§ 43. Science and Sin
The subjective character which is inseparable from all spiritual science, in itself would have nothing objectionable in it, if it had not been given a most dangerous exponent by sin. If there were no sin, nor any of its results, the subjectivity of A would merely be a variation of the subjectivity in B. In virtue of the organic affinity between the two, their subjectivity would not be mutually antagonistic, and the sense of one would harmoniously support and confirm the sense of the other. In the days of the Reformation, the impulse that impelled so many thousands to reform was preponderantly subjective. But the fact that in all these subjects a common conviction aimed at a common end, accounts for the irresistible force that was born from the coöperation of these many subjectivities. But, alas, such is not the case in the domain of science. It is all too often evident, that in this domain the natural harmony of subjective expression is hopelessly broken; and for the feeding of scepticism this want of harmony has no equal. By an investigation of self and of the cosmos you have obtained a well-founded scientific conviction, but when you state it, it meets with no response from those who, in their way, have investigated with equally painstaking efforts; and not only is the unity of science broken, but you are shaken in the assurance of your conviction. For when you spoke your conviction, you did not mean simply to give expression to the insight of your own ego, but to the universal human insight; which, indeed, it ought to be, if it were wholly accurate.
But of necessity we must accept this hard reality, and in every theory of knowledge which is not to deceive itself, the fact of sin must henceforth claim a more serious consideration. Naturally the terrible phenomenon of sin in its entirety can have no place in these introductory sections. This belongs in Theology to the section on sin (locus de peccato). But it is in place here to state definitely that sin works its fatal effects also in the domain of our science, and is by no means restricted to what is thelematic (i.e. to the sphere of volition). What the Holy Scripture calls, in Eph. iv. 17, 18, the “vanity of the mind,” the “having the understanding darkened, because of the ignorance that is in them,” even precedes the being “alienated from the life of God because of the hardening of their heart.” Even without entering too deeply into the theological construction of this phenomenon, it may fearlessly be stated, (1) that falsehood in every sense and form is now in the world. And since more than one spiritual science hangs almost exclusively upon personal communications, and since in consequence of “falsehood” all absolute warrant for the trustworthiness of these data be wanting, it is sufficiently evident how greatly the certainty of these sciences suffers loss in consequence of sin. This will be more fully shown in our study of the conception of “truth.” For the present this single suggestion must suffice. (2) Alongside of this actual falsehood we have the unintentional mistake, in observation and in memory, as well as in the processes of thought. These mistakes may be reduced by manifold verifications to a minimum in the material sciences, but can never be absolutely avoided, while in the spiritual sciences they practise such usury that escape from their influence is impossible. (3) Self-delusion and self-deception are no less important factors in this process, which renders nothing so rare as a scientific self-knowledge, a knowledge of your own person and character in more than a hypothetical form. Since almost all deeper studies of the spiritual sciences start out from the subjective image which we reflect of ourselves in our own consciousness, it needs no further proof how injuriously with the students of these sciences this self-delusion and self-deception must affect their studies and the final results. (4) A fourth evil resides in our imagination. In a normal condition the self-consciousness would be able at once accurately to indicate the boundary line between what enters into our consciousness from the real world without, and what is wrought in our consciousness by our imagination. But this boundary line is not only uncertain because of sin, but in strongly impassioned natures it is sometimes absolutely undiscoverable, so that phantasy and reality frequently pass into one another. The difficulty does not consist merely in the uncertainty or in the destruction of this boundary line; the imagination itself is in an abnormal condition. In one it works too weakly, in another it is over-excited. When it is over-excited, it retains its imperfect images, subjects our minds to the dominion of these images, falsifies thereby our self-consciousness, so that the deliverance of our inner selves is lost in this imagery. This imaginary world will then assert its dominion over us, and weaken the susceptibility in us for knowledge of ourselves and of the cosmos. (5) Equally injurious are the influences which this abnormal element in the condition of other minds exerts upon us, since this evil, which by itself is already enough of a hindrance, is thereby given a coefficient. Not only are we subject to these influences from infancy, but our education frequently tends intentionally to give them domination over us. Language also adds its contribution. All kinds of untruths have entered into our every-day speech, and the names and words we use unconsciously mould our self-consciousness. The proverbs and common sayings (Schlagwörter) which from our youth up we have adopted as a sort of axioms affect us no less strongly. “Truth defends itself” is what the ancients said, and theologians of the ethical color take up the refrain, but do not perceive that by this very thing our outlook upon history is blurred and our sense of duty weakened. Even in theological interests such an adage is bound to effect its fallacious influence, in causing the transcendence of God to be lost to our sense in a mere pantheistic consideration. Add to this the several ideas and current expressions approved by the spirit of the times and inculcated in us, in the face of the fact that they are fallacious, and it becomes clear that our mind, which of itself lies ensnared in all manner of deceptions, is threatened to be entirely misled. (6) The effects worked by sin through the body claim here an equal consideration. In consequence of sin there is really no one in a normal bodily condition. All sorts of wrong and sickly commotions bestir themselves in our body and work their effect in our spiritual dispositions. They make one to tend strongly to the material, and another too strongly to the acosmic. They will make A a pessimist, and B a light-hearted optimist. They also modify the judgment upon history, for instance, according to the influences which we see at work upon persons. (7) Stronger still, perhaps, is the influence of the sin-disorganized relationships of life,—an influence which makes itself especially felt with the pedagogic and the social sciences. He who has had his bringing-up in the midst of want and neglect will entertain entirely different views of jural relationships and social regulations from him who from his youth has been bathed in prosperity. Thus, also, your view of civil right would be altogether different, if you had grown up under a despotism, than if you had spent the years of early manhood under the excesses of anarchism. To which (8) this is yet to be added, that the different parts of the content of our consciousness affect each other, and no one exists atomistically in his consciousness. This entails the result that the inaccuracies and false representations which you have gleaned from one realm of life, affect injuriously again the similarly mixed ideas which you have made your own from another domain. And so this evil indefinitely multiplies. Especially the leading thought which we have formed in that realm of life that holds our chiefest interests, exercises a mighty dominion upon the whole content of our consciousness, viz. our religious or political views,—what used to be called one’s life- and world-view, by which the fundamental lines lie marked out in our consciousness. If, then, we make a mistake, or a single inaccurate move, how can it fail but communicate itself disastrously to our entire scientific study?