Basic HTML Version
657
2. SUBSTITUTES FOR THE DOCTRINE OF PERSONAL IMMORTALITY.
The desire for immortality
is so deeply implanted in the human soul that even those who accept the dicta of a materialistic
science, seek some sort of substitute for the discarded notion of the personal immortality of
the soul. Their hope for the future assumes one of the following forms:
a. Racial immortality.
There are those who comfort themselves with the idea that the
individual will continue to live on this earth in his posterity, in his children and grandchildren, to
endless generations. The individual seeks compensation for his lack of hope in a personal
immortality in the notion that he contributes his share to the life of the race and will continue
to live on in that. But the idea that a man lives on in his progeny, whatever modicum of truth it
may contain, can hardly serve as a substitute for the doctrine of personal immortality. It
certainly does not do justice to the data of Scripture, and does not satisfy the deepest longings
of the human heart.
b. Immortality of commemoration.
According to Positivism this is the only immortality we
should desire and look for. Everyone should aim at doing something to establish a name for
himself, which will go down in the annals of history. If he does this, he will continue to live in
the hearts and minds of a grateful posterity. This also falls far short of the personal immortality
which Scripture leads us to expect. Moreover, it is an immortality in which only a few will share.
The names of most men are not recorded on the pages of history, and many of those who are
so recorded are soon forgotten. And to a great extent it may be said that the best and the worst
share it alike.
c. Immortality of influence.
This is very closely related to the preceding. If a man makes his
mark in life, and accomplishes something that is of enduring value, his influence will continue
long after he is gone. Jesus and Paul, Augustine and Thomas Aquinas, Luther and Calvin, — they
are all very much alive in the influence which they exercise up to the present time. While this is
perfectly true, this immortality of influence is but a poor substitute for personal immortality. All
the objections that were raised against the immortality of commemoration, also apply in this
case.
3. THE RECOVERY OF FAITH IN IMMORTALITY.
At the present time the materialistic
interpretation of the universe is making way for a more spiritual interpretation; and as a result
faith in personal immortality is once more gaining favor. Dr. William James, while subscribing to
the formula, “Thought is a function of the brain,” denies that this logically compels us to
disbelieve the doctrine of immortality. He maintains that this conclusion of the scientists is
based on the mistaken notion that the function of which the formula speaks is necessarily a
productive function, and points out that it may also be a permissive or transmissive function.
The brain may merely transmit, and in the transmission colour, thought, just as a coloured