CHURCH AND WAR

Dominion, Volume 9, Issue 2830, 22 July 1916, Page 6

CHURCH AND WAR

DEATH—AND A ITER SOME REASONS FOR A FUTURE LIFE. Tho war has given a new iuterest to the great problems of life and death. People are asking themselves whether death is the end of the 1 story "for the thousands of promising young lives which have been sacrificed in tho Empire's cause. This question has been discussed from many points of view in war books and pamphlets. A symposium by leading writers and thinkers on "What Happens After Death" has been published by Messrs. Cassell and Company. The list of contributors include such well-known names as Canon Horsloy, Dr. Hortou, Dr. Max Nordau, Konsignor R. H-. Benson, Professor Sayce, Sir Hiram S. Maxim, Mrs. Annie Besant, Canon Alexander, Mr. A. C. Benson, and Miss Flora Annie Steel. We are told in tho foreword that "millions of bravo men on the long drawnout battle-fronts are face to face with the prospect of sudden death, and both to them and to those near and dear to them, the old, old problem of the -future life has suddenly become urgent and acute." Nearly all tho writers whoso views appear iu tho book are believers in an after life, but there is, of course, much difforenco of opinion as regards its character, and tho belief is supported by a great variety of argument. The cumulative force of the reasons put forward is extremely strong. Professor Sayce sums up the arguments in favour of a future life under the three following heads:— ■, ■ (1) Tho moral argument that it is contrary to our sense of justice and to the moral principles upon which civilised society is based that there shouW bo no future rectification of the injustices of this life; that a Nero, for example, should faro just as well as one of his Christian victims. (2) The historical < ai-gimieht,, derived from the consentient testimony of the 'martyrs and confessors of the great organised religions of tho. world who have faced death and torture,, in the belief that this world is merely a passage .into another. . - (3) Tbe argument derived from the almost universal conviction' of mankind that there is another world, a belief which goes back to tho palaeolithic age of Europe, as evidenced by burial customs.

Dr. Sayee holds that against the T>elief there is no positive testimony —simply the negative argument, .'which. is valueless in science. . , . Dr. Mai Nordau does not believe in immortality in . any form. He says, "Death means final extinction of consciousness and eternal dissolution of what was a personality." Ho makes no , at-, itempt to'Mcet the arguments mentioned by Professor Sayce. He states some of the difficulties ;of belief in a future life, and declares that,"the immortality of the personality is neither conceivable nor desirable." But as a matter of fact v the majority of the world's greatest thinkers from Plato to Beigsou have found it'eon. ceivable, and countless millions of men and women in all ages Tegard it as desirable. . The only other contributor who adopts an uncompromisingly negative attitui'e is Sir Hiram llasim. He admits that mankind developed "a great want" for a future life, but ho holds that tho .belief is a delusion, fostered by "the quack doctor of religion." Of course, no first-class modern authority on anthropology or comparative religion would give any support to this crude explanation. However. Sir Hiram is quite aure that death ends all. To believe anything else he regards a's a sign of mental weakness, and jet it was Goethe, one of the most powerfuTlntellects of modern Europe, who expressed the hope that he would "never J>» weak enough" to give up liis faith in immortality. Sir Hiram Maxim professes to speak in tho name of science, but AirJ. Arthur Hill declares that "a summing up of science and philosophy at the present day is . vastly more favourable to th« : religious view>-than ever. before." It is indeed hard to believe that mankind's ' ."great, want is a tragic delusion. One cannot help feeling the forco of ' Mr.' Waldron's contention, that this instinct for immortality, as universal as language*, as old as human thought, as real as consciousness, as deep as human needs, and as high as human aspiration, must have life beyond to match it, to'equalise it,, to make the music plain, and fill thd earth with law and the universe with justice.

One of tho ablest arguments in favour of immortality is that contained in th» article by Professor A. E. Taylor, F.8.A., in a book entitled "The Faith and the War" (Macmillan and' Co.). Professor Taylor 'holds that belief in immortal* ity is a rational and moral necessity. The belief that science will neve* Jinatlly contradicted herself is really an act of faith—faith in the rationality of tho universe, in the sense that the nniverss answers our 'human demand that it shall not contradict itself. Professor Taylor goes on to say that wo who go further and ascribe tho same degree of value to the moral and religious as to the physical order aro simply carrying out this same aot of faith more consistently and thoroughly. We, too, believe in the reasonableness' of the universe, but when wo call it. reasonable wo mean that it answers" not one bris all of our fundamental human demands. We believe that the personal activities by which the things of highest value are produced and sustained are not wasted: The universe conserves the highest values. But is the conservation of those values possible without the conservation of the.individuals by whoso activities they have been produced and sustained? When we feel most alive and vigorous in soul and body, when we feel surest that we aro at our best and our thouf&t at its truest, then rather than at any other time do we feel "in onr bones" that a universe that c'ouldj allow human personality to vanish would be no better than a mad .' universe. This is, of course, only tho barest outline of Professor Taylor's strong and- convincing argument. The idea, 'that this life ends atf is, ho contends, at hopelces Variance with the foundations of the moral order end tha rationality of tho "universe.

ARCHBISHOP AT THE FRONT,

AN ADVENTUROUS TRIP. . A correspondent of .the "Morning Post" writes as follows from Franco"Whilo the Archbishop of Canterbury was on "his recent visit to the British Expeditionary Force in France, he had experience of 'a certain liveliness' such as .does, not usually fall to ,the lot ot non-combatants. Soon after arrival, tho motor-car in which ho was travelling went badly Tho front wheals ran away, on. their own, whilo the car sat up on its back wheels.. Next, when His Grace was approaching a certain place, he was preceded by an enemy aeroplane, which dropped tombs for several minutes by way of celebrating tho occasion. Finally, when the Archbishop was inspecting one of the front 'trenches, he suddenly found himself in the midst of a very heavy bombardment. The Germans had chosen thai; moment for turninff their guns on to this particular paTt of the line, and for half an hour or so the Primate of All England had a very real taste of what it is like to be shelled in the trenches,"