slightest confidence in "spiritual manifestations," and do not
believe that any message has ever been received from the dead.
The testimony that I have heard--that I have read--coming even from
men of science--has not the slightest weight with me. I do not
pretend to see beyond the grave. I do not say that man is, or is
not, immortal. All I say is that there is no evidence that we live
again, and no demonstration that we do not. It is better ignorantly
to hope than dishonestly to affirm.

_Question_. And what do you think of the modern development of
metaphysics--as expressed outside of the emotional and semi-
ecclesiastical schools? I refer especially to the power of mind
in the curing of disease--as demonstrated by scores of drugless
healers.

_Answer_. I have no doubt that the condition of the mind has some
effect upon the health. The blood, the heart, the lungs answer--
respond to--emotion. There is no mind without body, and the body
is affected by thought--by passion, by cheerfulness, by depression.
Still, I have not the slightest confidence in what is called "mind
cure." I do not believe that thought, or any set of ideas, can
cure a cancer, or prevent the hair from falling out, or remove a
tumor, or even freckles. At the same time, I admit that cheerfulness
is good and depression bad. But I have no confidence in what you
call "drugless healers." If the stomach is sour, soda is better
than thinking. If one is in great pain, opium will beat meditation.
I am a believer in what you call "drugs," and when I am sick I send
for a physician. I have no confidence in the supernatural. Magic
is not medicine.

_Question_. One great object of this movement, is to make religion
scientific--an aid to intellectual as well as spiritual progress.
Is it not thus to be encouraged, and destined to succeed--even
though it prove the reality and supremacy of the spirit and the
secondary importance of the flesh?

_Answer_. When religion becomes scientific, it ceases to be religion
and becomes science. Religion is not intellectual--it is emotional.
It does not appeal to the reason. The founder of a religion has
always said: "Let him that hath ears to hear, hear!" No founder
has said: "Let him that hath brains to think, think!" Besides,
we need not trouble ourselves about "spirit" and "flesh." We know
that we know of no spirit--without flesh. We have no evidence that
spirit ever did or ever will exist apart