"MR. DENTON'S SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCES OF A FUTURE STATE."

Inangahua Times, Volume VII, Issue 1081, 1 May 1882, Page 2

"MR. DENTON'S SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCES OF A FUTURE STATE."

♦ ■ [TO THE EDITOR iNANGAHUA TIHES.] Sir, — The observation of a fact or event does not imply a knowledge of the cause. Every man' knows how a tree grows, but no one knows why it grows. Therapeutics point out how conium acts on the nerves of voluntary motion ; but why it is so, remains a mystery. It is one thing to believe and accept phenomena as genuine, another to accept the theory advanced to account for this occurrence. Thus in the question of spiritualism, we should keep this in constant recollection, and distinguish between fact and hypothesis, between nomena, and phenomena. That certain peculiar and extraordinary occurrences can be produced under certain J3onditions; and in the presence of persons who appear to possess a peculiar organisation, is evidently correct, as we have the testimony of men of high scientific authority, viz., Alfred Wallace, Prof. Crooker, Mr Varley, Professors Hare, Wolf, and Fdllner ; bu c ha-va not the si%:li ? .est- evidence to

assume that such manifestations arc the result of supernatural action, or the works of disembodied human being, s On the contrary it is more reasonable to suppose that they owe their origin to some yet undiscovered force, in some way or another connected with the minds of the sitters analogous to the effects of the socalled animal magnetism. Therefore, when Fdllner, in his "Transcendental Physics," and Mr Denton in his lecture on scientific evidence of a future state, wades through a labyrinth of speculative abstractions, to trace certain facts to spiritual beings; and (as has been the case with the latter gentleman) even trying to establish a new religion on such speculation, we cannot recognise any scientific principles in such a modut operandi. Mr Denton's lecture had no more title to be termed scientific than the " Genesis." He started with a hypothesis at once illogical and unproved, namely, that the human spirit originates in the ovum. This we are to accept Is it because science and physiology support the theory ? No ! We are to accept it because Mr Denton believes it in spite of physiology. Apart from the scientific evidence, the assertion is illogical. If the spirit is developed from the ovum, it cannot be Imftj|j4*fol^.|fty fhftfc yfoflh has a begiufing jmtuV^nsvo wt end* v - Aner aaviiik qw* oovered "the soul of man," the lecturer goes on to prove, by some more " scientific evidences," that this soul communicates (after death) with soula still in the fleshthat tables are lifted, chairs tilted, bells rung, and dates painted over with ungrammatical messages, by the spirit of Shakespeare, Homer, and Byron. This we are to believe notwithstanding the incongruity and absurdity which such theories present to a rational being ; because Mr Denton has seen phenomena for which he was unable to account Which is the most reasonable and most probable conclusion ? Either that such things are true in spite of logic and experience, or that Mr Denton, and other scientific men, have been the victims of trickery or of their own enthusiasm. Many men who lived and died before Mr Denton, saw " ghoßtß and spoke with spirits ■;" but the world has not yet accredited their tale, for the general experience of mankind tends to prove, that the most intellectual, and most perspicacious minds can be deceived by freaks of -imagination, and superstitious belief. The incongruity of these visions points to their origin. Brutus saw the phantom of his murdered benefactor attired in the familiar toga — Catherine of Russia saw a ghost dressed in the court custume, while the spirits from which Mr Denton got his scientific evidences appeared in dress-suits and beaver hats. Can Mr Denton or some other spiritualist inform us how the laws of fashion are regulated in ike next worldJ -I am, &o^ "O. E. H."