CAN GOD ORGANIZE MATTER TO THINK? by Dudley Marvin Canright

Seventh-day Adventist Publishing Association · Battle Creek, Mich. · Dec 20, 1877

CAN GOD ORGANIZE MATTER TO THINK?

By Dudley Marvin Canright

(Concluded.) *

From whence comes the immortal spirit? We now have a few hard questions for our opponents to answer. If man has an immortal, immaterial, deathless spirit, we ask, From whence does it come? and how is it propagated? Was it conscious in a pre-existent state, in some other world, and from thence was sent into the human body at birth? Or is a soul created by the Lord at the birth of every child? Or is it begotten, like the body, and perpetuated with the body? One of these three positions must be taken. Indeed, our opponents have always taken some one of these positions, though they are not at all agreed which one to adopt. Shall we advocate the pre-existence of the soul, that it lived in some other world before it came into the body? If so, why do we not remember having lived somewhere else? Strange that we should have so utterly forgotten all the past. Then, why does not the soul come into the body pure and sinless, inclined to holiness? How does it happen, moreover, that children are so much like their parents, in their souls as well as in their bodies, mentally as well as physically? But as none except the Mormons now hold to the foolish idea of pre-existence, we will let it pass.

Shall we say, then, that souls are created for bodies at birth? This theory would involve a greater difficulty than the other. The Lord must be continually creating, every minute, additional immortal souls. More than that, this would make him sanction prostitution and adultery. A child is begotten in adultery, in the most wicked and corrupt manner. Must God immediately create a soul for that child? This would make God a party to sin. Moreover, if God thus creates immaterial souls, he must either make them pure and holy, or impure and sinful. The latter supposition is inconsistent with the character of God; and if the former be the true one, how shall we account for the natural depravity of the human soul? The evidence of our eyes proves that children are born predisposed to sin, some of them much more so than others.

Then, again, if the soul is thus created a separate entity, an intelligent being before it is placed in the body, why do we not remember even that little time that we existed before we were in the body? And again, at what time is the soul sent into the body? Is it just at birth, or a little after, or some time before? Does it come fully grown? or is it a baby soul that grows up afterward? If so, what makes it grow? On what does it feed? Does it grow out of the material which the body eats? Then it must be material itself. No; that won't do. Well, is it placed in the body fully grown—man's size? How, then, can it be cramped up in so small a space? And why does not the soul of a baby reason and think like a man's, if it is a man's?

But we are interested to know when it is placed in the body. It cannot be after birth; because then the babe would be born without a soul! Is it placed there just after the child is begotten, and before it has assumed the human form? Moreover, we would ask these wise men, who are so positive as to what matter can do and what it cannot do, how it is that the immaterial, intangible essence which has not one particle of materiality about it, which can in no wise be grasped, nor held, nor handled by material organs,—we ask how this immaterial soul can come in contact with a physical body anyway. What point of contact can there possibly be between such a thing and the material brain? How can it operate upon our organs of hearing, smelling, or tasting? In fact, how can it be so closely confined within this material form? Why can't it leave the body at will? But it cannot. If there is such a soul inside, we know that the body holds it with a death-like grasp; and however much the soul may desire to flee, it cannot possibly get away till the material body is dead, and has lost all its strength and power to hold even a straw. These difficulties, to our mind, are tenfold greater than those attending the admission of the simple truth that the material brain has been so organized as to think.

The advocates of the immortal-soul theory freely admit that they cannot explain how the soul can act upon a material brain. Indeed, they admit that they cannot tell what the soul is. Bishop Clark himself thus speaks: “We confess that we know not in what the essence of soul, or spirit, consists. We readily acknowledge our ignorance of the essence, the subject-being, of matter. We make the same confession—and under the same limitations—concerning the soul.” —Man All Immortal, p. 29. Another doctor of divinity says, “We do not understand the true nature of spirit, and cannot therefore determine what is or is not possible respecting it.”—Knapp's Christian Theology, p. 202.

How do they know, then, but that the soul is material after all? They do not know; and after they have argued and philosophized to the end of the subject, one confession like the above overturns all their speculations. They are arguing about something of which they know nothing.

But further: if the soul is a living, intelligent

entity, capable of thinking, moving about, and acting as well out of the body as in it, we ask, What was the use of making the body for it anyway? Why not leave it without the clog of this poor, gross, material body? Indeed, if our immaterialist friends are right, it would have been a great blessing to the spirit to have left it without the body; for they are always telling how the body weighs down the immortal spirit, and clogs its movements, and with what speed the disembodied spirit will travel when freed from the body, with what power it will then act. Then why do we have the body at all? Let those answer who can.

If the soul is not pre-existent, neither created directly at birth, it must be propagated with the body. Indeed, this theory has been held by many. Says Dr. Knapp, “The reason why this theory is so much preferred by theologians, is that it affords the easiest solution of the doctrine of native depravity.”—Knapp's Christian Theology, p. 202. But the moment you adopt this theory you come upon our ground, and admit that the soul is material. For how could an immaterial soul beget another immaterial soul? Are these intangible souls male and female? and can they beget children? The very idea is utterly absurd and untenable. No. If souls are begotten, then they must be material. This is what they all admit who hold this theory. Thus Dr. Knapp says:—

“This hypothesis is not, however, free from objections; and it is very difficult to reconcile it with some philosophical opinions which are universally received. We cannot, for example, easily conceive how generation and propagation can take place without extension. But we cannot predicate extension of the soul without making it a material substance. Tertullian and others of the fathers affirm, indeed, that the soul of man, and that spirit in general, is not perfectly pure and simple, but of a refined, material nature, of which, consequently, extension may be predicated.”—Christian Theol., p. 202.

But is this true that souls beget souls? and are spirits male and female? If they are material, and are begotten with the body, then the presumption is that they will also die with it. How much more natural and consistent is the simple truth, that man is a unit, that his mental powers grow out of his physical organization. A father begets a child of his own person; hence that child naturally partakes of the peculiarities of his father, both physical and mental. This we everywhere see to be the case. “Like father, like son.” This accounts for our fallen natures, and inherited weaknesses of body and mind. The mental likeness of children to their parents is generally just as great as their physical likeness, and often even greater. With our view of man, this is just what we should expect; but on the supposition that the soul is an immaterial entity sent down directly from God, it is wholly unexplainable.

Cause of infidelity among scientists. The intelligent reader is aware that modern scientific men are, to a great extent, becoming skeptical. I am fully satisfied that one great cause of this skepticism is found in the false view which theologians have held concerning mind and matter. Scientific men readily see that, given the principle of life, or vital force, and all the phenomena of nature, vegetable, animal, and mental, can be readily accounted for in the physical organization. Hence physicians, physiologists, and phrenologists in particular, have largely been inclined to materialism. Says Dr. Knapp, speaking of the view that the soul is material, “It has always been the favorite theory of psychologists and physicians.”—Christian Theology, p. 202. Seeing the absurdity of the doctrine of immateriality and natural immortality, they have given up their old theology, and thrown away their religion with it. Had they been taught the true doctrine of mind and intelligence, it would have done much to save them from their skepticism.

Is matter corrupt and mean? These immaterialists are always asserting how mean, corrupt, polluted, weak, and every way inferior, matter is. To hear them talk, you would suppose that matter must be very hateful to God. But if matter is naturally so corrupt and mean, why has God created so much of it? Who made of matter all those numberless millions of worlds on high? Every astronomer knows that they are all material, just such matter as our own earth is made of. Ghosts do not cast shadows, but the moon and other heavenly bodies do. Who made the moon? Who made the earth? the air? the water? the dust? the rocks? the plants? the trees? the insects? the animals? and our material bodies? God made them all of matter; yea, and pronounced them “Very good.” Gen. 1:31. To these very things God always appeals as the highest proof of his power, glory, and Godhead. “The heavens declare the glory of God; and the firmament showeth his handiwork.” Ps. 19:1. Again: “He hath made the earth by his power, he hath established the world by his wisdom, and hath stretched out the heavens by his discretion.” Jer. 10:12. To the idolatrous Athenians he is introduced as “God that made the world, and all things therein.” Acts 17:24. Paul declares that “by the things that are made, his eternal power and Godhead” are clearly seen. Rom. 1:20. When the Lord would convince Job of his might and greatness, he pointed to the foundations of the earth, which he had laid (Job 38:1-6), to the sea (verse 8), to the clouds (verse 9), to the stars (verses 31-33), to the lightnings (verse 35), to the lions (verse 39), and all the beasts of the earth which he had made (Chap. 39). All these are material, made of the dust of the ground. God is not ashamed to appeal to these material things as the highest proof of his glory.

Is it true, then, that the matter which God has made is so corrupt and naturally sinful as immaterialists claim? Then God would be the author of sin. God made man of the dust of the ground. Gen. 2:7. God made the beautiful and holy Eden of matter, of the ground. Yea; even the tree of life itself grew out of the ground. Gen. 2:8-15. God's divine Son, who came to redeem men, was a material being. He was born of a woman, had flesh and bones, walked upon our earth, ate its material food, breathed its material air, and drank its material water.

“It is not wise to repudiate materialism till we see what connection it has with our final salvation. And here we inquire, How are we to be saved? From our opposers, as well as from the Bible, comes the answer, By the death of Christ. Very well. Then could we be saved without his death? All agree we could not. This paves the way for another important question, If we are saved by the death of Christ, and could not be saved without his death, are we saved by the death of a material Christ? or by the death of an immaterial Christ? Own the truth, let the result be what it may. Did an immaterial Christ die for us? You say, No. Then was it not a material Christ that died? Certainly. So you admit that a material Christ died to save us, and that otherwise salvation would not have been possible, thus predicating your hope of salvation upon the death of materiality. No matter whether there was an immaterial entity within him or not, so long as that did not die; and we expressly read, “Christ died for us,” and “We are reconciled to God by the death of his Son;” so we are indebted for salvation to the death of that part of Christ which could and did die, even if he had forty entities that could not and did not die; and the part that died for our sins was material. Hear it, ye haters of materialism! The foundation-stone of the system of salvation, from your own showing, is materiality, and there is no escape from the conclusion.”—Bible Banner.

Then in the resurrection, our material bodies are to be saved and immortalized. 1 Cor. 15:51-55. Yes, and finally, this material earth is to be purified from the curse, and made the eternal home of the saints. Rev. 21:1-5.

But here I leave this very interesting question, having only glanced at a few of the innumerable proofs in favor of the materiality of all things. I have endeavored to avoid the fine metaphysical arguments which are generally employed on this topic, and use only those common facts of every-day observation with which every child is familiar. Some time I propose to illustrate all these points by interesting anecdotes. D. M. CANRIGHT.

Danvers, Mass., Nov. 1, 1877.