---
ga: 34
title: "On Modern Scientific Beliefs"
words: 2806
---
# 56. On Modern Scientific Beliefs

For anyone who has followed the course of scientific development in recent decades, there can be no doubt that a mighty turnaround is taking place within it. Today, when a natural scientist speaks about the so-called riddles of existence, it sounds quite different than it did just a short time ago. It was around the middle of the nineteenth century when some of the boldest minds saw scientific materialism as the only possible creed for someone familiar with the more recent results of research. The rough saying that was made at the time has become famous: “Thoughts are to the brain as bile is to the liver.” *Karl Vogt* said it, who in his “Köhlerglauben und Wissenschaft” (The Belief of the Coal Burner and Science) and in other writings declared that everything had been overcome that did not allow the mental activity, the life of the soul, to emerge from the mechanism of the nervous system and the brain in the same way that a physicist explains that the hands of a clock move forward from the mechanism of the clock. It was the time when Ludwig Büchner's “Kraft und Stoff” (Power and Matter) had become a kind of gospel for large sections of the educated classes. It is fair to say that excellent, independent minds have come to such convictions due to the tremendous impact that the successes of natural science have had in recent times. Shortly before, the microscope had taught the composition of living things from their smallest parts, the cells. Geology, the study of the formation of the earth, had come to explain the development of our planet according to the same laws that are still at work today. Darwinism promised to explain the origin of man in a purely natural way and began its triumphal march through the educated world so auspiciously that for many, all “old beliefs” seemed to have been dispelled by it.

Recently, however, this has changed completely. There are still holdouts of these views who, like Ladenburg at the 1903 meeting of natural scientists, proclaim the materialistic gospel; but they are opposed by others who, through more mature reflection on scientific questions, have come to a completely different conclusion. A paper has just been published entitled “Natural Science and Worldview”. It was written by *Max Verworn*, a physiologist who was a student of Haeckel. In this writing, we read: “In fact, even if we had the most complete knowledge of the physiological events in the cells and fibers of the cerebral cortex, with which the psychic event is linked, even if we could look into the mechanics of the brain gear like into the gear of the wheels of a clockwork, we would still never find anything but moving atoms. No human being could see or otherwise perceive with the senses how sensations and ideas arise in this way. The results that the materialistic view has had in its attempt to reduce spiritual processes to atomic movements also vividly illustrate its limitations: as long as the materialistic view exists, it has not explained the simplest sensation in terms of atomic movements. That is how it was and how it will be in the future. How could it ever be conceivable that things that are not perceptible to the senses, such as psychic processes, could ever be explained by merely breaking down large bodies into their smallest parts! After all, the atom is still a body, and no movement of atoms is ever capable of bridging the gap between the physical world and the psyche. The materialistic view, however fruitful it has been as a scientific working hypothesis, however fruitful it will undoubtedly remain in this sense in the future – I need only refer to the successes of structural chemistry – is nevertheless unsuitable as a basis for a *world view*. Here it proves to be too narrow. *Philosophical* materialism has played out its historical role. This attempt at a scientific worldview has failed forever.” So speaks a naturalist at the beginning of the twentieth century about the worldview that was proclaimed around the middle of the nineteenth like a new gospel demanded by scientific progress.

In particular, it is the 1850s, 1860s and 1870s that may be described as the years of the materialist high tide. At that time, the explanation of mental and spiritual phenomena in purely mechanical terms had a truly fascinating influence. And the materialists were able to claim that they had won a victory over the adherents of the spiritual world view. Even those who had not started out from natural science studies joined their ranks. Büchner, Vogt, Moleschott and others had still relied on purely natural scientific presuppositions, but in 1872 David Friedrich Strauß, in his book 'Old and New Belief', tried to gain the supporting points for the new creed from his theological and philosophical knowledge. Decades before, he had already made a sensational impact on intellectual life with his Life of Jesus. He seemed to be equipped with the full theological and philosophical education of his time. He now boldly stated that the materialistic explanation of world phenomena, including man, must form the basis for a new gospel, for a new moral understanding and shaping of existence. The descent of man from purely animal ancestors seemed to want to become a new dogma, and in the eyes of the naturalistic philosophers, any adherence to a spiritual and soul origin of our race was regarded as a superstition from the childhood of mankind that had not been overcome and with which one no longer had to deal.

And to those who relied on modern natural science, the cultural historians came to the rescue. The customs and beliefs of wild tribes were studied. The remains of primitive cultures, dug out of the earth, like the bones of prehistoric animals and the imprints of extinct plant life: they were supposed to bear witness to the fact that man, when he first appeared on the globe, differed only in degree from the higher animals, but that in terms of spirit and soul he had developed from mere animality to his present height. A point had been reached when everything in this materialistic structure seemed to be in tune. And under a certain compulsion, which the ideas of the time exerted on them, people thought as a believing materialist writes. “The diligent study of science has led me to take everything calmly, to bear the inevitable patiently and, incidentally, to help ensure that humanity's misery is gradually reduced. I can do without the fantastic consolations that a believing mind seeks in wonderful formulas, all the more so because my imagination finds the most beautiful inspiration in literature and art. When I follow the course of a great drama or, at the hand of scholars, undertake a journey to other stars, a journey through pre-worldly landscapes, when I admire the sublimity of nature on mountain peaks or worship the art of man in tones and colors, do I not have enough of the uplifting? Do I still need something that contradicts my reason? The fear of death, which torments so many pious people, is completely alien to me. I know that when my body decays, I will live no more than I lived before I was born. The torments of purgatory and hell do not exist for me. I return to the boundless realm of nature, which lovingly embraces all children. My life was not in vain. I have used the strength I possessed well. I leave the earth in the firm belief that everything will become better and more beautiful!” (From Faith to Knowledge. An instructive developmental process, faithfully described by Kuno Freidank.) Today, many people think this way, who are still dominated by the obsessions that affected the representatives of the materialistic worldview during the period mentioned.

But those who tried to keep up with the latest scientific thinking have come to different conclusions. The first response from an outstanding natural scientist at the Natural Scientists' Assembly in Leipzig (1876) to natural scientific materialism has become famous. At the time, Du Bois-Reymond gave his “Ignorabimus Speech”. He tried to show that this natural scientific materialism is in fact capable of nothing more than determining the movements of the smallest particles of matter, and he demanded that it must be content with doing just that. But at the same time, he emphasized that not even the slightest thing has been achieved in explaining the processes of the mind and soul. One may have whatever opinion of these statements by Du Bois-Reymond, but one thing is clear: they represented a rejection of the materialistic explanation of the world. They showed how a natural scientist could go mad as a result of it.

The materialistic explanation of the world had thus entered the stage at which it modestly explained the life of the soul. It established its “not knowing” (agnosticism). Although it stated that it wanted to remain “scientific” and not resort to other sources of knowledge, it also did not want to ascend to a higher world view with its means. (In a comprehensive way, Raoul Francé, a naturalist, has shown in recent times the inadequacy of scientific results for a higher world view. This is an undertaking to which we would like to return another time.

And now the facts steadily increased that showed the impossibility of the undertaking to base an psychology on the study of material phenomena. Science was forced to study certain “abnormal” phenomena of the soul life, hypnotism, suggestion, somnambulism. It was shown that for the truly thinking person, a materialistic view is quite inadequate for these phenomena. The facts that were discovered were not new. Rather, they were phenomena that had been studied in ancient times and up to the beginning of the nineteenth century, but which had simply been set aside as inconvenient during the period of the materialist flood.

In addition, there was something else. It became more and more apparent on what a weak foundation the naturalists themselves had built their explanations of the origin of the 'animal forms and consequently also of man. For some time, the ideas of 'adaptation' and the 'struggle for existence' had a great attraction in explaining the origin of species! It was realized that one had been pursuing illusions with them. A school formed under Weismann's leadership that refused to accept that characteristics that a living being *had acquired* through adaptation to its environment could be inherited, and that a *reorganization* of living beings could thus occur. Therefore, everything was attributed to the “struggle for existence,” and there was talk of the “omnipotence of natural breeding.” In sharp contrast to this, based on indisputable facts, some declared that one had spoken of a “struggle for existence” in cases where it did not exist at all. They wanted to show that nothing could be explained by it. They spoke of a “powerlessness of natural breeding”. Furthermore, *de Vries* was able to show in recent years through experiments that there are *sudden* changes from one life form to another (mutation). This also shattered what Darwinians had regarded as a firm article of faith, namely that animal and plant forms only changed gradually. More and more, the ground simply disappeared underfoot, on which one had built for decades. In any case, thinking researchers had already believed that they would have to leave this ground sooner or later, such as the early deceased *W.F. Rolph*, who in his book “Biological Problems, also an Attempt to Develop a Rational Ethics” stated as early as 1884: “It is only through the introduction of this insatiability that the Darwinian principle of perfection in the struggle for life becomes acceptable. For only now do we have an explanation for the fact that the creature, wherever it can, acquires more than it needs to maintain its status quo: that it grows in excess where the opportunity presents itself. ... While for the Darwinist there is no struggle for existence wherever the creature's existence is not threatened, for me the struggle for existence is an ever-present one. It is primarily a struggle for life, a struggle for the increase of life, but not a struggle for existence."

It is only natural that in such a situation the discerning admit: the materialistic world of thought is not suitable for building a worldview. We cannot say anything about mental and spiritual phenomena on the basis of it. And there are already numerous natural scientists today who are trying to build a world structure on completely different ideas. We need only recall the work of the botanist *Reincke*: “The World as Deed”. It is certainly apparent that such naturalists have not been educated with impunity in purely materialistic ideas. What they put forward from their new idealistic point of view is poor, it may satisfy them for the time being, but not those who look deeper into the riddles of the world. Such natural scientists cannot bring themselves to approach methods that start from a genuine contemplation of the spirit and the soul. They have the greatest fear of “mysticism”, of “gnosis” or “theosophy”. This can be clearly seen, for example, from the writings of Verworn cited above. He says: “There is unrest in natural science. Things that seemed clear and transparent to everyone have become cloudy today. Long-proven symbols and ideas, which until recently everyone used and worked with without hesitation at every turn, have been shaken and are viewed with suspicion. Basic concepts, such as that of matter, appear shaken, and the firmest ground begins to sway under the steps of the natural scientist. Certain problems alone stand firm as rock, against which all attempts and efforts of natural science have so far failed. In the face of this realization, the disheartened throws himself resignedly into the arms of mysticism, which has always been the last resort where the tormented mind saw no way out. The level-headed person looks around for new symbols and tries to create new foundations on which he can continue to build.” It is clear that the nature-researching thinker of today, through his habits of imagination, is not in a position to conceive of ‘mysticism’ other than as something that includes the confusion and ambiguity of the intellect.

And what ideas about the life of the soul does such a thinker arrive at? We read at the end of the cited writing: “Prehistoric man had formed the idea of a separation of body and soul at the sight of death. The soul separated from the body and led an independent existence. It found no rest and came back as a ghost if it was not banished by sepulchral ceremonies. Fear and superstition frightened people. The remnants of these beliefs have survived to this day. The fear of death, that is, of what will come afterwards, is still widespread today. How different it all looks from the point of view of psychomonism! Since the psychic experiences of the individual only come about when certain lawful connections exist, they cease as soon as these connections are somehow disturbed, as they are incessantly disturbed during the day. With the physical changes at death, these connections cease altogether. Thus, no sensation and idea, no thought and no feeling of the *individual* can exist anymore. The *individual soul* is dead. Nevertheless, the sensations and thoughts and feelings live on. They live on beyond the perishable individual in other individuals, wherever the same complexes of conditions exist. They are passed on from individual to individual, from generation to generation, from nation to nation. They work and weave on the eternal loom of the soul. They work on the history of the human spirit. — Thus we all live on after death as links in the great, continuous chain of spiritual development.” But is this any different from the survival of the water wave in others that it has raised, while it itself passes away? Do you truly live on if you only continue to exist in your effects? Do you not have such a survival in common with all phenomena of physical nature? It is evident that the materialistic conception of the world must undermine its own foundations. It is not yet able to build new ones. Only a true understanding of mysticism, theosophy, gnosis will make this possible. At the natural scientists' conference at Lübeck several years ago, the chemist *Ostwald* spoke about “Overcoming Materialism” and founded a new natural philosophy journal for the purpose of achieving the goal he had suggested. Natural science is ripe to receive the fruits of a higher worldview. And all its resistance will be in vain; it will have to take account of the needs of the yearning human soul.