[104] developed. This became visible in the first typical scholar of the Pre-Socratic Greek, Anaxagoras^a, the first one who described the heavenly bodies--sun, moon, stars--as bodies^b. He saw that they were bodies. This was a tremendous first step because, before that, they were divine powers, representations of the fulness of the world with the divine. And now they were compared with bodies, i.e., with stones and pieces of earth! And the popular reaction in Athens when this became known was such that he had to go into exile. This was one of the earliest but most typical conflicts about science in relationship to the preceding worldview. Here the criticism came from science^c. It also could attack directly, in philosophical terms, the religious symbols^d with another kind of approach, namely historical analysis of their growth. This was done by men like Euhemeros^e, one of the Cynic philosophers, who derived the god-figures from deified heroes and kings. Now this is still done today, and we will come to it when we speak about religion and psychology^f later on. Today it is not so much heroes and kings, it is much more father-images from which the gods are derived, or mother-images. The method is exactly the same, and the method of course is very primitive, because it always produces one word which it wants to express, namely deification^g. In order to deify either the father-image or the image of a hero or king, you must have that realm into which they are elevated. Or in terms of a modern way of speaking about it technically: projection^h --you must have a screen at which to project something. Now, that screen IS the divine sphere, IS the infinite, or however you call it. But in spite of this primitive logical mistake, which Euhemeros made as much as it is done today by many psychoanalysts, it was a conflict between science and religion, and one of the ways of solving this conflict was the attempt of the Stoic philosophers to interpret the gods as symbols of different natural powers. In this way they were preserved, and popular feeling was satisfied. But for the man who KNOWS, they represent something quite different, namely the powers of nature, or, as l say, the powers of being. AND if I say this, I would at the same time express my agreement with this interpretation, because the gods ARE powers of being, and symbols for them.