Sir: As a result of my recent letter to you,
I have been involved re- peatedly over the last few days in heady and abstruse discussions (not entirely to my taste) about the nature of the supernatural. In the course of these, several of my friends, whom I would otherwise have credited with very superior in- telligence and discernment, have emphatically declared that any form of belief in any form of the supernatural must necessarily be totally irrational. Sir, 1 am by nature weak-minded and easily led, and would normally have inclined to give the greatest possible weight to opinions so authoritative from minds so acute. But it so happens that an event has recently come to my attention which forces me to question the doctrine. As you will see, I have pondered the significance of the event long and deeply, but remain powerless to reach a de- cision as to its nature that would satisfy me as being rational. Any assistance or guidance that you or any of your readers can offer will bind me to you in a deep and last- ing gratitude.
A friend of mine tells me that he has an uncle who died about a year ago. Nothing remarkable in that— but he further tells me that in the middle of the funeral, the entire congregation was greatly startled by a sudden commotion which pro- ceeded from the interior of the coffin. The attendants hastened to open it and found, to the amaze- ment of all present, that the pre- sumed deceased was in fact very sprightly and alive. Now, sir, on first narration I was no more will- ing to believe this story than you are. Why, for instance, had we heard nothing about it in the papers or on television? But you may remember that it was just about that time that the nation was momentarily restored to tran- quillity (the more favoured term is 'paralysed') by a simultaneous strike of compositors and studio technicians, so that for a time we were necessarily spared the daily liturgy of national disaster. Further investigation has shown that the event must undoubtedly have taken place. The decedent's daughter-in- law, a person of the most unyield- ing scepticism, proved an emphatic witness to the unmistakable reality both of the original death (she her- self laid out the corpse) and of the subsequent resurrection (she calculated her disappointed expec- tations over the legacy in several thousands of. pounds). The coffin bearers, and even the chief mourner, have since been seen attending church services with a frequency far beyond the call of professional duties, even, some say (though evidence here is less unani- mous). at bank holiday weekends or in preference to bingo and foot- ball. Now I ask you, sir, can the most rigid scepticism withstand evidence of this kind?
Feeling that such an event well merited further investigation, I took the liberty of consulting the staff at the hospital where the decedent lay during his 'last' ill-
ness. I was at first very nervous of using the word 'miracle', being fearful of the derisive scorn which such a suggestion must provoke in the minds of well-informed and scientifically-trained persons. But to my astonishment, this was the first word that leapt to everybody's lips. All bore witness to the ex- ceedingly devout and religious behaviour of the deceased (or resurrected, as you prefer). Particu- larly among the Catholic nurses (the gentleman himself was apparently a Catholic and a convert) there is an entire acceptance of the fully supernatural nature of the occur- rence. Most, like myself, were less positive; and a surprisingly large minority of professed atheists fiercely argued that the man could not have been dead in the first place.
But there are difficulties to this last theory. Apparently even before the man's death, some of the more impressionable nurses were openly speculating on the possibility of such a miracle. This provoked the pathologist, who was of the oppo- site party, to conduct the most thorough investigation to prove the reality of the death as soon as it occurred. Some of the devout, with more zeal than charity, have rumoured that he not only investi- gated the reality of the death, but even went so far as to ensure it, by removing or seriously damaging certain of the body's vital organs, and in particular the heart. Natu- rally the pathologist denies this, and affirms that whatever marks and in- cisions the body now exhibits were unavoidably caused by a purely scientific curiosity whether the body were actually dead. Certainly there are such marks and incisions, which the pious uncle will display to the faithful on receipt of a sign- ed permit from the parish priest, or to the curious upon payment of a fee.
So there, sir, is the situation. The zeal of one party professes firm and unshakable belief in the reality of the resurrection, while that of the other, despite the testimony of the pathologist who also belongs to it, denies the reality of the death. I think we may discount the rumour that the pathologist deliberately in- capacitated the corpse, as proceed- ing in all probability from too great a fervency of devotion. We may also treat with suspicion the suggestion put about by his ration- alist friends that the pathologist was, by the deliberate artifice of the nurses, shown the wrong body on which to conduct his experi- ments, those on the real body hav- ing been subsequently manu- factured. The pathologist himself at first laughed the suggestion to scorn, on the grounds (which we know to be true) that he had known the patient well for many years in the ordinary course of daily life. Latterly he seems to have wavered on the point; but we must reflect on the discomfort of a man who unexpectedly finds him- self in a position where both his professional and his intellectual competence seem to be called in question by those who have hither- to been his closest friends and warmest admirers. Nor can one readily argue that his experiments were conducted carelessly, in view of the fact that there was not the slightest need for such experiments in the first place. And since he is known to be by long habit both thorough and expert. the circum- stances of the case render it cer- tain that he was both to the very height of his capacity on this occa- sion.
I also made a point of question- ing the gentleman himself. My in- vitation that he should join me for lunch was accepted, I felt, with al- most indecent alacrity. To be frank, there were certain aspects of his be- haviour which I found displeasing. The account of his experience was fresh and interesting for the first two hours, but then began to grow wearisome. I might add that he stayed to supper, and was even ask- ing for a bed for the night, but that I pleaded lack of space and facili- ties. Moreover, the soft, golden luminance which surrounded his head was very visible and striking when he first arrived, but seemed to grow fainter as the hours passed, which made me wonder whether he had not made use of some natural application in order to produce it. But as surely as I was bound to accept the pathologist's testimony that he had once been dead, I was now compelled to accept the evid- ence of my senses that he is alive. What then, as rational beings, is our verdict to be? Is this a miracle or not? I fear, sir, I find myself totally unable to decide. If we accept all the evidence, and I find it hard to avoid doing so, granted our present way of thinking, the event must surely be supernatural. On the other hand, also in obedi- ence to our present way of think- ing, if there were the slightest weakness in the evidence, we should thankfully take advantage of the proffered doubt, and deny that the event had ever taken place. There is a third possibility: that though the event undoubtedly took place, there is certainly a perfectly scientific and natural explanation which we are not yet able to dis- cover. But I cannot avoid the con- clusion that every one of these three positions is dogmatic rather than rational. The basis of each position is not that the evidence points inescapably to the conclu- sion we have opted for, but that we are determined, on non-eviden- tial grounds, to view the evidence in that light.
Let me illustrate my point. The
first position seems to start from a desire to vindicate the supernatural and proceeds to a determination to uphold and even (with enthusiasts) to tamper with the evidence to achieve that end: the evidence must be true, because the event must be supernatural. The second position starts from a desire to discredit the supernatural, and pro- ceeds in much the same way to a determination to overthrow and even (once again) to tamper with the evidence to achieve that end : the evidence can't be true, because the event can't be supernatural. The third position has been recom- mended to me as a model of im- peccable rationality; but I find myself unable to accede to this claim. For even if the evidence were totally certain, and repeated experiments to establish a natural explanation totally fruitless, I should still be able to maintain such a position. It is true that those who adopt this position are at least likely to feel tempted to interfere with the evidence. But is this any more virtuous than the activity of a man passing dud checks? He can make any number of purchases to any amount. since he is not in any way limited by the size of his account. He doesn't have an account in the first place. So far from being the most rational, this position is in fact the least rational of the three; it is simply a refusal to even try to be rational.
1 own, sir, I am totally at a loss before this interesting but disquiet- ing dilemma. And I repeat that any of your readers who can help me out of it will place me under the very greatest obligations.
D. B. Taylor 170 Divinity Road, Oxford
Previous page
