But how is it in practice? The theory is good, but the practice is bad. In practice, one usually goes further than observation and experience lead. One passes off for knowledge what is not knowledge but hypothesis, yes, empty imagination. Already [Georg Christoph] Lichtenberg rightly said of the geologists, that is, of the people who want to enlighten us about the formation of the earth, that nine tenths of their statements obviously belong more to the history of the human mind than to the history [page 294] of the earth. And Luther's judgment of the astronomers is also still true. He says of them that they "lie by force," stating "of the innocent heavens" what they will, not what experience or observation gives.
Where does this come from? Where does this factual unscientificness come from, while in theory human science is defined correctly? It comes from the corruption of human nature. The human mind cannot rise against the perverse will. We have plenty of examples of this in all areas of human life. For example, people are quite universally of the opinion that "War is hell," and in principle one wants to avoid wars through arbitration. We even have a standing peace congress. But in practice, peace conferences have neither prevented nor ended wars. The imperiousness and arrogance found in men start wars and continue wars.
Arbitration is only entered into when one does not really trust things, that is, when one cannot hope to win an easy victory. Thus, the world has always exceeded the limits theoretically recognized as correct in human science, seduced by the evil will. People are vain. The so-called representatives of science also take part in this vanity, and in their vanity they pass off as knowledge what is merely their assumption and imagination. And the dear public, especially the "educated," accepts the conjectures and conceits as "established results of science," because it is possessed by the same vanity and worships itself, the human genius, in the glorification of the so-called representatives of science. In addition to this, there is another. In men there dwells by nature an enmity against the Gospel of Christ and the Holy Scriptures which reveal this Gospel. One searches for constellations that contradict the Scriptures. However, it would be difficult to achieve one's purpose if one were to conduct truly scientific research and stay strictly within the limits of experience. Thus one resorts to brazen assertions and puts them on the market under the name of “science.” This spirit of untruthfulness, of unscientificness, of lies, of open and hidden hostility to Christ dominates at present the greatest part of the civilized world. It has also penetrated into most of the textbooks used in lower and higher schools.
By God's grace, we want to be preserved from this way of doing human science. We want to keep the limits of human science not only theoretically but also practically. We want to cultivate human science in our institutions, which adheres to the facts. We want to cultivate the spirit of truthfulness and shun the spirit of untruthfulness. [Page 295]
But finally the important question: Will we succeed in this? Certainly not, if it depends on ourselves! By nature, we too—to speak with Luther—have more desire for “pretty useless fables” than for truth and honest research. In us, too, there is by nature the spirit of vanity and self-deification. Therefore, if it depends on us, we will both deceive and be deceived in the general deception. But we are Christians by God's grace and have God's Word. And in our institution we do not merely want to cultivate a natural morality, but here God should rule through His Word, the Holy Scriptures. God's Word, however, has the power that it, like all evil lusts and desires, also continually kills the evil lust of vanity, idolatry of man, and blind worship. The Word of God can and will save us from the deception that so generally prevails in the world under the name of science. Therefore, we conclude with the prayer, “Preserve us Lord,”—our whole synod and this institution as well—“by Thy Word!” [ELHB # 138, TLH 261; see this blog post] Amen. F. P. [Franz Pieper].
No comments:
Post a Comment
Comments only accepted when directly related to the post.