[119]

to distinguish the scientific probabilities which are confirmed or refuted by continously-going-on [sic.] experimentation--on the one side, where nobody or nothing is allowed to interfere, neither a totalitarian state nor authoritarian religion; and that, on the other hand, there is the dimension of ultimate concern^a, its experiences and its symbols^b. These experiences cannot be denied EITHER, and if they are, then you must show to the people who do so that they don’t deny them in the name of their scientific method but in the name of their theological or metaphysical presuppositions of which they are not aware.

Now this leads me to another conflict which is going on during these two conflicts-- Galileo^d and the Church^e, Darwin^f and the Church--and it is going on all the time between them and all the time today, namely: the conflict between a mechanistic interpretation of reality and the experience of freedom^g which every human being has, including those who preach mechanism--and preaching is an expression of their freedom!^c

The best pattern for this has been brought about by the French astronomer Lamarck^h, who said that if in a given moment all facts of this given moment are given to him, he can calculate everything which will happen, in Heaven and on earth, ever since. Now this means Lamarck puts himself in the position of a divine outside observer and then describes the process of the world as mechanically calculable processes. Now the first answer to this is that Lamarck forgets that every observer belongs to the processes which he observed himself. In order to make such statements, the observer must forget himself as an element of that which he observes. Modern science does not