Prejudices Arising from Alleged Science
(1904)
IT IS CERTAINLY TRUE that much in the intellectual
life of the present makes it difficult for one who is seeking the
truth to accept spiritual scientific (theosophical) insights. And
what has been said in the essays on the Lebensfragen der
theosophischen Bewegung (Vital Questions of the (Theosophical
Movement) can be taken as an indication of the reasons which exist
especially for the conscientious seeker of truth in this respect.
Many statements of the scientist of the spirit must appear entirely
fantastic to him who tests them against the certain conclusions which
he feels obliged to draw from what he has encountered as the facts of
the research of natural science. To this is added the fact that this
research can point to the enormous blessings it has bestowed and
continues to bestow on human progress. What an overwhelming effect is
produced when a personality who wants to see a view of the world
built exclusively on the results of this research, can utter the
proud words: “For there lies an abyss between these two extreme
conceptions of life: one for this world alone, the other for heaven.
But up to the present day, traces of a paradise, of a life of the
deceased, of a personal God, have nowhere been found by human
science, by that inexorable science which probes into and dissects
everything, which does not shrink back before any mystery, which
explores heaven beyond the stars of the nebula, analyzes the
infinitely small atoms of living cells as well as of chemical bodies,
decomposes the substance of the sun, liquefies the air, which will
soon telegraph by wireless transmission from one end of the earth to
the other, and already today sees through opaque bodies, which
introduces navigation under the water and in the air, and opens new
horizons to us through radium and other discoveries; this science
which, after having shown the true relationship of all living beings
among themselves and their gradual changes in form, today draws the
organ of the human soul, the brain, into the sphere of its
penetrating research.” (Prof. August Forel, Leben und
Tod (Life and Death) Munich, 1908, page 3). The certainty with
which one thinks it possible to build on such a basis betrays itself
in the words which Forel joins to the remarks quoted above: “In
proceeding from a monistic conception of life, which alone takes
all scientific facts into account, we leave the supernatural
aside and turn to the book of nature.” Thus, the serious seeker
after truth is confronted by two things which put considerable
obstacles in the way of any inkling he may have of the truth of the
communications of the science of the spirit. If a feeling for such
communications lives in him, even if he also senses their inner
well-founded-ness by means of a more delicate logic, he can be driven
toward the suppression of such impulses when he has to tell himself
two things. First of all, the authorities who know the cogency of
positive facts consider that everything “supersensible”
springs only from day-dreams and unscientific superstition. In the
second place, by devoting myself to these transcendental matters, I
run the risk of becoming an impractical person of no use in life. For
everything which is accomplished in practical life must be firmly
rooted in the “ground of reality.”
Not all of those who find themselves in such a
dilemma will find it easy to work their way through to a realization
of how matters really stand with respect to the two points we have
cited. If they could do it, with respect to the first point they
would, for instance, see the following: The results of the science of
the spirit are nowhere in conflict with the factual research of
natural science. Everywhere that one looks at the relation of the two
in an unprejudiced manner, there something quite different
becomes apparent for our time. It turns out that this factual
research is steering toward a goal which in a by no means distant
future, will bring it into full harmony with what spiritual research
ascertains in certain areas from its supersensible sources. From
hundreds of cases which could be adduced as proof for this assertion,
we shall cite a characteristic one here.
In my lectures on the development of the earth and
of mankind, it has been pointed out that the ancestors of the
present-day civilized peoples lived in a land-area which at one time
was situated in that part of the surface of the earth which today is
occupied by a large portion of the Atlantic Ocean. In the essays,
From the Akasha Chronicle, it is rather the soul-spiritual
qualities of these Atlantean ancestors which have been indicated. In
oral presentations also has often been described how the earth
surface looked in the old Atlantean land. It was said that at that
time the air was saturated with water mist vapors. Man lived in the
water mist, which in certain regions never lifted to the point where
the air was completely clear. Sun and moon could not be seen as they
are today, but were surrounded by colored coronas. A distribution of
rain and sunshine, such as occurs at present, did not exist at that
time. One can clairvoyantly explore this old land; the phenomenon of
the rainbow did not exist at that time. It only appeared in the
post-Atlantean period. Our ancestors lived in a country of mist.
These facts have been ascertained by purely supersensible
observation, and it must even be said that the spiritual researcher
does best to renounce all deductions based on his knowledge of
natural science, for through such deductions his unprejudiced inner
sense of spiritual research is easily misled. With such observations
one should now compare certain ideas toward which some natural
scientists feel themselves impelled at present. Today there are
scientists who find themselves forced by facts to assume that at a
certain period of its development the earth was enveloped in a cloud
mass. They point out that at present also, clouded skies exceed the
unclouded, so that life is still to a large extent under the
influence of sunlight which is weakened by the formation of clouds,
hence one cannot say that life could not have developed under the
cloud cover of that Atlantean time. They further point out that those
organisms which can be considered among the oldest of the plant world
are of a kind which also develop without direct sunlight. Thus, among
the forms of this older plant world those desert-type plants which
need direct sunlight and dry air, are not present. And also with
respect to the animal world, a scientist, Hilgard, has pointed out
that the giant eyes of extinct animals, for instance, of the
Ichthyosaurus, indicate that a dim illumination must have prevailed
on the earth in their time. I do not mean to regard such views as not
needing correction. They interest the spiritual researcher less
through what they state than through the direction into which
factual research finds itself forced. Even the periodical
Kosmos, which has a more or less Haeckelian point of view,
some time ago published an essay worthy of consideration which,
because of certain facts of the plant and animal world, indicated the
possibility of a former Atlantean Continent.
If one brought together a greater number of such
matters one could easily show how true natural science is moving in a
direction which in the future will cause it to join the stream which
at present already carries the waters of the springs of spiritual
research. It cannot be emphasized too strongly that spiritual
research is nowhere in contradiction with the facts of natural
science. Where its adversaries see such a contradiction, this does
not relate to facts, but to the opinions which these
adversaries have formed, and which they believe necessarily
result from the facts. But in truth there is not the slightest
connection between the opinion of Forel quoted above, for instance,
and the facts of the stars of the nebulas, the nature of the cells,
the liquefaction of the air, and so forth. This opinion
represents nothing but a belief which many have formed out of
a need for believing, which clings to the sensory-real, and which
they place beside the facts. This belief is very dazzling for
present-day man. It entices him to an inner intolerance of a quite
special kind. Its adherents are blinded to the point where they
consider their own opinion to be the only “scientific”
one, and ascribe the views of others merely to prejudice and
superstition. Thus it is really strange when one can read the
following sentences in a newly-published book on the phenomena of the
soul life [Hermann Ebbinghaus, Abriss der Psychologie (Outline
of Psychology) ]: “As a help against the impenetrable darkness
of the future and the insuperable might of inimical powers, the soul
creates religion for itself. As in other experiences involving
ignorance or incapacity, under the pressure of uncertainty and the
terror of great dangers, ideas as to how help can be found here, are
quite naturally forced upon man in the same way in which one thinks
of water when in danger from fire, of the helpful comrade in the
peril of combat.” “In the lower stages of civilization,
where man still feels himself to be quite impotent and to be
surrounded by sinister dangers at every step, the feeling of fear,
and correspondingly, the belief in evil spirits and demons naturally
entirely prevail. In higher stages on the other hand, where a more
mature insight into the interconnection of things and a greater power
over them produce a certain self-confidence and stronger hopes, a
feeling of confidence in invisible powers comes to the fore and with
it the belief in good and benevolent spirits. But on the whole, both
fear and love, side by side, remain permanently characteristic of the
feeling of man toward his gods, except that their relation to one
another changes according to the circumstances.” —
“These are the roots of religion . . . fear and need are its
mothers, and although it is principally perpetuated by authority once
it has come into existence, still it would have died out long since
if it were not constantly being reborn out of these two.”
Everything in these assertions has been shifted
and thrown into disorder, and this disorder is illuminated from the
wrong points of view. Furthermore, he who maintains this opinion is
firm in his conviction that his opinion must be a generally binding
truth. First of all, the content of religious conceptions is confused
with the nature of religious feelings. The content of
religious conceptions is taken from the region of the supersensible
worlds. The religious feeling, for example, fear and love of the
supersensible entities, is made the creator of this content without
further ado, and it is assumed without hesitation that nothing real
corresponds to the religious conceptions. It is not even considered
remotely possible that there could be a true experience of
supersensible worlds, and that the feelings of fear and love then
cling to the reality which is given by this experience, just as no
one thinks of water when in danger from fire, of the helpful comrade
in the peril of combat, if he has not known water and comrade
previously. In this view, the science of the spirit is declared to be
day-dreaming because one makes religious feeling the creator of
entities which one simply regards as non-existent. This way of
thinking totally lacks the consciousness that it is possible to
experience the content of the supersensible world, just as it is
possible for the external senses to experience the ordinary world of
the senses.
The odd thing that often happens with such views
is that they resort to the kind of deduction to support their
belief which they represent as improper in their adversaries. For
example, in the above-mentioned work of Forel the sentence appears,
“Do we not live in a way a hundred times truer, warmer, and
more interestingly when we base ourselves on the ego, and find
ourselves again in the souls of our descendants, rather than in the
cold and nebulous fata morgana of a hypothetical heaven among the
equally hypothetical songs and trumpet soundings of supposed angels
and archangels, which we cannot imagine, and which therefore mean
nothing to us.” But what has that which “one” finds
“warmer,” “more interesting,” to do with the
truth? If it is true that one should not deduce a spiritual life from
fear and hope, is it then right to deny this spiritual life because
one finds it to be “cold” and
“uninteresting”? With respect to those personalities who
claim to stand on the “firm ground of scientific facts,”
the spiritual researcher is in the following position. He says to
them, Nothing of what you produce in the way of such facts from
geology, paleontology, biology, physiology, and so forth is denied by
me. It is true that many of your assertions are in need of correction
through other facts. But such a correction will be brought about by
natural science itself. Apart from that, I say “yes” to
what you advance. It does not enter my mind to fight you when you
advance facts. But your facts are only a part of reality. The other
part are the spiritual facts, through which the occurrence of
the sensory ones first becomes understandable. These facts are not
hypotheses, not something which “one” cannot imagine, but
something lived and experienced by spiritual research.
What you advance beyond the facts you have observed is, without your
realizing it, nothing other than the opinion that those spiritual
facts cannot exist. As a matter of fact, you advance nothing as the
proof of your assertion except that such spiritual facts are unknown
to you. From this you deduce that they do not exist and that those
who claim to know something of them are dreamers and visionaries. The
spiritual researcher does not take even the smallest part of your
world from you; he only adds his own to it. But you are not satisfied
that he should act in this way; you say — although not always
clearly — “‘One’ must not speak of anything
except of that of which we speak; we demand not only that that be
granted to us of which we know something, but we require that all
that of which we know nothing be declared idle phantasms.” The
person who wants to have anything to do with such “logic”
cannot be helped for the time being. With this logic he may
understand the sentence: “Our I has formerly lived directly in
our human ancestors, and it will continue to live in our direct or
indirect descendants.” (Forel, Leben und Tod (Life and
Death), page 21.) Only he should not add, “Science
proves it,” as is done in this work. For in this case
science “proves” nothing, but a belief which is chained
to the world of the senses sets up the dogma: That of which I can
imagine nothing must be considered as delusion; and he who sins
against my assertion offends against true science.
The one who knows the development of the human
soul finds it quite understandable that men's minds are dazzled for
the moment by the enormous progress of natural science and that today
they cannot find their way among the forms in which great truths are
traditionally transmitted. The science of the spirit gives such forms
back to mankind. It shows for example how the Days of Creation of the
Bible represent things which are unveiled to the clairvoyant eye.* A mind chained to the world of the
senses finds only that the Days of Creation contradict the results of
geology and so forth. In understanding the deep truths of these Days
of Creation, the science of the spirit is equally far removed from
making them evaporate as a mere “poetry of myths,” and
from employing any kind of allegorical or symbolical methods of
explanation. How it proceeds is indeed quite unknown to those
who still ramble on about the contradiction between these Days of
Creation and science. Further, it must not be thought that spiritual
research finds its knowledge in the Bible. It has its own methods,
finds truths independently of all documents and then recognizes them
in the latter. This way is necessary for many present-day seekers
after truth. For they demand a spiritual research which bears within
itself the same character as natural science. And only where the
nature of this science of the spirit is not recognized does one
become perplexed when it is a matter of protecting the facts of the
supersensible world from opinions which appear to be founded on
natural science. Such a state of mind was even anticipated by a man
of warm soul, who however could not find the supersensible content of
the science of the spirit. Almost eighty years ago this personality,
Schleiermacher, wrote to the much younger Lücke: “When you
consider the present state of natural science, how more and more it
assumes the form of an encompassing account of the universe, what do
you then feel the future will bring, I shall not even say for our
theology, but for our evangelical Christianity? . . . I feel that we
shall have to learn to do without much of what many are still
accustomed to consider as being inseparably connected with the nature
of Christianity. I shall not even speak of the Six Days' Work, but
the concept of creation, as it is usually interpreted . . .
How long will it be able to stand against the power of a
world-outlook formed on the basis of scientific reasonings which
nobody can ignore? . . . What is to happen, my dear friend? I shall
not see this time, and can quietly lie down to sleep; but you, my
friend, and your contemporaries, what do you intend to do?”
(Theologische Studien und Kritiken von Ullmann und Umbreit
(Theological Studies and Criticism by Ullmann and Umbreit), 1829,
page 489). At the basis of this statement lies the opinion that the
“scientific reasonings” are a necessary result of
the facts. If this were so, then “nobody” could ignore
them, and he whose feeling draws near the supersensible world can
wish that he may be allowed “quietly to lie down to
sleep” in the face of the assault of science against the
supersensible world. The prediction of Schleiermacher has been
realized, insofar as the “scientific reasonings” have
established themselves in wide circles. But at the same time, today
there exists a possibility of coming to know the supersensible world
in just as “scientific” a manner as the
interrelationships of sensory facts. The one who familiarizes himself
with the science of the spirit in the way this is possible at
present, will be preserved from many superstitions by it, and will
become able to take the supersensible facts into his conceptual
store, thereby divesting himself of the superstition that fear and
need have created this supersensible world.
The one who is able to struggle through to this
view will no longer be held back by the idea that he might be
estranged from reality and practical life by occupying himself with
the science of the spirit. He will then realize how the true science
of the spirit does not make life poorer, but richer. It will
certainly not mislead him into underestimating telephones, railroad
technology, and aerial navigation; but in addition he will see many
other practical things which remain neglected today, when one
believes only in the world of the senses and therefore recognizes
only a part of the truth rather than all of it.
* Compare: Rudolf Steiner, Die Geheimnisse der
biblischen Schopfungsgeschichte (The Secrets of the Biblical
History of Creation), Freiburg i, Br., 1954.
|