§ 54. Is there a Place for Theology in the Organism of Science?
The raising of this question intends no coquetry whatever with much-boasted “science.” The theologian who, depressed by the small measure of respect cherished at present by public opinion for theological study, seeks favor with public opinion by loudly proclaiming that what he studies is science too, forfeits thereby his right to the honorable name of theologian. Suppose it were demonstrated that Theology is no science, but that, like the study of music, it is called to enrich our spiritual life, and the consciousness of that life, in an entirely different way, what would this detract from its importance? Does Mozart rank lower than Edison, because he did not work enchantments, like Edison, with the data of the exact sciences? The oft-repeated attempt to exclude Theology from the company of the sciences, and to coördinate it, as something mystical, rather with the world of sounds, was in itself entirely praiseworthy, and has commanded more respect from public opinion in general than the scholastic distinctions. If thus it should be shown that Theology has no place in the organism of science, it would not lower it in the least, even as, on the other hand, Theology would gain no merit whatever from the fact (if it be proved) that it has its rank among the sciences. In no case may Theology begin with renouncing its own self-respect. And those theologians who are evidently guilty of this, and who, being more or less ashamed of Theology, have tried, by borrowing the scientific brevet, to put it forth in new forms, have been punished for their cowardice. For the non-theological science has compelled them to cut out the heart of Theology, and to transform it into a department of study which shall fit into the framework of naturalistic science. Hence we definitely declare that our defence of the scientific character of Theology has nothing in common with this questionable effort. No Calvinist takes part in the renunciation of our character as theologians. And now to the point.
When treating of the historical development of the faculties it was shown that the general organism of science allows itself to be analyzed into its parts along plain and clearly discernible lines. Thinking man distinguishes in himself first between that which relates to his inner or psychical, and outward or somatical, existence. He distinguishes in the second place between his own personal existence and his social life with others, as far as this is not governed by the personal existence of the individuals. And in the third place he distinguishes between human life and the life of nature. This division comes of itself, is unsought, sees itself justified by the history of the faculties, and is in entire agreement with the needs of practical life. Now the question is whether, along with these four, there remains yet a fifth independent part or organ in the organism of science. And the answer lies at hand, that a final distinction still remains, even the distinction between man and his God. Thus in the complete object of science we have four antitheses and five independent parts: (1) God and his creation; (2) in that creation the rest of creation and man; (3) in man first the distinction between his material and spiritual existence, and, again, (4) the antithesis between unity and multiplicity. Or, if you please, five independent and yet organically connected objects present themselves to thinking man, viz.: (1) his God, (2) his psychical existence, (3) his somatical existence, (4) his existence as a member of humanity, and (5) nature outside of man. This division corresponds fully to the Theological faculty (object: God), the Philological (the human soul, ψυχή), the Medical (the human body, σῶμα), the Juridical (the legal relationships among men), and Natural Philosophy (the cosmos outside of man). And this analysis of the entire organism into five parts causes the organic relation among the parts, at least in the case of the four faculties already outlined, to be clearly discerned, as well in the object itself as in the reflection of it in the subject, and develops the subdivisions organically in each of the four parts.
Nothing is gained, on the other hand, by the notion that Theology has religious feeling, subjective religion, the phenomena of piety, etc., for its object, and that for this reason it is not to be taken as Theology, but as the Science of Religion. It is impossible in an organic sense to coördinate man’s psychical existence, man’s somatical existence, man as subdivision of humanity, and nature outside of man, and then, as a fifth wheel to the wagon, man’s religious feeling. For this religious feeling belongs to man’s psychic existence, and the study of it as such tends to investigate the object man. Hence the religious feeling cannot be an independent part in the object to be investigated, distinguished from the other coördinated parts by an essential difference. This religious feeling is very important, and it is certainly right to investigate this phenomenon in the life of man and of humanity; but this religious life is coördinate with his ethical, æsthetical, and intellectual life; and hence belongs to his psychical existence. In this way these studies come of themselves under the Philological faculty, and can never occasion the rise of a separate faculty of Theology.