FUTURE LIFE

Dominion, Volume 21, Issue 190, 14 May 1928, Page 9

FUTURE LIFE

REPLIES TO SIR ARTHUR KEITH SCIENTIFIC TEACHING AND RELIGIOJ [ CHURCH LEADERS DEFEND THE FAITH (United Press Association.—By Electric Telegraph.—Copyright.) (Australian Press Association.) London, May 11. Sir Oliver Lodge has taken up immediately Sir Arthur Keith’s challenge to belief in future life. "I think,” he says, “that the brain is an instrument used by the mind. Physiologists think that the brain is the mind. If the brain is the mind, then, when one is destroyed, the other is destroyed. A violin manifests Beethoven, but that is not the same thing as being Beethoven. If we smash the violin, we do not kill the music. What happens is that the instrument is no longer there to manifest it. “I say that the brain or any form of matter cannot evolve Shakespeare or his sense or meaning, but merely manifests it, like a typewriter. Doctors know a terrible lot about the working of human machinery. It is the other aspects they have not attempted to understand. On these we agree to differ. They do not accept the evidence there is about the survival of the spirit. They look at it from another viewpoint because they think the brain and mind are one and the same thing.” Sir John Bland Sutton, the famous surgeon, supports Sir Arthur Keith, and says: “Death is the end of all—an endless sleep. Everybodj' who has studied it scientifically and deepty has come to the same conclusion.” Professor de Lisle Burns doubts whether Sir zVrthur Keith has been looking at the evidence. “It is undeniable,” he says, “that there are activities in experience which are not of the same type as materials and objects.” Sir Richard Gregory said: “Sir Arthur Keith weighs and measures brains in his laboratory, but he cannot measure the weight of the spirit; therefore, he is not concerned about it, and does not know that there is no spirit. lam certain from my knowledge of Sir Arthur Keith and his great ability that he does not mean to deny the existence of something which cannot at present be demonstrated.”

Sir Arthur Keith, when it was pointed out to him that controversj' had been aroused by the statement, repeated that there was no evidence that the brain was a dual organ of substance and spirit, but he does not think that the statement destroys belief in immortality. “Religion,” lie saj's, “lias no bearing on our teaching. We are out simpty to discover and understand the human body and find the exact way of curing disease. All other things are side issues.” [The statement which provoked the controversj' was made bj- Sir Arthur Keith in a lecture at Manchester University. Sir Arthur said: “Scientists and medical men agree that there is no evidence to support the assumption that the spirit survives after the brain ceases to function. If we withhold a supply of oxygen or fuel the brain, ceases. Medical men can find no grounds for believing that the brain is a dual organ or compound substance. Every fact known to them supports the inference that mind, spirit, and soul are the manifestation of the living brain, just as flame is the manifest spirit of a burning candle. Both flame and spirit cease their existence at the moment of extinction.”]

(Rec. May 13, 5.5 p.m.)

London, May 12.

Sir Arthur Keith’s prominence in the medical world has caused his statement that death is the end of everything to be discussed throughout England. While it is admitted that the whole of the medical profession is not committed to the view, nevertheless if finds support among doctors whose names are world-famous.

The newspapers, without exception, 'condemn it, and characterise it as a strange conceit, especially in one of the foremost in the world of medicine, to deny that which he does not comprehend. To-day eminent leaders of the Church of England hasten to defend the faith against medical science. The Bishop of London declares that with all due respect to the distinguished doctor such mere materialism is out of date—at least fifty years too late.

The Bishop of Manchester dismissed the question brietjy, stating “Materialism is not new.”. He does not see why a new statement thereon should disturb anybody.

The Bishop of Ely suggests that Sir 'Arthur Keith should hesitate to dispute the Christian doctrine as to the origin of life and the soul. The Bishop of ■ Woolwich said that from time to time men hazarded such statements, but it was just conjecture, and need not shake the faith of Christians in everlasting life. ■ The Rev. Maurice Helton, D.D.. Professor of Dogmatic Theology. King’s College, London, says: “Sir Arthur Keith appears to be suffering from the modern disease of mental departmentalism, due to over-specialisa-tion. The world listens with respect to such a great anthropologist on the subject of skulls and jawbones, whether of asses or men. When the question is souls, we beg leave to consult other authorities.”