Editorial Remarks: The Madness Hypothesis
Kurt Simons, Ph.D.
As evolution has often been the materialist's alternative
hypothesis to the hypothesis of God creating mankind, so madness has been
the characterization frequently assigned to experiences otherwise claimed
as revelation by those unable or unwilling to accept the possibility of
revelation as authentic. The "madness hypothesis" is not of recent
invention, but dates back to at least the accusations of this kind laid
against Christ (John 10:20, Mark 3:21). In both the evolution and madness
hypotheses, it is not difficult to see the hand of Providence, since both
these alternatives provide a basis for preservation of free will in
spiritual matters, a key axiom of human creation, according to the
teachings of Swedenborg's theological writings (Arcana Coelestia,
n. 2881, Heaven and Hell, n. 598, New Jerusalem and its Heavenly
Doctrine, n. 143). In other words, both the evolution and madness
hypotheses provide alternative explanations for the phenomena involved, so
that no one is forced to believe in either creation or revelation due to
lack of a different explanation of the pertinent facts.
Swedenborg presents a particularly, indeed perhaps
uniquely, daunting challenge to any observer attempting to evaluate the
applicability of the madness hypothesis to his claims of revelation.
Adequate evaluation requires, at the least, analysis of the entire body of
his preparatory and later avowedly revealed body of theological work,
which runs, in various editions, to more than 30 volumes of detailed and
often ideationally dense prose.1 To see the man in full context
requires the still further investment of intellectual effort necessary to
review not only an equally large shelf of pre-theological publications in
areas ranging from mining engineering to biology, physics and philosophy -
of the political as well as "pure" variety2 - but also to
become acquainted with the biography of his long and event-packed life.3
And then there is the whole complex record of his transition into the
theological period.4 Few of even the followers of Swedenborg's
teachings have mastered more than a part of this huge body of work. It is
thus hardly surprising that few of those interested only in finding
support for the madness hypothesis in explaining his work have been
willing to attempt more than a first approximation to understanding of all
this material. Historical examples of the difficulty of arriving at a
simple evaluation are illustrated by the initial enthusiasm for
Swedenborg's work, followed by ultimate apparent rejection that in fact
appears to disguise ambivalence, of his famous contemporaries, Immanuel
Kant,5 and, according to Noble,6 John Wesley.
|
