# 67. Darwinism and the Present

In recent days it has been reported in the newspapers that the Darwin enthusiasts, who three or four years ago set about initiating collections for a memorial to the great naturalist, have been dealt a bad hand by an incident. The memorial was to be erected in Darwin's home town of Shrewsbury. No sooner had the arrangements for the collections been made than a terrible storm arose and blew down the church tower of Shrewsbury. This was a sign from God for the pious. It had been revealed to them that they should not donate anything to the great heretic's memorial. On the other hand, money poured in in abundance to rebuild the church tower, which had had to surrender itself as an instrument of a higher will. I don't know whether the story is true. I am interested in it as a symptom of the sharp contrast that exists between two world views in the present day, between the Christian way of thinking and the modern way of thinking built on scientific foundations. The Bautz case and many others came to mind. Bautz is a professor of theology in Münster who, in oral speeches in the pulpit and in his writings, holds the view that hell and purgatory are located inside the earth and are connected with volcanoes and earthquakes. As often as things of this kind become known through the press, the cries of indignation of our free spirits, progressives and other "moderns" can be heard everywhere. They would love to call upon the authorities and have a man who teaches something similar to the above removed from his post.

As often as I become aware of the contrast between the two world views mentioned, the question arises in my mind: What weapons are being fought with on either side? The fighters who best sharpen their weapons are the ones who are most appreciated. And our "moderns" could learn an infinite amount from men like Bautz, especially when it comes to sharpening their weapons. What distinguishes Bautz is the courage to think through to the end the thoughts that necessarily arise from his world view. He expresses the final ideas to which he must come when he has accepted the first ones of his creed. His way is far more valuable than that of the liberal theologians, who water down the content of Christian doctrine to such an extent that, if necessary, even modern Darwinism can form part of the Christian confession. But no matter how hard you try, no one will ever succeed in creating harmony between the Christian and modern scientific worldviews. Without a personal, wise guidance of the world's destiny, which announces itself in times of trouble by such signs as the toppling of the Tower of Shrewsbury, there is no Christianity; without the denial of such guidance and the recognition of the truth that in this world accessible to our senses lie all the causes of events, there is no modern way of thinking. Nothing supernatural ever intervenes in nature; everything that happens is based on the elements that we reach with our senses and our thinking: only when this insight has penetrated not into thinking alone, but into the depths of our sensory life, can we speak of a modern way of looking at things. But our "modern minds" are a long way from this. It works with thinking. The minds of our contemporaries are gradually coming to terms with Darwinism. But the emotions, the feelings, are still thoroughly Christian. The mind is unable to draw from the content of natural reality the elevation that it is able to draw from the teachings of religion. And it is from this dilemma of "modern" minds that the despondency arises which makes them shy away from drawing the consequences of their thought presuppositions. How cowardly the talk seems: that science is not far enough along to say anything about the ultimate questions compared to the boldness with which Dr. Bautz defends his view of hell and purgatory! . Where are the modern minds that have the courage to think their views through to the end? And the few who do, how are they treated! Just think of the hostility that Ernst Haeckel experienced from his peers because he did not stop at establishing individual facts, but built a modern world view from his scientific insights.

The views we read about Friedrich Nietzsche are characteristic of the way our clever free spirits relate to men who bravely tackle the highest questions. The fact that someone here once delved into the deepest problems of cognition, that he did not pause until he had penetrated the depths of existence, that he juxtaposed belief in the hereafter and worship of this world in an incomparably great way and developed the cult of this world in the highest sense: what is all this to our "modern minds"? They are not at all concerned with his views and thoughts, for which he lived and suffered, from which all the pleasure of existence flowed. No, they merely delight in the poet Nietzsche. I will certainly not deny anyone the right to rejoice in the poetic beauties of Nietzsche's portrayal. But merely clinging to them seems to me a convenient means of being allowed to call this spirit great. No, no one should call him great who cannot appreciate the profound thought processes of "Beyond Good and Evil" in their full significance. Here is a depth of ideas that has never been reached before in the spiritual history of mankind. But our moderns are indifferent to this. If they wanted to go into these primal things, they would have to speak out for or against these ideas. Their thinking is too inept or discouraged for this. Instead, they prefer to intoxicate themselves with the language of Zarathustra. Dullness and nonchalance of thought: this is often the signature of our "modern minds". In this respect, they lag behind the pious who don't want a Darwin monument because the church tower has collapsed. These pious people have a closed world view; the "moderns" usually only have a piecemeal view. This thought always arises in my mind when I see the two world views, Christianity and modern naturalism, clash. I always like my opponents better than those whose opinion is closer to mine. But what I like least of all are the mediating spirits: the theologians who defend Darwin and the teachers of nature who speak out in favor of Christianity. You have to blur what is characteristic of each of these views if you want to play such a mediating role. However, only honest and open progress towards the true consequences of an opinion that one has formed is healthy. Only its whole personalities have made Christianity great; only the whole personalities will also make the modern way of thinking the bearer of culture.