A new basis of belief in immortality / by John S. Farmer.

  • Farmer, John S.
Date:
1882
Catalogue details

Licence: Public Domain Mark

Credit: A new basis of belief in immortality / by John S. Farmer. Source: Wellcome Collection.

    37/132 (page 35)
    ■engulfing our most precious creed, aud burying our highest life in mind- less desolation. ... I am not ashamed to confess that, with this virtual negation of God, the universe to me has lost its soul of loveli- ness. . . . When at times I think, as think at times,! must, of the appalling contrast between the hallowed glory of that creed which once was mine, and the lonely mystery of existence as now I find it—at such times I shall ever feel it impossible to avoid the sharpest pang of which my nature is susceptible.” Such is the wail of lament which comes from one of the leaders of public opinion. Well may Professor Flint take a grave aud melan- choly view of the situation in his last work on “ Anti-theistie Theories.” He seems to think that Atheism is advancing upon us, subtle, deadl^jr, irresistible as the east wind. In science, in literature, in philosophy it has its strenuous advocates. “It has,” he says, “in our large centres of population, missionaries who, I feai’, are better qualified for their work than many of those whom our churches send forth to advocate to the same classes the cause of Christianity.” The broad conclusions which in these days seem to be forcing themselves upon modern thought are, that the claims of science are incompatible with those of theology; that if the Bible does not entirely deny the pretensions which have been made for it, it contains nothing, at any rate, in support of them ; that revelation is a myth, inspiration a fallacy, mirades impossible, and a future life uncertain and im- probable. There are those who rejoice and see in all this an assurance that Christianity can never again command the sympathies and assent of the world. I do not share this belief, for I see in our midst to-day a new element of thought, which I firmly believe to contain within itself all the bases requisite for a reconciliation between the two contending schools. The subject is one upon which is based the whole question of moral and religious belief and practice; and in dealing with it, though de- siring to speak plainly, would fain wound the susceptibilities of none. I look around me, and I see the Christian Church has persisted, and still persists, in teaching a rigid and unscientific theology, through which she finds herself in collision with modern thought. I see her divided and at variance with herself. She cannot agree upon the facts and doctrines which she is fighting for—cannot even demonstrate the facts she brings forward as evidence. I see that the researches of science have hitherto been met with dogmatism and denunciation, and cannot but feel that they do not answer the question or aid the cause of truth—indeed, I see such a course making matters worse, aud more completely severing the sympathies of tlie people from the old faith. Science is resolute, and perhaps too self-confident, but contumely and abuse will certainly not avail. But the rnatter does not end here, nor does the solution of the diffi- culty rest with Science and the theology of tho Popular Faith alone. ^Modern Theology may fail to stand its ground, but tho truths taught and exemplified by .lesus never. They were founded on an absolute fact; and to-day, in Modern Spiritualism, many see a renewal