Abraham Kuyper.

Encyclopedia of sacred theology : its principles ... online

. (page 16 of 64)
Online LibraryAbraham KuyperEncyclopedia of sacred theology : its principles ... → online text (page 16 of 64)
Font size
QR-code for this ebook

to accept it. These two streams of science, therefore, which
run in separate river-beds, do not in the least destroy the
principle of the unity of science. This cannot be done ; it
is absolutely inconceivable. We only affirm that formally
both groups perform scientific labor, and that they recognize
each other's scientific character, in the same way in which
two armies facing each other are mutually able to appreciate
military honor and military worth. But when they have
arrived at their result they cannot conceal the fact that in
many respects these results are contrary to each other, and
are entirely different ; and as far as this is the case, each
group naturally contradicts whatever the other group asserts.

Chap. Ill] § 49. TWO KINDS OF SCIENCE 157

This would have revealed itself clearly and at once, at least
in Christian lands, if from the beginning the development of
each group had proceeded entirely within well-defined boun-
daries. But this was not the case, neither could it be. First,
because there is a very broad realm of investigation in which
the difference between the two groups exerts no influence.
For in the present disjDensation palingenesis works no change
in the senses, nor in the plastic conception of visible things.
The entire domain of the more primary observation, which
limits itself to weights, measures and numbers, is common
to both. The entire empiric investigation of the things that
are perceptible to our senses (simple or reinforced) has noth-
ing to do with the radical difference which separates the two
groups. By this we do not mean, that the natural sciences as
such and in their entirety, fall outside of this difference, but
only that in these sciences the difference which separates the
two groups exerts no influence on the beginnings of the inves-
tigation. Whether a thing weighs two milligrams or three,
can be absolutely ascertained by every one that can weigh.
If it be mistakenly supposed that the natural sciences are
entirely exhausted in this first and lowest part of their inves-
tigation, the entirely unjust conclusion may be reached, that
these sciences, as such, fall outside of the difference. But in-
accurate as this would be, it would be equally unfair, for the
sake of accentuating the difference, to deny the absolute char-
acter of perception by the senses. Any one who in the realm
of visible things has observed and formulated something with
entire accuracy, whatever it be, has rendered service to both
groups. To the validity of these formulas, which makes
them binding upon all and for all time, the natural sciences
owe their reputation of certainty, and, since we are deeply
interested practically in the dominion over matter, also their
.honor and overestimation. For the more accurate state-
ment of our idea we cannot fail to remark that, however
rich these formulas and the dominion over nature which they
place at our disposal may be in their practical results, they
stand, nevertheless, entirely at the foot of the ladder of sci-
entific investigation, and are so little scientific in their char-


acter, that formally they are to be equated with the knowledge
of the farmer, who has learned how land must be tilled, and
how cattle may be bred to advantage. Observation in the
laboratory is certainly much finer, and the labor of thought
much more exhaustive, and the skill of invention much more
worthy of admiration, but this is a distinction in degree ; the
empiric knowledge of the farmer and the empiric knowledge
of our naturalist in principle are one. If, however, it is
important to reduce to its just equality the significance of
that which, in the results of naturalistic studies, is absolutely
certain, it should be gratefully acknowledged that in the
elementary parts of these studies there is a coinmon realm,
in which the difference between view- and starting-point
does not enforce itself.

Not only in the natural, but in the spiritual sciences
also, a common realm presents itself. The mixed psychic-
somatic nature of man accounts for this. Consequently,
the object of the spiritual sciences inclines also, to a cer-
tain extent, to express itself in the somatic. Only think
of the logos^ which, being psychic in nature, creates a hody
for itself in language. Hence in the spiritual sciences the
investigation is partly comprised of the statement of out-
wardly observable facts. Such is the case in History., the
skeleton of which, if we may so express it, consists entirely
of events and facts, the accurate narration of which must
rest upon the investigation of all sorts of palpable docu-
ments. It is the same with the study of Language, whose
first task it is to determine sounds, words and forms in their
constituent parts and historic development, from all manner
of information and observation obtained by eye and ear.
This is the case with nearly every spiritual science, in part
even with psychology itself, which has its physiological
side. To a certain extent, all these investigations are in
line with the lower natural sciences. To examine archives,
to unearth monuments, to decipher what at first seemed un-
intelligible and translate it into your own language ; to catch
forms of language from the mouth of a people and to trace
those forms in their development ; and in like manner to

Chap. Ill] § 49. TWO KINDS OF SCIENCE 159

espy the relation among certain actions of our senses and
the psychic reactions which follow, etc., are altogether activ-
ities which in a sense bear an objectiA^e character, and are
but little dominated by the influence of what is individual
in the investigating subject. This should not be granted too
absolutely, and the determination whether an objective docu-
ment is genuine or not, or whether the contents of it must be
translated thus or so, is in many cases not susceptible to
such an absolute decision. But provided the study of the
objective side of the spiritual sciences does not behave itself
unseemly and contents itself within its boundaries, it claims
our joyful recognition, that here also a broad realm of study
opens itself, the results of which are benefits to both groups
of thinkers, and thus also to the two kinds of science.

This must be emphasized, because it is in the interest of
science at large, that mutual benefit be derived by both cir-
cles from what is contributed to the general stock of sci-
ence. What has been well done by one need not be done
again by you. It is at the same time important that, though
not hesitating to part company as soon as principle demands
it, the two kinds of science shall be as long as possible con-
scious of the fact that, formally at least, both are at work at
a common task. It is with reference to this that to the twi
already mentioned common realms a third one should bj
added, which is no less important. The formal process of
thought has not been attacked by sin, and for this reason
palingenesis works no change in this mental task.

There is but one logic, and not two. If this simply im-
plied, that logic properly so called as a subdivision of the
philosophical or psychological sciences, does not need to be
studied in a twofold way, the benefit would be small ; the
more because this is true to a certain extent only, and be-
cause all manner of differences and antitheses present them-
selves at once in the methodological investigation. But the
influence of the fact aforementioned extends much farther,
and contributes in two ways important service in main-


tainiiig a certain mutual contact between the two kinds of
science. In the first place, from this fact it follows that the
accuracy of one another's demonstrations can be critically ex-
amined and verified, in so far at least as the result strictly
depends upon the deduction made. By keeping a sharp
watch upon each other, mutual service is rendered in the
discovery of logical faults in each other's demonstrations, and
thus in a formal way each will continually watch over the
other. And, on the other hand, they may compel each other
to justify their points of view over against one another.

Let not this last be misunderstood. If, as we remarked,
palingenesis occasions one group of men to exist differently
from the other, every effort to understand each other will
be futile in those points of the investigation in which this
difference comes into play; and it will be impossible to settle
the difference of insight. No polemics between these two
kinds of science, on details which do not concern the state-
ment of an objectively observable fact, or the somatic side of
the psychical sciences, or, finally, a logical fault in argumenta-
tion, can ever serve any purpose. This is the reason why, as
soon as it has allowed itself to be inveigled into details, and
lias undertaken to deal with things that are not palpable phe-
nomena or logical mistakes. Apologetics has always failed to
reach results, and has weakened rather than strengthened the
reasoner. But just because, so soon as the lines have diverged
but a little the divergency cannot be bridged over, it is so
much the more important that sharp and constant attention
be fixed upon the junction where the two lines begin to di-
verge. For though it is well known beforehand that even at
this point of intersection no agreement can be reached ; for
then no divergence would follow; yet at this point of intersec-
tion it can be explained to each other what it is that compels
us, from this point of intersection, to draw our line as we do.
If we neglect to do this, pride and self-conceit will come into
play, and our only concession to our scientific opponent will
be the mockery of a laugh. Because he does not walk in our
footsteps we dispute not only the accuracy of his results,
but also formally deny the scientific character of his work.

Chap. Ill] § 49. TWO KINDS OF SCIENCE 161

And this is not right. Every tendency that wants to main-
tain itself as a scientific tendency, must at least give an
account of the reason why, from this point of intersection, it
moves in one and not in the other direction.

And though nothing be accomplished by this, beyond the
confession of the reason why one refuses to follow the ten-
dency of the other, even this is an infinite gain. On the one
hand it prevents the self-sufficiency which avoids all inves-
tigation into the deepest grounds, and lives by the theory
that "the Will stands in place of reason." Thus we feel
ourselves bound, not only to continue our studies formally
in a severely scientific way, but also to give ourselves an
increasingly clear account of the good and virtuous right
by which we maintain the position originally taken, and
by which we formally labor as we do. And since among
congenial spirits one is so ready to accept, as already
well defined, what is still wanting in the construction,
the two tendencies render this mutual service ; viz. that
they necessitate the continuance of the investigation into
the very soil in which the foundation lies. But, on the
otlier hand also, this j)ractice of giving each other an account
at the point of intersection effects this very great gain, that
as scientists we do not simply walk independently side by
side, but that we remain together in logical fellowship, and
together pay our homage to the claim of science as such.
This prevents the useless plying of polemics touching points
of detail, which so readily gives rise to bitterness of feel-
ing, and concentrates the heat of battle against those issues
of our consciousness which determine the entire process of
the life of science. However plainly and candidly we may
speak thus of a twofold science, and however much we may
be persuaded that the scientific investigation can be brought
to a close in no single department by all scientists together,
yea, cannot be confmued in concert, as soon as palingenesis
makes a division between the investigators ; we are equally
emphatic in our confession, which we do not make in spite
of ourselves, but with gladness, that in almost every depart-
ment there is some task that is common to all, and, what is


almost of greater importance still, a clear account can be
given of both starting-points.

If this explains why these two kinds of science have re-
mained for the most part interlaced, there is still another
and no less important cause, which has prevented their
clearer separation. It is the slow process which must
ensue before any activity can develop itself from what po-
tentially is given in palingenesis. If palingenesis operated
immediately from the centrum of our inner life to the outer-
most circumference of our being and consciousness, the antith-
esis between the science which lives by it and that which de-
nies it, would be at once absolute in every subject. But such
is not the case. The illustration of the grafting is still in
point. The cultivated shoot which is grafted into the wild
tree is at first ver}^ small and weak ; the wild tree, on the
other hand, after being grafted, will persist in putting forth
its branches ; and it is only by the careful pruning away of
wild shoots that the vitality from the roots is compelled to
withdraw its service from the wild trunk and transfer it to
the cultivated shoot. Later on this progress is secured, till
at length the cultivated shoot obtains the entire upper hand
and the Avild tree scarcely puts out another branch ; but this
takes sometimes seven or more years. You observe a similar
phenomenon in palingenesis, even to such an extent that if
the development begun upon earth were not destined to reach
completion in a higher life, the sufficient reason of the entire
fact could scarcely be conceived, especially not in those cases
where this palingenesis does not come until later life. But
even when in the strength of youth palingenesis leads to re-
pentance (transformation of the consciousness), and to con-
version (change in life-expression), the growth of the wild
tree is by no means yet cut off, neither is the shoot of the cul-
tivated branch at once completed.

This is never claimed in the circles that make profes-
sion of this palingenesis. It has been questioned among
themselves whether the entire triumph of the new element is

Chap. Ill] §49. TWO KINDS OF SCIENCE 163

possible on this side of the grave (Perfectionists), but that
in any case a period of transition and conflict must precede
this completeness has been the experience and common confes-
sion of all. If we call to mind the facts that those people who
as a sect proclaim this Perfectionism, are theologically almost
without any development, and soon prove that they reach
their singular conclusions by a legal Pelagian interpretation
of sin and a mystical interpretation of virtue, while the
theologians in the church of Rome who defend this position
consider such an early completion a very rare exception, it
follows, that as far as it concerns our subject this Perfec-
tionism claims no consideration. These sectarian zealots
have nothing to do with science, and those who have been
canonized are too few in number to exert an influence upon
the progress of scientific development. Actually, therefore,
we here deal with a process of palingenesis which operates
continually, but which does not lead to an immediate cessa-
tion of the preceding development, nor to a sufficiently
powerful unfolding at once of the new development ; and
as a necessary result the scientific account, given in the
consciousness, cannot at once effect a radical and a clearly
conscious separation.

Several causes, moreover, have assisted the long con-
tinuance of this intimate relation. First the fundamental
conceptions, which have been the starting-points of the two
groups of scientists, were for many centuries governed alto-
gether by Special Revelation. Not only those who shared the
palingenesis, but also those who remained without it, for a
long time started out from the existence of God, the creation
of the world, the creation of man as sui geiieris, the fall, etc.
A few might have expressed some doubt concerning one
thing and another ; a very few might have ventured to deny
them ; but for many centuries the common consciousness
rested in these fixed conceptions.

Properly, then, one cannot say that any reaction took
place before the Humanists ; and the forming of a common


opinion npon the basis of Pantheism and Naturalism has
really only begun since the last century. Since, now, those
who lived by palingenesis found these old representations
to conform entirely to their own consciousness, it is nat-
iiral that they were not on the alert to build a scientific
house of their own, as long as general science also lived by
premises which properly belonged to palingenesis. Now,
however, all this has entirely changed. They who stand
outside the palingenesis have perceived, with increasing
clearness, that these primordial conceptions as premises
belonged not to them but to their opponents, and in a com-
paratively short time they have placed an entirely different
range of premises over against them. Creation has made
room for Evolution, and with surprising rapidity vast multi-
tudes have made this transition from creation to evolution,
because, in fact, they never have believed in creation, or
because they had, at least, never assimilated the world of
thoughts which this word Creation embraced. As natural
as it has been, therefore, that in the domain of science
both circles have been one thus far, it is equally natural
that the unity of this company should now be irreparably
Ijroken. He who in building upon the foundation of crea-
tion thinks that he builds the same wall as another who
starts from evolution, reminds one of Sisyphus. No sooner
has the stone been carried up than relentlessly it rolls back

A second cause in point, lies in the fact that palingenesis
does not primarily impel to scientific labor. It stands too
high for this, and is of too noble an origin. Let us be sober,
and awake from the intoxication of those who have become
drunk on the wine of science. If you except a small aris-
tocracy, the impulse to the greater part of scientific study
lies in the ambition to dominate the material and visible
world; to satisfy a certain intellectual tendency of the mind ;
to secure a position in life ; to make a name and to harvest
honors ; and to look down with a sense of superiority upon
those who are less broadly developed. Mention only tlie
name of Jesus Cln-ist, and you perceive at once how this

Chap. Ill] § 49. TWO KINDS OF SCIENCE 165

entire scieiitilic interest must relinquish its claim to occupy
the first place in our estimate of life. Jesus never wrote
a Summa like Thomas Aquinas, nor a Kritik der reinen
Vernunft like Kant, but even in the circles of the naturalists
his holy name sounds high above the names of all these
coryphiei of science.

There is thus something else to make a man great, and
this lies outside of science in its concrete and technical sense.
There is a human development and expression of life which
does not operate within the domain of science, but which,
nevertheless, stands much higher. There is an adoration
and a self-abasement before God, a love and a self-denial be-
fore our fellow-men, a growth in what is pure and heroic and
formative of character, which far excels all beauty of science.
Bound as it is to the consciousness-forms of our present
existence, it is highly improbable that science will be of
profit to us in our eternal existence ; but this we know,
that as certainly as there is a spark of holy love aglow in
our hearts, this spark cannot be extinguished, and the
breath of eternity alone can kindle it into the brightest
flame. And experience teaches that the new life which
springs from palingenesis, is much more inclined to move in
this nobler direction than to thirst after science. This ma}'
become a defect, and has often degenerated into such, and
thus has resulted in a dislike or disdain for science. The
history of Mysticism has its tales to relate, and Methodism
comes in for its share. But as long as there is no disdain of
science, but merely a choice of the nobler interest, it is but
natural that the life of palingenesis should prefer to seek
its greatness in that which exalts so highly the name
of Jesus, and feels itself less attracted to the things which
brought Kant and Darwin their world-wide fame. Add to
this fact that for most people the life of science depends
upon the possibility of obtaining a professorship or a lecture-
ship, and that in Europe they who have these positions to
dispose of are, as a rule, inclined to exclude the sons of
palingenesis from such appointments, and you see at once
how relatively small the number among them must have


been who were able to devote themselves, with all the energy
of their lives, to the study of the sciences. And thus their
strength was too small and their numbers too few to assume a
position of their own, and to prosecute science independently
from their own point of view.

One more remark Avill bring to a close the explanation of
this phenomenon. One may have a scientific mind, and be
able to make important contributions to the scientific result,
and yet not choose the most fundamental principles of life as
the subject of his study. There is a broad field of detail-
study in which laurels can be won, without penetrating to
the deep antitheses of the two world-views whose position
over against each other becomes ever more and more clearly
defined. In this class of studies success is won with less
talent, with less power of thought, with less sacrifice of
time and toil ; one also works with greater certainty ; more
immediate results are attained ; and more questions of an
historical character are presented which can be solved within
a more limited horizon. This accounts for the fact that of
ten scientists, nine will prefer this class of studies. Theolo-
gians are the exception, but their position at the univer-
sities is uncommon. One tolerates in them what would not
be tolerated in others, and a gulf between the theological and
the other faculties is tacitly acquiesced in. If these faculties
of theology were not an imperative necessity because of the
churches, at most universities they would simply be abol-
ished. With the reasonable exception of these, the ratio of
one to nine, assumed above, between the men of detail-study
and the men of the study of principles, is certainly a fair
one ; and thus when applied to the few sons of palingenesis
who have devoted themselves to science and have been ap-
pointed to official positions, causes the number of the stu-
dents of principles among them to be reduced to such a
minimum, that an independent and a clearly defined attitude
on their part has been fairly impossible.

Practically and academically the separation between these

Chap. Ill] § 49. TWO KINDS OF SCIENCE 167

two kinds of science has thus far been made only in a
few single points. The universities of Brussels and Lou-
vain are examples of this. In Amsterdam and Freiburg,
also, a life peculiar to itself has originated. And in Amer-
ica a certain division has begun. But these divisions bear
too much a churchly or anti-churchly character, and for the
greater " republic of letters " as a whole they are scarcely
yet worthy of mention. Almost everywhere the two stems
are still intertwined, and in almost every way the stem which
grows from palingenesis is still altogether repressed and
overshadowed by the stem of naturalism ; naturalism being
here taken as the expression of life, which, without palin-
genesis, flourishes as it originated. There was, indeed, a
conservative period in university life, in which the old
world-view still thought itself able, by an angry look or
by persecution, to exorcise the coming storm ; and a later
period in which by all manner of half concessions and weak
ajDologetics, it tried to repress the rise of the naturalistic
tendency. But this Conservatism, which first tried compul-
sion and then persuasion, owed its origin least of all to
palingenesis, and thus lacked a spiritual root. At present,
therefore, itjs_rapidly passing away. Its apologetics lack
force. It seeks so to comport itself that by the grace of
Naturalism it may still be only tolerated ; and it deems it no
disgrace to skulk in a musty vault of the fortification in

Online LibraryAbraham KuyperEncyclopedia of sacred theology : its principles ... → online text (page 16 of 64)