[288] theology has been plagued for centuries now, was something quite different. It was the problem of mutual interference, of interference in terms of religious authorities which denied scientific hypotheses, [such] as the Copernican ^aor Darwinistic,^b or the depth-psychological,^c or historical-research^d about sources of biblical religion. When these interferences happened, all sciences-^e--natural sciences as well as sociology, psychology

and history---revolted against religion^f. The main interest and emphasis of my whole life's work was to show that these conflicts are based on a confusion of dimensions. The dimension in which religious symbols are real is NOT the dimension in which scientific research is done. Religious authorities have no right to forbid any scientific probability, or even vague hypothesis, to be expressed if there are elements of evidence for it. They cannot interfere with it in the name of religion. No historical criticism---this was discussed later--- can undercut the dimension of ultimate concern as expressed in the symbols^g of the Christian tradition. In the same way, no depth psychology can undercut the truth of the symbols of religion, even if psycho- analytic psychology^h tries to show that symbols such as "God" or "the Christ" are projections. They are projections in their content; they are not projections IN THAT ON WHICH THEY PROJECT these

images, namely the experience of ultimate concern. In this way, and in many other discussions, we came through the different realms of man's creativity, and finally we ended the last semester by discussing problems of the doctrine of man.ⁱ This was one of the bridges to this semester because man of course is in both realms. We discussed the problem of the relationship of body and soul, and many other problems of this kind which are connected with the special nature of man as man.