Title | Why I left the church |
Series Title | Pamphlets for the million; no. 1 |
Creator (LCNAF) |
|
Contributor (LCNAF) |
|
Publisher | Watts & Company |
Place of Creation (TGN) |
|
Date | 1912 |
Subject.Topical (LCSH) |
|
Subject.Name (LCNAF) |
|
Genre (AAT) |
|
Language | English |
Type (DCMI) |
|
Original Item Extent | 46 pages; 19 cm. |
Original Item Location | BX4668.3.M33A3 1912 |
Original Item URL | http://library.uh.edu/record=b8304505~S11 |
Original Collection | Socialist and Communist Pamphlets |
Digital Collection | Socialist and Communist Pamphlets |
Digital Collection URL | http://digital.lib.uh.edu/collection/scpamp |
Repository | Special Collections, University of Houston Libraries |
Repository URL | http://libraries.uh.edu/branches/special-collections |
Use and Reproduction | This item is in the public domain and may be used freely. |
File Name | index.cpd |
Title | Image 26 |
Format (IMT) |
|
File Name | uhlib_5792348_025.jpg |
Transcript | 26 WHY I LEFT THE CHURCH Plants were credited with an immaterial principle —a "soul," as they did not hesitate to call it—because their properties were very different from those of ordinary matter; the possibility of material forces producing widely different results when they enter into certain highly complex combinations came to be recognised as vegetable physiology and chemistry progressed. The principle of the argument was unsound; ammonia has properties remarkably different from those of hydrogen and nitrogen, yet none will say (except a few Catholic philosophers) that a new principle must be introduced to explain the new properties, when hydrogen and nitrogen unite, and ammonia is formed. So also from the different properties of the plant, its vital activities, it was evidently illogical to demand the admission of an immaterial source for them. Now, the difficulty is that the argument for an immaterial principle in the "lower" animals is precisely of the same character. The vital forces in animals are very different from ordinary material forces; hence it is inferred that they are not material forces—they are the manifestation of an immaterial principle. But mere difference of properties does not suffice, as is proved from the earlier controversy. What degree of difference is necessary before we are logically justified in introducing a new principle? In the former case the philosopher's inference was merely founded upon the temporary imperfection of physical science. Now, biological science is making rapir1 progress; how do you know it will not undermine your position here also ? Can any definite criterion of the immaterial be posited, |