[287] is the question of the ultimate end, the meaning of our existence. After this we went into the realm of science,^a and here my main interest was natural sciences, in history, later on in psychology, to try to show that there is no necessary conflict between scientific method and the symbols of ultimate concern because they lie not on one and the same level or dimension. They lie in DlFFERENT dimensions, the one in the dimension of finite^b relations and the other in the realm of ultimate concern. In connection with these lectures I had a very interesting evening with some representatives of the department of physics and astronomy in Harvard, and we discussed for hours and hours the relation of religion^c and physics^d, and one point came out which, according to these colleagues, I had not emphasized sufficiently in my

introductory presentation, which was very similar to what I gave in the lectures here, namely the point that INDIRECTLY, sciences can be the bearers of symbols of ultimate concern. INdirectly [sic.], but not directly. "Directly" would mean that science can argue for or against the truth of religion^e. This I consistently denied, and in this I think, as far as I understood the situation, the colleagues of this department agreed [with]. But then they missed one point, namely that indirectly the consideration of the universe, or the interpretation of the microcosm, the subatomic reality, is able to produce religious experiences---and I have no doubt about it, I completely agreed with this. But as a theologian, this was almost self-understood for me, but the problem with which