# 19. Prejudices from Alleged Science

It is certainly true that there is much in the intellectual life of the present day that makes it difficult for those who are seeking the truth to recognize the spiritual-scientific (theosophical) insights. And what has been said in the preceding article about the “Life Questions of the Theosophical Movement” may be taken as an indication of the reasons which exist in this direction, especially for the conscientious seeker after truth. Many a statement of the spiritual scientist must appear quite fantastic to him who examines it by the sure judgments which he believes he must form from what he has learned as the facts of natural scientific research. In addition, this research is able to point out the enormous blessing that it has brought and continues to bring to human progress. How overwhelming it is when a person who wants to build a world view solely on the results of this research is able to say the proud words: “For there is an abyss between these two extreme views of life: one for this world alone, the other for heaven. To this day, however, human science has nowhere found the traces of a paradise, of a life of the dead, or of a personal God. This inexorable science, which fathoms and dissects everything, which shrinks from no mystery, which explores the heavens behind the nebulous stars, which analyzes the infinitely small atoms of living cells and chemical bodies, which dissects the substance of the sun, which liquefies the air, which soon will be able to telegraph from one end of the earth and soon even wireless telegraphy from one end of the earth to the other, already sees through opaque bodies, introduces shipping under water and in the air, opens up new horizons for us with radium and other discoveries; this science, which, after proving the true relationship of all living beings among themselves and their gradual transformations of form, today draws the organ of the human soul, the brain, into the realm of its thorough research.” (Prof. August Forel, “Life and Death”, Munich 1908, page 5.) The certainty with which one believes to be able to build on such a foundation is revealed in the words that Forel adds to the above remarks : “Starting from a monistic view of life, *the only one that takes all scientific facts into account*, we leave the supernatural aside and turn to the book of nature.” Thus the serious seeker after truth finds himself confronted with two things that place strong obstacles in the way of any presentiment he may have of the truth of spiritual-scientific communications. If he has a feeling for such communications, or even if he senses their inner justification through a finer logic, he may be forced to suppress such impulses if he has to tell himself two things. Firstly, the authorities who know the cogency of certain facts find that all “supernatural” things are merely the product of fantasy and unscientific superstition. Secondly, I run the risk of becoming an impractical person, useless for life, through devotion to such supernatural things. For everything that is done for practical life must be firmly rooted in the “ground of reality.”

Not everyone who is placed in such a dilemma will easily work their way through to the realization of how the two things characterized really are. If they could, they would see the following, for example, with regard to the first point: the results of spiritual science are in no way in contradiction with the research of natural science. Wherever one looks at the relationship of the two *impartially*, something quite different emerges for our time. It turns out that this research into facts is heading towards a goal that will bring it into full harmony with what spiritual research must establish from its supersensible sources for certain areas in the not too distant future. From hundreds of cases that could be brought forward as evidence for this assertion, one characteristic case will be emphasized here.

In my lectures on the development of the earth and of mankind, I have pointed out that the ancestors of the present civilized peoples lived in a region of the earth which once extended over the surface of the earth in the place now occupied by a large part of the Atlantic Ocean. In this magazine, the articles “From the Akasha Chronicle” have referred more to the mental and spiritual characteristics of these Atlantean ancestors. In oral discourse, it has also often been described how the surface of the earth in the old Atlantean land looked. It was said: At that time, the air was saturated with water vapor. Man lived in the watery mist, which never cleared up to the point of complete air purity in certain areas. The sun and moon could not be seen as they are today, but were surrounded by colored halos. The distribution of rain and sunshine that we see today did not exist at that time. One can explore this ancient land clairvoyantly: the rainbow did not exist at that time. It did not appear until the post-Atlantean period. Our ancestors lived in a misty land. These facts have been obtained by purely supersensible observation; and it must even be said that the spiritual researcher does best when he carefully avoids all conclusions from his scientific knowledge, for such conclusions easily lead him astray from the unbiased inner sense of spiritual research. Now, however, compare with such statements certain views to which individual natural scientists feel impelled to adhere at the present time. There are today researchers who find themselves obliged by the facts to assume that the earth was embedded in a mass of clouds at a certain time in its development. They point out that even today the cloudy sky outweighs the unclouded sky, so that life is still largely under the influence of sunlight that is weakened by cloud formation, so that one cannot say that life could not have developed in the former cloud cover. They also point out that those organisms in the plant world that can be counted among the oldest were those that could develop even without direct sunlight. Thus, among the forms of this older plant world, those that need direct sunlight and anhydrous air, like desert plants, are missing. And as regards the animal world, a researcher (Hilgard) has pointed out that the giant eyes of extinct animals (for example, the ichthyosaur) indicate that there must have been a twilight-like illumination on the earth in their era. I do not consider such views to be in need of correction. They interest the spiritual researcher less for what they establish than for the direction in which the research of facts sees itself forced. Some time ago, the magazine “Kosmos”, which stands more or less on the Haeckelian point of view, published an essay that is worth considering, which pointed to the possibility of a former Atlantic mainland from certain facts of the plant and animal world.

If one were to compile a larger number of such things, it would be easy to show how true natural science moves in a direction that will lead it in the future into the stream that can already be irrigated from the sources of spiritual research. It cannot be emphasized strongly enough: spiritual research is in no way in contradiction with the facts of natural science. Where such a contradiction is seen by its opponents, it does not refer to the *facts* but to the *opinions* that these opponents have formed and which they *believe* necessarily follow from the facts. In reality, however, Forel's opinion, for example, has nothing whatsoever to do with the facts of nebular stars, with the nature of cells, with the liquefaction of air, etc. This *opinion* is nothing more than a *belief* that many have formed out of their need for belief in the real world of the senses, and which they place *next to* the facts. This belief has something very dazzling for the modern man. It leads to an inner intolerance of a very special kind. Those who adhere to it delude themselves into regarding their own opinion as the only “scientific” one, and the opinions of others as arising only from prejudice and superstition. It is really strange, for example, to read the following sentences in a recently published book on the phenomena of the life of the soul (Hermann Ebbinghaus, “Abriß der Psychologie”):

"The soul finds help against the impenetrable darkness of the future and the insurmountable power of hostile forces in *religion*. Under the pressure of uncertainty and in the face of great danger, people naturally think of analogies to the experiences they have otherwise had in cases of ignorance and inability, and how they could be helped here, just as one thinks of water to save in a fire or of a helping comrade in a fight.» “At the lowest levels of civilization, where people still feel very powerless and surrounded by sinister dangers at every turn, the feeling of fear and, accordingly, the belief in evil spirits and demons, understandably predominates. At higher levels, on the other hand, where a more mature understanding of the interrelationships of things and a greater power over them gives rise to a certain self-confidence and stronger hope, the feeling of trust in the invisible powers also comes to the fore, and with it the belief in good and benevolent spirits. But on the whole, both fear and love remain side by side, constantly characteristic of man's feelings towards his gods, only in different proportions according to circumstances.» “These are the roots of religion... Fear and need are its mothers; and although it is essentially propagated by authority, once it has come into being, it would have died out long ago if it were not constantly reborn from those two."

How everything is shifted and confused in these assertions; how the confused matter is illuminated from false points of view. How strongly, moreover, the person who makes the assertion is influenced by the belief that his opinion must be a generally binding truth. First of all, the content of religious ideas is confused with the content of religious feeling. The *content* of religious ideas is taken from the realm of the supersensible worlds. Religious feeling, for example, fear and love towards the supersensible beings, is made the creator of the content without further ado, and accepted without any hesitation that something real does not correspond to religious ideas. The possibility that there could be a genuine *experience* of supersensible worlds is not even remotely considered; and that the feelings of fear and love cling to the reality given by such an experience, just as, in the end, no one thinks of water as a means of salvation in a fire, or of a helping comrade in a battle, if he has not previously known water and a comrade. In such a view, spiritual science is declared to be a fantasy, because religious feeling is allowed to become the creator of beings that are simply regarded as non-existent. Such a way of thinking completely lacks the awareness that it is possible to experience the content of the supersensible world, just as it is possible for the outer senses to experience the ordinary world of the senses.

The peculiar thing about such views is that they often fall into the kind of conclusion for *their* faith that they present as offensive to their opponents. For example, the above-mentioned Forel text contains the sentence: “Do we not live in a hundred times truer, warmer and more interesting way in the I and in the soul of our descendants, than in the cold and misty mirage of a hypothetical heaven, with the equally hypothetical singing and trumpeting of supposed angels and archangels, whom we cannot imagine and who therefore mean nothing to us?» Yes, but what does it have to do with truth, what «one» finds «warmer», «more interesting»? If it is true that a spiritual life should not be derived from fear and hope, is it then right to deny this spiritual life because it is found to be “cold” and “uninteresting”? The spiritual researcher is in the following position with regard to such personalities who claim to stand on the “firm ground of scientific facts”. He says to them: I do not deny any of the facts you present from geology, paleontology, biology, physiology, etc. Of course, many of your assertions certainly need to be corrected by other facts. But such corrections will be made by natural science itself. Apart from that, I say “yes” to what you present. It does not occur to me to fight against the book when you present facts. But your facts are only part of reality. The other part is *spiritual* facts, which explain the course of the sensual ones. And these facts are not hypotheses, not something that “one” cannot imagine, but the *experience* of spiritual research. What you bring forward beyond the facts observed by you is, without you noticing it, nothing more than the opinion that such spiritual facts cannot exist. In truth, you bring forward nothing as proof of this assertion of yours, except that such spiritual facts are unknown to you. From this you conclude that they do not exist and that those who claim to know something about them are dreamers and visionaries. The spiritual researcher takes nothing, absolutely nothing, from your world; he only adds his own to it. But you are not satisfied with this procedure; you say, though not always clearly, that “one” may speak of nothing else but what we speak of; we demand not only that one should admit to us what we know, but we demand that one should declare as a vain phantasm everything of which we know nothing. There is no help for anyone who wants to get involved in such “logic”. He may understand *this* logic with the sentence: “In our human ancestors, our ego used to live directly and it will also live on in our direct or indirect descendants” (Forel, “Leben an und Tod”, page 21). But he should not add: “Science *proves* it, as it does in the cited writing. For science ‘proves’ nothing in this case, but rather the belief, which is tied to the world of the senses, sets up the dogma: What I cannot imagine must be considered a delusion; and whoever sins against my assertion is committing a crime against genuine science.”

Anyone who knows the human soul in its development will find it quite understandable that the spirits are initially blinded by the enormous progress of natural science and cannot find their way around the forms in which high truths have traditionally been handed down. Spiritual science returns such forms to humanity. For example, it shows how the days of creation in the Bible reflect things that reveal themselves to the clairvoyant eye. The spirit, bound to the world of the senses, finds only that these days of creation contradict the achievements of geology, etc. In recognizing the profound truths of these days of Creation, spiritual science is just as far removed from dismissing them as mere “mythical fabrications” as it is from applying any kind of allegorical or symbolic explanations. *How* it proceeds, however, is completely unknown to those who still fantasize about the contradiction of these days of Creation with science. Nor should it be believed that spiritual research draws its knowledge from the Bible. It has its own methods, finds the truths independently of all documents and then recognizes them in these. However, this path is necessary for many present-day seekers of truth. For they demand a spiritual research that has the same character as natural science. And only where the nature of such spiritual science is not recognized does one fall into perplexity when it comes to protecting the facts of the supersensible world from the dazzling effects of opinions apparently based on natural science. Such a state of mind was even foreseen by a man of warm soul, who, however, could not find any spiritual-scientific, supersensible content for his feelings. Almost eighty years ago, a man of this kind, Schleiermacher, wrote to Lücke, who was much younger than himself: “When you consider the present state of natural science, as it is increasingly developing into a comprehensive world knowledge, what does it bode for the future, I will not even say for our theology, but for our Protestant Christianity? I fear that we will have to learn to manage without many things that many people are still accustomed to thinking of as being inextricably linked to the essence of Christianity. I don't want to talk about the six-day work, but the *concept of creation* as it is usually construed... how long will it be able to hold out against the force of a world view formed from scientific combinations that no one can escape?... What is to become of it, my dear friend? I shall not live to see that time, but can calmly go to sleep; but you, my friend, and your contemporaries, what do you intend to do? » («Theolog. Studien und Kritiken», by Ullmann and Umbreit, 1829, page 489.) This statement is based on the opinion that the «scientific *combinations*» are a necessary result of the facts. If they were, then “nobody” could escape them; and anyone whose feelings draw him to the supersensible world can wish that he may be granted the privilege of “going to sleep peacefully” before the onslaught of science against the supersensible world. Schleiermacher's prediction has been fulfilled to the extent that “scientific combinations” have taken hold in wide circles. But at the same time, there is currently a possibility of getting to know the supersensible world in just as “scientific” a way as the sensory connections of facts. Those who familiarize themselves with spiritual science, as is already possible today, will be protected from many superstitions, but will be able to incorporate the supersensible facts into their understanding, and thereby, in addition to all other superstitions, also strip themselves of the belief that fear and need have created this supersensible world. Anyone who can bring themselves to adopt this view will no longer be inhibited by the idea that they could be alienated from reality and practice by engaging in spiritual science. He will then recognize how true spiritual science does not impoverish life, but enriches it. Through it, he will certainly not be led to underestimate telephony, railway technology and airship travel; but he will see many other practical things that are currently disregarded, where one only believes in the world of the senses and therefore only recognizes part of reality, not the whole of it.