful to the mass of matter in action, and may therefore, in
an analogical way, be described as meriting commendation and reproof
respectively. The mass of matter will know well enough that success,
prosperity and worldly enjoyment are attained much more frequently
by bad men than by the righteous, and he will laugh at the idea of a
satisfied conscience being preferred to a satisfied body. He will know
that when death comes the good will not be any better off than the
bad--they will both be annihilated--and he will also know that during
life the bad are much better off than the good. Does this doctrine
commend itself to any sane man? Does any leader of science exist who
will say deliberately that he repudiates the doctrine of right and
wrong? If he will not say this he must not say that souls are merely
appurtenances of bodies and cease to exist after death.