Absurdities of Immaterialism

Table of Contents

"What is truth?" This is a question which has been asked by many. It is a question supposed to be of difficult solution. Mr. Taylder in his tract against materialism, says, "It is a question which all the philosophers of the Grecian and Roman schools could not answer." He seems to think the question was unanswerable until the introduction of the gospel; since which time he considers that the veil is taken away, and that "we now enjoy the full blaze of truth." He further confidently asserts, that "with the materials afforded us in that sacred book, (meaning the New Testament,) we are enabled satisfactorily to answer the question, What is truth?"

What does this author mean by the foregoing assertions? Does he mean, that no truth was understood by the Grecian and Roman schools? That no truth was discerned by the nations, during the first four thousand years after the creation? Or, does he mean, that the gospel truths were not understood until they were revealed? He certainly must mean the latter and not the former. Both the Romans and Grecians could, without the least difficulty, answer the question. "What is truth?" Nothing is more simple than an answer to this question. It is a truth, that something exists in space, and this truth was just as well perceived by all nations before the book called the New Testament existed as afterwards. It is a truth that, "the three angles of a triangle are equal to two right angles." This was not learned from that sacred book—the Bible. We admit that the question, what is gospel truth, could not be answered by any one to whom the gospel had never been revealed. Dr. Good, in his "Book of Nature," says, "general truth may be defined, the connexion and agreement, or repugnancy and disagreement, of our ideas." This definition we consider erroneous; for it makes general truth depend on the existence of ideas. Now truth is independent of all ideas. It is a necessary truth that, space is boundless, and that duration is endless, abstract from all connexion and agreement of our ideas, or even of our existence, or the existence of any other being. If neither the universe nor its Creator existed, these eternal unchangeable, and necessary truths would exist, unperceived and unknown. Truth is the relation which things bear to each other. Knowledge is the perception of truth. Truth may exist without knowledge, but knowledge cannot exist without truth.

The New Testament unfolds, not all the truths which exist, but some few truths of infinite importance. The vast majority of truths of less importance were discovered independently of that book.

"The followers of Joseph Smith," says this author, "hold the doctrine of the materiality of all existence in common with the ancient academics." This, sir, we admit. Our belief, however, in this doctrine, is founded, not on any modern supernatural revelation, unfolding this doctrine, as this author insinuates, but on reason and common sense. The doctrine of immaterialism, in our estimation, is false, and in the highest degree absurd, and unworthy the belief of any true Christian philosopher.

The author of the treatise against materialism has stated his first proposition as follows:—

"The Philosophy of the Mormons is IRRATIONAL."

What the author means by this proposition is, that it is "irrational" to believe all substance material. To substantiate this proposition he sets out in quest of proof. An immaterial substance is the thing wanted. No other proof will answer. If he can prove the existence of an immaterial substance his point is gained,—his proposition established, and the irrationality of the material theory will be demonstrated.

As we are about to launch forth into the wide field of existence in search of an "immaterial substance," it may be well to have the term correctly defined, so as to be able to distinguish such a substance from matter. It is of the utmost importance that every reasoner should clearly define the terms he employs. Two contending parties may use the same word in altogether different meanings; and each draw correct conclusions from the meaning which he attaches to the same word; hence arise endless disputes. As we have no confidence in the immaterial theory, we shall let the immaterialist define his own terms. We shall give,

Taylder's Definition.—"What is meant by an immaterial substance is merely this, that something exists which is not matter and is evidently distinct from matter, which is not dependent on matter for its existence, and which possesses properties and qualities entirely different from those possessed by matter." (Taylder's Tract against Materialism. Page 14.)

This definition of an "immaterial substance" is ambiguous. It needs another definition to inform us what he means. Does he mean that ALL of "the properties and qualities" of an immaterial substance are "entirely different from those possessed by matter;" and that it possesses NO properties in common with matter? Or does he mean that while it "possesses SOME properties and qualities entirely different" from matter it inherits OTHERS in common with matter? If the latter be his meaning, we see no reason for calling any substance "immaterial." Iron possesses SOME properties and qualities "entirely different" from all other kinds of matter, and other properties it inherits in common with every other kind. Shall we therefore say that iron is not matter? Among the various kind of matter, each has its distinct properties, and its common properties; and notwithstanding each possesses "entirely different" properties and qualities from all other kinds, yet each is called matter because it possesses some properties in common with all other kinds. Hence the term matter should be given to all substances which possess any properties in common, however wide they may differ in other respects. A substance to be immaterial must possess NO properties or qualities in common with matter. All its qualities must be entirely distinct and different. It is to be regretted that our opponent has not defined an immaterial substance more clearly. As he is ambiguous in his definition, we shall presume that he entertains the same views as the modern advocates of immaterialism generally entertain.

That celebrated writer, Isaac Taylor, says,—"a disembodied spirit, or we should rather say, an unembodied spirit, or sheer mind, is NOWHERE. Place is a relation belonging to extension; and extension is a property of matter; but that which is wholly abstracted from matter, and in speaking of which we deny that it has any property in common therewith, can in itself be subjected to none of its conditions; and we might as well say of a pure spirit that it is hard, heavy, or red, or that it is a cubic foot in dimensions, as say that it is here or there. It is only in a popular and improper sense that any such affirmation is made concerning the Infinite Spirit, or that we speak of God as everywhere present." * * * "Using the term as we use them of ourselves, God is not here or there." * * * "When we talk of an absolute immateriality," continues this author, "and wish to withdraw mind altogether from matter, we must no longer allow ourselves to imagine that it is, or can be, in any place, or that it has any kind of relationship to the visible and extended universe." (Taylor's "Physical Theory of Another Life." Chapter II.) Dr. Good says, "The metaphysical immaterialists of modern times freely admit that the mind has NO PLACE of existence, that it does exist NOWHERE; while at the same time they are compelled to allow that the immaterial Creator or universal spirit exists EVERYWHERE, substantially as well as virtually." (Good's "Book of Nature," Series III., Lecture I.)

Dr. Abercrombie, in speaking upon matter and mind, says, that "in as far as our utmost conception of them extends, we have no grounds for believing that they have anything in common." (Abercrombie on the "Intellectual Powers." Part I. Sec. I.)

With these definitions, we shall follow our opponent in his researches after an "immaterial substance." After taking a minute survey of man, he believes he has found in his composition, and in connexion with his bodily organization, something immaterial. He says, "the spirit is the purely immaterial part, which is capable of separation from the body, and can exist independently of the body."

"The body is that material part, 'formed out of the dust of the ground,' and is the medium through which the mind is manifested." (Taylder's Tract against Materialism. Page 8.)

That the mind or spirit, "is capable of separation from the body, and can exist independently of the body," we most assuredly believe; but that it is "immaterial" we deny; and it remains for Mr. Taylder to prove its immateriality. His first proof is founded on his own assertion, that "mind is simple, not compounded." If this assertion be admitted as true, it affords not the least evidence for the immateriality of mind. Every material atom is simple, not compounded. Is it, therefore, not matter? Must each simple, uncompounded elementary atom be immaterial?

Mr. Taylder next says, "Mind is not perceivable to corporeal organs, matter is so perceivable." This assertion is altogether unfounded. "Corporeal organs" can perceive neither matter nor mind. The mind alone can perceive: corporeal organs are only the instruments of perception. Bishop Butler, in his Analogy, expressly says, that "our organs of sense prepare and convey on objects, in order to their being perceived, in like matter as foreign matter does, without affording any shadow of appearance, that they themselves perceive." (Butler's Analogy. Part I. Chap. I.) The mind clearly perceives its own existence as well as the existence of other matter. Perception, then, is a quality peculiar to that kind of matter called mind. Mr. Taylder further remarks, that "All the qualities of matter are not comparable with the more excellent qualities of mind, such as power and intelligence." We willing to admit that power and intelligence, and some other qualities of mind, are far superior to the qualities of other matter; but we do not admit that the superiority of some of the qualities of a substance prove its immateriality. The superiority of some qualities has nothing to do with the immateriality of the substance. OXYGEN possesses some qualities, not only distinct from, but superior to, those qualities possessed by BARIUM, STRONTIUM, SILICIUM, GLUCINIUM, ZIRCONIUM, and many other metals and material substances; yet no one from this will draw the conclusion, that oxygen is immaterial. Oxygen is material though it possesses some distinct and superior qualities to other matter; so mind or spirit is material, though it differs in the superiority of some of its qualities from other matter.

It is strange, indeed, to see the inconsistencies of this learned author: he remarks, "Mind thinks, matter cannot think. It is the existence of this thinking principle which clearly proves the immateriality of the mind or spirit." This method of reasoning may be termed (petitio principii), begging the question. First, he assumes that "matter cannot think;" and, second, draws the conclusion that a thinking substance is immaterial. This conclusion is a legitimate one if the premises are granted; but the premises are assumed, therefore the conclusion is false. Prove that mind is not matter before you assume that "matter cannot think." It would seem from the assertions of this author, that the quality of "thinking" is to be the touchstone—the infallible test—the grand distinguishing characteristic between material and immaterial substances. It matters not, in his estimation, how many qualities different substances inherit in common, if one can be found that thinks, it must be immaterial. There is no one substance out of the fifty or more substances discovered by chemists, but what possesses some qualities "entirely different" from any of the rest; therefore, each substance, when compared with others, has equal claims with that of mind to be placed in the immaterial list. In proving that mind is immaterial, it is not enough to prove that it has some properties entirely distinct from other substances; but it must be proved to have no properties in common with matter. Nothing short of this will agree with the modern notions of immateriality. It must be shown that mind or spirit has no relation to duration or space—no locality—that it must exist "NOWHERE"—that it has no extension—that it exists not "Now" and "Then," neither "Here" nor "There"—that it cannot be moved from place to place—that it has no form or figure—no boundaries or limits of extension. These, according to the definitions of modern immaterialists, are the negative conditions or qualities absolutely necessary to the existence of all immaterial substance. While the opposite of these, or the positive qualities or conditions are absolutely necessary to the existence of all material substance.

"How do you distinguish," inquires Mr. Taylder, "between any two given substances, such as, that a block of stone is not a log of wood?" He answers, "Because they possess different qualities." And then declares, "So also you distinguish between mind and matter." But the "different qualities" by which "a block of stone" is distinguished from "a log of wood," do not prove either the stone or the wood to be immaterial; neither do the different qualities by which the substance called mind is distinguished from other substances, prove either the mind or the other substances to be immaterial. So far as the different qualities are evidences, the mind has as good a claim to materiality as the stone or wood.

stonedifferent qualitieswood,different qualitiesimmaterial,