50. Man and Science


Why should science be considered incompatible with the mentality of the average human being? No distinction need be made between those who may study science and those who may not do so, for all mankind has a perfect right to participate in its achievements. Science only tries to make Creation (God’s Gift) more comprehensible. Every branch of science is engaged in investigating the laws of the Creator, to the end that, by acquiring more exact knowledge, it can better exploit them for the service of man. This activity is but the voluntary subordination of man's will to the Will of God.

Now, as Creation and the laws on which it is based are not only perfect but also very clear and simple, it naturally follows that they should be explained in a clear and simple manner by those who have grasped their meaning.

It is here that the mischievous tendency sets in to make a distinction between the average man and those who call themselves disciples of science, i. e. disciples of learning and of truth. These disciples, however, do not express themselves with the frank simplicity that would be consistent with true knowledge and that truth has the right to demand.

There are two, indeed three, reasons for this: these disciples consider that an exceptional position is due to them for the particularly hard work they have done in studying, and they will not see that what they call study is but borrowing or appropriating what lies finished and perfect before them in Creation. They do what the simple peasant does when he observes the operations of nature and what others do in their practical work.

In the second place, until a disciple’s knowledge approaches the truth, he is constrained to express himself obscurely and ambiguously; when he has fully grasped the truth he will naturally be obliged to be simple and clear in his dissertations. It is no secret that it is just those who do not know, who, during the period of their study, like to hold forth more than those who know and they will of course be obliged to use obscure terms. They cannot do otherwise, until they have attained the real knowledge of the truth.

In the third place, it must be acknowledged that the generality of men would pay very little attention to science, if it just spoke the truth in simple terms.

They would think what it told them too natural to be of much importance; they cannot see that this is the only right method and a proof that what it affirms is genuine and true. The very fact of its being a
matter of course warrants its truth. But it is not so easy to convince men of this. They would not acknowledge Jesus to be the Son of God, because He came to them in all simplicity.

This danger the disciples of science clearly perceived from the beginning. Thus they sagaciously avoided simplicity in their expositions.

To make themselves and their science of more consequence, they continued to exaggerate the difficulties of their studies.

At last, a scholar, who had come to some eminence in his profession, disdained to express himself simply so that all could understand him. This was often due to a reason that he was hardly conscious of, namely that apart from his language which it would take years of study to understand, there would be little of consequence left in his discourses!

This trick of not making himself generally understood raised the scholar in time to a position of superiority, which was then upheld by his pupils and successors at all costs, as otherwise, in the case of many, the long years of study and the corresponding sacrifice of money would indeed have been in vain.

And today, this has gone so far that many scholars are not even
capable of expressing themselves clearly and comprehensibly to ordinary people. To be able to do so would require the hardest study and take more than a life-time. But, above all, it would have the result (distasteful to many) that only those men would come to prominence who were able, by virtue of their knowledge, to give man real values and who were willing to serve him with their knowledge. At present, the practice of mystifying the public by incomprehensibilities is a particularly prominent peculiarity of the scientific world; similar to what was customary in religious observances where ministers, ordained by men as guides and leaders, spoke in Latin to those who came to them to be edified, a language which they did not understand and, therefore, could not grasp and make their own, although only by comprehending could they have derived benefit. The result would have been the same, if the servants of God had spoken in the language of Siam. True knowledge need not make itself incomprehensible. It has the capacity to express itself in simple terms, as well as the inherent desire to do so. To possess the truth is the right of all, without exceptions, for man comes from the home of truth, the region where the spirit of truth dwells. For this reason, truth, in its natural simplicity, can be understood by all men. As soon, however, as it is taught in a complicated and incomprehensible manner, it no longer is pure and true and loses itself in paltry details. Real truth, real knowledge, must be comprehensible to all alike. Knowledge artificially complicated and far removed from what is natural has little value.

Everybody who has grasped real knowledge can transmit it simply and naturally; if he cannot, he is trying to disguise his incompetence or he resembles a lifeless automaton. The further artificially forced culture departs from nature the less wisdom it contains.

He who leaves gaps in his reasonings and still expects to be believed blindly may be compared to one who would substitute a tottering idol for the perfection of the Almighty.

He proves that he cannot find the right way himself and, therefore, can be no trustworthy guide. May this be a warning to all serious seekers.