[427] today, and were especially in the years after the War because they give another form of security which CALLS itself Protestant^a but which is not Protestant, because they subdue the element of protest! Now I see that this seems to be rather difficult, so let me repeat the main points again. It is extremely important for the whole problem of religious education^b, which is not primarily a

problem of pedagogical method--which is important but not too important--but it is a method of principles involved in education^c. Let us make this distinction again. The one: man has a given structure by creation, called his essential, human nature, which expresses itself in the fundamental principles of the True, the Good, and the Beautiful--to use these half-obsolete words. That is the one way. Out of this, all other human potentialities are developed, and we are in the realm of the humanistic education. It is the Socratic education which believes that everything important is already in man; the educator doesn't give it, but he helps TO GET IT OUT of the spiritual womb of every man. Now the second is: NOTHING is in man; he is a blackboard on which nothing is written. So we must write on it.--And here I say: this positivistic form of answering the question has

two wings, an empiricistic^d wing, as developed especially in the empiricistic philosophy of Locke and Hume and all his innumerable followers in England, the Continent, and here. And the other: the religious form of positivism appearing in Schleiermacher^e, in Kierkegaard^f, in the Ritschlian^g school (I spoke now in abbreviations for some who have studied the history^h of theology in the 19th century). It is the predominant attitude of theology in the 19th century. In both cases, there is content, but there is no possibility of resisting the content which is given.