The Rudolf Steiner Archive

The Relationship Between the Spiritual Science and the Natural Sciences V

[ 1 ] In our discussion of Wrangell’s pamphlet, we have reached the short chapter that begins on page 37 and is titled “Materialism.” I will first read this short chapter:

Materialism

As stated earlier, the materialist view recognizes only that knowledge which can be gained through sensory perceptions and the logical conclusions based on them, and denies the reality of occult perceptions. For most people, sensory perceptions provide no direct evidence of the reality of spiritual forces and phenomena that are not bound to material bodies. From this, the materialist concludes that the assumption of such forces and beings—independent of the material world—is unjustified, and declares the conclusions drawn from it to be worthless. According to the materialist, world events are the necessary consequence of forces and states present in matter from the very beginning, which allow only this course of events and—in accordance with the law of the dissipation of energy—must ultimately lead to a state of equilibrium and, consequently, to eternal death. Man’s intellectual task, they argue, is to investigate the laws governing the course of this world’s development, so as to endure as little suffering and waste of energy as possible by adapting to these laws.

If one fundamentally rejects the occult evidence for the existence of spiritual beings, then logically there is nothing to object to in the materialist view.

[ 2 ] Here, indeed, we see the essence of materialist thought characterized in a few concise sentences. But in order to gain a clear understanding of the full significance of the materialist worldview in our time, one must actually take various factors into account.

[ 3 ] One must realize that those who have become sincere materialists in our time do indeed find it difficult to arrive at a spiritualist worldview. And when one speaks of “honest” opponents of spiritualism, one must actually consider theoretical materialists first and foremost among them, for those people who, from the outset—I might say “professionally”—believe they must advocate this or that worldview do not always need to be designated as “honest” representatives of a worldview. But Ludwig Büchner, for example, was an honest advocate of materialism in the second half of the 19th century—more honest than many who, from what they consider to be religious perspectives, feel compelled to present themselves as opponents of a spiritual worldview in the sense of Spiritual Science.

[ 4 ] Well, I said that materialists have a hard time arriving at a spiritual worldview. For materialism, as we encounter it today among those who say: “Yes, human beings simply have their senses and perceive the world through them, he observes the processes that the senses can follow and, based on what the senses present to him, cannot arrive at the assumption of a spiritual entity that is independent of the sensory world—this materialism has emerged with a certain inevitability from the development of modern humanity, for it is based on something that was bound to arise in the development of modern humanity.

[ 5 ] Anyone who takes the trouble to study humanity’s earlier spiritual life will find that, among the truly cultured peoples, it had come to an end by the 14th, 15th, and 16th centuries. One need only truly engage today with what the present can offer human consciousness and then pick up a book that, in terms of its perspective, is still entirely rooted in the way the world was viewed through the lens of natural science in the 13th, 14th, 15th centuries, and one will find that modern people, if they take things seriously and with dignity, no longer have—and cannot have—a proper understanding of what was actually said in older literature up to the turning point indicated.

[ 6 ] Admittedly, it does happen—though really only among those who are dilettantes, or even among those who have not yet become dilettantes—that they repeatedly dig up all sorts of old tomes from this older literature that deal with the natural sciences, and then arrive at all manner of judgments about what is supposedly profoundly contained within them. But anyone who values a genuine connection to what they are learning will have to conclude that modern people cannot truly have a genuine connection to this older way of viewing nature. The situation is different with the philosophical view. But modern people really cannot make sense of the older view of nature, for all the concepts they can form about nature are, after all, only a few centuries old, and it is with these that we must approach nature today. Our physical concepts all trace back, fundamentally, to the Galilean worldview and to nothing earlier. One must undertake an extensive historical-scientific study if one is to engage with earlier works of natural science, for the precise investigation of the material world—the external sensory world—in whose current we find ourselves today has, in fact, only begun in the last few centuries.

[ 7 ] Remember that we were just discussing measurement, drawing on Wrangell’s little booklet. As we have seen, weighing is also part of measurement. However, the introduction of weighing as a method in the natural sciences has only been common practice since Lzvozszer—in this form, it is not yet 150 years old—and all the fundamental concepts of, for example, modern chemistry are based on this weighing.

[ 8 ] Again, if we want to form mental images today—for example, about how electrical forces work, or even just thermal forces—they must be based on research from the latter half of the 19th century. People today can no longer make sense of the older mental images. The same could be said with regard to the biological sciences. However, anyone who needs to understand the course of scientific development would also have to familiarize themselves with the older literature; but we, who wish to seriously pursue Spiritual Science, must break the habit of what one so often encounters among so-called Theosophists. I have often spoken of how, for example, I became acquainted with a Theosophical community in Vienna in the 1880s. There, it was practically a custom to dig out all sorts of old tomes and read through them for things one really understood very little of, because, after all, it takes quite a bit of effort to read a scientific work from, say, the 14th century. But people formed their own opinions. These opinions were always pretty much the same. Namely, whenever someone claimed to have read such a tome—even though they’d only skimmed through it—they’d say, “abysmally deep.” That’s how the opinions went, or something along those lines. Toward the end of the 1980s, I never heard a word used so often—and with such matter-of-factness—as the phrase “abysmally deep.” Of course, I also often heard the word “shallows.”

[ 9 ] What one must bear in mind is the great significance of the views, concepts, and mental images that have been developed under the influence of the views of the past centuries. Once one has familiarized oneself with the explanations of the fundamental mechanical concepts, taken in the wealth of physical, chemical, and biological concepts, and also considered some of what has been compiled to understand how the soul expresses itself in the external physical body, we find before us, as the result of the past centuries—and particularly the second half of the last century—an immensely extensive body of research findings. And this body of research findings must necessarily be grasped, not merely because all external, technical, economic, and material life—to which humanity has already had to advance—is based upon it, but also because a large part of our worldview is based upon it. And yet one is actually—even if, in a certain respect, this does no harm within a limited field, though it is nonetheless true—one is actually a complete novice in a field of worldview such as that of modern science if one knows nothing of modern physics, biology, and so on, as they have developed.

[ 10 ] Certainly, it must be emphasized time and again that the findings of Spiritual Science are derived from those perceptual abilities that have often been discussed. They cannot be obtained in the same way—though with the same certainty—as the findings of natural science and materialism. And of course—if one accepts what was hinted at yesterday—this Spiritual Science is a reality. But for our time today, for our present, much more is necessary than merely having some kind of spiritual connection to the findings of Spiritual Science, which can certainly be understood by common sense. Far more necessary than merely catching glimpses of the spiritual world is to familiarize oneself with the materialistic worldview—at least in part—so that one can truly represent what Spiritual Science stands for to the outside world today. For one cannot step before the world and truly represent Spiritual Science if one has no idea of the way in which scientists conduct research today, how they must think, and how they must balance research with clarification. And if one repeatedly refuses to pick up a book on the natural sciences to familiarize oneself with today’s natural sciences, one will never be able to avoid making blunders when representing the Spiritual Science worldview in the face of what constitutes the dregs of the external worldview. Today, it is also far less important to listen to traditional religious systems than to the honestly obtained, venerable results of materialistic research. One must simply be able to approach these materialistic research findings in the right way.

[ 11 ] Let us, just to illustrate what is at stake at this very moment, single out any field; let us take, for example, the field of human anatomy and physiology. If you pick up any standard textbook today—and I have consistently recommended such books over the course of many cycles—you will get a picture of how today’s physiologists construct their mental images of the structure of the human body based on the skeletal system, the cartilaginous, tendinous, and muscular systems, the nervous, circulatory, sensory, and central nervous systems, and so on. And a mental image will emerge of how people today, living within materialistic thought, conceive of the interaction—let us say—between the heart and the lungs, and again between the heart and the body’s other vascular systems. This may then lead to an answer to the question: How does a person today, who has acquired their concepts from materialistic research, actually view these things? What mental images actually live within them? — And here one must say: Significant insights have indeed been gained; mental images that had to be gained by truly setting aside everything spiritual, by refraining from introducing spiritual ideas into research. One simply had to engage with the material realm as it presents itself—as the popular saying goes—to the five senses, and with the context that arises from the five senses. One really had to look through the world in this way, and much remains to be done in this area, in all possible fields of scientific research.

[ 12 ] But now suppose you have acquired an understanding of the structure of the human body similar to that held by anatomists and physiologists today; then you will find that anatomists and physiologists say: Well, the human body is composed of various organs and organ systems, and these work together in a certain way.

[ 13 ] You see, when an anatomist or physiologist speaks today and synthesizes his mental images into an overall picture of the human being, sensory observation remains the foundation of that picture. This gives rise to very specific mental images that one can take in. But one must approach them in the right way. Perhaps I can clarify this with a comparison. For example, someone might say: “I want to get to know Raphael—how should I go about it?” — To that I would say: “If you want to get to know Raphael, then try immersing yourself in Raphael’s paintings; study, among the Milanese works, *The Marriage of Joseph and Mary*, and then the various other paintings up to the *Sistine Madonna* and *The Ascension*, and get a sense of how Raphael sought to arrange the figures in space, how he sought to distribute light and shadow, to bring one part of the painting to life at the expense of another, to make one element stand out while letting another recede, and so on—then you will know something about Raphael. Then you may be prepared to learn even more about Raphael; then you will gradually gain a picture of the makeup of Raphael’s soul, of what he intended, and from which sources within his mind his creations sprang. — One could now have a mental image of someone coming along and saying: Oh, looking at the paintings—that’s not for me; I’m a clairvoyant and look directly into Raphael’s soul, see how Raphael created, and then speak about Raphael. — I can imagine someone coming along and saying: “I don’t need to see anything of Raphael at all; instead, I immerse myself directly in Raphael’s soul.” — Of course, in Raphael scholarship this would be considered nonsense, but in the field of Spiritual Science it is practiced far, far too often, despite the many warnings over all the years we have been engaged in Spiritual Science. One could see how few felt compelled to make use of the literature mentioned in the course of the lecture cycles—and to use it in such a way as to gain insights from what materialistic research has produced.

[ 14 ] But just as one would be mistaken to stop at the image and not proceed to the spiritual aspect expressed through it, so too does the materialist stop there. What one might say to the materialist, for example, is this: Yes, you are looking at a picture, but you fail to realize that you should regard what you are looking at as the outward manifestation of a spiritual inner reality. — But it is true that materialist research has amassed an immensely rich body of material. If one regards this as the outward manifestation of a spiritual inner reality, one is on the right path. The materialist simply makes the mistake of having the material before him and refusing to accept that it is the expression of something spiritual. But on the other hand, one is bound to be in the wrong if one asserts anything spiritual and the materialist tells one things about which one has no idea. Of course, one can survey the vast field of research and yet have no idea about a great deal; but one must have a mental image of the way in which things are obtained. And if our School of Spiritual Science serves to enable a number of people who have studied one field or another to interpret the materialistic basic premises that one must accept in light of today’s developments, then our School of Spiritual Science will accomplish a great deal.

[ 15 ] We could certainly do it this way today: say that the material set forth in our cycles might be sufficient; we could conclude with that and use the coming period to present to our friends the material foundation of the prerequisites that must be in place. It will then become clear, when one considers today’s physics, chemistry, and biology in the appropriate way, that what is set forth in our cycles will be confirmed. Then one would have taken the correct stance toward materialism.

[ 16 ] You are completely mistaken, my dear friends, when you say that materialism is wrong. What nonsense! To say that materialism is wrong is just like saying: The Sistine Madonna has blue here and red there—that’s wrong, after all, it’s just matter. — Materialism is right within its own domain; and when one considers what it has contributed to human knowledge, it is something immense. There is no need to fight materialism, but only to demonstrate, in the course of development, how materialism—when it understands itself—leads beyond itself, just as I have shown how anatomy and physiology lead beyond themselves and necessarily lead into the spiritual realm.

[ 17 ] One can only ask: Why are there so many people who, instead of accepting materialism as a mere research method, treat it as a worldview? — It would be correct to say that today it would indeed be something completely convoluted and foolish to practice alchemy instead of chemistry; today one must practice chemistry and not alchemy as in the 12th century. That goes without saying. But it is necessary to rise from today’s research into spiritual life. If our friends would only take the trouble to study the little booklet *Haeckel and His Opponents*, they would find that all the ideas underlying it are governed by the biogenetic law. It is indeed telling that we have not yet managed to bring this very booklet, *Haeckel and His Opponents*, to a second edition. And yet it is extraordinarily important to be informed—if not about the latest research results (after all, one does not necessarily need to know these in detail)—then at least about the manner in which the researcher proceeds and how he adheres to his research method. This is of extraordinary importance.

[ 18 ] If someone says, “I don’t need to study this book; why would I need to? For me, the spiritual world is clear from the very beginning; I don’t need to climb the whole ladder”—if someone says that, then they are an egoist today, someone who thinks only of themselves and pays no heed to the demands the times place upon us. But we must pay attention to this if we want to serve the spirit of the times. It is extremely important that we keep precisely this in mind. Certainly, one has the right to say, “Why do I need a scientific foundation? For me, the spiritual world is clear.” That may be true. But if one wants to learn something in the realm of the spiritual world—one can, of course, do so by interpreting what is there—but if one wants to learn something, one must familiarize oneself with what materialistic science has to offer.

[ 19 ] On the other hand, one must ask: How is it that there are so many anatomists, physiologists, physicists, chemists, and so on today—natural scientists, and even those who call themselves experimental psychologists—who wish to uphold materialism not as a research method, but as a worldview? One must have the courage to answer this quite honestly: To conduct research in a materialistic way, all one needs to do is stare at the world with the five senses and apply external methods. One need only passively surrender to the world, and then one stands firm. Plucking a plant, counting the stamens, using a microscope, staining a cross-section to study the structure, and so on—I could, of course, list many more examples—people manage to do all this. All one needs to do is stand there, be passive, and let nature work its magic. One allows oneself to be led by nature.

[ 20 ] In the very first writings I published, I called this the “dogmatism of experience.” People cling to the dogmatism of experience. You can read what I say about the dogmatism of experience in my book *Grundlinien einer Erkenntnistheorie der Goetheschen Weltanschauung* (Fundamentals of an Epistemology of Goethe’s Worldview). I later also called it “fact fanaticism.” But in order to enter the spiritual world, one must work inwardly; for this, inner vitality is necessary. And that is where people’s strength is definitely running out. One can see in our time that this power has run out. If, for example, you make comparisons in the field of anatomy, you will find that one can almost point a finger at the exact spot where the power has run out.

[ 21 ] Consider the anatomist Ayrt/, who was succeeded in his chair by the anatomist Langer. Compare the writings of the two from a scientific perspective, and you will see how, in the succession of these two scholars, one is absolutely clear that there is a spiritual dimension behind the external, while the other no longer cares about it. What is the reason for this? It is because, as commendable as materialism is as a research method—and having thereby produced great and powerful achievements without which people today could not live—people were too lazy to bring what they had grasped into active life. Laziness—true spiritual inertia—has caused people to persist in materialism. Because materialism became so dominant and presented itself as reality, people have not ascended into the spiritual realm. It is laziness and inertia, and one must have the courage to recognize this reason.

[ 22 ] If you delve into the fields of scientific research, you will see that this scientific research is magnificent and admirable. If you delve into everything that is concocted by the monists and other associations as “worldviews,” you will see that they are based on laziness and inertia, on a rigidity of thought. This is what we must clearly recognize: that—if we stand on the ground of true Spiritual Science—we must distinguish between the entirely legitimate nature of materialistic research methods and findings and the so-called materialistic worldview.

[ 23 ] Most of the time, those who conduct materialistic research are unable to think at all, because it is easier to conduct materialistic research than to think spiritually. I want to use an example to illustrate that materialists simply stumble when they try to move from the materialistic research method to a worldview. So let’s assume I have tried to develop an atomistic worldview. I want to say, then, that bodies consist of atoms. One must conceive of these as being in motion, so that when one has a material object before one, it—as one must imagine—consists of atoms. There are spaces between the atoms. The atoms are in motion, and this motion—according to the materialist worldview—generates heat. If one were to say that heat is based on the motion of atoms, one would be correct; one would merely be stating a fact. However, one comes to the conclusion that it is impossible to speak of atoms as something that actually exists. Atoms are conceived—and they must be conceived if they are to have any meaning—but what is perceived is said to be brought about by the atoms. Thus, one cannot see an atom. One sees that the so-called atomistic worldview is composed of nothing visible, of nothing perceptible to the senses.

[ 24 ] But now one might reflect and say: The world consists of atoms, and these are in motion. One now wishes to investigate the nature of the motion that underlies heat, light, magnetism, electricity, and so on, and in doing so, one comes to assume that certain motions of the atoms are the causes of sensory perception. So one arrives at atoms. One divides what is given, and if one keeps dividing over and over, one must eventually arrive at the indivisible, and that is the atom. Divisible atoms make no sense. The ultimate parts—that is, the atoms—must be indivisible. Today, however, there is also an effort to explain motion in terms of atoms—I can only hint at this, but you can explore it further in recent philosophical and scientific literature—that is, to explain motion based on the nature of atoms. But if one considers how one atom must collide with another in order to produce the motion observed in heat, electricity, and so on, then one cannot conceive of atoms as rigid; one must conceive of them as elastic. It is necessary to conceive of them as elastic, because rigid atoms would not, upon collision, produce the motion required for heat, electricity, or magnetism to arise.

[ 25 ] So these atoms must be elastic. But what does that mean? It means that the atom can be compressed and then snaps back to its previous state. It must therefore be compressible and spring back; otherwise, it is impossible to conceive of the atoms colliding. We have thus arrived at two conclusions: First, the atom must be indivisible; second, it must be elastic. Modern thought, which pays homage to atomism, is confronted with these two principles. The atom must be conceived as indivisible; otherwise, it is no longer an atom, and it must be conceived as elastic, for it would be a meaningless mental image to attribute atomic motion to rigid atoms. English thinkers, in particular, have emphasized these two propositions very sharply: first, the atom is indivisible, and second, the atom must be conceived as elastic. — If I consider a body to be elastic, it is inconceivable that its parts do not compress and then spring back to their original positions, thereby restoring the elastic body. This body is inconceivable unless it is divisible and capable of displacement. Yet the atom must be indivisible on the one hand, and on the other hand, it must be divisible, for otherwise it cannot be elastic. But what does that mean?

[ 26 ] This means that if we want to create a mental image of atoms, we arrive at two contradictory basic assumptions. There is no way around them. There is a tremendous amount of fascinating literature on the idea of constructing a worldview from non-rigid atoms. But then the atom is no longer an atom, for it must be conceived as divisible. This means one comes to the conclusion that the mental image of the atom is impossible as long as one assumes the atom is material. The moment you conceive of the atom as non-material—when you think the atom is not something material but something else—you can conceive of the atom as indivisible, just as the human “I” is also conceived as indivisible. Suppose the atom is a force; then you can also conceive of it as a composite entity. If you do not think in materialistic terms, you need not assume that there are gaps between them. The two things are therefore entirely compatible if we do not conceive of atoms as material. If, after carefully considering what optics, the study of electricity, and so on have to offer, we draw the ultimate conclusions about what the atom must be like, then we are led to say: The atom cannot be material. — That inevitably leads you into the spiritual realm. But this step must be taken. It then makes no difference whether the atom is elastic or rigid; that is of no concern to us, and we do not get involved in that. But materialism must not be fought against; rather, it must be understood. The great body of work and significant achievements must not be disregarded by Spiritual Science.

[ 27 ] Let's now move on to the next chapter of Wrangell's work:

Doubts About the Materialist Worldview

Yet doubts arise in the minds of many people: Could it really be the case that the entire world is not based on any rational or moral principle, and that the concepts of what is expedient and what is moral arise only within the human heart, but have no validity outside of it?

We feel within ourselves the striving toward the good, and the concept of the good is inseparable from the concept of freedom, for where absolute necessity reigns, there is neither good nor evil. A stone must fall in a certain direction at a certain speed, and it would be meaningless to call this fall good or evil.

Could it be that what we perceive in our innermost being as the true measure of life’s value is merely an illusion and delusion, and that in the universe as a whole—of which humanity is but a vanishingly small fraction—this idea of the good, that is, of morality chosen in freedom, is nowhere to be found? Could it be that the small part—humanity, endowed with sublime feelings and thoughts—stands higher in this regard than the whole, which, without consciousness or sense of purpose, follows its course like a dead machine, only to end in eternal death? The minds of most people resist such a conclusion and seek another.

[ 28 ] It is good to speak of the mind’s resistance to this, but it is even more important in our time to say that thought resists it. If one wishes to stand solely on the ground of materialism, one must turn to the atom and conceive of it as matter. But one can also call it force, and then one comes to the realization that where one imagines matter to be, there lies the cosmic world of thought. There, the moral order of the world has its full place within it.

[ 29 ] Now, however, some have found it more convenient to say: Yes, if one reflects on the world in this way, scruples and doubts do indeed arise everywhere regarding sensory knowledge, and it is not acceptable to accept this sensory knowledge as the sole source of truth; but human beings are simply not capable of delving any deeper. This then leads to roughly the following situation: There stands a person who may be a very good researcher in the realm of the external sensory world and who, as a materialist researcher, can produce lasting, beautiful, and magnificent works, but who is not inclined to delve any deeper. And so he says: There must be all sorts of things behind matter; but with our human capacity for knowledge, we are not able to penetrate that far. He calls himself an agnostic. He does not realize that this line of reasoning—that human beings lack the ability, and so on—is inspired by Ahriman, and he does not hear what the good spirits are telling him; he pays no heed to that. In truth, he is merely a slacker. To put it bluntly, that is what a slacker is; in academia, it is called agnosticism.

[ 30 ] The next chapter in Wrangell is now titled:

Agnosticism

The answer to the question of the origin and purpose of the universe as a whole and of the destiny of humankind that presents the fewest difficulties to the intellect, yet leaves the demands of the heart entirely unsatisfied, is the agnostic’s (“one who does not know”) standpoint, when he says: these questions transcend the limits of human knowledge and must therefore, by their very nature, remain unanswered; and it is more reasonable to devote one’s time and energy to tasks where there is a prospect of mastering them.

[ 31 ] — There is nothing wrong with saying, “I want to devote myself to a task that I can accomplish.” That is within a person’s freedom. But it is not within a person’s freedom to say, “What I do not know, no one else may know.” — All philosophizing about what humans cannot know is, at its core, a scientific infamy; moreover, it is a scientific megalomania without parallel, because one sets oneself up as the ruler of what may and may not be investigated, and because one presents what one wishes to accept as the standard for everyone else. What impotence lies in the statement: “There are limits to knowledge”! One should also make it clear to oneself just how much arrogance and conceit lie within it. This should not be whispered into people’s ears, but rather bellowed out loud. —

Without denying the existence of spiritual beings, the agnostic asserts that this realm is by no means accessible to everyone, whereas everything based on sensory experience lies within the realm of knowledge available to the average person, and that is what they should be content with. Those people whose intellect, trained in critical thinking, predominates can maintain this position without being paralyzed in their actions; for most people, however, this answer is no answer at all. If one adopts the standpoint of a person without personal occult experiences and without knowledge of accounts from others regarding such perceptions that seem credible to him, then, judged logically, he is free to speak for or against the existence of spiritual worlds. —

Of course, in human society, everyone is free to speak out against the existence of a spiritual world. However, one should be aware that such a statement is meaningless. One might just as well argue that three times three is not nine.

However, he is not entitled to deny the scientific validity of the opposing view.

The degree of credibility of others’ reports cannot be measured with objective—that is, universally applicable—rigor, and judgment on this matter is inevitably influenced by subjective motives in each individual case.

[ 32 ] — Yes, that can be shown.

If the facts in question can be verified by any reasonable person, there is usually no need to go to the trouble of verify them personally, because the current organization of scientific research ensures that an erroneous observation or false report will be discovered quickly, and this compels every observer and reporter—if only for the sake of their reputation—to exercise the utmost caution and truthfulness; in any case, an observational error does not remain undetected for long.

[ 33 ] — Essentially, this doesn’t mean much more than if someone were to say the following: Given the way scientific work is organized today, if you go to Basel and buy a chemistry textbook, you can already believe what’s written in it simply because it contains chemical results, and it wouldn’t occur to a chemist to lie. — But that merely legitimizes belief in authority. And if people were to admit this to themselves, they would realize just how much they accept today on the basis of good faith. I have often emphasized that although Spiritual Science is still in its infancy, it can be tested. Spiritual Science is still young; when it matures, the situation for spiritual scientists will be the same as it is today for chemists: people will then realize that there is no lying in Spiritual Science.

With occult perceptions, however, the situation is different, and this fundamental difference has long led men of the exact sciences—accustomed to verifiable facts—to regard occult reports not only critically, that is, with scrutiny, but also skeptically, that is, with outright rejection.

[ 34 ] — The real reason is that they're too lazy.

Now, however, this no longer seems possible, for the evidence supporting the immaterial existence of spiritual beings is so compelling that men of undoubted scientific training consider this question to be settled. It suffices to recall names such as Zöllner, Wallace, du Prel, Crookes, Butlerow, Rochas, Oliver Lodge, Flammarion, Morselli, Schiaparelli, Ochorowicz, James, and others.

[ 35 ] — Here, Mr. von Wrangell relies on those who draw on atavistic abilities, whereas we assume that every person can acquire the abilities that make it possible to examine the spiritual just as one examines the scientific.

Not only do these men find no contradiction between occult facts and the established findings of exact sensory research, but their very habit of unbiased criticism leads them to reject the skepticism of the materialist and devote themselves to the study of occult phenomena.

[ 36 ] — But they do not do it the right way; instead, they reduce everything to the same laboratory realm as chemistry, even that which can only be attained through the free exercise of thought. Instead of constructing concepts internally, they go around, as it were, with a measuring stick and take measurements. —

These authorities may be mistaken in their judgment, but their position can serve as evidence that we are justified in assuming the existence of spiritual beings without exposing ourselves to the accusation of scientific ignorance. Provided that one does not possess occult abilities oneself, one is dependent on the reports of others and must examine them for their credibility.

[ 37 ] — It would be better to try to engage with what is said in *How to Gain Knowledge of the Higher Worlds*. It is much easier than many people assume. Most people simply refuse to acknowledge it; yet they accept all sorts of convoluted theories. It would actually be relatively easy to experience, in a few years, at least as much of the spiritual world as is necessary to generally acknowledge its existence. But people say: “That’s nothing,” because they strive for what I have called ‘abdominal clairvoyance.’ And if they don’t achieve abdominal clairvoyance, then none of this means anything to them.

The sources of error in occult perceptions lie in both the subject and the object. Even a cursory review of the body of perceptual data compiled by spiritualists and other occultists shows us that, admittedly, the sources of error abound here ...

[ 38 ] — They certainly do not. It is no different from saying: “Nature never lies!” But she lies at every moment. Take a glass of water and stick a stick in it; it will appear broken to you, but it is not. Consider the sun’s path across the sky; compare its size in the morning with its size at noon: nature lies to you all day long. The spiritual world lies just as much—and just as little. For example, it is extraordinarily interesting to visualize the processes taking place in the human etheric body when one has an intestinal ailment, or to observe what the etheric body does as digestive processes occur. It is just as interesting as studying anatomy or physiology in the usual way—indeed, even more so. But it is unjustified to regard what is nothing more than a process in the etheric body during digestion as a magnificent process of the cosmic world. The spiritual world itself does not lie; one must simply interpret it correctly. Nor is it necessary to look down upon what takes place in our etheric body during digestion. One must simply not misunderstand it. Nor do the senses actually deceive us. When one reaches into the water, one finds through the sense of touch... [Gap in the postscript]. Over time, natural science has acquired sound principles through study, whereas in Spiritual Science it is believed that the less study one has undergone, the more suited one is to the field.

[ 39 ] In other words: “Even a cursory review of the empirical data gathered by spiritualists and other occultists shows us that, admittedly, the sources of error abound here... .”

for they are not only, as in the sensory world, within the subject, but also within the object, in that numerous malevolent entities are said to have made it their mission to mislead the inquiring human being. While it is true of ordinary sensory perceptions that “nature never lies; it is only humans who sometimes misunderstand it,” according to the researchers of the occult, the situation is different in the spiritual world. Therefore, if one acknowledges the reality of spiritual phenomena independent of the material world, it is a great and difficult task to separate the wheat from the chaff there. This is the task of Spiritual Science, which—if one wishes to pursue it seriously—requires all of a person’s time and energy, just as is the case, incidentally, with every other branch of knowledge, albeit perhaps to a lesser extent. For the majority of people, however, such a course of study is neither possible nor necessary. Just as one can be a Christian and find comfort and inspiration in the teachings of Jesus, seeing the moral ideal realized in his person, without being a theologian, so too can one recognize in the fundamental teachings of Theosophy an interpretation of the true meaning and purpose of one’s own life without being familiar with the comprehensive body of esoteric knowledge.

[ 40 ] — This is a claim that cannot be accepted at face value, for even if people are not professional chemists or biologists, they can still get by in today’s world. But what belongs to the world to which the human soul itself belongs, humanity will gradually have to come to know. It is a kind of unjustified rejection to say that, in order to be a Theosophist, one need not be familiar with esoteric science any more than one needs to be a theologian to be a Christian.

The worldview that is most conducive to human action and emotion is the one that satisfies both the mind and the heart the most.

[ 41 ] The next chapter is titled:

The Survival of the Soul After Death

If one assumes that the spiritual principle in human beings—that which is referred to as the soul—is an entity that continues to exist even after the death of the body, then various mental images of its future fate are possible. Of these, we shall consider here only the Christian view and the doctrine of reincarnation, as these are currently of primary concern to us. Christ’s teaching has been a source of comfort and moral strength for millions and will likely continue to be so in the future. It cannot be denied, however, that for the scientifically educated European, intellectual difficulties have accumulated, preventing the conflict between faith and knowledge—based on Christian doctrine—from being resolved. This existing contradiction demands a sacrifice—either of the intellect or of the heart. In addition to these intellectual difficulties, many people harbor serious moral reservations about the conventional understanding of Christianity. All Christian denominations teach that after death, the human soul faces a fate of eternal duration: eternal bliss or eternal damnation. Every person surely feels that this belief contradicts the demand for justice. Justice is the foundation of all morality.

[ 42 ] — If only we knew a little more! Of course, Wrangell is right when he says that one cannot speak of eternal bliss and eternal damnation in this way, since these concepts contradict justice. For “eternal” is an absurdity if one believes it to be something infinite. “Eternal” is merely an age, a world age, and in Christian thought, too, one should speak of “eternal” as nothing more than an age—which roughly corresponds to the time between death and a new birth.

Deep within every human heart lies an unshakable desire that everyone be treated according to their merit. Of course, the concept of merit varies; so does the value placed on what we experience and feel. But there can be no doubt that people would be happier, better, and more satisfied if they were convinced that the course of events in the world as a whole—and in every individual instance—meets the demand for justice. In what we experience in ourselves and others in the course of our physical lives, we see no justice prevailing, regardless of whether we use emotional, mental, or physical suffering and joy as a measure of the value of our experiences. According to the teachings of the Christian churches, this apparent injustice of earthly life is to be compensated for in the afterlife; yet, in essence, it is infinitely exacerbated by the eternal consequences of temporal transgressions or merits.

[ 43 ] — It goes without saying that Wrangell speaks only of what the Christian churches say—churches that arose after Justinian closed the Greek philosophical schools. But he overlooks the fact that it is our task to make humanity’s locked-away wisdom accessible once again. One must indeed seek the right reasons. One could also show that those who teach Christianity today do not teach true Christianity, but rather a version that has been altered. —

[ 44 ] The next chapter is titled:

Reincarnation and Karma

The doctrine of reincarnation and karma, on the other hand, offers us the possibility of resolving the apparent injustice of one’s fate by recognizing that it was self-inflicted in past lives, and that there is an opportunity to improve it for future reincarnations.

Such a belief, once it has become an inner certainty, gives one the strength to bear one’s fate—even the harshest—without inner rebellion, and spurs one on to improve it for the future by following the voice we call “conscience.”

The sense of responsibility present in our consciousness is strengthened, and the danger that humanity might seek to exploit the brief span of temporal life in a frenzy of sensual pleasure and selfishness would be eliminated. The doctrine of rebirth and karma sets people free, for it places them in charge of themselves.

Certainly, the great mystery of the “purpose” of it all remains unsolved, but the purpose and task of each individual life are clear and definite.

[ 45 ] The next chapter cited is the conclusion of Lessing’s *The Education of the Human Race*:

Lessing’s View on the Doctrine of Reincarnation

“Is this hypothesis (of reincarnation) so ridiculous simply because it is the oldest? Because the human mind, before it was scattered and weakened by sophistry and formal education, immediately fell for it? Why should I not return as often as I am sent to acquire new knowledge and new skills? Do I accomplish so much at once that it is not worth the effort to return?

According to the doctrine of reincarnation, it is our lot to live on this earth until we have fulfilled our destiny: knowledge of God, which is self-knowledge. Death is not annihilation; the sense of self—our true essence—merely enters another body. Even the suicide cannot escape; he merely severs the thread of life, which, according to inexorable laws, must be reattached.”

[ 46 ] — So said Lessing. Those were strong words. But they were also the words of a man who had absorbed the culture of his time and who, through what that culture and Christianity could offer him, was inevitably led to this doctrine of reincarnation. Here one sees his eminent education; here one sees the historical critic. But now people say, of course Lessing is a great man; he wrote *Nathan* and so on—that’s all well and good—but in his old age he indulged in such fanciful reveries as the doctrine of rebirth; one cannot go along with that. — Well, in this regard, the court tutor has become much wiser than Lessing was in his old age. Many people believe, after all, that they are much wiser than Lessing, whom one otherwise even regards as a great man. One should at least recognize the absurdity of such an assessment; recognize that one must strive toward what Lessing had ultimately worked his way toward. One should recognize the absurdity of this if one is unwilling to follow through to this ripest fruit of Lessing’s thought, let alone consider what has come after it in the newer intellectual life. These people speak without addressing the very core that already underlay the new intellectual life, but which remains a closed book to many who interpret it. — Well, Wrangell goes on to say:

We know from the accounts of Eckermann and Boisseré that Goethe, too, held fast to the belief in reincarnation. Kant states in his “Lectures on Psychology”: “The beginning of life is birth; but this is not the beginning of the life of the soul, but of the human being. Birth, life, and death are therefore merely states of the soul... Consequently, the substance remains, even though the body perishes, and thus the substance must also have existed when the body came into being.”

[ 47 ] Now comes the final chapter:

Brief Summary of the Line of Thought

Let us try to briefly summarize the line of thought set forth above.

The concept of regularity—the necessary chain of cause and effect in events—is not an original insight. On the contrary, immediate consciousness gives us a mental image of conditional freedom.

The concept of regularity, upon which every science is based, first presented itself to humankind, it seems, through observation of the temporally regular course of celestial phenomena. This concept was then applied, with ever-increasing success, to the phenomena of the inanimate world (physics, chemistry), then to the living world, and finally to the spiritual realm as well. The concept of regularity can only be tested and irrevocably proven in relation to phenomena that can be quantitatively determined—that is, phenomena that can be measured. The extension of the mental image of necessity from the material realm to the spiritual realm is an assumption which, by analogy with what occurs in the material realm, can indeed be accorded a certain degree of probability, but which cannot be proven because the touchstone of measurability is lacking here. Numerous facts, examined by discerning men of science, do not permit any truth-seeking person to deny the existence of spiritual beings without providing evidence as to why he rejects the facts in question and their probative value.

The fundamental teachings of Theosophy—reincarnation and karma—do not contradict any scientific fact, satisfy the intellect, and, better than other teachings, fulfill the foundation of all morality—the demand for justice.

Belief in these fundamental principles must strengthen people to endure undesirable life circumstances and encourage their striving for goodness.

[ 48 ] Well, my dear friends, here before us is this brochure—a document of our time, the expression of a person who is firmly grounded in the practice of scientific methods and who wishes to bear witness to the fact that one can be a good, fully conscious scientist and—not in spite of this, but precisely because of it—must arrive at a worldview that acknowledges the spirit.

[ 49 ] You will have seen from the last few chapters of Mr. von Wrangell’s pamphlet that he has not yet delved very deeply into Spiritual Science, that he has not addressed the distinction between what Spiritual Science aims for and amateurish theosophy. And that is why it is all the more important to see how someone with a scientific background seeks what can truly be provided only by Spiritual Science, so that one can say: through such a pamphlet, one has come to understand how an unbiased scientist can approach a worldview that acknowledges the spirit.

[ 50 ] There are other avenues we can explore, and we will do so from time to time. In this way, we will delve deeper into the subject, not merely to cultivate Spiritual Science in a self-serving manner, but to truly regard it as a catalyst for culture and, through it, to contribute to the course of human development. This is what is extraordinarily important: that we accustom ourselves to truly keeping pace with everything.

[ 51 ] Sometimes one can have a certain experience within our ranks. Please don’t be upset if I speak of this experience, but it really can happen. There are, in fact, certain members among us who say: “Public lectures—they’re not important to us”—and they say this in a way that makes it clear they don’t quite go along with it. They say that public lectures aren’t the most important thing; branch lectures, yes, those are for us, but we’ve moved beyond what the public lectures offer. — And yet it is precisely the case that the public lectures are designed for those who have a connection to the outside world. And much more reference is made to contemporary science in the public lectures than in the private lectures, which shows how often delicate consideration must be given to the fact that people do not like to base things on strictly scientific questions. And this delicate consideration is often interpreted in such a way that people say: the public lectures aren’t that important.

[ 52 ] In truth, the situation is different. Even these things are based on a certain kind of selfishness. I do not wish to take up the cause of public lectures; I merely wish to challenge the baseless notions that many people hold. One might perhaps more easily overlook this or that intermediate link here and there in the branch lectures; but the public lectures must be structured link by link. Many who are not deeply immersed in the overall cultural process of our time through their work do not appreciate this. But it is precisely this immersion in the cultural process of the time, this refusal to shut oneself off, that matters most.

[ 53 ] Of course, it is also easier to talk about angels, Lucifer, and Ahriman than about electrons, ions, and so on. But don’t you think we need to remind ourselves that we absolutely must draw the threads back to our present-day culture? But I ask you not to take this matter one-sidedly again, as if I were urging you to go out tomorrow and buy the entire Göschen scientific collection and sit down to work your way through it bit by bit, as the students would say. That is certainly not what I mean. I simply mean that if one wishes to speak authoritatively about the place of Spiritual Science in our culture, one must also be aware of this and, above all, must not fall into the error of saying: this external science is mere hot air. As an individual, one can certainly say one has no time to concern oneself with it; but what I have said should give the entire institution, the entire enterprise, a certain direction. And it should come as no surprise that the School of Spiritual Science wishes to pursue individual branches of science in such a way that they will gradually lead toward Spiritual Science. After all, we need materialistic culture out there. And those among the anthroposophists are wrong who say: What do I care about materialistic culture? It’s none of my business; it’s for coarse, boorish materialists. I cultivate what one experiences when dreaming, when one is not quite fully conscious; the rest is none of my concern—I have the teachings of reincarnation and karma and so on. — On the other hand, there is the world out there that says: “We have real science, serious and dignified methods, and now the anthroposophists come along with their Spiritual Science; they are, after all, the purest fools.”

[ 54 ] This conflict cannot be allowed to continue, and we cannot expect mediation to come from outside. Mediation must come from within. We must understand this and must not lie back idly and say: “If we first have to climb up into the spiritual world through science, that is far too arduous for us.”

[ 55 ] I wanted to speak about the significance of materialistic culture and draw your attention to it, for I have often emphasized: materialism comes from Ahriman, but one must be aware of Ahriman, just as one must be aware of Lucifer and take him into account. And the Trinity, which we were able to examine yesterday using the model, is the very thing with which humanity will have to become acquainted.

[ 56 ] I would like to repeat once more: Do not try to provoke the outside world by speaking of a new religion. If we were to refer to the group as the “Statue of Christ,” that would be a grave mistake. It is enough to say: There stands the representative of humanity. Everyone can see what is meant by that. It is important that we always find the right words—that is, that we consider how we should position ourselves within the entire cultural world and strive to describe the matter with the right words. This is what must be said again and again. We do not want to say to others: “We are the first to have portrayed the true Christ.”—Let us know that and keep it to ourselves. It is important for us to recognize the full blessing of materialistic culture; otherwise, we will make the same mistake as those who do not examine it closely.

[ 57 ] Let us ask ourselves whether we are not doing the same thing to others. While we need not hold back from speaking the truth, we must understand what is happening out there. Then we will also be able to confront what is out there with the right words. But, my dear friends, we will have much, much to do in this regard, for the inertia I have spoken of today is very, very widespread, and we must find the courage to tell people: You are too inert to engage in the activity of thinking.

[ 58 ] If we understand what is out there, then we can also use strong words and wage a vigorous struggle. But we must familiarize ourselves with it and draw connections to the external culture. That is why I also wanted to give an example from Wrangell’s highly commendable brochure, which shows how someone can be a strong scientist but has not sufficiently engaged with the spiritual-scientific worldview, even though the entire orientation of his soul leans toward Spiritual Science.

[ 59 ] We have often demonstrated this “pulling of strings,” mostly in relation to specific individuals, and I advise you to do the same in collaboration with others wherever such opportunities arise. Of course, this cannot be the work of a single person; one would never get it done that way. Rather, there must be one person who, for my sake, takes on a brochure about Eucken’s worldview, and another who takes a brochure dealing with the blood, muscle, and nervous systems, and so on, and works through it with the others. This can be done in branches. This can then be organized so that on one branch meeting evening we work purely on Spiritual Science, and on the next we go through such a topic. If one person has done it on one day, someone else can do it the next time. Everyone can take up something that is close to their heart in some way. And why shouldn’t someone who has no scientific training at all be able to take up this or that topic as well? There are questions of life that can also be linked to such things. It is much more useful to devote time to such studies than to dig up all sorts of occult intricacies and material from dreams and tell people about them. This is not meant to be one-sided either. It is not to be said that one can never speak of occult experiences; but the point is to draw the right line of connection. It is not a matter of despising the science of the senses, but of mastering it. The science of the senses should not be trampled underfoot or destroyed, but mastered.