The collapse of scientific atheism / by J.M. Winn.

  • Winn, James M. (James Michell), 1808-1900.
Date:
1880
Catalogue details

Licence: Public Domain Mark

Credit: The collapse of scientific atheism / by J.M. Winn. Source: Wellcome Collection.

Provider: This material has been provided by The Royal College of Surgeons of England. The original may be consulted at The Royal College of Surgeons of England.

    31/36 (page 31)
    among the highest manifestations of the mind, and as yet it has been Ifound impossible to account for them by any physical laws. Further, he draws the following conclusions from what he considers the recent progress in scientific discovery: that, « with every expression of a mental state, and with every action of the mind, some structural change occurs in the substance of the brain.” We must protest against the acceptance of this hypothesis as an absolute truth. Had the question at stake been less momentous than that of the immateriality of the mind its dissemination might have been of little consequence ; but when the issue is so tremendous, it is right that the general public, for whom the editor of the Edinburgh writes, and who cannot be expected to be familiar with the principles of a recondite and intricate science, should be cautioned against accepting mere speculations as verified facts. A brief consideration of the writer’s conclusion will be sufficient to show that it is another striking example of the petitio principii fallacy. Neither the writer nor anyone else has demonstrated that with every act of the intellect some structural change occurs in the substance of the brain; that mind-action is the result of chemical decomposition of brain- pulp, or that the transmission of mind-force between the several globules of the brain is effected in the same manner. The brain is confined in a bony case which renders it impossible to watch its vital operations through the microscope. We must wait until the “ cerebroscope ” is realised before the physiologists can be in a position to speak positively on the point. Dr. Allman in his address, at the meeting of the British Association at Sheffield, made a similar psychological blunder as the critic in the Edinburgh Review. He said when a thought passed through the mind it is associated, as we have now abundant reason for believing, with some change in the protoplasm of the cerebral cells. The fact is that we are not yet in possession of data to substantiate such an assertion, and it is of the utmost importance that a hasty opinion should not be formed on a question so closely associated with the independence of the human mind. This bold assertion, which has been accepted by many as an established truth, is the keynote of those who style themselves physiological psychologists, and whose endeavour it is to materialise mental phenomena, and identify mind with matter. In oiu* waking moments it has never been demonstrated that a thought effects any change in the protoplasm of ganglionic cells of the brain ; how utterly inconceivable it is then, that a subtle intangible