p. 197 | Materialism by R. F. Cottrell

The Seventh-day Adventist Publishing Association · Battle Creek, Mich. · Nov 15, 1864

"Materialism."

By R. F. Cottrell

Under this heading, the Sabbath Recorder, the organ of the S. D. Baptists, recently published an essay, prepared by D. E. Maxson, which, from the following expression of his, I conclude was not intended for that class of infidels generally called Materialists, but for the especial benefit of Sabbath-keeping Adventists, or for those who are in danger of becoming such. Of what he is pleased to call materialism, he says, "It is at the basis, the very corner-stone, of the creed of a whole denomination of Christians rapidly growing up in this country; and for palpable reasons, growing more rapidly here in the West than elsewhere, and seeking by certain affinities to link themselves with Seventh-day Baptists." From this I think he refers to S. D. Adventists; and yet in quoting authors on our side of the question, in order to make a show of fairness by giving our own words, not a word is taken from any writer of our denomination. But certain ones are quoted, some of whom seem to be wise above that which is written; and then, from such expressions of theirs as these: "Man is entirely dependent upon his (physical) organization for all his thoughts," and

the "mind" is an "attribute of living organized dust," he seems to infer a proposition which none of these writers affirm, viz: "All mental phenomena are the result of organization." He then proceeds to combat this creature of his own creation in the following masterly style.

"Let us pursue this wonderful method of thought-producing into its laboratory, and see if we can catch a glimpse of the process by which thought is produced. Here, then, is a human bone to be organized. It has carbonate of lime, phosphorate of lime, gelatine, &c., in its constitution. In the carbonate of lime are three simple elements, carbon, oxygen, and calcium. To produce the lime, the oxygen and calcium must unite; this they do by the strong affinity of the one for the other. This is organization—that process which originates all mental phenomena, according to the hypothesis under consideration. Now look out for a thought! Perhaps the immortal Iliad will come forth, for a particle of oxygen is going to unite with one of calcium to make a bone. The wonderful union is consummated, and lime is organized. Did you see the thought that was produced? Did you see the lime think? There was organization, and 'all mental phenomena are consequent upon organization,' says the Materialist."

The Materialist says so, for aught I know, but I have had no acquaintance or connection with him. And I venture the assertion that no professed Christian can be found, who holds that the "process" of organization "originates all mental phenomena," or ever produced one thought. Did not our essayist know that he was beating not so much as the air, but a phantom of his own imagination? And yet he represents that a denomination of "Christians" held such views; and one might infer that he thought his own denomination badly infected with such ideas; for he says, "A gross materialism is sapping the foundation of our spiritual life, and shivering down the soul of man to its own earth-born nature."

Now, Bible Christians believe that the first man of our race was perfectly and completely organized, his brain as well as the rest, and yet that he had not a thought till the will and life-giving power of his Creator made him a living soul. The faith of such does not stand in the wisdom of men, nor in the workings of natural affinities of dead matter, but in the power of God. Our creed says, "God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul." Living souls are capable of thought; though not always the best. But our creed further says of man, "His breath goeth forth, he returneth to his earth; in that very day his thoughts perish." Our essayist made but the slightest allusion to this creed; his argument was altogether what is termed philosophical.

I will notice one of his chief arguments, and conclude my remarks. I call it his principal argument, because he seems to think it the most important, having put it in the form of a syllogism "for the benefit of any who may wish to combat it." He says,

Substances, all of whose phenomena are different, are themselves different;
The phenomena of matter and mind are different;
Therefore matter and mind are different.

"Whatever, then, matter is, mind is something else, or not matter.

"Now, since the major premise is based on a law fundamental in all philosophy, if the reasoning be faulty, it must be in the minor premise. Are the phenomena of matter and mind different, then? If you affirm that they are alike, then you and I will go to the laboratory and test their qualities. I will take an apple, and you shall take a thought. If the apple and the thought are alike, i. e., if they are both matter, then the same test will apply to both; they will have the same qualities. Now begin. I hold the apple up between my thumb and finger. Now you hold your thought up between your thumb and finger. I press the apple, and find it hard. Be so by the thought. I see the apple; it is red and round. What color and shape is your thought? I bite the apple; it is sour. How does your thought taste? Smell of it; is it fragrant? Now I let go the apple, and it falls to the floor; it is heavy. Now let go your thought; is it heavy? O, Materialist, your materialism is heavy. It will fall, whether you let go or not.

"We have now tested the truth of my minor premise. Thought is a phenomenon of the mind. Color, form, &c., are phenomena of matter, and they are as unlike as things can possibly be; and therefore mind and matter are as unlike as they can be; and therefore materialism, which affirms that mind is matter, is as untrue as it can be.

"That part of man, then, which thinks, and feels, and wills, not being matter, is consequently neither dependent upon matter for existence, nor subject to any of the laws which govern matter. Physical dissolution, then, of the body, can affect only the body, having no effect whatever upon the mind, in respect of its essential essence or qualities. What it was before the death of the body, it must remain after that event—essentially a thinking, willing, and feeling entity."

A vastly large conclusion to draw from so small premises. My pony's thoughts are different from his body; they do not present the same phenomena. And sometimes when he comes to cross-roads, he chooses and wills to take the road that he thinks leads toward home. Yet I never thought of inferring such astonishingly large conclusions from these facts. Our friends of the opposite side of the question always forget to take the thoughts of the inferior animals into the laboratory for a test and comparison with human thoughts. We, as a people, cannot answer for others, but our materialism never "affirms that mind is matter;" and we doubt very much the propriety of packing us in the same box with infidels, and then condemning the lot.

But to discover the fallacy of my friend's reasoning. I inquire, Do thoughts think? I remember of reading in the old spelling-book, "Thinkers think thoughts." Thinkers and thoughts are two things. Take a thinker then to the laboratory, i. e., one who thinks, and you will find him possessed of as many palpable qualities as your apple. Is it the mind that thinks? But what is a man's mind but his thoughts? My friend speaks correctly. He speaks of "matter and mind," and then as a specimen or sample of each, he takes an apple and a thought. But, says my friend, "Thought is a phenomenon of the mind. Color, form, &c., are phenomena of matter." Then we have not had a fair test, and we must go again to the laboratory. As I have only a thought, a phenomenon of something that has no appearance, you shall leave your apple behind, and take only some of its phenomena—its color or form, its sourness, its hardness or its heaviness. Now hold up your shape of an apple between your thumb and finger. Press it; is it hard? Look at it, taste it, smell it, weigh it. What is the difference between it and a thought? If you are dissatisfied with this test, and must have your apple, I will take a man, one of whose attributes is mind, or thought, and then we will have a fair test. We shall find that living matter is decidedly in advance of dead matter in its qualities and capabilities. "A living dog is better than a dead lion."

We have no controversy with our friends of the opposition in respect to there being a difference between mind, or thoughts, and matter. We do not claim that mind is matter; and those who would fairly oppose our views should cease to misrepresent us. The connection between matter and mind is a mystery, which neither our friends nor ourselves are able to explain. Neither do we know how matter can be endowed with animal life. But we know that life is connected with material organizations, and that matter thus endowed is vastly superior, in its susceptibilities, to dead matter. This our friends seem entirely to forget. Their philosophic reasonings concerning matter, all relate to dead matter. Dead brains cannot think. So they come to the conclusion that immaterial thought can have no connection with matter, but must be the product of an immaterial soul, which comes in between the mind and matter, and does the thinking; making a chain of two immaterial links and one material. They are not aware that it is just as difficult to connect this middle link—this immaterial soul with matter, as it is to connect immaterial thoughts with the same; and yet they hold that this soul is connected with matter, and they have never been able to discover one that was not, although they claim to have just such a soul themselves.

They leave out of the controversy the wisdom and power of God, which can as easily connect immaterial thoughts, as an immaterial soul, with matter, and pursue a course of reasoning which, if valid, would make it just as necessary for horses and dogs to have immaterial souls to connect their immaterial intelligence with their material bodies; and if immateriality is a proof of immortality, man, who boasts of his immortality, is, in this respect, no better than the brute.

The world by wisdom does not yet know God. All that we know of the mysterious connection between mind and matter, or concerning a future life, is what he has seen fit to reveal to us in his word. And since our wisdom or folly cannot improve this revelation, we shall do better to accept of it as it is. That word tells us plainly that man who was made of dust, on receiving the breath of life, became a living soul. Of the immaterial, immortal soul it says nothing. On the contrary, it calls man mortal, with no part excepted, but promises him a future life by means of a resurrection of the dead, and immortality on condition of his seeking for it in the way of faith and obedience. Our philosophic friends may imagine that they aid the belief in a future life through the resurrection, by proving that man is immortal independent of it; but the effect of their reasoning must be to weaken faith in it, by making it appear that there is no need of it—that man is immortal without it, and can feast his "immortal mind" on all the joys of Paradise, should his corruptible "clay tenement" never be brought up from the dust. And it is having this effect. Thousands upon thousands are coming to deny the resurrection and reject revelation, as the legitimate fruit of their faith in the natural immortality of man. Did our Christian friends realize the real tendency of their efforts in behalf of natural immortality, they would drop their vain philosophy, and maintain the faith of a future life through the resurrection of the dead, instead of asserting that there can be no resurrection of an individual, if he is really and wholly dead. Why should it be thought a thing incredible with them that God should raise the dead? But they virtually deny his power to endow animated matter with thought, and positively declare that he cannot raise the dead, if consciousness has ceased, and all this in the face of innumerable facts of the cessation of consciousness, while the person was living.

But while we mourn over the fact that our friends are unwittingly aiding the cause of Spiritualism, the present, and most popular form of infidelity, and therefore the most dangerous; they, in turn, feel deeply over our supposed tendency to ancient, materialistic, Epicurean, infidelity, a thing that has had its day and run its race, is unpopular, and is now discarded even by Satan himself; he having discovered a more plausible form of deception for this age, suited to the prevailing philosophy.

Who are in danger of being deceived? Where lies the truth? Not in human philosophy or wisdom, either ancient or modern, but in the word of God. May Heaven aid the honest inquirer to lay aside human wisdom, and receive that word in its native simplicity, harmony, and beauty, and thus escape the subtle snare, which Satan has been so long weaving for this last generation.