Can God Organize Matter to Think? by Dudley Marvin Canright

Pacific Seventh-day Adventist Publishing Association · Oakland, California · Jul 17, 1879

Can God Organize Matter to Think?

By Dudley Marvin Canright

(Continued.)

HEAR Bishop Clark's argument upon this point: "The opinion that even organic matter could, by any possibility, be made to exhibit such power, cannot be received without the most clear and indubitable evidence. What is there to be found in the composition of the brain and nervous system, or in their organization, that would lead us to look for the development of thought, feeling or conscience in them? The brain has been analyzed, and more than eight-tenths of its substance has been found to be water. Indeed, this, mixed up with a little albumen, a still less quantity of fat, osmazone, phosphorus, acids, salts, and sulphur, constitutes its material elements. In all cases, water largely predominates. Take even the pineal gland—that interior and mysterious organ of the brain, supposed by Descartes, and by many philosophers after him, to be the peculiar seat of the soul—even this has been analyzed. Its principal elements are found to be phosphate of lime, together with a smaller proportion of carbonate of lime and phosphates of ammonia and magnesia.

"If the brain at large constitutes the soul, then the soul is only a peculiar combination of oxygen and hydrogen with albumen, acids, salts, sulphur, &c. Or, if the pineal gland constitutes the soul, then the principal element of soul is phosphate of lime!"—Man All Immortal, pp. 57, 58.

To immaterialists this may sound like good reasoning: to us it is foolish sophistry. It is simply setting aside the power of God entirely, and arguing that what we cannot do, cannot be done. How foolish!

Try his argument on the organization of dumb beasts. I have in my hand a little live mouse. Behold how bright his eye, how keen his sight. Look at his ear. How sharp his hearing. Prick him with a pin. How quickly he feels it. Again, how acute is his smell. How soon he will find a piece of cheese, or detect the presence of a cat. Here we certainly have sight, hearing, smell-

ing, feeling, and, indeed, all the senses. Let us analyze this little animal, as the bishop did the brain, and what do we find? "Eight-tenths of its substance has been found to be water. Indeed, this, mixed up with a little albumen, a still less quantity of fat, osmazone, phosphorus, acids, salts, and sulphur, constitutes its material elements. In all cases water largely predominates." We have found simply "a peculiar combination" of oxygen, hydrogen, sulphur, &c.

How unreasonable to suppose that these gross materials could ever see, hear, or smell! No; it cannot be so. There must be an immaterial, immortal, never-dying soul in that mouse, which did all the seeing and hearing. The mouse must have an immortal soul, and the musquito surely has a never-dying spirit! Reader, to such ridiculous conclusions are our opponents driven, to maintain their immaterial theory. It is simply a square denial of the power of God and the commonest observation of every-day life. Such reasoning is a mere appeal to the vulgar prejudices against matter. Let me try it in a different manner.

Here is a fond mother with a dear sweet little girl of four summers, whom she greatly loves: nor can we blame her for being proud of so beautiful a child. The little girl has a bright, twinkling eye, fat, rosy cheeks, curly hair, finely shaped, dimpled hands, and a fair complexion. She is neatly dressed in the most tasteful manner. How the mother loves to throw her arms around her, and press her to her heart! But stop. Let us put this lovely object into the chemical laboratory, and analyze it. A thorough analysis shows that four-fifths of that body is nothing but water, a few parts albumen, sulphur, phosphorus, acids, and a little fatty matter. Lay them out here each by itself. Is there anything very lovely here? Would you like to embrace and kiss these? Oh, no; the loveliness is all gone. And yet but a few minutes ago, that mother was caressing these very elements in the most affectionate manner. Was she then so much in love with a little water, phosphorus, and sulphur? How ridiculous this seems to be! It is no more absurd, however, than the arguments of our opponents,—that a little water, sulphur, &c., cannot think.

But the falsity of this kind of reasoning lies just in this: It takes the unorganized, unvitalized elements separately, and reasons as to what these can do, and what these can be, and what they cannot do in this condition. It sets aside the very points at issue; namely, organization and proper combination. It is just like taking an exquisite painting, and undertaking to prove that there is nothing beautiful about it, by the same process. Put that painting into the chemical laboratory, wash off the paint with an acid, analyze its elements; and what do we find? A little oil, a few ounces of lead, and several different minerals. Lay them out there side by side. Now I can sneeringly say, Where is its beauty? Where is its comely form? Where is there anything to be admired? But how absurd would be such a course! The whole beauty of that picture is not in the rough material, but in their skillful combination and arrangement. Destroy the combination, and the beauty is gone, the picture is destroyed.

Just so foolish does he reason, who undertakes to analyze a man's brain, and finding only water, phosphorus, albumen, &c., sneeringly says, "This cannot reason, this cannot think." No, very true; in that shape they cannot. But as God put them together they can think, and they do. Further this, we know that a man's brain does think; because in more than one case it has been seen in the act of thinking. A certain man had by an injury a large piece entirely removed from the top of his skull. It exposed two or three square inches of his brain, but did not kill him. Interesting observations were made in his case by physicians. When he was asleep the brain would settle down, and become greatly contracted. It would be all quiet. The moment he awoke, the brain would grow larger and begin to quiver. As he entered into conversation, this motion of the brain increased. When his mind became agitated, this motion was very rapid.

What does this show? It shows that the brain does think. The science of phrenology confirms the fact that the brain does think. It shows the size and quality of a man's brain determines the capacity of his mind. A large brain, of a fine organization, always gives a giant mind. Even Bishop Clark thus inadvertantly admits this fact: "A finer and more perfect organization in the human species affords finer development of mental power."—Man All Immortal, p. 99. Look at the charts and busts exhibited by the phrenologist. It will be seen that the organization of the brain has been the measure of the mental man.

It is not the mere size of the brain that is the measure of mental power, but the fineness of the material and the way it is organized must be considered. Hence it is that a practiced phrenologist can read a man's character by simply feeling of his head. What is insanity? Generally the wildest ravings result from some derangement of the brain, a nervous disease, a fracture of the skull, or a derangement of the fluids in the system. Cure the nervous disease, restore the fractured skull to its position, and thus put it in order again, and the mental disorder at once ceases. But if the mind is immortal and indestructible, how can it ever become insane? How can it become diseased?

Another fact proves that the mind results from the physical organization; namely, the fact that the mind grows with the growth of the body, and decays with its decay. Hence, who expects to find a man's intellect in the body of a babe or a child? As the brain grows up to maturity, the mind also develops; and then in old age, as the body grows weak, the mind grows weak also, till you have second childhood, so familiar to every body.

This should not be so, if the mind of man is immaterial and separate from the physical man. But it is objected that in some cases the body is weak and sickly while the mind is vigorous and powerful; and that sometime in old age the mind retains its full faculties, even to the last breath. But this is a very small objection, easily answered. Cases like these are rare; they are the exception. All parts of the body are not always affected alike by sickness. That is, a man may be dying of the consumption, his lungs nearly consumed; and yet his heart may be sound and healthy, his eye bright and keen, his ear sharp to hear. Or a man's eyes may be very weak, but his hearing acute; his liver may be wholly diseased, and his lungs may be sound. A man may be sick in any one part of his body, and well and strong in another. Hence the cases mentioned simply show that while other parts of the body are feeble, the brain is sound and healthy. But the general rule, the world over, is, "A sound mind in a sound body."

A further fact to be noticed is that the mind, the intellect, can be developed and enlarged by exercise and training the same as any other part of the system. See that awkward, clumsy-fingered young man learning to write. What great, awkward scratches he makes! What is the matter? His fingers have not been disciplined. They have not learned to hold and guide the pen with ease. But after long training he can execute the finest penmanship with great precision. Or take it in a more physical sense. A strong young man undertakes to lift a heavy weight for the first time. He finds it very difficult. He cannot lift much. But he keeps practicing, training his muscles till by and by he can lift several times as much as in the beginning. His muscles have grown stronger by exercise. Just so with the mind. An undisciplined, unexercised mind is very weak intellectually; but close application and continued training develop strong, vigorous powers of thinking. All these facts show that the intellect is wholly dependent upon the physical organization, the same as any other power of a man.

Instinct and reason. Our opponents are constantly decrying matter, and attributing all excellence to immateriality. But an examination of nature shows that the Creator has used this same matter, to bring about the infinite diversity which is seen everywhere, from the grain of sand up to the highest intelligence. First we have matter in its coarsest and crudest form,—mineral matter, unorganized matter, such as a handful of dust, a piece of granite, a wedge of gold. Next higher we have organized and vitalized matter in the vegetable kingdom. Going still higher, we have the same matter more highly organized in the animal kingdom.

I have in my hand a school book, "The Philosophy of Natural History," by John Ware, M. D. He has so clearly stated many points bearing upon this question that I quote from him, as follows:—

"Practically there is not often any difficulty in distinguishing an animal from a vegetable. But when it is attempted to point out the philosophical or essential principle in which their difference consists, the task is not so easy. In fact, there does not appear to be any such principle lying at the foundation of the distinction between animals and plants, that there is between organized and unorganized bodies; namely, the principle of life. There are certain close points of resemblance between the composition, the structure, the functions, and the conditions of the existence of animals and vegetables, which do not exist between either of them and minerals. So much is this the case, that some writers, among whom was the celebrated Buffon, have believed that there is no exact boundary, but that so close a resemblance of characteristics exists between those living at the two extremes, that individuals possessing peculiarities of animal life in the lowest degree are not essentially different from the plants which possess them in the highest."—P. 12.

D. M. CANRIGHT.