[163] But it wouldn’t be only a matter of OUR split consciousness---something more is involved in it. It would be a matter of a split in God^a Himself. If man had to sacrifice his scientific honesty in order to have ultimate concern about what is ultimate, namely the meaning and being of his life, the ground of being and meaning of his life, if this were NECESSARY, then God would demand the negation of God, because the rules of scientific work are the rules of the structure of reality to which science has to subject itself. And these structures of reality, which are also the structures of our mind, are by creation^b, and they are GOOD by creation! If one has to sacrifice either in one's doctrine of miracles or in one's doctrine of revelation, subjectively or objectively, the structure of mind and reality in order to reach one's ultimate concern, then this reality is evil and cannot claim truth and cannot claim created goodness. And then Christianity is back in the midst of the pagan Manichaean movements which have no idea of the GOOD creation, but where the God of grace stands in conflict with the creator-God. That's where it finally comes to! Now if we look at the modern situation in the light of these discussions, then we can say that the conflict of historical research and religion---of course, the same as science and religion, and, as we shall see in a different way, of philosophy and religion---that these conflicts have a much profounder meaning than sociological analyses will usually tell us. Of course there is also sociology involved--- the will-to-power of the churches on the one hand, the will to overcome the reactionary tendencies of the churches by the representatives of science, especially in the universities, on the other hand: