Mr. Im Thurn, however, dilates on the dream origin of the ghost theory, giving examples from his own knowledge of the difficulty with which Guiana Indians discern the hallucinations of dreams from the facts of waking life.  Their waking hallucinations are also so vivid as to be taken for realities.[25] Mr. Im Thurn adopts the hypothesis that, from ghosts, ’a belief has arisen, but very gradually, in higher spirits, and, eventually, in a Highest Spirit; and, keeping pace with the growth of these beliefs, a habit of reverence for and worship of spirits.’  On this hypothesis, the spirit latest evolved, and most worshipful, ought, of course, to be the ‘Highest Spirit.’  But the reverse, as usual, is the case.  The Guiana Indians believe in the continued, but not in the everlasting, existence of a man’s ghost.[26] They believe in no spirits which were not once tenants of material bodies.[27]

The belief in a Supreme Spirit is only attained ’in the highest form of religion’—­Andamanese, for instance—­as Mr. Im Thurn uses ‘spirit’ where we should say ‘being.’  ’The Indians of Guiana know no god.’[28]

’But it is true that various words have been found in all, or nearly all, the languages of Guiana which have been supposed to be names of a Supreme Being, God, a Great Spirit, in the sense which those phrases bear in the language of the higher religions.’

Being interpreted, these Guiana names mean—­

The Ancient One, The Ancient One in Sky-land, Our Maker, Our Father, Our Great Father.

‘None of those in any way involves the attributes of a god.’

The Ancient of Days, Our Father in Sky-land, Our Maker, do rather convoy the sense of God to a European mind.  Mr. Im Thurn, however, decides that the beings thus designated were supposed ancestors who came into Guiana from some other country, ’sometimes said to have been that entirely natural country (?) which is separated from Guiana by the ocean of the air.’[29]

Mr. Im Thurn casually observed (having said nothing about morals in alliance with Animism): 

’The fear of unwittingly offending the countless visible and invisible beings ... kept the Indians very strictly within their own rights and from offending against the rights of others.’

This remark dropped out at a discussion of Mr. Im Thurn’s paper, and clearly demonstrated that even a very low creed ’makes for righteousness.’[30]

Probably few who have followed the facts given here will agree with Mr. Im Thurn’s theory that ‘Our Maker,’ ‘Our Father,’ ’The Ancient One of the Heaven,’ is merely an idealised human ancestor.  He falls naturally into his place with the other high gods of low savages.  But we need much more information on the subject than Mr. Im Thurn was able to give.

His evidence is all the better, because he is a loyal follower of Mr. Tylor.  And Mr. Tylor says:  ’Savage Animism is almost devoid of that ethical element which to the educated modern mind is the very mainspring of practical religion.’[31] ’Yet it keeps the Indians very strictly within their own rights and from offending the rights of others.’  Our own religion is rarely so successful.[32]