The Freedom of Science Part 24

Science is, and ever was, an influential factor operating upon the thought, aims, and actions of man. Hence science must remain conscious of its vocation. First of all it is to hold aloft and preserve the _spiritual possessions of mankind_. True, science must also progress; but progress means growth, which presupposes the preservation of what has been received from of old. This applies pre-eminently to the philosophical-religious patrimony of the past; no error could be more fatal than to presume that each generation must start from the beginning, that the foundations, which have safely supported human life for centuries, must be obsolete because human nature is suddenly considered changed.

What are these foundations? They are the tested religious and moral convictions of mankind, and, for our nations particularly, the divine tenets of Christianity, that have been their highest ideals for centuries, and have produced serenity and a high standard of morality. If science aims to be the principle of conservation and not of destruction, it must look upon the safeguarding of those possessions of the nations as its sacred task. Indeed, it would perform this task but poorly were it to waste this patrimony piece by piece, or to shatter it with wicked fist, instead of respecting and honouring it, or to set fire to the sanctuary where mankind hitherto has dwelled in peace and happiness. A science of this kind would not only cease to be a bulwark for the mental life of mankind, but turn into a positive danger.

In as far as it follows the principles of liberal freedom of research, present-day science does present this danger. This cannot be denied, the facts speak too plainly. By its very nature it _must_ become such danger.

For it recognizes no belief, neither in G.o.d nor in the Church; no dogmas, no "prejudices," no traditions, however sacred, are to be respected; it is fundamental unbelief, the principle of opposition to the Christian religion. Its autonomous Subject emanc.i.p.ates himself from the yoke of objective truth which he cannot procreate free out of himself. It confesses the principle that there are neither truths nor values that endure; _plus ultra!_ always new ideas! _Quieta movere_, hitherto the watchword of unwisdom, is this science's maxim. And liberal freedom of research is what its nature compels it to be. Can it do any more than it has done, to prove itself a principle of mental pauperism? We shall not demand a list of the things it has thrown aside and shattered. Let us rather ask, _what it has left whole_ of the sacred inst.i.tutions of truth, inherited from a Christian past. Alas, it has cast off and denied everything; it has lost not only the things a Christian age has treasured, but even those a higher paganism had revered. Let us examine this sad work of negation and annihilation. It is a more melancholy spectacle than any war of extermination that was ever waged against Europe's Christian civilization by a people bent on trampling down every flower of Christian culture, and on razing every castle to the ground.

Are We Still Christians?

This was the question proposed some scores of years ago by _D. Strauss_ to himself, and to those of his mind. With this question we will begin. To our forefathers, especially of the German nation, nothing was more sacred than the Christian religion; no people like the German has absorbed it so fully, has been so permeated with it. But now, wherever liberal science-here especially modern Protestant theology that brings liberal freedom of research into full application-wherever it has made the Christian religion a subject of its study, one treasure after another has been lost; of the whole of Christendom nothing remains but an empty name and a formal homage, reminding of the courtesy paid to deposed rulers.

In the first place, there has been dropped the fundamental thesis of the _divinity of Christ_, whereupon rests the entire structure of Christianity. Man's modern emanc.i.p.ation from everything supernatural has been accomplished also with respect to the person of Christ: the man Christ is divested of His divinity and of everything miraculous; His birth by the virgin, His miracles and prophecies, His resurrection and ascension, once the subjects of exalting feasts, have fallen a victim to unbelieving science. It is true, they exert themselves to keep His person in view, they want the purely human Jesus to hold His old position of G.o.d and man in the believing consciousness, to conceal the mental pauperization. But this trick is failing more and more. The Son of G.o.d sees Himself gradually placed among the great men of history; we are becoming accustomed to find in the "Biographies of Celebrated Men," among "Religious Educators," side by side with _Confucius_, _Buddha_, _Augustine_, _Mohammed_, _Luther_, _Kant_, and _Goethe_, also the name of Jesus. The l.u.s.tre of the past belief in His divinity is paling. In the eyes of unbelieving science He has ceased to be the infallible, all-surpa.s.sing Authority, and the basis of the faith. The teaching of Jesus has become the subject of an a.n.a.lyzing and eliminating criticism, and whenever deemed advisable His authority is simply ignored; He was human, affected by the views and errors of His age.

Thus they know, as does _H. Gunkel_, that "Jesus and the Apostles evidently have taken those narratives (the miracles of Genesis) to be reality and not poetry"; "the men of the New Testament on such questions take no particular att.i.tude but share the (erroneous) opinions of their times." They also know "that in regard to persons possessed with demons Jesus shared the erroneous notions of his time" (_Braun_), and _Fr. Delitzsch_ informs us that it was "particularly a Babylonian superst.i.tion," in consequence of which "the belief in demons and devils a.s.sumed such importance in the imagination of Jesus of Nazareth and of his Galilean disciples."

Thus the word is fulfilled literally: "He is a sign which will be contradicted."

No one knows really _who Jesus was_. His person is the football of opinions. "If any one desiring reliable information, as to who Jesus Christ was, and what message He brought, should consult the literature of the day, he would find buzzing round him contradictory voices.... Taken all in all, the impression made by these contradicting opinions is depressing: the confusion seems past hope," admits Prof. _Harnack_.

Also _E. V. Hartmann_ remarks: "Thus, according to some, Jesus was a poet, to others a mystic visionary, a third sees in him the militant hero for freedom and human dignity, to a fourth he was the organizer of a new Church and of an ecclesiastical system of ethics, to a fifth the rationalistic reformer ... to the eleventh a naturalistic pantheist like _Giordano Bruno_, to the twelfth a superman on the order of _Nietzsche's_ Zarathustra...." A chaos of opinions agreeing only in the one aim of rejecting His divinity.

_A. Schweitzer_, himself a representative of liberal Protestant research, says, "Nothing is more negative than the result of the research concerning the life of Jesus." And knowing Jesus's person no longer, they no longer know anything certain about His teaching, as is clear from the above. According to _I.

Wellhausen_, from the "unsufficient fragments at hand we can get but a scanty conception of the doctrine of Jesus."-The fathers were rich, the children have grown poor. _Dissipaverunt substantiam suam!_

To many even the _existence of Jesus_ has become doubtful; and this not only to men of an irreligious propaganda, like Prof. _A.

Drews_, who, carried away by the corroding tendency of a radical age, journeyed from town to town in order to proclaim, in the twentieth century of Christian reckoning, the scientific discovery of the "Myth of Christ"; but even to others the existence of Jesus has become doubtful or at least valueless. The task now is to do away entirely with the person of Jesus, and to solve the problem of preserving a Christian faith without a Christ. In this sense Prof. _M. Rade_ writes: "Serious and gifted men having a.s.serted that Jesus never existed (or, what amounts to the same, that, if He ever lived, nothing is known of Him; hence, His existence is of no historical importance), we dogmatists almost have to be grateful to them for having helped us to put a very concrete question no longer in general terms: how does religious certainty face historical criticism? but quite specifically: how does religious certainty (of the Christian) regard the historic-scientific possibility of the non-existence of the historical Jesus?" They frankly a.s.sert that they could entirely forego the person of Christ. Thus Prof. _P. W. Schmiedel_ declares: "My innermost religious conviction would not suffer injury were I to be convinced to-day that Jesus never lived.... I would know that I could not lose the measure of piety that has become my property long since, even if I cannot derive it any longer from Jesus." "Neither does my piety require me to see in Jesus an absolutely perfect type, nor would it disturb me were I to find someone else actually surpa.s.sing Him, which undoubtedly is the case in some respects." For him to whom Christ is no longer G.o.d but a man and capable of error, His person and existence have necessarily lost their value.

Thus we have arrived at a _Christianity without a Christ_. As yet the person of the Lord is usually surrounded by a halo: it is the after-effect of a faithful past, the last rays of a setting sun. That this last glimmer, too, will pale and give way to darkness is but a question of time, when with more honesty expression will be given to the conclusion necessarily arrived at. If Christ is not what He claimed to be, G.o.d and Messiah, then the belief in His being the Son of G.o.d and the Messiah, in His right to abrogate the religion of the Old Testament and to found a new religion, commanding its acceptance under penalty of d.a.m.nation-all this can be nothing but the result of religious fanaticism and mental derangement. And science is, in all seriousness, preparing to turn into this direction.

It is true, many are hesitating to draw these fearful conclusions and to utter them; arriving at this point, they cautiously stop: so _Harnack_. "How Jesus could arrive at the consciousness of His unique relation to G.o.d as His Son, how He became conscious of His power as well as of the obligation and task involved in this power, that is His secret, and no psychology will ever disclose it.... Here, all research must halt." It is the silence of embarra.s.sment, but equally of unscientific method. Having arrived at untenable conclusions, when question upon question is impetuously suggested, they stop suddenly and have nothing to say but a vague word about inscrutableness.

But there are those who actually speak the word so horrible to a Christian heart: Jesus was demented, a subject for pathology.

_Strauss_ indicated this cautiously: "One who expects to return after his death in a manner in which no human being had ever returned, he is to us ... not exactly a lunatic, but a great visionary." Others speak more plainly. _Holtzmann's_ answer to the question: Was Jesus an Ecstatic, is an emphatic: "Yes, He was."

_De Loosten_ considers him insane. _E. Rasmussen_ thinks Him an epileptic, but grants to physicians the right to reckon him among paranoiacs or lunatics. To _A. Julicher_ Jesus is a visionary, "a mystic, not satisfied to dream of his ideals, but who lived with them, worked with them, even saw them tangibly before his eyes, deceiving himself and others." Thus the supernatural has become madness; Jesus Christ, for whose divinity the martyrs went to their death, wears now, before the forum of a false science, Herod's cloak of foolishness.

With the fall of this fundamental dogma there must necessarily fall all other specific truths of Christianity, and they have fallen. The Holy Writ, once the work of the Holy Ghost, has now become a book like the Indian Vedda, to some perhaps even more unreliable; original sin, Redemption and grace, the Sacrifice of the Ma.s.s and the Sacraments, have been dropped or changed into symbols, of which every one may think what he pleases. They have tried to make Christianity "acceptable to our times,"

to "bring it nearer to the modern idea." There is really nothing left to offend modern man, nothing that could get in conflict with any idea. The essence of Christianity is depreciated and emptied until it has become only a vague sentiment, without thought; a few names, without ideas.

"Christianity as a Gospel," so teaches _Harnack_, "has but one aim: to find the living G.o.d, that every individual may find Him as his G.o.d, gaining strength and joy and peace. How it attains this aim through the centuries, whether with the Coefficient of the Jewish or the Greek, of flight from the world or of civilization, of Gnosticism or Agnosticism-this all is of secondary consideration." Of secondary consideration it is, then, whether one is convinced of the existence of G.o.d or whether he doubts with the agnostics, whether he believes in a personal G.o.d or not. To-day even the pantheist who does not acknowledge a Creator of Heaven and Earth may be a Christian; and so can he who no longer believes in personal immortality and in a hereafter; for, we are informed, "this religion is above the contrasts of here and the beyond, of life and death, of Reason and Ecstatics, of Judaism and h.e.l.lenism"

(_Harnack_). Thus there is no thought which could not be made to agree with this despoiled Christianity. For, we are told further, "much less does the Gospel presuppose, or is joined to, a fixed theory of nature-not even in a negative sense could this be a.s.serted" (_Harnack_). Materialism and Spiritualism, Theism and Pantheism, Belief or Negation of Creation, everything will harmonize with a Christianity thus degraded to a thing without character or principle.(15)

All that is left is a word of love, of a kind Father, of filiation to G.o.d, and union with G.o.d: words robbed of their true meaning; a sh.e.l.l without a kernel, ruins with the name "Christianity" still inscribed thereon, telling of a house that once stood here, wherein the fathers dwelt, but long since vacated by their children. _Dissipaverunt substantiam suam!_

As to G.o.d and divine filiation, everybody is welcome to his own interpretation. He may form with _O. Pfleiderer_ the "Neoprotestantism" which, "after breaking with all ecclesiastical dogmas, recalled to mind the truths of the Christian religion, hidden beneath the surface of these dogmas, in order to realize, more purely and more perfectly than ever before, the truth of G.o.d's incarnation in the new forms of autonomous thought and of the moral life of human society." Christianity and G.o.d-the symbols of autonomous man! Or he may follow _Bousset_, to whom nature is G.o.d, and in this way combines harmoniously Christianity and Atheism. "This is the forceful evolution of Christian religion,"

says he, "the notion of redemption, the Dogma of the divinity of Christ, the trinity, the idea of satisfaction and sacrifice, miracles, the old conception of revelation-all these we see carried off by this wave of progress." "What is left? Timid people may think: a wreck. But to our pleasant surprise we found stated at many points in our inquiry: what is left is the simple Gospel of Jesus." And what does this simplified Gospel contain? "Of course we cannot simply accept in full the Gospel of Jesus....

There is the internal and the external. The external and non-essential includes the judgment of the world, angels, miracles, inspiration, and other things." All this may be disregarded. "But even the essentials, the internal of the Gospel cannot be simply subscribed to. They must be interpreted." What, then, is this essential, this internal of the Gospel, and what is its interpretation? "The belief of the Gospel in the personal heavenly Father; to this we hold fast with all our strength. But we carry this belief in G.o.d into our modern thought." And what becomes then of "G.o.d"? "To us, G.o.d is no longer the kind Father above the starry skies. G.o.d is the Infinite, Omnipotent, who is active in the immense universe, in infiniteness of time and s.p.a.ce, in infinitely small and in infinitely large things. He is the G.o.d whose garb is the iron law of nature which hides Him from the human eye by a compact, impenetrable veil." We see the belief of the Gospel has dwindled down to atheistic Monism.

As early as 1874 _Ed. von Hartmann_, in his book "Die Selbstzersetzung des Christentums," came to the conclusion that "liberal Protestantism has in no sense the right to claim a place within Christendom." In a later book his keen examination demonstrates how the speculation of liberal Protestantism has changed the Christian religion step by step into pantheism: "Not a single point in the doctrine of the Church is spared by this upheaval of principle, every dogma is formally turned into its very opposite, in order to make its religious idea conform to the tenet of divine immanence."

This is called the development of Christianity. It is this "religious progress," the same "free Christianity," that they are now trying to promote by international congresses. The invitation to the "World's Congress for free Christianity and religious progress" at Berlin, in 1910, was signed by more than 130 German professors, including 47 theologians. We have here the development of the dying into the lifeless corpse, the progress of the strong castle into a dilapidated ruin, the advance of the rich man to beggary.

We began our inquiry with the question proposed some years ago by _D.

Strauss_ to his brethren-in-spirit: Are we still Christians? We may now quote the answer, which he gives at the conclusion of his own investigation: "Now, I think, we are through. And the result? the reply to my question?-must I state it explicitly? Very well; my conviction is, that if we do not want to make excuses, if we do not want to shift and shuffle and quibble, if yes is to be yes, and no to remain no, in short, if we desire to speak like honest, sincere men, we must confess: we are no longer Christians."

This is the bitter fruit of autonomous freedom of thinking, which, declining any guidance by faith, recognizes no other judge of truth than individual reason, with all the license and the hidden inclinations that rule it. Protestantism has adopted this freedom of research as its principle; in consistently applying it, Protestantism has completely denatured the Christian religion. If anything can prove irrefutably the monstrosity and cultural incapacity of modern freedom of research, it is the fate of Protestantism. Any one capable of seriously judging serious things must realize here how pernicious this freedom is for the human mind.

Reduced to Beggary.

But the loss is even greater. The better cla.s.s of paganism still clung to the general notion of an existing personal G.o.d, of a future life, of a reward after death; it was convinced of the existence of an immortal soul and a future reward, of the necessity of religion, of immutable standards for morals and thought. Has liberal science at least been able to preserve this essential property of a higher paganism? Alas, no! It has lost nearly everything.

No longer has it a personal G.o.d. While belief in G.o.d may still survive in the hearts of many representatives of this science, it has vanished from science itself. It begs to be excused from accepting any solution of questions, if G.o.d is a factor in the solution. The opinion prevails that _Kant_ has forever shattered all rational demonstrations of the existence of G.o.d. Yet _Kant_ permits this existence as a "postulate," which, according to _Strauss_, "may be regarded as the attic room, where G.o.d who has been retired from His office may be decently sheltered and employed."

But now He has been given notice to quit even this refuge. There must be nothing left of Him but His venerable name, which is appropriated by the new apostasy in the guise of pantheism or a masked materialism. Monism is the joint name for it: this is the modern "belief in G.o.d." In days gone by it was frankly called "atheism."

This disappearance of the old belief in G.o.d is noted with satisfaction by modern science: "It is true," says _Paulsen_, "the belief in G.o.ds ... is dying out, and will never be resurrected.

Nor is there an essential difference whether many or only one of these beings are a.s.sumed. A monotheism which looks upon G.o.d as an individual being and lets him occasionally interfere in the world as in something separate from and foreign to him, such a monotheism is essentially not different from polytheism. If one should insist on such conception of theism, then, of course, it will be difficult to contradict those who maintain that science must lead to atheism."

Therefore G.o.d, as a personal being, is dead, and will never come to life again. While there is an enormous exaggeration in these words, they nevertheless glaringly characterize the ideas of the science of which _Paulsen_ is the mouthpiece. It does not want directly to give up the name of G.o.d; it serves as a mask to conceal the uncanny features of pantheism and materialism.

"The universe," we hear often and in many variations, "is the expression of a uniform, original principle, which may be termed G.o.d, Nature, primitive force, or anything else, and which appears to man in manifold forms of energy, like matter, light, warmth, electricity, chemical energy, or psychical process.... These fundamental ideas of monism are by no means 'atheistic.' Many monists in spite of a.s.sertions to the contrary believe in a supreme divine principle, which penetrates the whole world, living and operating in everything. Of course, if G.o.d is taken to mean a being who exists outside of the world ... then it is true we are atheists" (_Plate_). We have already seen that one can even be a Protestant theologian and yet be satisfied with a "G.o.d" of this description.

In the place of G.o.d has stepped _man_, with his advanced civilization, radiant in the divine aureole of the absolute as its highest incarnation.

But what has liberal research done even to him? According to the Christian idea, man bears the stamp of G.o.d on his forehead: "after My image I have created thee"; in his breast he carries a spiritual soul, endowed with freedom and immortality-_gloria et honore coronasti eum_. Liberal science pretends to uplift and exalt man; but in reality it strips him of his adornments, one after the other. He is no longer a creature of G.o.d because this would contradict science. His birthplace and the home of his childhood are no longer in Paradise, but in the jungles of Africa, among the animals, whose descendent man is now said to be. Liberal science, almost without exception, denies the freedom of will which raises man high above the beast, and as a rule it calls such freedom an "illusion": of a substantial soul, of immortality, of an ultimate possession of G.o.d after death, it frequently, if not always, knows nothing.

Let us take up a handbook of modern _Psychology_ of this kind, Wundt's, for instance. We see at a glance that it is a very learned work. The thirty lectures inform us in minute investigations of the various methods and resources of psychological research. The reader has reached the twentieth lecture, and he asks, how about the soul? The t.i.tle of the book states that the chapters would treat of the human soul, but so far not a word has been said about it. But there are ten lectures more; he continues to turn over the leaves of the book. He finds beautiful things said about expression and emotions, about instincts in animal and man, about spontaneous actions and other things. At last, the third before the last page of the book, there arises the question, what about the soul, and what does the reader learn? "Our soul is nothing else, but the sum total of our perception, our feeling and our will." The conviction he held hitherto, that he possessed a substantial, immortal soul, which remains through changing conceptions and sentiments, he sees rejected as "fiction." The reader learns that, though he may still use the term "soul," he has no real soul, much less a spiritual soul, least of all an immortal soul. In its stead he is treated to some learned statements about muscular sensations and such things, by way of compensation. _Jodl_, too, speaks of the "illusions, based upon the old theories about the soul," and he rejects the dualistic psychology which "mistook an abstract thought, the soul, for a real being, for an immaterial substance"; and which defended this notion "with worthless reasons."

It is manifest that, together with the substantial soul, immortality is also disposed of. True, here too the word is cautiously retained; but by immortality is now understood perpetuation in the human race, in the ideas of posterity, in "objective spirit," in the "imperishable value of ethical possessions," for which the individual has laboured. Some fine words are said about it, as roses are used to cover a grave. Yet, it is only the immortality of the barrel of Regulus, or the Gordian knot in history, the immortality of which the printers'

press may partake in the effect of the books it prints. To quote _Jodl_ again: "The fact of the objective spirit, together with the organic connection of the generations to one another, form the scientific reality of what appears in popular, mythological tenets of faith as the idea of personal immortality ... and which has been defended by the dualistic psychology with worthless, invalid arguments." The refutation of these arguments does not bother him.

"A refutation of these scholastic arguments is as little needed as a refutation of the belief in the miracles and demons of former centuries is needed by a man standing on the ground of modern natural science." This reminds one of _Haeckel's_ method. The latter nevertheless found it worth while in his "Weltraetsel" to dispose in thirteen lines of six such arguments, and then to a.s.sure the reader that "All these and similar arguments have fallen to the ground." That the matter in question is an idea that has been the foundation of Christian civilization and ethics for thousands of years, that has led millions to holiness; an idea, indeed, that has been the common property of all nations at all times-this seems to count for very little.

This technique of a superficial speculation, which, devoid of piety, casts everything overboard, finds no trouble in disposing of the entire _spiritual world_. "No one is capable," says _Jodl_ again, "of imagining a purely spiritual reality." This is disposed of. "Since the war between the Aristotle-scholastic and the mechanical method has been waged, spiritual powers have never played any other part in the explanation of the world than that of an unknown quant.i.ty in equations of a higher degree, which, unsolvable by methods. .h.i.therto prevalent, are only awaiting the superior master and a new technique (_sic_) in order to disappear"

(p. 77 _seq._).