The Spiritist Magazine by Allan Kardec in English

As announced in the blog NWSpiritism, we can now read some historic editions of "La Revue Spirite" (originally published in French, 1) by Allan Kardec in English. The formal name of the work in English is "The Spiritist Magazine - Journal of Psychological Studies". This achievement is just the beginning of a monumental translation work still under preparation by IPEAK (Allan Kardec Institute of Research) and carried out by Luiz A. V. Cheim. IPEAK website is a bilingual page (in Portuguese and French) which we hope will bring more content in English in the future.

This is surely a relevant endeavor, since A. Kardec was one of the pioneers of the psychic research but he is widely unknown to English speaking people. There are several cases of hauntings and psychic communications analysed by Kardec as a first read through "The Spiritist Magazine" can reveal. 

The Magazine also was a key tool in the beginning of Spiritism, since it contains many introductory texts where Kardec developed basic principles of Spiritualism and their relationships. For example, Kardec was the first thinker to understand the relation between reincarnation and the processo of soul evolution, linking these concepts to Christian ethics as many articles in the Spiritist Magazine show. 

Reincarnation in psychic communications already in 1857.

An interesting example can be found on page 99 of the February 1858 edition (2). Entitled "Conversations from beyond the grave - Evocation of Ms. Clary D." the full text is reproduced below in blue and show the presence of reincarnation ideas in a Spiritist work already in 1857.

Note: Ms. Clary D... was an interesting girl, who died in 1850 at age 13, who has since then stood as the genie of the family, where she is frequently evoked and where she gives a large number of communications of the highest interest. The conversation we reproduce below occurred between us on January 12th, 1857 through her brother, who is a medium. 

1. Do you have precise memories of your corporeal existence?
The spirit sees the present, the past and some of the future, according to their perfection and their proximity to God. 

2. The condition of perfection is relative only to the future, or it also
refers to the present and the past?
The spirit sees the future more clearly as they get closer to God. After death, the soul sees and embraces, at a glance, all past migrations, but can cannot see what God prepares. For that we need to be fully in God, there are many existences. 

3. Do you know when your reincarnation will be?
In 10 or 100 years. 

4. On Earth or another world?
On another. 

5. The world where you will be, compared to Earth, will have better conditions, same as on Earth or inferior?
Much better than on Earth. One is happy over there. 

6. Since you are here among us, are you in a particular place? Where?
I’m ethereal in appearance. I can say that my spirit itself extends much further. I see many things and I transport myself far from here with the speed of thought. My appearance is right by my brother’s side and guides his arm. 

7. This ethereal body which dresses you up allows you to experience physical sensations, such as heat and cold?
When I remember much of my body I feel a sort of impression, as when a blanket is removed from you and, for some time, you still keep the sensation that you have it on. 

8. You said you can move with the speed of thought. Isn’t the thought the soul itself, which detaches from its involucre?
Yes 

9. When your thoughts move to a given region, how does the separation of the soul take place?
The appearance vanishes. The thought goes alone. 

10. Is it therefore a faculty that stands out, the actual “being” stays put?
The form is not the being. 

11. But how does this thought act? Is it not always through matter?
No. 

12. When your thinking faculty stands out, don’t you act then by means of matter?
The shadow fades away and reproduces wherever the thought may guide it. 

13. Considering that you were only 13 years old when your body died, how can you give us answers beyond the reach of a child of that age, about such abstract questions?
My soul is very old! 

14. Among your previous existences can you mention one in which you had raised your knowledge most?
I was in the body of a man who I made a virtuoso. After his death I was in the body of a girl whose face stamped my own soul. God rewards me. 

15. Could we be allowed to see you here as you are now?
You could. 

16. How could that be? It depends on us, on you or on those closest to you?  

On you. 

17. Which conditions should we satisfy to obtain that?
You need to seclude for some time, with faith and fervor; you need to be in a small group; you need some isolation and a medium like Home.

Then, the following article is an essay by A. Kardec about the mediumship of Daniel D. Home.

References

1 - Original texts of the Spiritst Magazine in French can also be read at the French mirror  site of Ipeak. Just click on the French flag on top and go to the link "Revue Spirite" (left menu "Oevres d'Allan Kardec").

2 - Only two links to 1858 and 1859 editions are provided:

•  (1858) http://www.ipeak.com.br/site/upload/midia/pdf/spiritist_magazine_1858_-_diagramada.pdf
• (1859) http://www.ipeak.com.br/site/upload/midia/pdf/spiritist_magazine_1859_-_diagramada.pdf

God and his causes II - Primary and secondary causes

“We allow satellites, planets, suns, universe, nay whole systems of the universe, to be governed by laws, but the smallest insect, we wish to be created at once by special act.” 

― Charles Darwin, Notebooks

Our study here addresses the debate between "Creationists" and "Evolutionists" on regard to the origin of species and life. We notice that the conflict between "Darwin and God" is sometimes devoid of fair argumentation. It is somewhat fabricated by both a religious fundamentalist view of the world and the way science has established itself in opposition to traditional views of this same world. Today, the last vestiges of dogmatic theology are billeted around controversies on the evolution of life. If the life forms that we know today were not the product of several direct interventions of a man's made God then,  he at least possibly gave birth to these forms at a single time in the beginning. 

So, we continue our study to get a fairer image of the question and of the idea of God as a "primary cause". Maybe such reasoning will also help to build a satisfactory solution to this question in the future, by showing possible points that could eliminate the conflict with the scientific authority.

Primary and secondary causes

1) Science depends heavily on "theories" (from Greek: θεωρία meaning "vision", "consideration") which is a way to generalize and systematize principles explaining certain phenomena in a causal way; 

2) The problem with old religious notions is mostly related to what is frequently understood as "explanation". According to such views, God created everything: water, the Earth, the animals and plants as, since time immemorial, some old texts are literally interpreted. Some state offhandedly that this is, in fact, a "theory" or scientific explanation that compete with scientifically accepted ones (see G. Witt);

3) However, science is most of the time in search for the so-called "secondary causes" for the majority of Nature's phenomena. These are the phenomenological causes linked to the natural occurrences. To understand this idea, see Fig.1.

Fig. 1

Certain causes, 1 and 2, result in a phenomenon 1.  Such phenomenon is the cause of another, number 2. On the other hand, this last event is the cause of another two, 3 and 4. In this simple example, what is the "secondary cause" of phenomena 3 and 4? Although 3 and 4 cannot occur without the original causes 1 and 2, from a "sufficient" explanatory view, only phenomenon 2 (called cause 3) really matters.  Causes 1 and 2 (primary) are, therefore, not "necessary" to directly explain phenomena 3 and 4, although they are legitimate "causes leading to other causes". So, we can regard a good explanation for phenomena 3 and 4 a theory that postulates only phenomena 2 (cause 3) without any reference to the primary causes 1 and 2. An improved theory, however, will probably find causes 1 and 2. There are dozens of examples - including very simple ones - in Nature that demonstrate the existence of such causal relationship among phenomena and their explanations.  

4) Examples of the dynamics between cause and effect according to Fig. 1 can be also found in many sciences, such as economy, biology and even pathology, a branch of medicine studying the nature of diseases;

5) A given theory is not truer because it is simpler than another one. In fact, there is no simpler explanation than admitting the idea of God creating everything - not in the sense of maximum explanation, but more efficiently, in the sense of explaining the maximum number of possible phenomena;

5) We can understand the idea of "efficiency" by the possibility of "falsification" of a theory. Let us take the very dogmatic idea that is imposed upon us: how is it possible to show that the notion of God, as the creator of all things, is false? We mean with it that "how is it possible to show that this idea is false in the same way that we can show to be false, for example, to say that oil and water do mix? A very simple answer is: by making an experiment. An experiment allows us to observe not only that an effect results from a cause, but also the conditions for certain effects to occur, as resulting from certain (secondary) causes.

6) However, the idea of God as the creator of everything cannot be refuted because it is not a theory but should be regarded as a principle that cannot be demonstrated because it is phenomenologically distinct of our way of grasping the world (1).  It is part of God's attributes, the notion of Divinity as presented in "The Spirit's book" (2), that he should be regarded as the primary cause of all things. Just as in Nature we see that phenomena are regulated by very specific laws (3), how is it possible to admit that he, on the mere whim (a human condition imposed on God's idea by certain sacred texts), breaks his own laws and behave randomly? Such behavior implies easy acceptance of the idea of God as a secondary cause, something that still needs to be demonstrated in face of the universal laws. We know that these laws exist and that they may be regarded as mechanisms of Gods actuation. In this way, there is no limitation to God,  but only lack of understanding about his way of acting in the world. 

7) Even if it is possible to admit and show that God acts in the world as a secondary cause sometimes (we know that the movement of the smallest particles in the Universe are governed by well-determined laws showing no arbitrariness), it is much less defensible the idea that the creation of living beings could have happened at once by a direct act of the Creator. 

Fig. 2 Mythological view of the Universe: ancient people in the Middle East conceived the Earth as surrounded by the "lower waters" (because of the geographical location of those people). Above there was the firmament holding the Sun, Moon, stars, and planets in place and around the Earth. Beyond the firmament, there were still waters (that caused rain to fall) and well above, the "Kingdom of God". This concept was compensated later by the idea of "hell", well below the Earth. 

8) From a historical perspective, we know that ancient people did not discriminate between primary and secondary causes. Therefore, old narratives of the Creation and their associated cosmology (Fig. 2) were modernly discarded, not as an "allegory of truth", but as the particular views of ancient people. Those who insist in literally interpreting old texts like the Bible are rarely aware of the ridicule they are exposed to since science will continue to describe Nature as something very different.

9) But, in the same way, as it is illogical to dispense with the idea of secondary causes, we are also far from the truth if we discard the primary ones. According to such a view, an effect is a succession of several causes. In this way, one cannot logically state that the idea of the evolution of species or of any other that takes into account only secondary causes leads to the denial of God's idea as a primary cause. Rather, they are both correct, one is a consequence of the other, but, for the sake of explanation or rationalization of natural events, the secondary causes are sufficient.  We see that it is possible to conceive good theories about natural events only admitting secondary causes. However, this does not mean that further secondary causes could not be found with the natural evolution of knowledge. This is what happens to the idea of God and his rule in Creation: we do not need God (as a secondary cause) to explain the evolution of species and, perhaps, the onset of life, but that does not mean he does not exist as a primary cause. 

Conclusions

From a logical perspective, there is no conflict between the idea of God (as a primary cause) and the evolution of species or any other mechanism that science will find out in order to increase our knowledge about living beings. The conflict is entirely originated in the peculiar way that certain dogmatic theologies see the world. By insisting on this vision, the gap between scientific knowledge and dogmatic religion will increase and become irreversible. The result is an increase in materialism and generalized belief in the "death of God".

Spiritism - according to the principles contained in "The Spirit's book" - endorses and openly supports all scientific theories which are viewed as knowledge about sufficient (secondary) causes, and that is needed for the correct explanation of natural phenomena, including all life forms. Additional forces will be required, however, for improving our understanding of these things - mainly on regard to the origin of life. Science will reveal them at the right time and under the right methods.  

Notes and references

Original text in Portuguese: "Deus e suas Causas II - Causas primárias e secundárias", http://eradoespirito.blogspot.com.br/2012/05/deus-e-suas-causas-ii-causas-primarias.html

(1) It is interesting to read the answer to question #10 in the "Spirit's book" (2):

10. Can man understand the intimate nature of God?
"No, human beings lack the capability for such understanding."

Therefore, the integration of God's idea to purely rationalist explanations about the world is something still very far in the future.  

(2) A. Kardec (1857). "The Spirit's Book". See question #1. 

(3) See also God and His causes I.

God ans His causes I

“It took less than an hour to make the atoms, 

a few hundred million years to make the stars and planets, 

but five billion years to make man!” George Gamow, "The Creation of the Universe".

The present scientific image of creation - supported by modern cosmological theories and having as scope the material phenomena only - concedes that our Universe was created in a single instant in time, the so-called "Big Bang" (1). 

The Big-Bang is associated with the origin of the material element. But matter is far from being the only ingredient that exists in the Universe - even from the academic of view. There are also "laws" and "principles" that help to organize matter and give the Universe its shape and structure. These principles regulate how matter interacts with itself and with other elements in order to produce everything we can see with our ordinary senses and mainly all that we can't see. Without the laws, the Universe would be a chaotic mess of matter with no resemblance to what we know today.

The Big-bang theory builds a description of the Universe past history. According to this report, the laws of physics just showed up or "were given" since the beginning, that is, they are not "derived" from the same postulated origin. Therefore, the idea of a "beginning" is troublesome: it would be far easier to explain the Universe if it had ever existed since we would not need to justify the laws.  Therefore, many cosmologists defend a non-causal origin for the  Universe. The task would be even easier if something else could be done: some scientists look for a way to unify the laws of physics. If all laws could be unified, that is, if it would be possible to find a theory where all laws share the same common origin, then it would be clear how to explain the Universe origin. Therefore, the Big-Bang theory is actually incomplete since such unification was not found yet.

Clearly, the motivation for such grand unification is supported by another principle: that it is possible to reduce all phenomena to interactions among the constitutive and primitive elements regulated by the laws of physics. This idea is known as reductionism. 

As a consequence of such a view, the Big-Bang event plays exactly the same role of God in cosmology or of all other historically known religious "cosmogonies" (2). In Fig. 1, we represent the natural law as originated also in this first postulated cause. 

Fig. 1

The Big-Bang plays the role of God in modern cosmology. 

What really matters here is take the notion of the Big-Bang and compare it to the introduction of this text. We have already arrived at the following conclusion: the Big-Bang is a scientifically postulated cause to account for the origin of matter, and hopefully, of all natural laws. However, it perfectly admissible to hinder the Big-Bang idea in order to explain what we see around us:

All sciences (biology, chemistry and even physics) do not invoke the idea of the Big-Bang to exist, that is, research in these fields do not require the notion of a first cause to explain particular phenomena.

But, that does not mean that the Big-Bang did not happen indeed. Therefore, by the same reasoning, the fact that the idea of God is useless in science does not mean that God does not exist and contradicts a recurrent argument of atheism against the idea of God (God cannot be seen in Nature).

Can we detect the Big-Bang? The answer is "no" because we have no special sensory organs to capture the kind of evidence cosmologists have found to sustain the idea of the Big-Bang:

1. Observations in spectroscopy show that galaxies uniformly scattered in the sky are also moving away from us with a speed proportional to their distances; 
2. A residual radiation was found coming from all directions. This radiation is a thermic source associated with the beginning of the Universe.

Such simple facts are regarded as evidence of an expanding Universe (and only logically and theoretically linked to a first cause). The first fact indicates that, indeed, the Universe is still expanding while the second is interpreted (2) as a direct mark of the initial explosion. We add that, in order to ensure such facts, pieces of equipment are necessary (telescopes, spectrographs, sensible radiotelescopes etc) that are not easily available. Even when such resources were available, it took years of data accumulation in order to interpret them as evidence of the Big-Bang. Anyway, the Big-Bang theory was postulated before such facts have been discovered. 

Clearly, no theory supports God's idea not only because, as we could (naively) point out, material and direct evidence are lacking, but also because one believes that everything - including the laws - was created by matter alone. To circumvent this problem (towards a science that admits God's existence), we are faced with a somewhat more serious problem: there are several conceptions and ideas about God: 

Since there exists many ideas and conceptions about God and admitting that he is unique and existent, it is absolutely impossible that more than one of these ideas are correct at the same time. Therefore, the immense majority of notions (possibly all of them) that men created about God are wrong.

In particular, there is no way to prove that God is a person as some religious interpretations propose. After eliminating the influence of all religious notions, what is left? What would be the way our modern conceptions could follow, in accordance with the discoveries of science, in order to conceptualize the notion of God?

In other words, what would be the best starting point for science to realize the need of God?

Surely, science would have to admit the notion of God as a primary cause of all things. In what sense does this concept differ from the notion of the Big-Bang? In principle, the Big-Bang emerged from nothing, while God is an intelligent causal entity. And, for many religions, it is unacceptable the notion of an intelligent being deprived of all secondary aspects of a person.

However, it is easy to see that the notion of survival after death somehow dismisses the need of a body for consciousness to manifest. So, since our very consciousness is not an attribute of matter, the idea of God, as a primary, non-personal and intelligent cause is strengthened.  On the other hand, does the very notion that consciousness does not spring from arrangements in matter create an embarrassing situation for reductionism and, therefore, to the idea of the Big-Bang as a sufficient cause for the entire Universe (including us)?  So we can speak about the cosmological consequences of survival by merely stating that consciousness does not depend on matter. There is something much bigger, transcendent and quite unobservable in the origin of the Universe, well beyond the simple birth of matter as heralded by pieces of evidence of an expanding visible Universe.

It is precisely this notion that is supported by Spiritism (3): that God manifests himself in the world through the essential attributes of intelligence and that He cannot be grasped as a secondary cause.  By simply examining the effects due to secondary causes, science will never be able to get direct "evidences" that God exists - mainly when our old notions about Him (bodiliness, tangibility, gender etc) come into play. Again, this, however, does not mean that He does not exist, but merely that the way he manifests himself is very far from old religious conceptions.

We will continue to explore this subject in a future post.

Original post in Portuguese: "Deus e suas causas" (I). 

References and notes

(1) Ironically, this name was created by Fred Hoyle who did not accept the idea. With this word, he intended to give a pejorative meaning to the theory.
(2) According to a given theory.
(3) A. Kardec. Question #1, "The Spirit's Book".