Let us examine this statement, putting it in language that is easily understood; and for that purpose we will divide it into several paragraphs,
First, -- "For a man to urge that he has no means of a scientific knowledge of the unseen world, or of the future, is irrelevant."
Is there any other knowledge than a scientific knowledge? Are there several kinds of knowing? Is there such a thing as scientific ignorance? If a man
says, "I know nothing of the unseen world because I have no knowledge upon that subject," is the fact that he has no knowledge absolutely irrelevant?
Will the Principal of King's College say that having no knowledge is the reason he knows? When asked to give your opinion upon any subject, can it be
said that your ignorance of that subject is irrelevant? If this be true, then your knowledge of the subject is also irrelevant?
Is it possible to put in ordinary English a more perfect absurdity? How can a man obtain any knowledge of the unseen world? He certainly cannot obtain
it through the medium of the senses. It is not a world that he can visit. He cannot stand upon its shores, nor can he view them from the ocean of
imagination. The Principal of King's College, however, insists that these impossibilities are irrelevant.
No person has come back from the unseen world. No authentic message has been delivered. Through all the centuries, not one whisper has broken the
silence that lies beyond the grave. Countless millions have sought for some evidence, have listened in vain for some word.
It is most cheerfully admitted that all this does not prove the non-existence of another world -- all this does not demonstrate that death ends all.
But it is the justification of the Agnostic, who candidly says, "I do not know." |
