I add a few words, rather against my inclination, about recent criticism
of a kind which is hardly worthy that name. Two books, one by Dr Mercier
and one by Mr Edward Clodd, have had a certain popularity, mainly
because they attacked, with a certain smartness of phrase, the book of
a greater man. "Raymond" was being widely read and talked about, and
its popularity secured some success for these hostile books. Curiously
enough, even some of the clergy have quoted approvingly some of the
arguments of these rationalists, no doubt much to the glee of Mr Clodd
in particular. Now I have said before that instructed criticism is
always welcome, for we may hope to learn something from it. But Dr
Mercier, on his own statement, came new to the subject at the age of
sixty-four, read _Raymond_ and _The Survival of Man_, and immediately
sat down to write a flippant book the publication of which we hope he
now regrets. Not only had he never investigated for himself, but he was
also ignorant of the work of the S.P.R.
As to Mr Clodd, his book is better-informed, though frequently unfair.
For instance, in his references to me he is very careful to avoid
any consideration of the strong parts of my case. Like the famous
theological professor, he looks the difficulties boldly in the face--not
_very_ boldly--and passes on, without speaking to them. He has obviously
read fairly widely, but where he does criticise in detail, he always
seizes on weak points and quietly ignores the strong ones. As to
personal investigation he is almost entirely without experience. He says
he attended a seance about fifty years ago, but has forgotten most of
what happened! He says this, with a momentary lapse from his usual
cleverness--for it gives away his case--in a letter to the April (1918)
_International Psychic Gazette_. In other words, he poses as an
authority on a branch of science of which he has no first-hand
knowledge. He criticises and dismisses airily the opinions and
investigations of those who have worked at the subject for ten, twenty,
thirty, or forty years; for it is over forty years since Sir William
Barrett brought his experiments in telepathy before the British
Association. Mr Clodd is a Rationalist, and knows without investigation
that these things cannot be. He is as _a prioristic_ as a medieval
Schoolman, in spite of his scientific pose. And his prejudices
unfortunately prevent him from seeking and studying the facts which
might lead him to other conclusions.
I have not said anything about the S.P.R. itself, but may here add a
few remarks. Says its official leaflet: "The aim of the Society is to
approach these various problems without prejudice or prepossession of
any kind, and in the same spirit of exact and unimpassioned inquiry
which has enabled Science to solve so many problems, once not less
obscure nor less hotly debated.... Membership of the Society does not
imply the acceptance of any particular explanation of the phenomena
investigated, nor any belief as to the operation, in the physical world,
of forces other than those recognised by Physical Science". In other
words, the Society has no creed, except that the subject is worth
investigating.
The Society has well over 1,000 members, and is growing steadily. It
includes many famous men in all walks of life, and indeed its membership
list has been said to contain more well-known names than any other
scientific society except the Royal Society itself. Among the
Vice-presidents are the Right Honourables A. J. and G. W. Balfour, Sir
William Barrett, Sir Oliver Lodge, the late Bishop Boyd-Carpenter and
the late Sir William Crookes. The President for the current year is Lord
Rayleigh, probably the greatest mathematical physicist now living.[5]
The President of the Royal Society (Sir J. J. Thomson) is a member, also
Professor Henri Bergson of Paris, Dr L. P. Jacks (editor of _The Hibbert
Journal_) and innumerable other scientists and scholars whose names are
known to everyone.
[5] Lord Rayleigh's lamented death has since occurred, July, 1919.
Finally let me assure you that the S.P.R. is so conservative and
suspicious that admission is almost as difficult to obtain as membership
of a high-class London club. It is extremely anxious to keep out cranks
and emotional people of all sorts, and it requires any applicant to be
vouched for as suitable by two existing members; and each application is
separately considered by the Council. The result is a level-headed lot
of members, and the maintenance of a sane and scientific attitude and
management.
From the philosophic side it is sometimes urged that we cannot reason
from the phenomenal to the noumenal, from the world of appearance to the
world of reality; that consequently nothing happening in the material
world can prove the existence of a spiritual one. But this is easily
answered. We cheerfully agree, with Kant, that a spiritual world cannot
be proved coercively and in such knock-down fashion that belief cannot
be avoided. But it can be proved in the same way and to the same extent
as many other things which we believe and find ourselves justified in
believing. For instance, atoms and electrons and the Ether of Space are
not phenomenal; no one has ever seen or heard or felt or smelt them; but
we infer their real existence from the behaviour of the matter which
does affect our senses. Again: we cannot _prove_ to ourselves that other
human beings exist, or even that an external world exists; my experience
may be a huge subjective hallucination. If I were reading this paper I
should not be able to prove to myself that any other mind was present.
Looking around, I should receive certain impressions--sensations of
sight--and I should call certain aggregations of these the physical
bodies of beings like myself. From the similarity of their structure and
behaviour to the structure and behaviour of my own body, I should infer
that they have got minds somehow associated with them, as my mind is
associated with my body. But you could not prove it to me. If you got
angry with my obstinacy, and knocked me down, I should experience
painful sensations, but the existence of a mind external to me--and an
angry one--would still be a matter of inference only. But we find that
the inference is justified. We find that it "works," and social life is
possible. For the purposes, then, both of science and of ordinary life,
we do reason from phenomenon to noumenon, from appearance to reality,
from attribute to substance; and our reasoning justifies itself.
I affirm, therefore, that the kind of proof which we as psychical
researchers put forward for the existence of and communication from
discarnate minds, is philosophically the same kind as the proof we have
of the existence of incarnate minds. If a short and clear exposition of
the point is required, free from any psychical-research bias, I may
refer inquirers to the chapter on the Psychological Theory of an
External World in J. S. Mill's _Examination of Sir William Hamilton's
Philosophy_. Our evidence may be insufficient to justify belief--in the
opinion of many, it is--and I blame no one for disbelieving; but it is
evidence. And if it sufficiently accumulates and improves in quality, it
may amount to a degree of proof at least comparable with that concerning
electrons, which are now accepted as real by all physicists.
One or two difficulties may here be briefly referred to:
1. The appearance in Mrs Piper's script of such obvious dream-stuff
as messages from Homer, Ulysses, and Telemachus! These are of course
absurdities, and no psychical researcher regards them as anything else.
But they are no more absurd than many of our own dreams, and we must
remember that automatic writing comes from the dream-strata of the
medium's mind, these strata seeming to lie _between_ our normal
consciousness and the spiritual world. Consequently messages which
really seem to come from beyond: _i.e._, which are evidential--are often
mixed with subliminal matter from the medium's mind. As a communicator
once said: "The medium's dreams get in my way." All this has to be
allowed for, but in good mediums there is not much of it. In my friend
Wilkinson's case there is none, for he can distinguish. In Mrs Piper's
case there is a little, but it does not invalidate the huge mass of real
evidence that has come. And it at least testifies to her honesty, for no
medium would pretend to get messages from people whom everyone knows to
be mythical--messages which are indeed comic and therefore enable
opponents to score points with the general public by obvious witticisms.
Huxley is often referred to, as having wisely declined to investigate,
knowing beforehand that it was all nonsense. Huxley was busy with his
own work, and, believing _a priori_ that alleged psychical phenomena
were either fraud or self-delusion, naturally declined to give any time
to them. We need not regret his decision, for he was doing work that was
more important than psychical investigation would have been, just then.
But he was wrong in his _a priori_ belief, or rather unbelief. He had
never seen any of these phenomena, but that did not prove that they did
not happen. A native of mid-Africa may never have seen snow, but that
does not prove that no snow exists.
And it happens that the Dialectical Society went on with its task,
appointing committees which investigated without any paid medium. The
majority of the investigators were utterly sceptical at first; they were
practically all convinced at the finish. I state this merely as a fact,
not as a specially important fact; for I find that beginners, when
suddenly faced with striking phenomena, are liable to go from the
extreme of unbelief to an extreme of belief. When one's materialistic
scheme is exploded, there seems no criterion left, and anything may
happen. It usually takes an investigator a year or two to adjust himself
and to learn to follow the evidence and not overshoot it.
Some people say: "But if communication is possible, why cannot _I_
communicate direct with my own departed loved ones?" The question
is seen on reflection, however, to be easily answered. In the first
place, we cannot communicate direct even with our friends in the next
town; we have to get the help of postmen or telegraph clerks and the
like. It is therefore not at all surprising that an intermediary is
needed when they are removed further from our conditions. Probably all
of us have germs of psychic faculty--though I have not yet discovered
any in myself--somewhat as we can all play or sing a little; but the
Paderewskis and Carusos are few. Similarly with psychic faculty. Few
have enough of it to communicate for themselves. On the other hand, it
is much commoner than Carusos are; but of course, when it occurs in a
private person, that person does not advertise the fact. Outsiders would
either scoff, or say "lunacy", or crowd round asking for "sittings",
out of curiosity. Consequently only sympathetic intimates are told, or
people who, like myself, are known to be sympathetic investigators. Some
of the most remarkable sensitives in England at the present day are of
this private kind--people of education and position--and they are not
even spiritualists in the sense of belonging to the spiritualist sect.
They are of various religious persuasions, and belong mostly to rather
orthodox bodies. There is nothing of the crank about them; they are not
Theosophists or Christian Scientists or adherents of any other of
what the sergeant called "fancy religions." I may say that the most
extraordinary experiences I have ever had have been with a psychic of
this kind. I have not alluded to these experiences in my paper, because
the matter is private. But I just mention these things because I find
that psychic faculties are more common than I once thought, and a
sympathetic minister could probably hear of private cases if he let his
sympathy and interest be known. But of course, if he is known to have
condemned the whole thing as Satanic--as Father Bernard Vaughan does--or
as lunacy, people with psychic experiences will take very good care not
to tell him about them.
As to details about the nature of the after-life, I have no dogmatic
opinions to offer. Probably it is impossible for those over there to
describe their experience adequately, in our earthly terms. Such
information as we get must be largely symbolical, as when mediums
describe a specially good deceased person as surrounded with radiance. I
have several times noticed that the relative "brightness" or "radiance"
of a spirit, as described by the medium, has correctly indicated that
spirit's character, though the medium had no normal knowledge whatever
of either the person's character or even existence. But though our
information must probably be mainly symbolical, I think we are justified
in believing that we begin the next stage pretty nearly where we leave
off here. There is no sudden jump to unalloyed bliss for even such good
people as you, no sudden plunge to everlasting woe even for sinners like
me. This, I admit, is not in accordance with what I used to hear from
the pulpit twenty years ago. But it agrees with what I read now of the
opinions of such men as the Bishop of London and Dr J. D. Jones; and
other clerical writers, such as Canon Storr in his _Christianity and
Immortality_ and Dr Paterson Smyth in his excellent _Gospel of the
Hereafter_ take the same view. Our modern moral sense refuses to believe
that a good God will sentence any creature to everlasting pain; and
although it may be contended that man has free-will and is therefore
the arbiter of his own fate, it still remains that God gave him that
freedom, and therefore still bears the ultimate responsibility. To
retain belief in a God who can be loved and worshipped, I at least must
disbelieve in everlasting pain for anyone.
And, added to this moral revolt, there has come a war in which millions
of young men have died before their natural time. These young fellows,
we feel, are at least in most cases neither good enough for heaven nor
bad enough for hell. The sensible supposition seems to be--and it is
borne out by psychical facts--that they have gone on to the next stage
of life, which to most or all of them is an improvement; that they are
busy and happy there; that they are still more or less interested in and
cognisant of our affairs; that they will come to meet their loved ones
when _they_ cross over--of this I have had much evidence--and that they
and humanity as a whole are travelling on an upward path toward some
goal at present inconceivable to our small and flesh-bound souls.
Some people have objected that psychical research will substitute
knowledge for faith. This is surely a curious objection, and few will
advance it. The earth is the Lord's and the fulness thereof, and my
belief is that He wants us to learn all we can about His handiwork.
Nature is a book given to us by our Father, for our good; study of it is
a duty, neglect of it is unfilial and wrong. Psychical research studies
its own particular facts in nature, and is thus trying to learn a little
more of God's mind. It is not we, but those who oppose us, who are
irreligious.
And as to this matter of faith; well, after we have learnt all we can,
there will still be plenty of scope left for the exercise of faith in
general, for our knowledge will always be surrounded by regions of the
unknown. If anyone says that psychical research antagonises _Christian_
faith, I say most emphatically that on the contrary it _supports_ it.
Christianity was based on a Fact: the Resurrection and Appearances of
Jesus. Psychical-research facts are rendering that event credible to
many who have disbelieved it. Myers says that in consequence of our
evidence, everyone will believe, a century hence, in that Resurrection;
whereas, in default of our evidence, a century hence no one would have
believed it. And to him, personally, psychical research brought back the
Christian faith which he had lost.
I hope that the facts and inferences which I have very sketchily put
before you will have made it clear that there is some reality in the
subject-matter of our investigations, and that these latter powerfully
support a religious view of the universe. I believe that we are
giving materialism its death-blow; hence the wild antagonism of such
well-meaning but belated writers as Mr Clodd. But we are not ourselves
religious teachers. That is your domain. You will use our work and its
results, as you use the work and results of other labourers in the
scientific vineyard. And I think you will find ours specially helpful.