Chapter VII
Resurrection and Immortality
The evolution of the idea of the “resurrection of the flesh” progressed very slowly through the centuries, but when once it had reached the point that justified its incorporation into the Word of God, it became one of the most essential dogmas of Christendom. The Jews agitated the question before the advent of the new heresy promulgated by Jesus of Nazareth and his followers, so much so that it became one of the principal articles of faith which so widely separated the Pharisees and the Sadducees, two leading factions of Judaism. It is true that the Old Testament records examples of the raising of dead bodies to life again, but these miraculous manifestations did not form any logical basis for the dogma as we have it developed later, since these revivified individuals were destined to die all over again. They were not capable of ascending into heaven because the atonement had not been made, and no human flesh could enter the presence of God. The Jews were not anticipating any such resurrection as the Christian heresy adopted. They were looking for a Messiah or chieftain who would sit on the throne of David in Jerusalem, their holy city, and relieve them of all their civic troubles, and protect them from their numerous enemies, and that this glorious reign would be perpetuated throughout the ages. Their fondest dream—their highest ambition—was to reach that degree of national rehabilitation that would enable them to conquer any or all of their neighboring peoples who had so often over run their armies and wrought such bloody havoc with their national prosperity. Since it is quite patent that, in their case, “the wish was father to the thought”, it is possible that the same is true in our dogma of the resurrection of the body.
The Christians had a great deal of trouble, several centuries after the date of their charter, in determining whether they believed in this corporal resurrection. Paul, the eloquent logician of the New Testament, had penned such beautiful proof that the body which we should possess after the resurrection would be a spiritual body, and yet he had befogged the picture so much with his illustration of the new crop of wheat arising from the old dead grain which had been planted, and which, of course, was no more material than the new grain that, when planted, would have the same transformation as the old, and which would be bound to continue ad infinitum. Some desired to accept Paul’s thesis of the spiritual body, but after all the arguments were in, they adopted that creed (which has seen many changes, but which still has “I believe in the resurrection of the flesh”) that forms an important part of the dogmatic structure of scores of our present day churches. Paul wrote this theory a good many years before any of the “eye-witness” stories of the resurrection of Jesus had been recorded, and it may be that the gospel writers had knowledge of Paul’s contentions for they made extraordinary efforts to show that the body they saw after it arose from the tomb was the same body they had known and loved before. It ate ordinary food several times, and when some, who had probably accepted Paul’s “inspired” writings as the truth, expressed some doubt as to the material resurrection, Jesus himself made the startling statement that “a spirit hath not ‘flesh’ and bones, as you see me have”, and one still expressing agnosticism was converted when he had been privileged to handle the body putting his fingers into the nail holes in the feet and hands as well as introducing his hand into the incision in the side. If the creed makers accepted the stories of the eye-witnesses, how could they question the fact that the Bible teaches the resurrection of the flesh?
Science could not accept the idea of the resurrection of the flesh. Science would contend that since human bodies began to inhabit the earth that they have continued to disintegrate into their original elements and have served to renew the soil of Mother Earth to produce new vegetation to supply animal flesh to nourish new human bodies, to repeat this cycle millions and even billions of times, and that any particular human body may contain parts of thousands of other human bodies. Whose body would it be? Furthermore, if, as demonstrated by the only body that has ever been described in its resurrected state, the risen body retains the exact physical lineaments that it had at the moment of its demise, even all the death marks inflicted by murders, diseases, or accidents, how many of us would desire such a thing? If that Christ example is not satisfactory then at what age or condition of life would we come forth? Shall still-born infants and centenarian grandpas burst forth from their tombs as flaming youth? Will we be allowed to choose? Most of us would, very likely, feel a great urge to choose some other body, than to take his own, even at its very highest physical attainments. Personal recognition of our friends and loved ones has furnished the theme for a big share of the exquisite eloquence of our songs and sermons, and has inspired that consoling hope that has comforted so many billions of the bereaved, and robbed death of its sting, and the grave of its victory. It has so ameliorated the fears of the anxious souls of earth, and so profoundly sustained faltering and wavering hopes and faiths of those who have been overwhelmed by the horrors of separation that it seems almost a crime to raise any questions of the soundness of its logic, or the truthfulness of its philosophy. And I would refrain from doing so if such hopes and beliefs did not unfavorably influence the vision for a rational and scientific analysis of the subject in the light of Nature’s manifestations.
I quoted “The wish father to the thought”. There has, recently, arisen a peculiarly interesting philosophy, however fallacious, that “Whatever man can imagine, he can accomplish”. I mention this, not to argue its weaknesses. I believe its own advocates would abandon it in a discussion like this; but it bears some similarity to the self-satisfying dogma that “every craving in man has a satiating provision in God’s bountiful store”. Man is hungry, thirsty, tired, or sleepy. God has, in His fullness, tendered the antidote. Man wants his old body and those of his friends raised from the dead. God has arranged for a glorious resurrection morn. Man wants gold, endless comforts, and beauty of environment. God has made a heaven which is largely constituted of these things. If these premises were true, they would not substantiate a tenable philosophy, but the serious feature of it all is that it is not true, and will not admit of extension.
The same theology of the Bible that offers this consoling dogma of the resurrection of the flesh is veritably teeming with the beautiful doctrine that the friends and loved ones of the past, who have gone on before through the gates of death, are now, and have been since their departure hence, in the blissful presence of God and His angels, surrounded by all their friends except those few who have for a few days tarried here below. That they have no stint of perfect elysian bliss. That the beauty, the loveliness, the richness, the inexpressible splendor in which they are forever basking, and the bountifulness with which every possible want or desire is filled, is so sublimely complete and glorious, that if all the artificial languages of the earth were literally exhausted in an effort to portray their grandeur and dazzling loveliness, that the half would still not be told. It has not entered into the mind of men, the vastness, the infiniteness of this ineffable happiness. Now will some one who is frequently reiterating “I believe in the resurrection of the flesh” please speak up and give at least one logical reason why these liberated souls would want to come back here on that resurrection morning, and in all eternity and again be enshrouded in their several old frames of flesh and bones? How prosaic! What a disappointing anti-climax! Science would contend that the God of the universe would never ordain anything so ridiculously paradoxical. If the spirits of the departed are already in their glory land, it is not in consequence of any resurrection, neither could it be in anticipation of a resurrection.
Paul’s example of a resurrection has no application whatever to human bodies. It could be applied only to the vegetable seeds and to those very low forms of animal life in which the parent dies in order to reproduce its kind. The new wheat is only the offspring of the old, and if such a type is applied to the human kind, it could mean nothing more nor less than that we are to be perpetuated in our children. If his illustration is extended to its logical conclusion, it would completely disprove the idea of any resurrection at all, since the old grain is never to come forth again, but becomes soil for future crops.
My conclusion would, of necessity, be that the resurrection idea is a sample of as pure mythology as the playful antics of the citizens of Mount Olympus. It is possible that for those who sought some material or tangible explanation for all their “mysteries” evolved the resurrection concept, as a plausible basis for the still more desirable consummation—immortality. While the resurrection idea was in the process of evolution, it inspired the ancients to make very elaborate preparation for the happiness and convenience of the newly resurrected body. Choice foods and favorite viands were placed in reach of the buried body in the belief that, after so long a fast, the body would certainly want nourishment upon arising. Trinkets and beautiful gifts, associated with which there may have been rich memories during this life, were placed so they would greet the eyes at the moment of the awakening. Cemeteries were placed at most inconvenient places, for the living, because it was thought that these localities would be most delightful places to enjoy the splendors of the resurrection morning.
But how could this unfaltering faith in the resurrection of the flesh work any injury to the human family? Again, why try to disturb any comfort that may be predicated on this innocent belief? Because this very same innocent belief is so deeply lodged in our emotional intelligence that it continues to this day to prevent the proper disposition of dead bodies. The earth is heavily encumbered with totally useless cemeteries, and it is an unnecessary evil, not only in the realm of economics, but in the more important sanitation and health. We are willing to cremate the carcasses of the lower animals because we entertain no hope for the resurrection of their flesh. Of course, many would say that cremation could not interfere with the resurrection of the body, certainly it could not, but there is that mystic sentiment lingering in many good souls that the body should all be buried together, and amputated limbs are preserved or disinterred, to be placed with their fellows in the tomb. Science might tolerate beautiful sentiments on account of their beauty, but would ever remain unable to attach any more sacredness to a human carcass than to that of any other animal. They are exactly similar in composition. A comparison would prove favorable to some of the lower animals except in the arrangement of the similar substance of the brain.
But the Bible teaches the doctrine of the resurrection of the flesh in no uncertain terms, and all who accept it as the very Word of God cannot dismiss it from their confessions of faith any more than they could falter in their belief in the virgin birth. The Joshua edition of astronomy, or Elisha’s bears at Jericho. If, as is my contention, the Bible is the product of the times, as comprehended by its many authors, then we should feel free, yes even under a profound obligation, to resort to our God-given reason in such a manner as not to produce disgust at the very possessions of the powers for reasoning. And we should harbor no more fears of God’s displeasure then when we are bold enough to disagree with a contemporary politician, or the Divine Authority of Kings. Human souls are timid in the use of the only characteristic that differentiates them from the lower animals—Reason.
We are prone to harshly criticize the dumbness which the adherents of other religions manifest in their tenacious faith in the sanctity of their sacred writings, while we yield all our powers of intelligence and reason in a still more tenacious adherence to the wildest claims of a composite volume that has been impressed upon our tender, childish minds as the last word from the Great Creator to all the inhabitants of our little globe. Are we not just as dumb as they? Are we going to be able to break the shackles of that peculiar monster—fear—that holds us, soul and body, to the mythologies of the past?
It has been, apparently, much easier to produce great master-pieces of poetry and eloquent art, in portraying the sentimental climaxes to people who have felt that a special providence watched over every individual who lived on earth, and that the power held a whip-hand to fall at the slightest infraction of priest-craft legislation, than to expatiate the wondrous beauty of uniform compliances with fixed laws that knew no special providences nor could be invoked to vary here to enhance the pleasures of an ardent lover, or here to round out the sanguinary assault of some aspiring military chieftain bent upon a protracted slaughter. How appropriate it was to point to little children, who are naturally the very example of credulity, as the type of human soul who should constitute the great kingdom visualized by the builders of our newest mythology. Such beautiful examples of eloquence and perorations have appealed to minds that had been trained or attuned to that type of appeal. It is just the same whether in paganism or in Christendom. The fact that our literature would suffer a great loss if all that has been written and sung about dying Gods, and the consoling ecstasy of being freed from sin and its awful consequences, and the glorious transformations wrought by miracles, is easily paralleled by the potentialities of a literature that could be produced upon themes of a God who never allows His program to be interrupted by selfish invocations from those who are continuously thinking up something new to request about special visitations to them and their friends. Analyze every prayer heard from the pulpit and figure, for yourself, how God could answer all of them and not produce a regular cyclone of pandemonium.
It has been very reasonably claimed that if you would give your child over to the whole charge of any cult during the first 6 or 12 years of life that said child would be safe for that cult ever after. Is it any good argument for any question? Is a theory to be tested by its power to create such a fear in the child-mind that when he grows up he is still afraid of the curses threatened to befall any exercise of his reason? On the face of the picture, would it not appear that a theology or any other “ology” would be strongest of it appealed to the mature mind? Why are religionists so insistent upon gaining access to the tender, credulous minds when they emphasize the consoling thought that if their dogma is accepted any time between birth and death (and some even give extended grace) that the result during all eternity is just the same? Some cults have exercised the perfectly logical business acumen of establishing infant asylums and hospitals for the sick for the very good reason that when the mind is attenuated by infirmity or immaturity is the propitious time for those impressions that are hard to dislodge by any kind of argumentative effort. So, the dogma of the resurrection of the flesh, along with many other no less illogical premises appeal to the aspiring youth as well as to the chronic and confirmed invalid. Then when the mind grows into the analytical adolescence it is continuously harassed by the specters of early impressions, and he who is able to unlearn as well as make new acquisitions is the one on whom the world’s progress rests. What a pity that we have this burden so securely cinched about our vitals when we are young, and then have such fearful experiences in the process of disillusionment. If all the fairy tales of the nursery could be bereft of the miraculous, and let the impressionable minds of our next generation acquire and early habit of realities, how much easier would it be when we begin to face the stern realities where sentiment has no prestige, and where genii and fairies and tin gods fail to relieve us of all exertion or responsibility.
Death is bound to be either a dreamless sleep from which there is never any awakening, or else it is the laboratory of Eternal Science in which the intelligence (the Ego) is separated from this corporeal dross, and I would contend, never again to be reunited. Immortality is a purely scientific hypothesis. That is not undertaking to outline what immortality is to be like throughout the ceaseless ages. There might be many more evolutions, but immortality means immunity from death. If I am immortal, I shall not die. This corporal frame is but a habitat, a house to live in, it is not I, but even the elements with which it is constructed are not subject to annihilation. They enter into other bodies ad infinitum. They are earth bound for they are a part of the earth. My ego may be able to make other connections, but it cannot re-enter this house that has burned to its original elements in the combustion of dissolution. Those elements have taken up other abodes in other structures like the one I have deserted. I say “if I am immortal”. Science is to be credited with revealing the indestructibility of all things. If the carbon, oxygen, phosphorus, etc. in my body are indestructible, the intelligence which I have, and the character that I have constructed, shall continue interminably. There is no way to obliterate the historical fact that I am to-day. I shall have to be tomorrow whether in this house, in another house, or out in the wide open spaces.
Whether I shall be a separate entity, with my erstwhile individuality, capable of differentiating myself by references to the specific memory of this existence here, with its experiences and associations, thereby recognizing my friends of earth, and being recognized by them, or whether I shall be but one microscopical cell in the aggregate of all intelligence, merged for some great work, I am unable to even project an answer. If, however, I am unable to employ my memory in such a way as to know my friends, I shall be unable to recognize myself, for my own identity would have to be established and maintained by reference to where I had been and what I had done and the contacts I had made while constructing my character and my personality.
I am convinced, then, that immortality is a tenable dogma, not because sacred writings record the return of versatile spirits in the form of ghosts and angels, nor because modern spiritualists profess to keep up a running communication with the souls of the departed, but because the ever trustworthy demonstration of nature’s science patently support a basis for such faith.
The spiritualism and the psychic séances of our day fail to materialize in the presence of those who allow no fraud. The application of the same yard stick to the manifestations vouched for in the Bible record, would no doubt, would have detected an equal amount of fraudulence. The ancients should not have required so much dexterity, since their audiences were not as liable to contain those who were prepared to resort to the stubborn criticism of cold, deliberative science. I have sat in the awe-inspiring atmosphere of the séance, and have been literally disgusted at the ease with which even intellectuals in the audience were convinced that they had actually received messages from their dead friends. Not one word has been spoken from spirit land that could not have been uttered by an attendant. “I am very happy.” “We are awaiting your arrival with a great joy.” “I was bewildered at first but am able now to move about without difficulty.” “This is a very busy place.” And an endless sluice of similar chatter, characterizes the average séance. And when I would be so rude as to ask for answers that I knew no one behind the curtain could possibly know, but which would be well known by the spirit whose presence had been announced, all the spirits would be stricken with sudden and complete aphasia.
What small wonder that we accept, without question, the deisms, theisms, demonisms, and spiritualisms that any and all peoples of the past have incorporated into their “sacred” literatures when we not only accept but run after such rubbish from the princes of fakirs. Immortality, even, cannot equip an intelligence to use articulated words of an artificial language. If I am to speak my vernacular when I go hence, I shall really need my old body again so that I can modulate the words and renew the old task of holding my infinitives from splitting, and keep my adverbs and adjectives from clashing. No, I still hope to get away from all the artificial languages, both ancient and modern.
The hope of a glorious immortality is not fraught with the detrimental consequences upon our lives and conduct here in this world like a belief in miracles, pardon of sins, and the special providences invoked by prayers, but such hope should furnish inspiration to aspire to the greatest perfection in the comprehension of (and obedience to) the unchanging laws of nature’s God. He never changes, and we may confidently expect that natural laws will prevail in His spiritual realms. Then the greatest preparation we can have for any other form of existence in God’s eternal and limitless universe is training in accepting those laws as fixed, always right, and never to be waived or altered as a consequence of our selfish importunities. The same cause will always produce the same effect, whether it operates on one of the planets in our solar system, or on any of the billions of worlds to the remotest parts of infinite space. Geometry is the same wherever there are dimensions to comprehend or to measure. Two atoms of hydrogen and one of oxygen will form water in the heavens as on earth, if they have an opportunity to combine. The law of gravity, and the effect of the ultra-violet light, with all other natural laws are necessarily universal. That science that is as eternal and as immutable as God is the sum total of all these laws. We have enough of that science demonstrated to justify our adherence to its findings and faithful obedience to its mandates, while we earnestly search for more light.
To those who demand something to fill the void if we remove the foundation of their faith in the sacredness and divinity of the Bible, what more should be tendered than the greatness of the Creator of science and the ineffable perfection of all His laws, with all that is implied in that comprehension? What injury is wrought to any human soul by the removal of falsehood and by razing the foundations of a but fancied security. If the Bible evolved as we agree all other “sacred” books evolved, then it would confer a great good, rather than injury upon all future generations to replace the confidence hitherto reposed in its all-sufficiency, by emphasis on the theme that makes its appeal to our reason and intelligence rather than our emotions and our admiration and craving for the mysterious and miraculous. Our abiding faith in the holiness and divinity of the Bible may be as much pure credulity as some other human being’s abiding faith in the sacredness of a white elephant, or still another whose confidence reposes in a sacred cow. The very unreasonableness of the claim that the Bible is the Word of God ought to set us thinking. It will not be harmful; to any average mind to meditate upon this extremely important subject.
Science does not destroy religion. It enhances the real beauty of service to God. It suggests that the means of service are contained in the perfect and immutable laws of nature’s Universal God, rather than in ritual incantations and blank adorations based upon formulae, mysterious and miraculous, offering sanctification and parole from a mortal sin that most of us, now, agree that Adam never committed. And Adam’s transgression must remain the principle leg on which Bible theology must stand.