Christianity as Mystical Fact
GA 8
I. Points of View
[ 1 ] Natural science has deeply influenced modern thought. It is becoming more and more impossible to speak of spiritual needs and the life of the soul without taking into consideration the achievements and methods of this science. It is true that many people still satisfy these needs without letting themselves be troubled by its influence. But those who feel the pulse beat of the age must take this influence into account. With increasing swiftness do ideas derived from natural science take possession of our brains, and, unwillingly though it may be, our hearts follow, often in dejection and dismay. It is not a question only of the number thus won over, but of the fact that there is a force within scientific thinking which convinces the attentive observer that it contains something which no modern philosophy can encounter without receiving significant impressions from it. Many of the outgrowths of this thinking compel a justifiable rejection. But such rejection is not sufficient in an age in which very many resort to this way of thinking, and are attracted to it as if by magic. The case is in no way altered because some people see that true science, by its own initiative, passed long ago beyond the shallow doctrines of force and matter taught by materialists. It would clearly be better to listen to those who boldly declare that the ideas of natural science will form the basis of a new religion. Even if these conceptions appear shallow and superficial to one who knows the deeper spiritual needs of humanity, he must nevertheless take note of them, for it is to them that attention is now turned; and there is reason to think they will claim more and more notice in the near future.
Another class of people have also to be taken into account: those whose hearts have lagged behind their heads. With their reason they cannot but accept the conceptions of natural science. The burden of proof weighs heavily upon them. But those conceptions can. not satisfy the religious needs of their souls; the perspective offered is too dreary. Is the human soul to rise on the wings of enthusiasm to the heights of beauty, truth, and goodness, only to be Swept away in the end like a bubble blown by the material brain? This is a feeling that oppresses many minds like a nightmare. But scientific concepts oppress them also because they obtrude with the mighty force of authority. As long as they can, these People ignore the discord in their souls. Indeed, they console themselves by saying that full clarity in these matters is denied the human soul. They think in accordance with natural science in as far as the experience of their senses and the logic of their intellect demand it, but they keep to their acquired religious sentiments and prefer to remain in darkness as to these matters—a darkness that clouds their understanding. They have not the courage to battle through to clear vision.
[ 2 ] There can be no doubt whatever that the way of thinking derived from natural science is the greatest force in modern intellectual life, and it must not be heedlessly passed up by anyone concerned with the spiritual interests of humanity. But it is none the less true that the way in which it sets about satisfying spiritual needs is superficial and shallow. If this were the right way, the outlook would indeed by dreary. Would it not be depressing to be obliged to agree with those who say: “Thought is a a form of force. We walk by means of the same force by which we think. Man is an organism which transforms various forms of force into thought-force, an organism the activity of which we maintain by what we call ‘food’, and through which we produce what we call ‘thought’. What a marvellous chemical process it is that was able to transform a certain quantity of food into the divine tragedy of 'Hamlet'!” This is quoted from a pamphlet by Ingersoll, bearing the title, Moderne Götterdämmerung (Modern Twilight of the Gods). It matters little if such thoughts find but scanty acceptance in the outside world. The point is that innumerable people find themselves compelled by the system of natural science to take an attitude toward world processes in conformity with the above even when they think they are not doing so.1This passage from Ingersoll is by no means quoted with only those people in mind who express it literally as their conviction. Very many who do not do this, nevertheless form mental pictures of the phenomena of nature and of man that would lead them—were they really consistent—to just such expressions. It is not a matter of what someone utters theoretically as his convictions, but of whether this conviction really grows out of his whole way of thinking. Someone might even consider the words quoted from Ingersoll hateful or absurd; but if he explains the phenomena of nature on a purely external basis, without rising to the spiritual causes underlying them, it follows logically that an Ingersoll will make a materialistic philosophy out of this.
[ 3 ] It would certainly be a dreary outlook if natural science itself compelled us to accept the creed proclaimed by many of its modern prophets. Most dreary of all for any one who has gained from the content of natural science the conviction that in its own sphere its mode of thought holds good and its methods are unassailable. For he is driven to concede that, however much people may dispute about individual questions though volume after volume may be written and thousands of data accumulated about the struggle for existence2 To one who has true perception, the spirit of nature speaks powerfully in the facts currently expressed by the catchword, “struggle for existence,” “power of natural selection,” and so forth; but not in the conclusions which modern science draws from them. In the first fact lies the reason why natural science is attracting more and more widespread attention. But it follows from the second fact that scientific conclusions are not necessarily a corollary of the knowledge of facts. The possibility of being led astray in this respect is, in these days, infinitely great. and its insignificance, about the omnipotence or powerlessness of natural selection natural science itself is moving in a direction which, within certain limits, must find acceptance in an ever-increasing degree.
[ 4 ] But are the demands made by natural science really such as those described by some of its representatives? That they are not is proved by the method employed by these representatives themselves. The method they use in their own sphere is not that which is so often described and claimed for other spheres of thought. Would Darwin and Ernst Haeckel ever have made their great discoveries about the evolution of life if, instead of observing life and the structure of living beings, they had shut themselves up in a laboratory and there made chemical experiments with tissue cut out of an organism? Would Lyell have been able to describe the development of the crust of the earth if, instead of examining strata and their contents, he had analysed the chemical qualities of innumerable rocks? Let us really follow in the footsteps of these researchers who tower like giants in the domain of modern science! We shall then apply to the higher regions of spiritual life the methods they used in the study of nature. We shall then not believe we have understood the nature of the “divine” tragedy of Hamlet by saying that a wonderful chemical process transformed a certain quantity of food into that tragedy. We shall believe it as little as a researcher of nature could seriously believe that he has understood the mission of heat in the evolution of the earth when he has studied the action of heat on sulphur in a retort. He does not attempt to understand the construction of the human brain by examining the effect of lye on a fragment of it, but rather by inquiring how the brain has, in the course of evolution, been developed out of the organs of lower organisms.
[ 5 ] It is therefore quite true that anyone who is investigating the nature of spirit can do nothing better than learn from natural science. He need only proceed as science does, but he must not allow himself to be misled by what individual representatives of natural science would dictate to him. He must make research in the spiritual as they do in the physical domain, but he need not adopt the opinions they entertain about the spiritual world, beclouded as they are by their exclusive contemplation of physical phenomena.
[ 6 ] We shall only be acting in the Spirit of natural science if we study the spiritual development of man as impartially as the naturalist observes the sense world. True, we shall then be led, in the domain of spiritual life, into a kind of contemplation which differs from that of the naturalist as geology differs from pure physics and biology from chemistry. We shall be led up to higher methods which cannot, it is true, be those of natural science, but are quite conformable with the spirit of it. In this way many a lopsided tenet in the domain of natural science can be seen from another angle and be modified or corrected; and this is not sinning against natural science but merely carrying it forward. Such methods alone are able to bring us to the core of spiritual developments, such as that of Christianity, or other religious conceptions. Anyone applying these methods may arouse the opposition of many who believe they are thinking scientifically, but, for all that, he will know himself to be in full accord with a genuinely scientific method of thought.
[ 7 ] A researcher of this kind must also go beyond a merely historical examination of the documents relating to spiritual life. This is necessary just on account of the attitude he has acquired from his study of the processes of nature. When a chemical law is explained, it is of small use to describe the retorts, dishes and forceps which have led to the discovery of the law. And it is just as useless, when explaining the origin of Christianity, to ascertain the historical sources drawn upon by the Evangelist St. Luke, or those from which the hidden revelation of St. John is compiled.3 It should not be concluded from these remarks about the sources of St. Luke’s Gospel that purely historical research is undervalued by the writer of this book. This is not the case. Historical research is absolutely justified, but it should not be impatient with the method of presentation developed by a spiritual point of view. It is not considered of importance in this book to bolster every statement with quotations; but one who is willing will be able to see that a really unprejudiced, broad-minded judgment will not find anything here stated to be contrary to what has been actually and historically proved. One who refuses to be broad-minded, who holds this or that theory to be a firmly-established fact, may easily think that assertions made in this book are untenable from a scientific point of view, and are made without any objective foundation. History can in this case be only the outer court to research proper. It is not by tracing the historical origin of documents that we shall discover anything about the dominant ideas in the writings of Moses or in the traditions of the Greek initiates. These documents are only the outer expression for the ideas. Nor does the naturalist who is investigating the nature of man trouble about the origin of the word “man”, or the way in which it has developed in a language. He keeps to the subject, not to the word in which it finds expression. And in studying spiritual life we must likewise abide by the spirit and not by outer documents.
Gesichtspunkte
[ 1 ] Das naturwissenschaftliche Denken hat das neuzeitliche Vorstellungsleben tiefgehend beeinflußt. Immer unmöglicher wird es, von den geistigen Bedürfnissen, von dem «Leben der Seele» zu sprechen, ohne sich mit den Vorstellungsarten und Erkenntnissen der Naturwissenschaft auseinanderzusetzen. Gewiß: es gibt noch viele Menschen, welche diese Bedürfnisse befriedigen, ohne sich die Kreise von der naturwissenschaftlichen Strömung im Geistesleben stören zu lassen. Diejenigen, welche den Pulsschlag der Zeit hören, können nicht zu diesen gehören. Mit wachsender Schnelligkeit erobern sich die aus der Naturerkenntnis geschöpften Vorstellungen die Köpfe; und die Herzen folgen, wenn auch viel weniger willig, wenn auch oft mutlos und zagend. Nicht allein auf die Zahl derer kommt es an, die erobert sind; sondern darauf, daß dem naturwissenschaftlichen Denken eine Kraft innewohnt, die dem Aufmerkenden die Überzeugung gibt: dieses Denken enthält etwas, an dem eine Weltanschauung der Gegenwart nicht vorbeigehen kann, ohne bedeutungsvolle Eindrücke zu empfangen. Manche Auswüchse dieses Denkens nötigen zu einem berechtigten Zurückweisen seiner Vorstellungen. Doch kann man dabei nicht stehen bleiben in einem Zeitalter, in dem sich weite Kreise dieser Denkungsart zuwenden und von ihr wie von einer Zaubermacht angezogen werden. Daran ändert auch die Tatsache nichts, daß einzelne Persönlichkeiten einsehen, wie wirkliche Wissenschaft durch sich selbst über die «flache Kraft- und Stoffweisheit» des Materialismus «längst» hinausgeführt hat. Viel mehr, so scheint es, ist auf diejenigen zu achten, die mit Kühnheit erklären: die naturwissenschaftlichen Vorstellungen sind es, auf die auch eine neue Religion aufgebaut werden müsse. Wenn solche dem, der die tieferen geistigen Interessen der Menschheit kennt, auch flach und oberflächlich erscheinen, so muß er doch auf sie hören; denn ihnen wendet sich die Aufmerksamkeit der Gegenwart zu; und es sind Gründe zu der Ansicht vorhanden, daß sie die Aufmerksamkeit in der nächsten Zukunft immer mehr gewinnen werden. Und auch die anderen kommen in Betracht, die mit den Interessen ihres Herzens hinter denen ihres Kopfes zurückgeblieben sind. Es sind die, welche sich in ihrem Verstande den naturwissenschaftlichen Vorstellungen nicht entziehen können. Die Beweislast drückt auf sie. Aber die religiösen Bedürfnisse ihres Gemütes können von diesen Vorstellungen nicht befriedigt werden. Für eine solche Befriedigung liefern diese eine zu trostlose Perspektive. Soll denn die Menschenseele sich für die Höhen der Schönheit, Wahrheit und Güte begeistern, um in jedem einzelnen Fälle wie eine vom materiellen Gehirn aufgetriebene Schaumblase am Ende in Wesenlosigkeit hinweggefegt zu werden? Das ist eine Empfindung, die auf vielen wie ein Alp lastet. Und die naturwissenschaftlichen Vorstellungen lasten auch deshalb auf ihnen, weil sie mit einer gewaltigen autoritativen Kraft sich aufdrängen. Solche Menschen verhalten sich, solange sie nur können, blind gegen diesen Zwiespalt in ihrer Seele. Ja, sie trösten sich damit, zu sagen, daß volle Klarheit in diesen Dingen der menschlichen Seele versagt sei. Sie denken naturwissenschaftlich, soweit die Erfahrung der Sinne und die Logik des Verstandes dies erfordern; aber sie erhalten sich ihre anerzogenen religiösen Empfindungen und bleiben am liebsten über diese Dinge in einer den Verstand umnebelnden Dunkelheit. Sie haben nicht den Mut, sich zu einer Klarheit durchzuringen.
[ 2 ] So kann kein Zweifel darüber sein: die naturwissenschaftliche Denkungsart ist die mächtigste Gewalt im Geistesleben der Neuzeit. Und wer von den geistigen Interessen der Menschheit spricht, darf an ihr nicht achtlos vorübergehen. Aber zweifellos ist es auch, daß die Art, wie sie zunächst die geistigen Bedürfnisse befriedigt, eine oberflächliche und flache ist. Es wäre trostlos, wenn diese Art die rechte wäre. Oder wäre es nicht niederdrückend, wenn man zustimmen müßte, sobald einer sagt: «Der Gedanke ist eine Form der Kraft. Wir gehen mit derselben Kraft, mit der wir denken. Der Mensch ist ein Organismus, der verschiedene Formen der Kraft in Gedankenkraft umwandelt, ein Organismus, den wir mit dem, was wir «Nahrung» nennen, in Tätigkeit erhalten und mit dem wir das, was wir Gedanken nennen, produzieren. Welch ein wundervoller chemischer Prozeß, der ein bloßes Quantum Nahrung in die göttliche Tragödie eines «Hamlet» verwandeln konnte!»? Das ist geschrieben in einer Broschüre Robert G. Ingersolls,1Die Worte Ingersolls werden an dieser Stelle des Buches nicht etwa bloß im Hinblicke auf solche Menschen angeführt, welche sie in genau demselben Wortlaute als ihre Überzeugung aussprechen. Gar viele werden dies nicht tun und dennoch sich über die Naturerscheinungen und den Menschen solche Vorstellungen machen, daß sie, wenn sie wirklich konsequent wären, zu diesen Aussprüchen kommen müßten. Es kommt nicht darauf an, was jemand theoretisch als seine Überzeugung ausspricht, sondern darauf, ob diese Überzeugung wirklich aus seiner ganzen Denkungsart folgt. Es mag jemand für seine Person die obigen Worte sogar verabscheuen oder lächerlich finden: wenn er, ohne zu den geistigen Untergründen der Naturerscheinungen aufzusteigen, sich eine das bloß Äußerliche berücksichtigende Erklärung derselben bildet, so wird der Andere als eine logische Folge eine materialistische Philosophie daraus machen. die den Titel «Moderne Götterdämmerung» trägt. — Mögen solche Gedanken äußerlich wenig Zustimmung finden, wenn sie der eine oder andere ausspricht: das ist gleichgültig. Die Hauptsache ist, daß Unzählige durch die naturwissenschaftliche Denkungsart sich gezwungen sehen, sich im Sinne der obigen Sätze zu den Vorgängen der Welt zu stellen, auch wenn sie die Meinung haben, daß sie es nicht tun.
[ 3 ] Gewiß wären diese Dinge trostlos, wenn die Naturwissenschaft selbst zu dem Bekenntnisse zwänge, das viele ihrer neueren Propheten verkünden. Am trostlosesten für den, welcher aus dem Inhalte dieser Naturwissenschaft die Überzeugung gewonnen hat, daß auf ihrem Naturgebiete ihre Denkungsart gültig, ihre Methoden unerschütterlich sind. Denn ein solcher muß sich sagen: mögen sich die Leute noch so sehr über einzelne Fragen herumstreiten; mögen Bände nach Bänden geschrieben, Beobachtungen nach Beobachtungen gesammelt werden über den «Kampf ums Dasein» 2Aus den Tatsachen, welche gegenwärtig mit den Schlagworten «Kampf ums Dasein», «Allmacht der Naturzüchtung» und so weiter behandelt werden, spricht für den, der richtig wahrnehmen kann, gewaltig der «Geist der Natur». Aus den Meinungen, welche sich die Wissenschaft darüber heute bildet, nicht. In dem erstern Umstande liegt der Grund, warum die Naturwissenschaft in immer weiteren Kreisen gehört werden wird. Aus dem zweiten Umstande aber folgt, daß die Meinungen der Wissenschaft nicht so genommen werden dürfen, als ob sie notwendig zu der Erkenntnis der Tatsachen hinzugehörten. Die Möglichkeit, zu dem letztern verführt zu werden, ist aber in gegenwärtiger Zeit unbegrenzt groß. und seine Bedeutungslosigkeit, über «Allmacht » oder «Ohnmacht» der «Naturzüchtung»: die Naturwissenschaft selbst bewegt sich in einer Richtung, die, innerhalb gewisser Grenzen, Zustimmung in immer höherem Grade finden muß.
[ 4 ] Aber sind die Forderungen der Naturwissenschaft wirklich diejenigen, von denen einige ihrer Vertreter sprechen? Daß sie es nicht sind, beweist gerade das Verhalten dieser Vertreter selbst. Dieses ihr Verhalten ist auf ihrem eigenen Gebiete nicht ein solches, wie viele es beschreiben und für andere Gebiete fordern. Oder hätten Darwin und Ernst Haeckel jemals die großen Entdeckungen auf dem Gebiete der Lebensentwicklung gemacht, wenn sie, statt das Leben und den Bau der Lebewesen zu beobachten, sich in das Laboratorium begeben hätten, um chemische Versuche über ein aus einem Organismus herausgeschnittenes Stück Gewebe anzustellen? Hätte Lyell die Entwicklung der Erdrinde darstellen können, wenn er nicht die Schichten der Erde und deren Inhalt untersucht, sondern dafür unzählige Steine auf ihre chemischen Eigenschaften hin geprüft hätte? Man wandle doch wirklich in den Spuren dieser Forscher, die sich wie monumentale Gestalten innerhalb der neueren Wissenschaftsentwicklung darstellen! Man wird es dann in den höheren Gebieten des Geisteslebens treiben, wie sie es auf dem Felde der Naturbeobachtung getrieben haben. Man wird dann nicht glauben, daß man das Wesen der «göttlichen» Hamlettragödie begriffen habe, wenn man sagt: ein wundervoller chemischer Prozeß habe ein Quantum Nahrung in diese Tragödie umgewandelt. Man wird das ebensowenig glauben, wie irgendein Naturforscher im Ernste glauben kann: er habe die Aufgabe der Wärme bei der Erdentwicklung begriffen, wenn er die Wirkung der Wärme auf den Schwefel in der chemischen Retorte studiert hat. Er sucht ja den Bau des menschlichen Gehirns auch nicht dadurch zu begreifen, daß er ein Stückchen aus dem Kopfe nimmt und untersucht, wie eine Lauge darauf wirkt, sondern indem er sich frägt, wie es sich im Laufe der Entwicklung aus den Organen niederer Organismen gestaltet hat.
[ 5 ] Es ist also doch wahr: derjenige, welcher die Wesenheit des Geistes untersucht, kann von der Naturwissenschaft nur lernen. Er braucht es nur wirklich so zu machen, wie sie es macht. Er darf sich nur nicht täuschen lassen durch das, was ihm einzelne Vertreter der Naturwissenschaft vorschreiben wollen. Er soll forschen im geistigen Gebiete wie sie im physischen; aber er braucht die Meinungen nicht zu übernehmen, welche sie, getrübt durch ihr Denken über rein Physisches, von der geistigen Welt vorstellen.
[ 6 ] Man handelt nur im Sinne der Naturwissenschaft, wenn man den geistigen Werdegang des Menschen ebenso unbefangen betrachtet, wie der Naturforscher die sinnliche Welt beobachtet. Man wird dann allerdings auf dem Gebiete des Geisteslebens zu einer Betrachtungsart geführt, die sich von der bloß naturwissenschaftlichen ebenso unterscheidet wie die geologische von der bloß physikalischen, die Untersuchung der Lebensentwicklung von der Erforschung der bloßen chemischen Gesetze. Man wird zu höheren Methoden geführt, die zwar nicht die naturwissenschaftlichen sein können, aber doch ganz in ihrem Sinne gehalten sind. Dadurch wird sich manche einseitige Ansicht der Naturforschung von einem andern Gesichtspunkte modifizieren oder korrigieren lassen; aber man setzt damit die Naturwissenschaft nur fort; man sündigt nicht gegen sie. — Solche Methoden allein können dazu führen, in geistige Entwicklungen wie in diejenige des Christentums oder anderer religiöser Vorstellungswelten wirklich einzudringen. Wer sie anwendet, mag den Widerspruch mancher Persönlichkeit erregen, die naturwissenschaftlich zu denken glaubt: er weiß sich aber doch in vollem Einklänge mit einer wahrhaft naturwissenschaftlichen Vorstellungsart.
[ 7 ] Auch über die bloß geschichtliche Erforschung der Dokumente des Geisteslebens muß ein also Forschender hinausschreiten. Er muß es gerade wegen seiner aus der Betrachtung des natürlichen Geschehens geschöpften Gesinnung. Es hat für die Darlegung eines chemischen Gesetzes wenig Wert, wenn man die Retorten, Schalen und Pinzetten beschreibt, die zu der Entdeckung des Gesetzes geführt haben. Aber genau so viel und genau so wenig Wert hat es, wenn man, um die Entstehung des Christentums darzulegen, die geschichtlichen Quellen feststellt, aus denen der Evangelist Lukas geschöpft hat; oder aus denen die «Geheime Offenbarung» des Johannes zusammengestellt ist. 3Es soll mit solchen Bemerkungen, wie diejenige über die Quellen des Lukas und so weiter eine ist, nicht geschlossen werden, daß die rein geschichtliche Forschung von dem Verfasser dieses Buches unterschätzt werde. Das ist nicht der Fall. Sie hat durchaus ihre Berechtigung, nur sollte sie nicht unduldsam sein gegen die Vorstellungsart, welche von geistigen Gesichtspunkten ausgeht. Es wird in diesem Buche nicht darauf Wert gelegt, bei jeder Gelegenheit Zitate über alles Mögliche zu bringen; doch kann derjenige, welcher will, durchaus sehen, daß ein allseitiges, wirklich unbefangenes Urteilen das hier Gesagte nirgends in Widerspruch finden wird mit dem wahrhaft historisch Festgestellten. Wer allerdings nicht allseitig sein will, sondern diese oder jene Theorie für das hält, was «man» als sicher festgestellt hat, der kann finden, daß die Behauptungen dieses Buches sich vom «wissenschaftlichen» Standpunkte aus «nicht halten lassen», sondern «ohne alle objektive Grundlage » dastehen. Die «Geschichte» kann da nur der Vorhof der eigentlichen Forschung sein. Nicht dadurch erfährt man etwas über die Vorstellungen, welche in den Schriften des Moses oder in den Überlieferungen der griechischen Mysten herrschen, daß man die geschichtliche Entstehung der Dokumente verfolgt. In diesen haben doch die Vorstellungen, um die es sich handelt, nur einen äußeren Ausdruck gefunden. Und auch der Naturforscher, der das Wesen des «Menschen» erforschen will, verfolgt nicht, wie das Wort «Mensch» entstanden ist, und wie es in der Sprache sich fortgebildet hat. Er hält sich an die Sache, nicht an das Wort, in dem die Sache ihren Ausdruck findet. Und im Geistesleben wird man sich an den Geist und nicht an seine äußeren Dokumente zu halten haben.
Points of view
[ 1 ] Scientific thinking has had a profound influence on the modern imagination. It is becoming increasingly impossible to speak of spiritual needs, of the "life of the soul", without engaging with the concepts and findings of natural science. Certainly, there are still many people who satisfy these needs without allowing themselves to be disturbed by the scientific current in spiritual life. Those who hear the pulse of the times cannot be among them. With increasing rapidity the ideas drawn from the knowledge of nature conquer the minds; and the hearts follow, though much less willingly, though often despondently and timidly. It is not only the number of those who are conquered that matters; but the fact that there is a power inherent in scientific thinking that gives the observer the conviction that this thinking contains something that a contemporary world view cannot pass by without receiving meaningful impressions. Some excesses of this thinking necessitate a justified rejection of its ideas. But we cannot stand still in an age in which wide circles turn to this way of thinking and are drawn to it as if by a magical power. This is not altered by the fact that individual personalities realize how real science has "long since" led beyond the "shallow wisdom of force and matter" of materialism. Much more attention, it seems, should be paid to those who boldly declare that it is the ideas of natural science on which a new religion must also be built. If such appear shallow and superficial to one who knows the deeper spiritual interests of mankind, he must listen to them; for to them the attention of the present is turned; and there are reasons to believe that they will gain more and more attention in the near future. And the others also come into consideration, who have lagged behind the interests of their hearts behind those of their heads. They are those whose minds cannot escape the ideas of natural science. The burden of proof weighs on them. But the religious needs of their minds cannot be satisfied by these ideas. They provide too bleak a perspective for such satisfaction. Is the human soul supposed to be enthusiastic about the heights of beauty, truth and goodness, only to be swept away into insubstantiality like a bubble of foam blown up by the material brain? This is a feeling that weighs on many like an Alp. And scientific ideas also weigh on them because they impose themselves with a powerful authoritative force. Such people remain blind to this conflict in their souls for as long as they can. Indeed, they comfort themselves by saying that full clarity in these matters is denied to the human soul. They think scientifically, as far as the experience of the senses and the logic of the mind require it; but they retain their acquired religious feelings and prefer to remain in a darkness that clouds the mind about these things. They don't have the courage to bring themselves to clarity.
[ 2 ] There can be no doubt about it: the scientific way of thinking is the most powerful force in the intellectual life of modern times. And whoever speaks of the spiritual interests of mankind must not pass it by carelessly. But there is also no doubt that the way in which it initially satisfies spiritual needs is superficial and shallow. It would be dismal if this were the right way. Or would it not be depressing if one had to agree as soon as someone said: "Thought is a form of power. We walk with the same power with which we think. Man is an organism which transforms various forms of force into thought-force, an organism which we keep in activity with what we call "food" and with which we produce what we call thought. What a marvelous chemical process that could transform a mere quantum of food into the divine tragedy of a "Hamlet"!"? This is written in a brochure by Robert G. Ingersoll,1Ingersoll's words are not quoted at this point in the book merely with regard to those people who pronounce them in exactly the same wording as their conviction. Quite a lot of people will not do this and yet form such ideas about natural phenomena and man that, if they were really consistent, they would have to come to these statements. It is not a question of what someone says theoretically as his conviction, but of whether this conviction really follows from his whole way of thinking. Someone may even find the above words abhorrent or ridiculous for his own person: if, without ascending to the spiritual foundations of natural phenomena, he forms an explanation of them that takes into account the merely external, the other will make a materialistic philosophy out of it as a logical consequence. which bears the title "Modern Twilight of the Gods". - Such thoughts may meet with little outward approval when they are expressed by one or the other: it makes no difference. The main thing is that countless people feel compelled by the scientific way of thinking to take a stand on the processes of the world in the sense of the above sentences, even if they have the opinion that they do not.
[ 3 ] Certainly these things would be bleak if natural science itself were forced to make the confession that many of its more recent prophets proclaim. Most dismal for those who have gained the conviction from the content of this natural science that its way of thinking is valid and its methods unshakeable in its field of nature. For such a one must say to himself: no matter how much people argue about individual questions; no matter how volumes after volumes are written, observations after observations are collected about the "struggle for existence" 2From the facts which are currently treated with the catchwords "struggle for existence", "omnipotence of natural breeding" and so on, the "spirit of nature" speaks powerfully to those who can perceive correctly. Not from the opinions that science forms about it today. In the first circumstance lies the reason why natural science will be heard in ever wider circles. But it follows from the second circumstance that the opinions of science must not be taken as if they necessarily belonged to the knowledge of facts. The possibility of being seduced into the latter, however, is unlimited at the present time. and its insignificance, about the "omnipotence" or "impotence" of "natural breeding": natural science itself is moving in a direction which, within certain limits, must meet with ever-increasing approval.
[ 4 ] But are the demands of natural science really those of which some of its representatives speak? The fact that they are not is proven by the behavior of these representatives themselves. Their behavior in their own field is not what many describe and claim for other fields. Or would Darwin and Ernst Haeckel ever have made the great discoveries in the field of the development of life if, instead of observing life and the structure of living beings, they had gone into the laboratory to carry out chemical experiments on a piece of tissue cut out of an organism? Would Lyell have been able to depict the development of the earth's crust if he had not examined the layers of the earth and their contents, but had instead tested the chemical properties of countless stones? Why not really follow in the footsteps of these researchers, who present themselves as monumental figures in the recent development of science! One will then pursue the higher realms of intellectual life as they did in the field of natural observation. They will not then believe that they have grasped the essence of the "divine" Hamlet tragedy when they say that a miraculous chemical process has transformed a quantum of food into this tragedy. One will no more believe this than any natural scientist can seriously believe that he has understood the function of heat in the development of the earth when he has studied the effect of heat on sulphur in the chemical retort. He does not seek to understand the structure of the human brain by taking a piece out of the head and examining how an alkali acts on it, but by asking himself how it has developed from the organs of lower organisms in the course of evolution.
[ 5 ] It is therefore true that those who study the essence of the spirit can only learn from natural science. He only really needs to do it the way science does it. He must not allow himself to be deceived by what individual representatives of natural science want to prescribe. He should research in the spiritual realm as they do in the physical; but he need not adopt the opinions which they, clouded by their thinking about the purely physical, present of the spiritual world.
[ 6 ] One only acts in the sense of natural science if one observes the spiritual development of man just as impartially as the natural scientist observes the sensory world. In the field of spiritual life, however, one is then led to a way of looking at things that is as different from the purely scientific approach as the geological approach is from the purely physical approach, the study of the development of life from the study of mere chemical laws. One is led to higher methods, which may not be those of the natural sciences, but are nevertheless entirely in their spirit. In this way many a one-sided view of natural science will be modified or corrected from another point of view; but one is only continuing natural science; one is not sinning against it. - Such methods alone can lead to a real penetration into spiritual developments such as those of Christianity or other religious conceptions. Those who apply them may arouse the objection of some people who believe they are thinking scientifically, but they know that they are in full agreement with a truly scientific way of thinking.
[ 7 ] A researcher must also go beyond the mere historical investigation of the documents of spiritual life. He must do so precisely because of his attitude drawn from the observation of natural events. It is of little value for the exposition of a chemical law to describe the retorts, dishes and tweezers that led to the discovery of the law. But it is of just as much and just as little value if, in order to explain the origin of Christianity, one establishes the historical sources from which the evangelist Luke drew; or from which the "Secret Revelation" of John is compiled. 3It should not be inferred from such remarks as the one about Luke's sources and so on that the purely historical research is underestimated by the author of this book. This is not the case. It certainly has its justification, but it should not be intolerant of the way of thinking which proceeds from spiritual points of view. This book does not set great store by quoting all sorts of things at every opportunity, but anyone who wants to can certainly see that an all-round, truly unbiased judgment will nowhere find what is said here in contradiction with what is truly historically established. However, anyone who does not want to be all-round, but considers this or that theory to be what "one" has established as certain, may find that the assertions of this book "cannot be upheld" from a “scientific” point of view, but are "without any objective basis". “History” can only be the forecourt of actual research. One does not learn anything about the ideas that prevail in the writings of Moses or in the traditions of the Greek mystics by following the historical genesis of the documents. In these the ideas in question have only found an external expression. And even the natural scientist who wants to investigate the nature of "man" does not trace how the word "man" came into being and how it has developed in language. He focuses on the thing, not on the word in which the thing finds its expression. And in the spiritual life, one will have to stick to the spirit and not to its external documents.