CHAPTER I

DO THE DEAD STILL LIVE?

If survival after what is called “death” be not a fact, the idea of communication with the dead becomes nonsensical. The first question, therefore, that has to be asked in any consideration of the subject is--Do the Dead still live? This enquiry may be addressed both to Religion and to Science; and in both cases it will be found that an affirmative reply is given.

So far as Religion is concerned the case is simple enough. It is a matter of common knowledge that nearly all the inhabitants of the world, including a great majority of its scientific men, accept and profess some form of religion. It is also a matter of common knowledge that all religions teach the doctrine of survival; that is to say, they teach that in every individual human being there exists a soul which becomes separated from the body at death and continues to live on in some form of existence while the body decays. The belief, accordingly, of the great majority of mankind is now, and always has been in historical times, that the answer “Yes” must be given to the question--Do the Dead still live?

This is a hard fact that cannot be glossed over or explained away. Where a belief is practically universal reasonable men may well infer that it is not altogether unfounded. Such an inference, however, falls a good deal short of actual proof; and when Religion is asked to supply such proof the response, though satisfactory enough to religious believers, is not acceptable from a scientific point of view. The Bible, for example, and the sacred books of religions other than the Jewish and Christian faiths, contain an abundance of testimony to show that life after death is a reality; and history in general, both ecclesiastical and secular, narrates many occurrences of such survival. The body of evidence thus available is equal in quantity and quality to that which is commonly accepted as sufficient to establish historical facts in general or cases in the law-courts in particular.

But Science asks for something more than human testimony and records. It turns from fallible men to infallible Nature. The only truths which it will accept as proven are those revealed by the senses, by physical observations and by actual experience. It demands also that every truth thus established shall be capable of confirmation by repeated experimental tests. What, therefore, has to be considered in this

## chapter is whether survival after death is admitted by Science to be

one of Nature’s truths.

Such an admission has already been made by many of the foremost leaders of Science in both past and present times. Sir Isaac Newton, Faraday, Wallace, Crookes, Lodge, Barrett and other Fellows of the Royal Society were, or are, survivalists. Their judgment of the case is not to be lightly regarded; and by many reasonable men it is looked upon as conclusive. It is, however, assumed that the readers of these pages will not be content to have the matter settled by mere authority, even of the highest degree of eminence; and as scientific men still exist who declare in lectures, speeches and books that the doctrine of survival is a mistaken one, it becomes necessary to make the case clear by an appeal to fully recognised facts that no one, whether survivalist or non-survivalist, can dispute.

The first of these facts is that Science admits the existence of living individual personalities. When a man is made a Fellow of the Royal Society, or when a President of the British Association for the Advancement of Science is elected, the choice falls upon more than a mere bulk of matter combined with a certain amount of force and energy. Added to these there is a something characterised by knowledge, memory, consciousness, will, conscience, morality, a perception of good and evil, a capability of love and hatred, and all the other qualities that go to the making up of what people mean when they speak of a “soul.” If “non-survivalists” prefer to use some other word, well and good. Disputes about names are a mere beating of the air. What is of moment is that all parties are agreed as to the real existence of the something to which reference has here been made.

The second fact is that Science admits the “soul” and body of a human being to be distinct and separate entities, even though they may be closely associated. This is not so clearly obvious as the first fact; and some--though not many--scientists may feel disposed to challenge the accuracy of the assertion. It is necessary, therefore, to substantiate it in a detailed fashion.

It is a matter of common knowledge that if a man’s body be deprived of an arm, a leg, an eye, etc., the “soul” is not affected thereby in any essential way. Our hair may be shaved off, our nails cut, our teeth extracted, and our “souls” are none the worse for the operations. A lung may be put out of action by tuberculosis and the “soul” lives on unaffected. A human being may be “apparently drowned” or may become entranced. His breathing may cease, his very heart may stop beating. The ordinary bodily mechanism by means of which the “soul” makes its presence known may cease to be operative, and--as actually happens now and again--the individual may be so “dead” in the judgment of physicians that he or she is laid out for burial, aye, and is sometimes buried in real earnest, while all the time the soul is as full of life as ever it was. Every person of education is aware that these are matters of frequent observation and experience. They cannot be denied. They are not consistent with the idea of the existence of the “soul” being limited by the existence of the body.

The case may be put even more strongly. In war it often happens that a man is shot through the arm in such a way that a part of a nerve controlling the muscles of certain fingers is destroyed. The fingers thereupon become paralysed; but when a surgeon fills up the gap in the nerve by inserting a piece of nerve taken freshly from a slaughtered calf the brain finds itself once more able to send its messages to the muscles, and the man finds he can move his fingers. Absolute proof thus exists that the brain and the fingers are distinct and separate entities; and it would be utterly unscientific to infer that the observed paralysis indicates necessarily any disappearance of, or change in, the brain. What really occurs is merely that the brain is deprived, for the time being, of one of the tools it is in the habit of using for the purpose of exercising its authority over the body.

Consider, too, what takes place when a man has a “stroke,” as it is termed--an apoplectic fit, the breaking of a small blood-vessel in the brain. The exuded blood forms a clot which presses upon some of the brain-cells and interferes with the normality of their action. In some cases the cells affected are those that influence the organs of speech. The man becomes dumb or cannot pronounce correctly. He has the will to speak in his ordinary manner and he makes desperate efforts to do so. These remain unavailing until the blood-clot becomes absorbed and ceases to interfere with the brain-cells; and then the man’s will is once more able to exert its authority over the latter, which, in their turn, are once more able to organise and send forward the desired impulses to the tongue, lips, etc. Absolute proof thus exists that the will and the brain are distinct and separate entities; and it would be utterly unscientific to infer that the observed pressure on, and paralysis of, the brain-cells indicates any disappearance of, or change in, the will.

But the will is comprised in the something that is commonly called the “soul.” We see, then, that the existence of the soul and body as distinct and separate entities is admitted by Science and demonstrated by the everyday experience of mankind.

It is desirable, however, to add a word or two respecting a phrase and an idea correlated thereto which have long exercised a mischievous influence in psychics and psychology. The phrase is that “thought may possibly be a secretion of the brain.” The idea is that although body and mind (or soul) are separate entities neither of them can exist separately from the other.

To speak of thought as a secretion of the brain is to misuse the word “secretion” and to render it meaningless, in which case the famous phrase becomes nonsensical. A secretion is a material substance organised from, and by, some other, parent, material substance. It belongs to the domain of physics and can be expressed in terms of statics and dynamics. Nothing of all this is possible with regard to thought, which belongs to the domain of metaphysics and is immaterial. To speak of something immaterial being organised from something material is an abuse of language, and reduces discussion to an idle jangle of articulate sounds.

There is not anything similarly nonsensical in the idea of body and soul being interdependent entities. The question is one of simple fact and observation. It is a matter of common knowledge that human bodies continue to exist long after their separation from the something that is called “soul.” This continued existence may even be unaccompanied (as in the case of mummies) by ordinary decay, and in some cases may involve a prolongation of partial vitality, such as, for instance, the well-known phenomenon of the growth of hair and nails after “death.” But that the soul has ceased to be united as before with the body is, in all cases, a matter of certainty. Hence the idea now being discussed obviously requires amendment. It is not permissible to say that body is perpetually dependent upon soul. And the question remains whether it is permissible to say that the existence of an individual soul is dependent upon its remaining attached to the body it accompanied during life.

This leads to the third of the facts to be considered--the fact, namely, that Science admits the possibility of “souls” continuing to exist when detached from the bodies with which they are usually associated. The word “detached” does not mean necessarily separation by any considerable interval of space, or the complete absence of every means of communication. A man who speaks and a man who hears are spoken of as being detached from each other notwithstanding that they are connected together by a sound-conveying atmosphere. Bricks stacked in a pile are detached separate entities even though, in popular language, they are said to be “touching” one another. So, in the case of a paralysed man, the affected portion of his brain is no longer under the control of his will, and to that extent there is a severance of his body from his soul; while in cases of complete trance the detachment in question extends to the entire material organism, and also to the entire psychical entity. The soul becomes, for the time being, wholly separated from the body, which no longer is actuated by consciousness, sensation, memory, thought or volition. All that serves to distinguish the state of things from “death” is the absence of bodily decomposition, together with one or two other physical peculiarities, such as the response of the muscles to electrical excitement and the ophthalmoscopic appearances of the fundus oculi. Yet, when the trance comes to an end, the normal intimate association of soul and body is resumed, and both soul and body are found to be unchanged.

Now, this is a matter of common knowledge among educated persons and has often been made a subject of scientific observation. It proves, clearly enough, that souls can exist independently of material bodies; and the proof will not be disputed by any man of science who is concerned to speak of things as they are, and who uses words in their ordinary plain meaning and not for the purpose of dialectical subtleties.

Trance, however, is not the only form of separate soul-existence that comes within the range of human experience. A very much more common occurrence is that of sleep. Here the scientist will hesitate a little before making any admission. The view now taken by Science of sleep is that the phenomenon is “a natural condition of insensibility, more or less complete, recurring normally (for the adult) with each night,” and further, that “the cause of sleep is undetermined, but is supposed to depend upon the production of sedative agents during our waking

## activities which ultimately clog the higher functions of the brain.” It

is also held that “in natural deep sleep all the higher brain-centres are more or less out of action, together with the senses of sight, touch, taste, smell and hearing, though in varying degrees.” And, with regard to dreaming, the explanation given is that “the gradual passing of the higher nerve-centres--_i.e._ the highest centres of the cerebral matter--from normal to subnormal activity, or rest, removes from the lower centres a certain inhibition, and these respond more readily both to external stimuli and to altered internal stimuli or tension of the blood-vessels. Accompanying this functional dissolution of the higher centres there is, in varying degrees, dissociation of consciousness or obstructed association.... The result of such dissociation is interference with judgment, resulting in false perception, illusion, hallucination and perpetually altering variations of these.”

What is meant by the phrase “dissociation of consciousness”? It cannot very well signify anything other than that consciousness during sleep becomes detached from the brain, sometimes to a partial extent and sometimes completely. This is the same thing as saying that soul is found by universal experience to exist, time and again, in a state of independence. To that extent the scientific view is well-founded and acceptable. When, however, dreams are stated to be nothing more than mere physical states of the lower brain-centres a doubt creeps in. Dreams are not material. They are intangible thoughts and belong to the domain of consciousness. Where the “removal of a certain inhibition from the lower centres” comes in is by way of explaining that owing to temporary physical conditions attending sleep, various brain-cells are out of gear, as it were, and work irregularly--the case being analogous to that of the man who is dumb or speaks badly owing to a blood-clot in his brain. But at the back of the fantastic or imperfect appearance are the consciousness and other elements of the soul marshalled in regular co-ordination. It is more probable, therefore, that dreams are distortions of realities perceived by the soul than that they originate in disordered cerebral matter.

We see, then, that Science is faced by, and admits, three fundamental facts, namely--

1. The existence, in this world, of human souls as well as human bodies.

2. The existence of such souls and bodies as separate entities.

3. The possibility of souls continuing to exist when separated from human bodies.

What has next to be considered is whether such separate existence is limited to the case of temporary detachment during the life of the body, or whether it is also possible when the separation is brought about by “death.”

Reasoning by analogy may not be tantamount to direct proof; but it is, none the less, cogent. When we reflect that the loss of an arm, a leg, etc., is really the happening of death to the missing parts of the body and yet that the soul is not thereby affected we are entitled to infer that the loss of the rest of the body will leave the soul unscathed. And when we add the reflection that in cases of trance, apparent drowning, deep sleep, etc., the whole body is detached from the soul--a separation that occasionally lasts many days or weeks--the inference is greatly strengthened. Everyone knows, moreover, that in many instances of natural death the soul remains in vigorous existence right up to the moment of dissolution; and where death occurs from external causes, as in warfare, both body and soul maintain their full normality until the stroke of Fate has been dealt. Why, then, should it be assumed that the soul ceases suddenly to exist? The body is seen to continue, and, as regards its matter, to be imperishable. The soul is not seen; but as it never had been seen, though known to exist, during life, no reason can be assigned for expecting it to be visible at death. Not even the flimsiest foundation can be discovered for the doctrine of non-survival, which is merely the arbitrary assertion of a most patent improbability. It is, therefore, unscientific in the highest degree.

In addition, however, to this analogical argument, which most scientific men regard as conclusive, there exists a solid basis of scientifically observed facts demonstrating very clearly the survival of souls after death. The facts, it is true, are psychical rather than physical; but this does not impair their validity. Modern men of science are beginning to regard matter, force and energy as less important in the scheme of the universe than are the entities that cannot be expressed in dynamical terms; and the biologists are fast conceding priority to will and conscious purpose over the hitherto accepted supreme authority of Evolutionary Life. Still, the observations above alluded to are in part of a physical character and have been made within the sacred precincts of scientific laboratories.

Dealing first with the latter, it suffices, by way of example, to mention the researches conducted by Mr. W. J. Crawford, D.Sc., a gentleman who is Lecturer in Mechanical Engineering in the Belfast Municipal Technical Institute, Extra-Mural Lecturer in Mechanical Engineering in the Queen’s University of Belfast, etc. It is a matter of common knowledge in scientific circles, and to a large extent in popular circles as well, that he has, with respect to the “survival” question, carried out a series of experiments and tests under the most rigid conditions for ensuring accuracy of observation and correctness of results--experiments and tests that have been witnessed by competent persons and carefully recorded in a manner to which no valid exception can be taken. In the ordinary way of scientific work the conclusions arrived at by such a trained and eminently well-qualified observer would be assented to by the scientific world as a matter of course; and such assent should not be withheld merely because the field of investigation lay outside the beaten tracks of Science.

Dr. Crawford’s observations and experiments are of quite recent date. They have impressed greatly the scientific world. They are regarded as proving the existence of the “invisible intelligent beings” mentioned by Sir William Crookes in 1874, and as also proving that these beings are encountered and communicated with here in this world. But the knowledge of the work done by Dr. Crawford is not yet very widely spread, and it is quite possible that many scientific men as well as a good portion of the public at large are still unacquainted with its character and the results attained. It may be well, therefore, to cite an illustrative instance of one of the methods employed. This is done in the scientist’s own words:--

“A drawing-board was placed on the platform of a weighing-machine and a chair was placed on the top of the board. The medium (Miss Goligher) sat on the chair, with her feet resting on the board.

“_Experiment 1._--I said to the operators [_i.e._ to the spirits], ‘You say the levitating cantilever contains matter from the body of the medium. I want you to take out from her body the matter you use in the construction of the cantilever you employ to levitate this table (weight 12¼ lbs.) and to place this matter loosely on the floor--not to build up the cantilever but simply to place the matter required for it on the floor. Give three raps when you have done this.’

“The medium’s weight began to decrease and in a few seconds became fairly steady. Then I heard the three raps, signifying that the operation was complete.

RESULT:

Weight of medium + chair + board, before the experiment 9 st. 12½ lbs. Fairly steady weight of medium + chair + board, after the raps were given 8 st. 10½ lbs. Decrease in weight of medium 0 st. 16 lbs.

“It is noteworthy that when I carried out the same test about eighteen months previously, I obtained the same result within a pound or two. (See ‘Reality of Psychic Phenomena,’ Experiment 63, p. 142.)

“_Experiment 2._--I asked the operators to put the matter they said they abstracted in Experiment 1, not on the floor but on the drawing-board under the medium’s chair (the drawing-board was resting on the platform of the weighing-machine). They gave three raps when the operation was complete.

RESULT:

“The medium’s weight showed no difference from her normal of 9 st. 12½ lbs.

“This, of course, is as it should be, as any actual matter taken from her body and placed on the drawing-board would still be accounted for by the weighing-machine, provided that such matter was acted upon by gravity in the normal way.”

Here, as is obvious, was a laboratory experiment of the simplest nature and not open to any doubt or cavil. It was a mere weighing operation to determine whether any loss of weight took place in the material objects on the platform of the machine. The medium, as a person, did not enter into the problem at all. It was not a question of her good faith any more than it was the question of the good faith of the chair or the drawing-board. Nor was it the case of a phenomenon occurring in darkness or under conditions that rendered close observation difficult; while, as for Dr. Crawford himself, it will not be contended that he was incompetent to read the indications of the machine or to report them correctly. Yet his spoken instructions to something invisible and intangible were followed by results that indicated intelligent hearing and careful obedience. To deny that this was strict scientific proof of the presence in Dr. Crawford’s laboratory of some kind of consciousness, perception and will--_i.e._ of some “soul”--that was separate and distinct from any soul in normal association with a human body would be to speak as perversely as though one were to deny that two and two make four.

So much for the physical category of the observations that have been made in the scientific world respecting survival after death. We can now turn to the psychical category.

The investigations in this direction have been carried on for so many years and by so many observers, both scientific and lay, that a vast mass of material has accumulated in the shape of evidence which, for the greater part, is in favour of an affirmative answer being given to the question--Do the Dead still live? None of the evidence is, in fact, suggestive of a negative reply; but some is not of a trustworthy character, while in other cases the requisite corroboration is lacking. This is a trap for the unwary of both schools of thought--the sceptical and the credulous. The former are struck by instances of fraud, deceit and ignorant gullibility; and they neglect to consider and weigh what is brought forward of a serious and genuine character. The latter are carried away by their emotions and wishes, and prefer the sensational rubbish to the calm and balanced testimony of honest and careful observers.

A typical collection of the evidence here referred to--good, bad and indifferent--is to be found in the pages of “Raymond,” the recently published book written by Sir Oliver Lodge, F.R.S. The author, who has for very many years been an eminent investigator of psychical phenomena, in addition to having attained the highest rank in the scientific world in respect of his electrical and other work, was afflicted by the loss of a son, Raymond, in the Great War, and, in accordance with what he considered to be possible, he endeavoured to open up communication with the discarnate spirit of the deceased young man. He describes his experiments and their result in the book he has written. He does not hesitate to reject much of what he observed as being “nonsense,” and a good deal more he describes as “unverifiable” and doubtful. But he also brings forward an abundance of what he terms “evidential matter,” which he deems to be genuine and convincing--a conclusion fully accepted by serious readers who are not swayed by prejudice. He makes many references to what has been done by other investigators, and he expresses himself on the general question as follows:--

“However it be accomplished, and whatever reception the present-day scientific world may give to the assertion, there are many now who know, _by first-hand experience_, that communication is possible across the boundary--if there is a boundary--between the world apprehended by our few animal-derived senses and the larger existence concerning which our knowledge is still more limited. Communication is not easy, but it occurs.... The more recent development of an elaborate scheme of cross-correspondence entered upon since the death of specially experienced and critical investigators of the Society for Psychical Research, who were familiar with all these difficulties, and who have taken strong and most ingenious means to overcome them, has made the proof, already very strong, now almost crucial.... The chief thing that the episode establishes, to my mind, and a thing that was worth establishing, is the genuine character of the simple domestic sittings, _without a medium_, which are occasionally held by the family circle at Mariemont. For it is through these chiefly that Raymond remains as much a member of the family group as ever.... In the old days, if I sat with a medium, I was never told of any serious imaginary bereavement which had befallen myself--beyond the natural and inevitable losses from an older generation which fall to the lot of every son of man. But now if I, or any member of my family, goes anonymously to a genuine medium, giving not the slightest normal clue, my son is quickly to the fore and continues his clear and convincing series of evidences; sometimes giving testimony of a critically selected kind, sometimes contenting himself with friendly family chaff and reminiscences, but always acting in a manner consistent with his personality and memories and varying moods.... In every way he has shown himself anxious to give convincing evidence. Moreover, he wants me to speak out; and I shall. I am as convinced of continued existence, on the other side of death, as I am of existence here.”

These personal utterances represent much more than the opinion of a single individual. They are in effect a summary of what has been established by the laborious investigations of many hundreds of educated and capable enquirers--including highly-honoured leaders of science--during the last half-century. The Society of Psychical Research, for example--mentioned by Sir Oliver Lodge--comprises, and has comprised, many of the foremost scientists and philosophical thinkers of England, America, France, Italy and other countries. It entered upon the investigation and study of psychical phenomena from a strictly scientific point of view, without any tendency to be guided by religious teachings and desirous of stamping out the influence of so-called Spiritualism upon public credulity. Its work was conducted with the utmost care and caution in every detail. Its Reports from year to year were welcomed as sound and trustworthy text-books in a little-known region of science. They are collections of demonstrated facts rather than the presentation of inferences and speculative views. So when it is found that the foremost psychologists and psychical investigators work in harmony with the results attained by the Society for Psychical Research, and that the conclusions announced by authorities like Sir Oliver Lodge are largely based upon such results, the case for the acceptance of these conclusions becomes very strong indeed.

It has now been proved beyond all possibility of reasonable refutation that both Religion and Science answer “Yes” when they are asked the question--Do the Dead still live?

There is an allied question which should not be altogether ignored. Euclid sometimes proves a proposition by showing that its denial necessarily involves an absurdity. In like manner we may ask whether the denial of the proposition that souls live on after death drives us into a position that the common sense and conscience of mankind know to be untenable.

If this life be the whole measure of the existence of a soul, if birth mean its beginning and death its end, the something that is called “soul” is seen to be merely a temporary evanescent affection of the matter that constitutes the body. But it is an abuse of language to speak of matter as being either morally good or morally bad. Even if it be admitted that matter can live and be endowed with consciousness and volition, there would still be a manifest absurdity in attributing to it a knowledge of good and evil. It follows, therefore, that any person who is a thorough-going materialist is logically debarred from speaking of goodness, benevolence, honour, integrity, charity, truth, piety, patriotism, profligacy, fraud, crime or wickedness. The masses of matter to which he gives the name “human beings” are non-moral just as much as his table or his boots. He talks nonsense when he praises them for acting in a manner which he calls “right,” or when he blames them for acting in a manner which he calls “wrong.” Nor is the case bettered by conceding that “good conduct” may be beneficial and “bad conduct” harmful to the mass of matter in action, and may therefore, in an analogical way, be described as meriting commendation and reproof respectively. The mass of matter will know well enough that success, prosperity and worldly enjoyment are attained much more frequently by bad men than by the righteous, and he will laugh at the idea of a satisfied conscience being preferred to a satisfied body. He will know that when death comes the good will not be any better off than the bad--they will both be annihilated--and he will also know that during life the bad are much better off than the good. Does this doctrine commend itself to any sane man? Does any leader of science exist who will say deliberately that he repudiates the doctrine of right and wrong? If he will not say this he must not say that souls are merely appurtenances of bodies and cease to exist after death.

##