[129] possible to refute Augustine^a on the same basis. So here you have another example for the need to be cautious about these things. There are tendencies in physical time which confirm Augustine; there are others which confirm Aristotle^b. Even if today, under the tremendous impression which the law of entropy has made on all of us, we are more inclined to accept the Augustinian interpretation, we must nevertheless be clear-minded and cautious enough to say that WE DON'T KNOW, on the basis of PHYSICS^c, which interpretation is ultimately true. We can say it only in terms of ultimate concern, and this doesn’t give an answer to any physical question, this only answers the question of the meaning of history for us. It is an existential question, and not a physical one. Now I hope that this additional consideration, where the temptation is very great today, makes it even clearer to you what I mean. But now we come to another consideration where my position seems to be almost hopeless, namely the position of non-interference of the dimensions, the biological and anthropological problems. Now let us first say a few things about the biological problems. Has religion to say something which biology, the doctrine of life, has to accept on the basis of religious authority? If this were the case, then the conflict between the two realms would be hopeless. But I don’t see any such necessity, and I will try to prove this now. In biological consideration, as long as there is a philosophy of biology, there is a fight going on between mechanistic and organicistic [sic.] interpretations of life. These two considerations seem to lead to opposite results; in the one case, all life is a casual, contingent result of mechanistic