By T. CLAYE SHAW, M.D., F.R.C.P.

It is pure speculation to indulge in ideas and statements on this subject. Neither the Archbishops nor the Pope can tell us anything more than we know ourselves, and that is that we know nothing. We do not even know what life is, and all that we can prove is that under certain circumstances the body can perform acts and is capable of showing what we call mental phenomena, and that under others it is incapable of these demonstrations and falls into a desolation, a decomposition, which we call death, and this we say is a sign of having lost something which we call life, which was before associated with it. Except through the body, we cannot increase, diminish, or control life, because it is only a hypothesis that there is such a thing, or that it can have a separate existence.

What we do is to follow authority, to believe that there is a future existence for what is called the "spiritual life," because we are told to do so by certain people who have recorded their experience of being the witnesses of certain marvellous and miraculous events which happened many years ago.

I cannot think that the events connected with the death and resurrection of Christ, as recorded, are mere imaginings or delusions or lies by ingenious persons, and I find no more difficulty in believing them than I have in understanding how it is that radium splits up into helion and niton, or that two gases like oxygen and hydrogen can be made to form water. I have elsewhere shown that theories of ghosts are merely the result of subjective conditions during life, and do not in any way represent life or spirit apart from the body; but I am not going to deny that there is a connection between the death of the body and the further existence in some form of that which constituted the living body, simply because, whilst, to some degree, I understand the body, I have yet not the least conception of the nature of the other.

The nature of a future life may be altogether different from what we can imagine; in fact, we have no clue of any sort as to its real form, and the material realisations of pure happiness which are held out by the exponents of various creeds are simply devices for tempting into their ranks all those whose idea of reward for self-denial and privation on earth is pleasure in a future state, whilst the penalty for transgressing certain other lines of conduct is eternal torture in another world, there being all the time no proof of there being another world.

All who believe in the Bible must believe in the existence of another state after bodily death. The fact is there affirmed, though there is no declaration of its nature, and those who refuse to be guided by the Bible and who declare their view of "after death - nothingness," must be left to their own guidance and the temporal laws of the country.

A reasonable follower of the Bible is not likely to go wrong. He has a code of high morality laid down for him; but there is no reason for saying that an atheist or an agnostic is unable or unfit to be a good member of society. It is quite conceivable that a man who has no religion may be a most excellent citizen, and even a distinguished man in his avocation, because he is capable of seeing that pains and penalties await any infraction of the social code, but as to what is to happen to him hereafter, he must be left to his own isolation; for just as he cannot prove that there is no future state, so are we unable to prove either that there is a future state or the nature of it.

The holding of the idea of a future state is a comfort to many. It gives the support of working in a certain way for a future reward. It may be a poor purpose, this working for reward and against punishment, but it appeals to many, and is doubtless a great determining factor in critical circumstances. Why, then, interfere with it? There is as much "intellect" in believing in a future state as there is in denying one; but as to the kind of thing a future state is, no conception is more than guesswork.

Would it be uncharitable to hope that those who desire nothingness will get it, and that those who regulate their conduct during life in accordance with the view that they are to fit themselves for a future existence may reap the fruit of their belief in a way they deserve? Whether there be a future existence or not, he may be a happy man who lives up to a good ideal, who is careful of himself and does his best to help his neighbours.

This is rather a paltry, empty creed, but it is all that the self-sufficient person can claim. The strong man, rejoicing in his strength, may be content with things as they are, but he is a stronger man who calculates upon a future existence, because, connecting his future state with his present bodily conduct, he is more likely to be careful of the latter in order to ensure a greater perfection in the former, whatever the nature of it may be.