p. 204 | Oppositions of Science by R. F. Cottrell

The Seventh-day Adventist Publishing Association · Battle Creek, Mich. · May 24, 1864

"Oppositions of Science."

By R. F. Cottrell

THE apostle Paul instructs Timothy to avoid "profane and vain babblings, and oppositions of science falsely so called." As we live in a very scientific age, doubtless this instruction applies with as much force, as when it was first penned. The apostle indeed predicted that in "the last days" there would be a class "ever learning and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth." Perhaps it will not be unprofitable to notice some of these oppositions of science which are current at the present day, and show that they are falsely so called.

1. We take the Lord's Sabbath as an example. The Sabbath was made for man, (Mark ii, 27,) and to man was given the habitable world for his dwelling place. Ps. cxv, 16. But science, falsely so called, has undertaken to prove it impossible for the Sabbath to be kept in different localities. It has discovered that the earth is round and turns on its axis every day, a fact that the Creator is supposed to be ignorant of, when at the close of his creative work, he sanctified the Sabbath for man. That this opposition is falsely so called appears from the fact, that if the earth did not move at all, there would be no succession of days—one side of the earth would be constantly in the light of the sun, while the other would be in constant darkness. It would be more difficult, in that case, to tell when the seventh-day came, than it is under the existing arrangement. Another thing that proves its falsity is, that it presents no obstacle to the observance of the first day of the week the world over.

All real science is in harmony with the teachings of the Bible. Hence science presents nothing that is really in opposition to revelation; the assumption that it does is false. How vainly have men tried to array science against the resurrection of the dead—a prominent doctrine of the sacred word. How learnedly have infidels talked of the possible and probable changes of the scattered particles of human dust, and then come to the impious as well as absurd conclusion that it is out of the power of Him who gave us being to bring us up again from the dead.

Closely allied to this is the position which some professed Christians take to prove the anti-scriptural doctrine of the natural immortality of the soul. Mr. Lee, in his work on the "Immortality of the Soul," asserts that "there can be no resurrection, unless the soul maintains its conscious existence during the interim" between death and the resurrection. He says, "We insist, then, that there can be no resurrection, if the mind does not live after the death of the body, to preserve a continuous being, whose consciousness shall extend back to the commencement of being." p. 108. Again, "As identity or personal sameness does not depend on the presence of the same particles of matter, but upon the sameness of mind, there can be no resurrection which will link the post-mortem being on to the ante-mortem being, without preserving consciousness during the period that elapses between death and the resurrection."

To this class of reasoners, as well as to infidels and Sadducees, is applicable the saying, "Ye do err, not knowing the Scriptures nor the power of God." Why should it be thought a thing incredible with them that God should raise the dead? Job asked the question, "If a man die, shall he live again?" These philosophers answer it as follows: If he dies indeed, so that he ceases to think, it is impossible; but if he does not die, he may live again. If Mr. Lee is correct when he says, "It is the mind that constitutes the man," then when man dies, the mind dies; and this the Scriptures affirm: "Man dieth."

It is a pretty bold assertion, that God cannot restore consciousness of identity after it has ceased; but this is the position. It would be outrageously blasphemous, if it was not founded upon science. But when the profoundest reasoning, founded on scientific facts, leads to such sublime conclusions, who will blame a man for giving utterance to them, although it should contradict the word of Him who "raiseth up the dead and quickeneth them?"

But that this opposition of science is falsely so called, will readily appear, when we descend from the giddy hights of a soaring imagination, and look a little while calmly to the real incidents which are almost daily coming within the observation of those, who, for the want of wings, walk upon the surface of the earth. There are thousands of persons now living, who, from various causes, have been rendered totally unconscious for a space of time, some longer, some shorter, so that that period is an utter blank to them; and they can remember what took place before, and what has occurred since, and are perfectly conscious of their identity. This simple fact upsets the whole theory which is founded upon the necessity of preserving a continued consciousness of being, in order to a recognition of identity in the resurrection. If this consciousness of being can be interrupted for five minutes, without destroying the identity, it may for five days, five months or five thousand years. To object that these persons have never been dead, and that their physical organization was not destroyed will avail nothing; for, according to this philosophy, the immaterial spirit is independent of matter for its existence, and "conscious identity and responsibility do not depend upon the presence of

the same particles of matter, but upon sameness of mind; it is the mind that constitutes the man." Mr. Lee says, "The mind is not, and cannot be conscious of the presence of the same particles of matter at different periods." Hence he argues that to "establish the fact of a future existence, which shall involve the responsibilities of this life, the chain of consciousness, which is the only sure proof of identity, must be maintained unbroken between our present and future existence. To maintain this connecting link of conscious identity between our present and future existence, the soul or mind must maintain a conscious existence after the body is dead, and during the whole period of the intermediate state."

The facts to which I have referred, prove that the "chain of consciousness" can be, and frequently is broken in this life, and conscious identity restored; hence it is not a thing impossible with God to raise the dead, even if they are dead between death and the resurrection; though Mr. Lee and others may assert the contrary with all the boldness and positiveness of conscious infallibility.

What is the difference between the assertion of the open infidel, that it is impossible for God to raise the body, and that of the professed Christian, that He cannot restore the mind to its consciousness, in case it should cease to think? If there is a difference, which is the most insulting to the majesty of the Most High? One is open infidelity, the other is—what? Beware, dear reader, of a doctrine which leads its advocates, for want of Bible evidence, to limit the power of the Holy One of Israel. There is but one step between this and the rankest spiritualism, though they may not be aware of it. Let no man spoil you through philosophy and science falsely so called.

R. F. COTTRILL.