[426] Here religion^a and positivism^b agree, namely if religion has become positivistic--and that, it did, during the whole 19th century. The answer here is: the decisive contents are not in man, they are given from outside, they are given by revelation^c, and you cannot develop them in the child and out of the child. Socratic midwifery doesn't help at all, because this is not in man the paradox^d of the appearance of the Christ^e under the conditions of existence. Therefore here, only MESSAGE can help, something which comes from outside and which is not IN man because that is GIVEN to man and SAID to man, and is not in him. Now that is the religious^f form of positivism^g which corresponds

clearly, in time and content, to the positivistic form of positivism, the empirical-scientific form of positivism. And the two go very well hand in hand. England is an example for this. The British empiricists were never in a real conflict with the traditional conflict, with the traditional Anglican religion. Why not? Because for them the positivistic contents given by empirical experience didn't interfere with the positive contents given by revelation. Positivism and revelation SEEM to be enemies; in reality they are wonderful allies: they complete each other. Both are without the humanistic criterion. And that makes them so well-working together. Kierkegaard^h, in discussing Socratesⁱ and Christ^j, has called this Religion "B", the second type, the Christian type of religion, namely the type in which nothing is developed in man but the content, the paradox of Christian message, is GIVEN to man. This also can lead to totalitarian forms, at least in the spiritual world, very similar

to Rome, although more difficult, namely into Fundamentalistic and orthodox traditions which claim the same kind of absolute validity as the Roman and the totalitarians. And they also are so powerful