 Rudolf Steiner opposed “scientific simpletons” with their “scientific trash” and their “logical, pedantic, narrow-minded proof of things.” He deplored “primitive concepts like those... of contemporary science.” [1] STEINER’S “SCIENCE” The Real Lowdown I. Rudolf Steiner claimed that his new religion, Anthroposophy, constitutes “spiritual science.” By developing and employing clairvoyance, Steiner asserted, Anthroposophists can scientifically investigate mysteries in both the spiritual and physical realms. The truth, however, is that Steiner’s “spiritual science” is thoroughly unscientific. By insisting that his doctrines were produced scientifically, Steiner distinguished Anthroposophy from ordinary belief systems. He and his followers could claim that Anthroposophy is not a religion, dependent on faith, but an objectively verifiable body of factual descriptions. In a weak stab at substantiation, Steiner insisted that he developed his doctrines not through reading or speculation, but through his own clairvoyant observations, as when he wrote “[M]y knowledge of spiritual things is the result of my own [psychic] perception.” [2] He also laid out elaborate procedures that he said would enable devotees to develop clairvoyant powers that could be used to confirm his “findings.” [3] Steiner went so far as to assert that “organs of clairvoyance” can be developed. [4] These, of course, would be invisible to the physical eye. One can know that one has organs of clairvoyance only through the application of clairvoyance. Indeed, the validity of all Steiner’s spiritualistic claims can be confirmed only through the use of clairvoyance. Here Anthroposophy falls to the ground. There is scant evidence that clairvoyance is anything more than delusion and/or deception. To substantiate his entire system, Steiner needed to show that clairvoyance is, in fact, possible. He didn’t. Indeed, his descriptions of reality provide significant evidence to the contrary. Below are a few examples. If Steiner’s “clairvoyance” led him to such conclusions, than his “clairvoyance” was faulty, at best. More likely, he had no clairvoyant abilities of any sort — although he may have convinced himself that he did. Such self-delusion is not uncommon. [5] The alternative is even less seemly: Steiner simply lied.  British psychiatrist Anthony Storr, an Honorary Fellow at the Royal College of Psychiatrists, has argued that Steiner exhibited traits consistent with paranoia. Comparing Steiner to Georgei Ivanonvitch Gurdjieff, another self-appointed guru, Storr explains that Steiner arguably had delusions of grandeur, which is evident both in his claims of psychic power and in his antiscientific, fantastical vision of the universe. “Gurdjieff and Steiner, though neither suffering from paranoid schizophrenia nor being psychotic in the sense of being socially disabled, share certain characteristics with patients whom psychiatrists would designate as paranoid ... [I]t is indeed grandiose to create one’s own cosmogony [a theory of the origins of the universe] in total disregard of accepted scientific opinion ... Steiner, in addition to inventing his own history of the universe, believed that he had special powers of observation which revealed the spiritual reality which lay behind material appearances ... Such people ... are propounding belief systems which are wildly eccentric: they are narcissistic, isolated, and arrogant....” [6] While dismissing Steiner’s teachings, Storr is at pains to avoid categorizing Steiner as psychotic. I would be even more cautious. We cannot know Steiner’s inner state, nor can we absolutely reject all of his assertions. However, we can note the obvious scientific errors Steiner made, and on that basis we can reasonably question whether his approach was actually scientific in any way. The following are some of Steiner’s demonstrable errors. (For more, see “Steiner’s Blunders”.) ◊ Steiner was not a biologist, yet he claimed to understand the human body far better than mere physical science would allow. For instance, he said that the heart does not pump blood: “[T]he heart is indeed a sense organ for perceiving the blood’s movement, not a pump as physicists claim; the coursing of our blood is brought about by our spirituality and vitality.” [7] Note that Steiner specifically sets himself up in opposition to “physicists,” for which we can probably read scientists and physicians. Either Steiner is right about the heart or science is right; they cannot both be right. There is, of course, overwhelming scientific evidence that the heart is a pump which sends blood coursing through the body. Steiner’s “clairvoyance” led him to assert something quite different. He was wrong. ◊ Another example. In discussing astronomy, Steiner taught that Earth does not orbit the Sun. To explain this point to the teachers at the first Waldorf school, Steiner drew a helical line. Positioned at about the midpoint on the line was the Sun. Strung out on the line to the left were Mars, Jupiter, and Saturn. Toward the right side of the line were Mercury, Venus, and Earth. Steiner said: “Now you simply need to imagine how that [i.e., the line] continues in a helix. Everything else is only apparent movement. The helical line continues into cosmic space. Therefore, it is not that the planets move around the Sun, but these three, Mercury, Venus, and the Earth, follow the Sun, and these three, Mars, Jupiter, and Saturn, precede it.” [8] ◊ In discussing geography, Steiner said “[A]n island like Great Britain swims in the sea and is held fast by the forces of the stars. In actuality, such islands do not sit directly upon a foundation; they swim and are held fast from outside. In general, the cosmos creates islands and continents, their forms and locations.” [9] Such fallacious descriptions do not reflect powerful, reliable clairvoyance. Rather, they are undeniable errors. If Steiner believed what he said, then he was deluded. If he did not believe, then we are justified in suspecting that he subjected his followers to what we today would call a classic brainwashing technique. He convinced Anthroposophists that all of their previous opinions (about hearts, the solar system, the structure of the Earth, etc.) were utterly wrong. The universe is vastly different from what they thought, he told them. To learn the truth, they had to turn to him. And when he told them a “truth” (for instance, that islands float), they had to accept it on faith, unless they developed clairvoyance (improbable, to say the least) or equipped themselves with elaborate appliances such as submarines (unlikely, to say the most). For pronouncements about invisible, spiritual realities, no appliances are available, so the only option for Steiner’s followers in these cases is clairvoyance. But trustworthy clairvoyance is unavailable. Hence, Anthroposophists ultimately must have faith in Steiner and his astonishing, often mistaken, assertions. Accepting things on faith is, of course, the polar opposite of the scientific method. And Steiner’s great error is the flip side of his followers’ mistake. Offering “scientific” explanations of phenomena without providing real evidence is utterly unscientific. Steiner’s claims to being a “spiritual scientist” have no merit. II. Clairvoyance is a crucial subject in any consideration of “spiritual science,” so I will return to it along with a discussion of the related forms of thought Steiner advocated. First, however, let’s examine how the classical sciences are presented in Steiner’s Waldorf schools. Steiner’s appropriation of the term “science” does not mean that he had high regard for true science (physics, chemistry, astronomy, etc.) or for the rigorous discipline of the scientific method. In fact, Anthroposophy is fundamentally antithetical to science: It attributes everything in the universe to supersensible spiritual agencies than cannot be measured or recorded, while it dismisses physical phenomena as having virtually no intrinsic value or meaning. Ponder, for instance, Steiner’s comments about the physical phenomenon of gravity. Steiner thought gravity essentially meaningless because it is phenomenological (i.e., in and of the physical realm). This remark was addressed to a Waldorf teacher: “It would be wonderful if you could stop speaking about gravity. You can certainly achieve speaking of it only as a phenomenon. The best would be if you considered gravity only as a word.” [10]  At the Waldorf school I attended, the study of science occurred in the context of a pervasive antiscientific bias. The shortcomings of science were conveyed to us in many ways, in discussion groups and even in what were nominally our science classes. Our physics/chemistry teacher recommended the book SCIENCE IS A SACRED COW, which aims to debunk science and the scientific method. [11] I read it and reread it. Our headmaster assigned us the book THE FAILURE OF TECHNOLOGY, which became the subject of our senior discussion group for several weeks. The book’s subtitle is “Perfection without Purpose”; the thesis is that a technologist’s “preoccupation with facts ... blocks his approach to that more spiritual wisdom which cannot be reduced to mechanics.” [12] Our discussion reiterated several lessons we had already absorbed deeply: to doubt “facts” (i.e., physical phenomena), to distrust science and its practical applications, and to seek instead “spiritual wisdom.” For my classmates and me, Anthroposophy’s devotion to pseudo-information meant that the line between verifiable truth and woolly speculation could become blurred. Our school’s small library found space in its scanty collection for books on flying saucers, dragons, yetis, and other undocumented phenomena, generally presented as if they were not merely plausible but almost certainly true. One of our science teachers directed me to ON THE TRACK OF UNKNOWN ANIMALS by crypto-zoologist Bernard Heuvelmans. The author of that book argues that numerous fabulous beasts — including various types of ape men — may well roam the Earth. He chastises scientists for failing to credit anecdotal reports about such creatures. [13] To my young mind — and presumably the minds of other students — such books were persuasive. And for at least some of us, they reinforced the effect created by all the myths we heard and studied in class. We were led farther and farther from a rational appreciation of reality. III. Steiner’s blunders are hard to overlook or excuse. The whole point of being a soothsayer, after all, is to say sooth: speak truth. Yet Steiner repeatedly failed this paramount test of his “profession.” Once the the function-of-the-heart card, and the Earth-doesn’t-orbit-the-Sun card, and the floating-Britain card, etc., are pulled out, the entire castle of cards threatens to come crashing down. Steiner’s statements about the spirit realm are more difficult to evaluate than those about phenomena that we can actually detect, measure, and test. But some of his spiritualistic revelations certainly invite skepticism. Consider, for instance, one of his comments about Jesus, which includes information that is not found in the Bible. Steiner said he possessed this information because he had access to the Akashic record — a supersensible storehouse, imprinted on astral light, of all events, knowledge, memories, feelings, etc., since the beginning of the universe. [14] Various occult traditions refer to the Akashic record (or records — sometimes they are said to be multiple). Individuals aside from Steiner who claim to have consulted the record(s) include Nostradamus and Edgar Cayce. [15] As you might expect, information gleaned from astral light contains many surprises. Steiner’s special knowledge of Jesus is surprisingly intertwined with paganism and magic: “It is ... important that the deeds of Christ Jesus are always seen in relation to the physical sun, which is the external expression of the spiritual world that is received at the point where Christ’s physical body is walking around. When Christ Jesus heals, for instance, it is the sun force that heals. However, the sun must be in the right place in the heavens: ‘That evening, at sundown, they brought to him all who were sick or possessed with demons.’ It is important to indicate that this healing power can flow down only when the external sun has set but still works spiritually.” [16] Compared with many of Steiner’s spiritual revelations, this one is relatively open to rational consideration. At least it deals with a recognizable physical phenomenon, the Sun, and with a religious figure, Jesus, about whom most of us have acquired a fair amount of knowledge — from sermons, hymns, and so forth. So, let us ask: Is it true that when we look toward the Sun, we are seeing the present or former abode of Christ? And is it true that when Jesus heals, “it is the sun force that heals”? And can it possibly be true that the “healing power” of Christ or the Sun “can flow down only when the external sun has set”? Unfortunately, Steiner did not supply any evidence to back up these propositions. All we have is his word, which most of us must find insufficient. As I stated earlier, Steiner urged his followers to test his assertions. Some of his books include instructions on how to attain esoteric knowledge, enter higher states of being, etc. For example, “The student must first apply himself with care and attention to certain functions of the soul, hitherto exercised by him in a careless and inattentive manner. There are eight such functions ....” And so on. [17] Presumably, such directions could, themselves, be “tested” by interpreting them properly and then following them step by step. But such testing would have little probative value. Positive results would necessarily be subjective: one or more people claiming supernatural visions, etc. Such claims would not constitute solid evidence — they would be anecdotal evidence or eyewitness testimony, which is notoriously unreliable, often resulting from self-deception or deceit. On the other hand, negative results could be dismissed as mere procedural failures. Let’s take this a step farther. Is there any way we could get beyond take-it-or-leave-it subjective testimony? Perhaps demonstrations of clairvoyant powers could be arranged. Seances? Mind reading? Fortune telling? Unless the demonstrations went far beyond what is typically seen in magic acts — and were validated by strict scientific controls — they would be unlikely to tell us much. In instances where Steiner’s statements can be openly tested — such as whether the Earth orbits the Sun or that islands float — Steiner is often flat-out wrong. In instances involving the “supersensible world,” the “Akashic record,” nonphysical bodies, etc., no objectively verifiable test seems possible. Rational people must acknowledge the chance that someday there will be a convincing demonstration of a Steiner claim. But what are the odds? The scientific method has its limits. It cannot deal adequately with unique (i.e., unreproducible) events or with materials or forces that cannot be measured and tested using our ordinary senses and/or reliable scientific apparatuses. So if any of Steiner’s depictions of things spiritual are true, they probably lie outside the reach of science. But two points need to be made. One is that Steiner was not a scientist, in any sense — he was a mystic. The other point is that despite its limitations, science shines brighter with each passing year. As scientific discoveries continue accumulating, expanding our comprehension of the universe, the power and truth of science are increasingly vindicated. Einsteinian physics are repeatedly confirmed. Ditto quantum mechanics. And string theory appears to be inching toward a reconciliation of the two in the form of a “theory of everything.” The limitations of science fade, while alternative approaches to truth — including Steiner’s — grow ever wobblier. [18] [NASA.] IV. Scientist Max von Laue won the Nobel Prize for physics in 1914. Eight years later, he wrote a paper in which he assailed Steiner’s scientific errors. [19] Here are some excerpts. When reading them, bear in mind that von Laue’s scientific knowledge is now almost a century old and thus parts of it are outdated. But we can rely on him to know what scientists understood early in the twentieth century, and thus what Steiner misunderstood. Anthroposophists might attempt to defend Steiner by arguing that Steiner was not restricted to the scientific knowledge available in his lifetime: He possessed psychic powers that enabled him to see beyond scientists’ petty, materialistic thinking. Judge for yourself whether Steiner makes any more sense now than, according to von Laue, he did then. Steiner “writes that for the million years up to 10,000 BC in those parts of the world that now constitute the bottom of the Atlantic Ocean there existed an absolutely unique culture of people that in body and soul thoroughly differed from humans today. These people had aircraft which they flew close to the ground ... In those days the air was much thicker, the water was much thinner; it moved more artistically and let itself be guided, etc... [ellipses by von Laue].” [20] Von Laue explains that none of Steiner’s statements about Atlantis, low-flying ancient aircraft, the constitution of air and water long ago, and so forth, have any basis in scientific fact. Steiner’s remarks, he says, “can only provoke a smile” — presumably a smile of contempt. [21] Von Laue quotes Steiner as arguing that science cannot tell us “anything about ... what is possible and impossible.” [22] Von Laue replies that “one would do better to select science over the ‘occult observations’ of the esoteric scientists’” such as Steiner. [23] The data of science are well founded, von Laue contends, whereas Steiner’s claims are cleverly designed to be untestable. “Steiner must feel a warm glow of self-satisfaction; a smugness, derived from his astute caution and discretion in transferring this entire culture to a now submerged part of the earth ... [that is] fairly safe from excavations. Unfortunately geologists have credibly asserted that 12,000 years ago nothing like a separate continent between Europe and America could have existed.” [24]  Turning to Steiner’s book, AN OUTLINE OF ESOTERIC SCIENCE (Leipzing, 1920), von Laue quotes Steiner saying “light appears in seven colours, and sound appears in seven tones, the undivided nature of Man appears in seven limbs.” [25] Von Laue pours ridicule on this remark, saying “What prevarication! From the innumerable colours that can be perceived by the eye, human language has perhaps given especially simple names to a random seven (and these are only approximately defined), and if Steiner is ignorant of the names of any other colours we recommend that he asks any good dressmaker.” [26] Von Laue disposes of the notion of seven sounds with similar swiftness, and as for “the seven parts of Man,” he has no patience at all. Von Laue then quotes Steiner at length on differences and similarities — now and in the distant past — between the states of gaseous, liquid, and solid matter, including Steiner’s assertion that heat is a form of matter: “heat possesses the same concrete meaning as do gaseity, liquidity, and solidity. To [the “observing spiritual scientist”] it is a finer substance than gas.” [27] Von Laue says that if Steiner’s description “had been written a hundred years ago, in the light of the condition of physics at that time, one could have possibly taken it as a fanciful possibility” — but in light of more recent knowledge, it is nonsense. [28] Von Laue is especially incensed by Steiner’s claim to possess a “psychic organ” (which Steiner elsewhere called an organ of clairvoyance). “His psychic organ of cognition amply provides him with names” to attach to things (colors, sounds, and so forth), but not with any real knowledge of those things, von Laue asserts. [29] Von Laue mockingly asks: “What then is the foundation for Steiner’s dicta, including those that touch on natural science? By means of a spiritual preparation, a human may develop inside himself special organs for inner observation ... This is not so easy ... In that we do not have the distinction of belonging to the illuminati ... our knowledge of the scientific outcomes of the esoteric science is of course somewhat fragmentary.” [30] Anthroposophists will take von Laue’s words, here, as a confession of his spiritual blindness. Rationalists will see these words as a sharply pointed jab that deflates Steiner’s balloon. Von Laue’s words are occasionally so sarcastic as to seem intemperate. Yet von Laue, a Nobel Laureate in science, was writing about a subject he knew well. (I must admit that I like von Laue’s tone, since it parallels my own raillery: “Lovers of unconscious humour are recommended to make a study of pages 53-55 [of AN OUTLINE OF ESOTERIC SCIENCE].”) [31] What we mainly can take away from von Laue’s diatribe is a sense of the profound scorn Steiner excites in people who have genuine knowledge about subjects that Steiner only pretended to grasp. Concerning natural science, von Laue shows, Steiner was an ignoramus. V. Steiner hung various trappings of science on his creation, Anthroposophy. He argued that we can confirm his “discoveries” through the simple expedient of becoming clairvoyant ourselves. Short of clairvoyance, other forms of thought such as imagination also can lead us toward Steiner’s truths, according to Steiner. To bolster his assertion than Anthroposophy is scientific, Steiner taught that his followers and successors might make additional discoveries of their own. Like any good science, in other words, Anthroposophy is a work in progress and will someday be supplanted by an even more complete explanation of the universe. Some of what Steiner said sounds almost like science. But let’s linger awhile on the types of thinking Steiner advocated. They do not include rational investigation. In fact, they very nearly preclude it. ◊ Clairvoyance purportedly offers the ability to gain knowledge that is inaccessible to our normal senses or reasoning brains. It sounds great. But does it exist? Serious investigations have been made for many decades, generally with — at best — inconclusive results. In a typical experiment, a “clairvoyant” is asked to identify an object that is hidden behind a closed door. Some results are a bit better than any average Joe could achieve simply by guessing, but some results are worse, occasionally much worse. Such experiments cast serious doubt on the existence of paranormal perception. If clairvoyance is no better than random guessing, what good is it? [32] A clairvoyant sees what is not visible and hears what is not audible. Normally, these are indications of insanity or fraud. But let’s assume that some clairvoyants sincerely believe in their psychic experiences. Two problems would remain. First, we would have no reason to believe the clairvoyants’ reports. They would attest to invisible, inaudible events or presences, but these would remain invisible and inaudible to us. All we would have are the clairvoyants’ unsupported claims, which — being unsupported — would remain nothing but possibilities, not established facts. The second problem is that even sincere clairvoyants would have no good reason to believe their own psychic experiences. Subjectively, the clairvoyants have seen or heard something out of the ordinary, as we all do, sometimes — in moments of confusion, in dreams, in daydreams, and the like. When the brain is confronted by sensory signals that make little sense, it tries to impose sense on them. We’ve all experienced illusions of various kinds, usually briefly, usually cleared up quickly. But some illusions persist, and our memories of them may last a lifetime. Of course, memory itself is highly unreliable, so weird experiences recollected in tranquility prove nothing. What I’m driving at is that we are all prone to delusions, small and large. How can clairvoyants be sure that their subjective “visions” are anything but vivid delusions? They cannot. The need for firm evidence — for the professed clairvoyants as well as for the rest of us — remains unfulfilled. ◊ Imagination can be found in at least three forms. Nowadays, we tend use the word as a synonym for fantasization, as in Disney cartoons. But a different, genuine form of imagination has real worth. For instance, imagining the possible results of your actions can help you avoid disasters. Imagining yourself lying dead after jaywalking across a busy city street might convince you to wait for the “Walk” signal.  Steiner sometimes used the term “imagination” in that second sense. He went so far as to say that thinking is a pictorial activity (which is, in itself, wrong: Many thoughts, true and false, deal with abstractions that cannot be visualized — for example, “Many thoughts, true and false, deal with abstractions that cannot be visualized.”) Imagination linked to rationality can produce helpful pictures in our minds, but unlinked it can produce illusions and fantasies — it retreats to Disneyland. The highest form of imagination is, according to Steiner, the use of deep soul powers to create images or “imaginations” of spiritual truths, including truths we brought into this life from our past lives in the spirit realm. (Steiner taught that we pass through a long process of reincarnation and evolution. For more about childhood intuitions carried over from past spiritual lives, see my essay “Thinking Cap.”) In considering “spiritual science,” the question becomes whether this third type of imagination can be considered reliable. [33] It cannot. We can imagine almost anything about spirits (this room is full of angels, this room is full of demons, angels are demons, demons are the spirits of elephants, elephants are the dry-land manifestations of the souls of fish...) without coming anywhere near to truth. Of course, some of our images of spiritual matters may be true, but we cannot know which. Perhaps the room you now occupy really is full of angels, but then again maybe not. Ultimately, relying on imagination for spiritual insight means relying on hunches. You imagine something, it seems right to you, so you believe it. You accept your hunch as Truth. This is deeply subjective and obviously unreliable. It certainly is not a scientific process. [34] Imagination can easily lapse into hallucination and insanity. [35] Steiner’s high “Imagination” may reflect derangement — if Steiner actually had the astonishing “clairvoyant” visions he claimed, he almost certainly was hallucinating. [36] Steiner taught that after humanity completes its earthly evolution, it will move along to Jupiter, where it will evolve further. On Jupiter, all of humanity will become capable of true Imagination, or the Jupiter consciousness: “On the planet which will replace the Earth, the whole of humanity will have this psychic-consciousness or Imagination, the ‘Jupiter’ consciousness.” [37] I am inclined to consider Steiner a charlatan, deceitful but rational. But we cannot overlook the possibility that he was mentally unbalanced.
At Waldorf schools, fostering imagination may be considered limbering up exercises for clairvoyance. [38] Kids are led to produce vivid mental pictures, an ability that may smooth the way for conjuring clairvoyant images of the spirit realm. The educational goal of developing such imagination, then, amounts to an effort to foster clairvoyance. Anthroposophists would argue that my analysis here is mistaken, because I have not employed the sort of deep spiritual powers Steiner had in mind. Fine. But do such powers even exist, for anyone, anywhere? Steiner spoke of the need to develop organs of clairvoyance. [39] Are these possible? The burden of proof lies with anyone who claims that such powers and/or organs exist. The only rational posture for the rest of us, as we wait, is skepticism. ◊ Inspiration is the form of consciousness Steiner said we will all possess when we leave Jupiter and go to Venus. This consciousness “will unite the present day-consciousness [i.e., the conscious we now have when awake], the psychic-consciousness known only to the initiate [essentially Jupiter consciousness], and in addition all that man sleeps away today [essentially our dream consciousness].” [40] If you think that the Jupiter consciousness is real and that solid information about reality can be obtained while we sleep, Steiner’s statement may seem meaningful. Otherwise, it may seem to be nonsense. At least in advocating inspiration, Steiner placed himself within a long, widely affirmed spiritual tradition. To be inspired, in the religious sense, is to be filled with spirit. In Christianity, the spirit is usually said to be the Holy Ghost. True believers who feel that God has inspired them usually do not think that their beliefs and actions require any further justification. But the rest of us, standing apart, may wonder whether the believers’ beliefs and actions are based on truth or delusion. We want to see evidence, proof. Followers of Steiner ought to want the same, since Steiner insisted that his system is a science, and in science, evidence is always crucial.  Artistic inspiration surely exists, as do other forms of worldly inspiration. But are any of them dependable investigative tools? Do they lead us dependably toward truth? An artist may be inspired to write or sing or paint in a particular way, but the inspiration in such cases is nothing more than an excitement or motive arising from personal associations, experiences, and preferences. Likewise, a scientist may be inspired to conduct experiments different from those conducted previously — but any scientifically valid data that results will come from the experiments themselves, not from the initiating inspiration. At root, inspiration is like imagination, it is subjective and untrustworthy. ◊ Intuition is generally supposed to exist; many people rely on it. Las Vegas is a good venue for observing intuition at work. Roulette requires you to guess, or intuit, where the little ball will next come to rest. Many gamblers do indeed rely on their intuition. Many lose their shirts thereby. Intuitive knowledge just comes to you, out of the blue, as it were. You “feel” that something is right. Anthroposophists, for example, may feel, deep in their souls, that Steiner’s descriptions of the universe are true. There’s no arguing with such intuitions, but there’s also no corroborative value in them. They are subjective states, experiences that have nothing to do with clear-eyed observation and evaluation. (For more about “experienced thought,” see my essay “Light and Dark.”) A proposition may feel right to you for any number of reasons, including experiences you had in the cradle, the sort of church your parents took you to, the sorts of TV you watched as a child, and so forth. None of it means anything. Take an invidious but illuminating example. Adolf Hitler relied on his intuition in setting strategy for the German military. Early in World War II, the result was a string of stunning German victories. So Hitler continued using intuition until the end of the war, by which time Germany lay in ruins, with virtually every inch of the Fatherland overrun by Allied forces. The end came when Hitler, deep in his command bunker, shot himself. Perhaps, being evil, Hitler had flawed, evil intuitions (and yet they worked out so well in the early part of the war). Perhaps good people have better intuitions. But there is no reason to think that any form of intuition, bad or good, is reliable. Defining terms is essential. Sometimes “intuition” is used to describe the informed insights an expert in any field might have — a physicist, for instance, who has a brainstorm, suggesting a new line of inquiry or a new experimental approach. But this is not really intuition at all: It is a swift logical process, leading rapidly from a base of knowledge to a plausible conclusion. It seems intuitive because it is so fast, but it has nothing at all to do with mystical, self-evident “truths” arising mysteriously from ... wherever. And, crucially, it does not produce definitive answers; it only points in a direction. Answers must be established by rational pursuit of confirmable information. In other words, logic, reasoning, the scientific method scrupulously employed. Steiner’s form of “intuition” is elevated beyond any normal definition, and it explicitly runs counter to reasoning. Intuition with a capital “I” is the consciousness all humanity will share when we ascend from Venus to Vulcan: “The seventh state of consciousness is the ‘spiritual consciousness’ or Intuition, the very highest, when man has a universal consciousness; when he will not only see what proceeds on his own planet, but in the whole cosmos around him.” [41] The planet Vulcan does not exist, which gives us a clue that Steiner’s Inspiration is groundless. (Scientists once thought that the solar system must include a mysterious inner planet, which they named Vulcan. But they later tossed out the idea.) Steiner’s “Intuition” is essentially indistinguishable from clairvoyance, in that it produces immediately accepted spiritual truths, no proof required. At Waldorf schools, an effort is made to lead students toward such thinking in the here and now. As one Waldorf educator has written, the objective is to “transform thought from what it is at present — the capacity for abstract hypothesis — into the capacity for self-evident spiritual experience.” [42] Steiner himself said “Let now these intimations come/To claim their rightful place,/Supplanting thinking’s power....” [43] The difficulty is that “thinking’s power” is essential to science; indeed, gathering evidence, forming “abstract hypotheses” about them, and then testing the hypotheses, is a good description of the scientific method. This is how we gain actual knowledge, not through unsubstantiated, potentially delusional “visions.” The varieties of thought Steiner espoused fail to yield the firm, testable facts required for science. As a consequence, Steiner’s “spiritual science” is a hollow shell. It is fraudulent. Some brief portions of this essay were adapted from “Unenlightened.”  Rudolf Steiner as a young man [Rudolf Steiner, THE STORY OF MY LIFE (Kessinger Publishing, facsimile of 1928 edition, Anthroposophical Publishing Co.), facing p. 8.] ◊◊◊◊ For scientific skepticism about clairvoyance and other "psychic phenomena," see "Clairvoyance". For additional statements Steiner made about science, see "Science". For the connection between "spiritual science" and prayers, see "Power Words". ◊◊◊◊
◊◊◊◊ AFTERWORDS I. Ramsbotham In a remarkable book dealing with one of Steiner’s occult theories, [44] Richard Ramsbotham provides an example of what passes for rational thought among Anthroposophists. Ramsbotham repeats the usual claim that Anthroposophy is scientific, that it is “the science [emphasis by Ramsbotham] of the world of the spirit.” [45] Quite quickly, however, this claim starts to break down. Ramsbotham reports that “‘spiritual science’ — or supersensible science — depends on the development of our own inherent faculties of cognition.” [46] “Supersensible science” is the examination of spiritual phenomena, which are inaccessible to our normal senses: sight, hearing, etc. The “cognition” on which this “science” depends is clairvoyance. Steiner encouraged his followers to use their own clairvoyance to check his supersensible discoveries, as Ramsbotham correctly reports. [47] But with less justification, Ramsbotham also asserts that Steiner’s teachings can be confirmed by ordinary forms of thought and perception: Steiner “did not consider it necessary for us to be clairvoyant before we start ... Our healthy powers of thinking, perception, and judgment are enough to test the truth or otherwise of his findings.” [48] In fact, as we have already seen, ordinary powers of thinking lead us to precisely the opposite conclusion: Steiner’s “research” collapses when subjected to rational review. Ramsbotham acknowledges that he himself has not developed the clairvoyant powers that Steiner claimed to possess: “I could not myself have carried out Steiner’s research.” [49] Instead, Ramsbotham accepts Steiner’s word: “[M]any people have become able to place a certain trust in Steiner’s research.” [50] Steiner’s followers develop their trust by “living with the results of this research” so that “over many years even [sic], they find this [i.e., their trust] not to have been disappointed by Steiner.” [51] Eventually, their trust leads them to be “certain of what Steiner is saying.” [52] Ramsbotham places himself firmly among those who trust Steiner. Trust is faith. The words are synonymous. Faith is a requirement of religion, not science. In the final sections of his book, Ramsbotham digs through literature and history, seeking circumstantial evidence that may support Steiner. This scholarship holds points of interest, but none of it amounts to much since Ramsbotham has not investigated or confirmed the central thesis. In true science, research is confirmed if it is repeated and found to yield the same result, or if other, equally stringent research produces new data that validate the original result. “Living” with research may accustom us to its claims, but it does not provide confirmation of the claims. Ramsbotham ultimately gives us nothing but tangential evidence that he has deliberately selected in a effort to buttress an unconfirmed occult vision. This is hardly persuasive — it begins and ends in taking Steiner on faith. “[T]his book is wholeheartedly indebted to him.” [53] This is not reason or logic; it is certainly not science, “supersensible” or otherwise. It is blind faith. II. Steiner Let’s extend our inquiry by observing Rudolf Steiner in action. Here is a paragraph from one of his lectures, in this instance dealing with hidden conspirators who work behind the scenes to wreak havoc. How well does the paragraph hold up as a scientific report? Is it composed of language that a serious scientist would use when reporting a discovery of the utmost importance? Is it composed of language that enables the rest of us to decide what to do, either to check the scientist’s work or to save ourselves from our hidden foes? In answering such questions, below, I will pick nits, which can be exasperating. But if we want to evaluate Steiner’s work, we must look at it closely. The passage I’ve chosen is worse than some of Steiner’s statements, but it is better than many others. I offer it as a fair sample. Like any other passage, this one would be somewhat more coherent if taken in context rather than standing alone. But I invite you to read the entire lecture. You’ll see that not much clarity results. Steiner typically uses language that is mystifying rather than illuminating. His stock in trade, after all, consisted of spiritual mysteries to which he claimed to hold the key, which must have posed a dilemma for him. If he truly explained the mysteries, his services as an occult savant would no longer be needed. Revealing too much, or making himself too well understood, would be bad for business. “What is going on behind the scenes of external events is very significant. These things would not be under discussion here today if there were not the binding need to draw them to the attention of those who are able to hear what is being said through having some preparation in the matters of spiritual science. It is necessary for such things to enter into the consciousness of the humanity of the fifth post-Atlantean age. Only if they do enter into the consciousness of the humanity of the fifth post-Atlantean age will those things be achieved which must be the goal of earthly evolution.” [54] Is there any conceivable way to validate such a statement? Does it even have any real meaning? Let’s consider. A meaningful statement must use comprehensible terms with sufficient clarity to convey an actual message. How much clarity can we find in Steiner’s words? One nearly specific phrase he offers us is “the fifth post-Atlantean age,” which refers to an historical epoch dating from the sinking of Atlantis. However, since there is precious little evidence that Atlantis ever existed (see my essay “Atlantis and the Aryans”), Steiner’s entire historical scheme is baseless, a house built on sand. There is no fifth post-Atlantean age. Another term in Steiner’s passage merits similar analysis. This is the reference to students of Anthroposophy: “those who are able to hear what is being said through having some preparation in the matters of spiritual science.” Once again, when we step back and ponder, the reference grows awfully fuzzy. How much preparation is meant by “some preparation”? A smidgen? Years of intensive study? Something in between? Steiner doesn’t say. Likewise, which “matters of spiritual science” must the students be prepared in? The entire theology, or only some parts of it? Which parts? Steiner doesn’t say. The reference to students of Anthroposophy raises another issue. What are we to make of the idea that Steiner is talking primarily to those who already agree with him, the only ones who can understand him (“those who are able to hear through having some ....”)? The basic requirement of science is that results must be offered to the wide world for impartial review. A scientist cannot say, “I have discovered X, but you cannot understand what I mean, nor confirm my claim, unless you already agree with me.” Yet this is what Steiner says. In doing so — in denying this essential requirement of science — Steiner inadvertently it kicks the props out from under his own so-called “spiritual science.” Look at a few more elements of the passage. What “goal of earthly evolution” is Steiner referring to? He says it is “the” goal of earthly evolution, so getting it straight is important, but in this passage he doesn’t specify. Of course, we can’t expect Steiner to repeat all Anthroposophical doctrines at every point in every lecture. But notice how extraordinarily vague he is here. Instead of giving even a thumbnail description of what he means, he refers to “things,” the vaguest word possible: He says that he is discussing “these things” with an audience that must have “some preparation” in “such things” in order to pave the way for “those things” to happen. A statement could hardly be emptier. But this is characteristic of Steiner’s method. The effect of his language is to produce a miasma of mystical vagueness. Consider the mind-numbing length and convoluted phrasings of some of Steiner’s sentences, as well as the mesmeric repetitions he indulged in, such as “the consciousness of the humanity of the fifth post-Atlantean age ... the consciousness of the humanity of the fifth post-Atlantean age ....” One more point, then we can let this go. Ponder Steiner’s logic, or the lack thereof. “These things would not be under discussion here today if there were not the binding need to draw them to the attention of ....” Steiner has not shown that there is a “binding need” for the discussion, he has merely made an unsupported claim that such a need exists. In other words, despite his inverse phrasing, the “discussion” (which is not, in fact, a discussion: the only person talking is Steiner) occurs for no other reason than that Steiner has made it occur. So what does Steiner’s sentence mean? Nothing except “I am talking to you because I am talking to you.” This is a giveaway, the mark of a con man: elaborate palaver that — wholly unsubstantiated — means nothing. Anthroposophists may choose to believe Steiner, but that is intuition, faith, blind belief; it is not what Steiner promised, spiritual “science.” OK. I apologize for spending so much time on a single passage. But if I am accusing Steiner — among other failings — of failing to present evidence, I need to supply evidence of my own. There’s an almost endless supply of similar evidence to be had. Open any Steiner book, at random, and start reading. You’ll soon come across similar evasions and obfuscations. Before closing the book in disgust, ask yourself whether Steiner has taught you anything. How powerful, compelling, or indeed “scientific” are the words you’ve read? You know the answer I propose: Steiner’s work is about as far removed from science and truth as it possibly could be. — Roger Rawlings ◊◊◊◊ For Steiner's views on one pseudoscience, please use this link: "Alchemy" You may also be interested in "Magic" and/or "Magic Numbers" ◊◊◊◊ The captionless illustrations are my own colored variants of black-and-white sketches accompanying some of Steiner's lectures. You'll find them, with captions, elsewhere on this site. [R.R., 2009.] ◊◊◊◊ ADDENDUM: From the Web Science, as taught at Waldorf schools, is heavily based on the work of the German author Goethe. Hence, it is often referred to as Goethean science. Here is an excerpt from an interesting Internet posting from July, 2009. Materials taken from the Web should be handled with care, since so many are unreliable. This one seems to generally pass muster, But draw your own conclusions. Because the item is so long, I have omitted extensive chunks. The locations of the omissions are marked "<snip>". PSEUDOSCIENCE: NOT A VALID EDUCATIONAL CHOICE by "Unity" (Member of the Labour Party) http://www.ministryoftruth.me.uk/2009/07/22/pseudoscience-not-a-valid-educational-choice/ and http://www.liberalconspiracy.org/2009/07/23/pseudoscience-is-not-a-valid-educational-choice/ Despite their carefully cultivated (and heavily sanitised) public image as a haven of faintly hippyish liberal arts education rooted in an absurdly over-romanticised view of childhood, Steiner Schools (also known as Steiner-Waldorf and Waldorf Schools) are, in reality, just one arm of an occult society founded in the second decade of the 20th Century by Rudolf Steiner – The Anthroposophical Society – which actively espouses and promotes a fundamentally unscientific world view. <snip> [W]hat really concerns me, so far as this article goes, is what one discovers on digging into the nature of so-called ‘Goethean science’ as it’s practiced within Steiner Schools. Goethean Science is somewhat difficult to describe in simple terms, largely because answers to the question ‘what is Goethean science?‘ are almost invariably wrapped up in copious layers of cod philosophy and psychobabble, but it is possible to get something of a flavour of how it differs from real science from this statement. The idea is that the Goethean does not need to superimpose a rationalistic or reductionistic explanatory mechanism over top of the observed phenomenon, but rather simply takes the intuitive imaginative experience at face value. A philosopher would call that a phenomenological approach. A scientist would call it ‘making shit up’ – and that’s pretty much the size of it. So-called Goethean ’scientists’ simply disregard all the proven tools provided by the scientific method, i.e. logic, reason and evidence, in favour treating their own imaginings and subjective impressions as an alternative form of ’scientific truth’.
<snip> As you might well expect, whenever you find an attempt to fashion an alleged gap in Darwinian evolutionary theory, the idea that life is product of some kind of supernatural special creation won’t be following too far behind and, as the noted science education[ist] Eugenie C Scott notes in her 1994 article ‘Waldorf Schools Teach Odd Science, Odd Evolution‘ this is certainly true of the account of evolution taught in Steiner schools. The [Steiner] Waldorf version of evolution is especially concerned with the relationship of humans to animals, but this relationship is quite different from that of mainline evolutionists. “It becomes apparent that man is a compendium of the animal kingdom; alternatively expressed, that the animal kingdom is the human being spread out.” The human “essence” passed through a number of “spiritual states” on the way to becoming human, which was a relatively recent event. “Dr. Steiner considers animals to be the by-products of human development. Man has been involved from the beginning but not in a physical form. Man existed spiritually and the animal forms represent physically incarnated soul forces which the human being had to dispense with in order to mature sufficiently to receive the ego. … As in life … we are trying to overcome the lower passions to evolve to something higher, so throughout evolution, the passions were separated out from man and these were incorporated as animals.” For our final example of the kind of rubbish that passes for ’science’ in Steiner education we’ll leave the biological sciences and turn to a delightful account of a middle school physics lesson as related by Christian Smits in a paper entitled “A study of the element ‘Water’“. Yes, even before we look at of the content of the paper, there’s a pretty obvious problem to be addressed. From chemistry we know that there are 92 naturally occurring chemical elements plus something of the order of another 25 or Transuranic elements that scientists have managed to create, artificially, within nuclear reactors, none of which are actually water… or air, fire and earth, all of which Steinerians consider to be elements as well. Aristotelian dogma is, sad to say, alive and well and still being taught as ’science’ in Steiner schools. <snip> [T]he good news for Steiner educators is that [researchers] Jelinek and Sun did find some evidence that the heavy emphasis on observation and subjective interpretation in Steiner Schools does give rise to some measureable benefits in terms of a more rapid development of non-verbal inferential reasoning skills in children educated in Steiner School as against those in mainstream education. <snip> The bad news ... As a first step Waldorf should disregard Rudolf Steiner and Anthroposophy as the source of accurate scientific concepts. The basis for this recommendation is that Steiner’s teachings do not pass the tests of empiricism (a,b,c and d)*, are not testable by anyone (e), have not changed much, if any, since Steiner introduced them (f), and rely on paranormal statements that cannot be verified (g). Accepting many of Rudolf Steiner’s scientific indications in light of the absence of empirical evidence violates the core premises of the scientific paradigm. The anthroposophical argument is that Rudolf Steiner applied empirical investigations in the spiritual world where he garnered higher spiritual truths, but even if this turns out to be accurate it must be discarded as scientifically valid because it cannot be replicated by anyone. If and when the scientific paradigm can ever be overturned with an anthroposophical paradigm because a preponderance of empirical evidence demands it, anthroposophists will have reason to celebrate; but there is little in the current paradigm to suggest this is likely. In short, what Jelinek and Sun actually concluded was that the apparent benefits of Steiner Education’s methodological approach to science education are routinely and systematically squandered on the teaching of pseudoscientific nonsense.... *Lettered references refer to an outline of the scientific paradigm which immediately precedes these conclusions in Jelinek and Sun’s paper. <snip to end> ◊◊◊◊ ◊ I deal with issues of science on several other pages at this Web site: “Stars,” “Lessons,” “What We Are Made Of,” “Race,” “Humouresque,” “Not So Humouresque,” “Neutered Nature,” “Steiner’s Logic” and “Steiner’s Blunders”. ◊ "Everything" and the essays that follow it examines Steiner's “scientific” accounts of the distant past as well as the distant future. ◊◊◊◊ ENDNOTES [1] Scientific simpletons: Rudolf Steiner, THE KARMA OF UNTRUTHFULNESS (Rudolf Steiner Press, 2005), p. 276. Scientific trash: Rudolf Steiner, THE RENEWAL OF EDUCATION (Anthroposophic Press, 2001), p. 94. Pedantic proof of things: Rudolf Steiner, ART AS SPIRITUAL ACTIVITY (Anthroposophic Press, 1998), p. 240. Primitive concepts: Rudolf Steiner, HOW CAN MANKIND FIND THE CHRIST AGAIN (Anthroposophic Press, 1984), p. 54. Steiner sometimes indicated that the science can produce real knowledge, “facts.” But even so, he said, the scientific attitude is deadly. He associated this attitude with “materialistic thought,” which cannot penetrate into the spiritual realm that he claimed to know through clairvoyance. “Both generally and in particulars, there is hardly anything more intolerant in human life than the ‘scientific attitude.’ I do not, of course, refer to scientific facts, for they are presented in a way which does science the very highest credit ... I am speaking of the ‘scientific attitude’ which arises on the foundation of these facts. The attitude of materialistic thought today is an example of almost the greatest intolerance to be found in history.” [Rudolf Steiner, EARTHLY AND COSMIC MAN, “‘Chance and Present-Day Consciousness” (Rudolf Steiner Publishing Company, 1948).] On other occasions, Steiner denounced science as presenting not facts but illusions. “For modern education we need these illusions of a mathematical nature about the universe, we must acquire them, but we must know that they are illusions ... A right attitude in regard to the whole of modern science, insofar as it thinks along these lines, will recognize that its knowledge is illusion.” [Rudolf Steiner, THE AHRIMANIC DECEPTION (Anthroposophic Press, 1985).] On still other occasions, Steiner decried science in absolute terms: “scientific trash.” In a remarkable passage, Steiner says that modern science arose from myth. He argues that today's scientific truths will be overturned by future discoveries, which is quite probably true, but he quite mistakenly argues from this that science is equivalent to myth and superstition. "Everything connected with modern science has grown from myth; myth is its root. There are elemental spirits [nature spirits, low invisible beings such as goblins] which observe these things from the other worlds and they howl with hell's own derision when today's mighty clever professors look down on the mythologies of old, and on all the media of ancient superstition, having not the least idea that they and all their clevereness have grown from those myths ... Myth relates to our ideas just as the scientific ideas of the nineteenth and twentieth centuries relate to what will be a few centuries later. They will be overcome....” [Rudolf Steiner, THE FALL OF THE SPIRITS OF DARKNESS (Rudolf Steiner Press, 2008), p. 158.] Steiner states this as if producing a startling insight, when in fact all scientists would agree: Science is an evolving body of knowledge, and in the future we will presumably know much more than we know today, so some of our current theories will be supplanted by more advanced theories. Steiner’s only contribution is to place the matter in the context of his own superstition and ignorance, such as his belief in elemental beings, alongside his unceasing opposition to real knowledge such as that provided by the “mighty clever professors” he derides. In reality, science has no connection to myth; it arises from careful observation and scrupulous experimentation. It is factual, in precisely the way that Steiner's teachings are not. [2] Rudolf Steiner, AN OUTLINE OF ESOTERIC SCIENCE (Anthroposophic Press, 1997), p. 6. Steiner made the same claim several times. For example: “[T]he purpose of this book is to depict some portions of the supersensible world ... It is only through knowledge of the supersensible that our sense-perceptible ‘reality’ acquires meaning ... In compiling this book, I have included nothing I cannot testify to on the basis of personal experience in this field. Only my direct experience is presented here.” [THEOSOPHY: An Introduction to the Spiritual Processes in Human Life and in the Cosmos (Anthroposophic Press, 1994), pp. 7-8.] The term “supersensible” applies to things we cannot perceive with our ordinary senses. By supersensible faculties, Steiner meant clairvoyance and its precursors. By supersensible world(s) or realm(s), he meant the spirit realm. Despite his claim, it is apparent that Steiner drew his doctrines from his extensive reading and other non-clairvoyant activities. When critics and reviewers pointed to his sources, Steiner revised his works, slightly, and insisted all the more firmly that his insights came from his own psychic study of the spirit realm. Innumerable volumes affirming or dissecting mysticism, magic, spiritualism, and the like, were available in Steiner’s time. Helena Blavatsky, a founder of Theosophy, published THE SECRET DOCTRINE in 1888 — Steiner, who for a while headed the Theosophical Society in Germany, adapted many of his doctrines from it. Other influential volumes of the period were Richard M. Bucke’s COSMIC CONSCIOUSNESS, which came out in 1901, and Rufus M. Jones’ STUDIES IN MYSTICAL RELIGION, published in 1908. There were many more, in English and in German, some stemming from deep in the past. Blavatsky was Steiner’s greatest source. Steiner’s Anthroposophy is, to a great extent, merely a reworking of Blatvastky’s Theosophy. The link is clear, for example, in the book mentioned above, Steiner’s THEOSOPHY. It is described this way at the Steiner Archive (http://www.rsarchive.org/Books/GA009/ ): “THEOSOPHY begins by describing the threefold nature of the human being: the body, or sense-world; the soul, or inner world; and the spirit, or universal world of cosmic archetypes. A profound discussion of reincarnation and karma follows, concluding with a description of the soul's journey through regions of the supersensible world after death. The book closes with an outline of the path to higher knowledge.” After Steiner broke from Theosophy, he developed variations to Theosophical doctrines; but his debt to Blavatsky remains clear. Here are a few more of Steiner’s sources.
◊ Steiner was a student of Johann Wolfgang von Goethe — he read Goethe's works devotedly, beginning early in his life. “Then for the first time I read Goethe’s FAUST.” [Rudolf Steiner, THE STORY OF MY LIFE [Anthroposophical Publishing Co., 1928], p. 37.] “I cannot tell you what I felt when this came before my soul and I read again these lines by Goethe: From heaven through the earth they're pressing!” [Rudolf Steiner, THE FOUR SEASONS AND THE ARCHANGELS [Rudolf Steiner Press, 1996], p. 65.] Goethe’s work reverberates throughout Steiner’s books and lectures — a point I will return to. ◊ Steiner was influenced, as well, by the “nature philosophy” of Friedrich Joseph von Schelling. “Rudolf Steiner ... uses his first visit to Vienna ‘to purchase a great number of philosophy books’” including works by Schelling. [Rudolf Steiner, A WAY OF SELF-KNOWLEDGE (SteinerBooks, 2006), p. 156.] He strove to learn whether Schelling was right that one can penetrate to the Eternal, and he claimed success. “I discovered this capacity in myself.” [Ibid., p. 157.] ◊ Steiner claimed deep knowledge of gnostic Christian writings. When critics said he “was merely reviving the ideas of Christian Gnosticism,” he asserted that he proved gnostic truths by using his clairvoyance. [Rudolf Steiner, OCCULT SCIENCE: An Outline (Rudolf Steiner Press, 2005), p. 12.] ◊ In his lecture "The History of Spiritualism" Steiner names various spiritualists whose work he claims to comprehend. He mentions Robert Fludd, Emanuel Swedenborg, Justinus Kerner, Johann Friedrich von Mayer, among others, and he alludes to their writings — e.g., “Mayer, who wrote a book from the standpoint of spiritualism about Hades...." [Rudolf Steiner, SPIRITUALISM, MADAME BLAVATSKY, AND THEOSOPHY (Anthroposophic Press, 2001), p. 69.] Of course, Steiner disparages the various forms of spiritualism as compared to his own doctrines.
◊ Steiner professed knowledge of Johann Valentin Andreae’s manuscript, THE CHYMICAL WEDDING OF CHRISTIAN ROSENKREUTZ, that presents Rosicrucian secrets. “[H]ow is it that as a quite young man he composed a document in THE CHYMICAL WEDDING that he published as information concerning true Rosicrucianism? ... There is no need to connect the content of THE CHYMICAL WEDDING with Andreae’s age at the time he wrote it....” [CHRISTIAN ROSENKREUTZ (Rudolf Steiner Press, 2001), p. 71.] ◊ Henry Cornelius Agrippa von Nettesheim, an apostle of numerology and magic, wrote in the 16th century. Steiner said he knew his work. “In his writings, Agrippa assigns to each planet what he calls the Intelligence [sic] of the planet. This points to traditions that had existed from ancient times....” [Rudolf Steiner, THE SPIRITUAL HIERARCHIES AND THE PHYSICAL WORLD (Anthroposophic Press, 1996), p. 262.] ◊ Nostradamus, an astrologer and seer, wrote at about the same time as Agrippa. Steiner discussed Nostradamus’s writings, including one comfortably accurate forecast. “Nostradamus ... was able to foretell the future. He wrote a number of prophetic verses ... The Theosophical Society is nothing less than a fulfillment of this prophecy of Nostradamus.” [Rudolf Steiner, THE TEMPLE LEGEND (Rudolf Steiner Press, 1997), p. 27 — Steiner was a Theosophist before establishing his variant, Anthroposophy.] ◊ The Egyptian Book of the Dead predates Christ by approximately 1,500 years. Steiner was able to discuss its contents. “When it leaves the body — so The Egyptian Book of the Dead testifies — it enters the realm of Osiris....” [ISIS MARY SOPHIA (SteinerBooks, 2004), p. 96.] ◊ Steiner’s explorations included works of poetry and fiction, which he used as illustrations of his ideas but also, evidently, as sources of ideas. “One could cite many examples of how the inspiration of the Knights Templar has been drawn into souls. I will read you a passage from the poem ‘Ahasver’ by Julius Mosen....” [Rudolf Steiner, THE KNIGHTS TEMPLAR (Rudolf Steiner Press, 2007), pp. 61-62.] “Central to the spiritual work on inner development is what Rudolf Steiner calls (following Bulwer Lytton, who introduced the term in his Rosicrucian novel ZANONI)....” [Rudolf Steiner, START NOW! (Rudolf Steiner Press, 2007), p. 243, Christopher Bamford, editor — the reference is to the concept of the Guardian of the Threshold.] ◊ Steiner, similarly, was well acquainted with numerous myths, legends, and fairy tales that he argued are essentially true. “Myths and sagas are not just 'folk-tales'; they are the memories of the visions people perceived in olden times ... At night they were really surrounded by the world of the Nordic gods of which the legends tell. Odin, Freya, and all the other figures [i.e., Norse gods] in Nordic mythology were not inventions; they were experienced in the spiritual world with as much reality as we experience our fellow human beings around us today.” [Rudolf Steiner, THE FESTIVALS AND THEIR MEANING (Rudolf Steiner Press, 1998), p. 198.] Steiner gathered myths and other fabulous tales from his reading and also, evidently, from various mentors. “Reinhold Köhle had roved around with unique comprehensiveness in the myths, fairy-tales, and sagas ... I came in once and asked for a book....” [THE STORY OF MY LIFE, pp. 151-152.] Conceivably, Steiner learned the contents of many texts through the use of clairvoyance rather than through the more straightforward process known as reading. But there is scant reason to think so. Steiner, a Ph.D., was a bookish man. ◊ Steiner also gathered information by visiting museums, although presumably this was no more necessary for him than reading, if knowledge was open to him through clairvoyant means. “At this point, let me make a personal remark. When ... we go into a natural history museum we are confronted by something really miraculous ... I visited the museum in Trieste....” [Rudolf Steiner, THE GODDESS (Rudolf Steiner Press, 2001) pp. 32-33.] Here are just a few of the terms and concepts that Steiner derived from his reading, museum hops, etc., and then recycled in his books and lectures. ◊Karma is originally a Hindu concept. ◊Reincarnation is a belief shared by Hindus, Jains, and Buddhists. ◊Ahriman was introduced to the world by Zoroaster. ◊Vulcan was originally the Roman god of fire. ◊The legend of Atlantis began with Plato. Lemuria, or Mu, was an even more ancient lost continent, a notion rooted in Polynesian lore. ◊In classical mythology, Lucifer (or Phosphorus) was the herald of the dawn; Christians later adopted “Lucifer” as the name for Satan as he was before man’s fall. ◊The war of all against all is a conception of Thomas Hobbes. ◊During the nineteenth century, if evolution was accepted at all, it was often reworked as a scheme of divinely directed progress. ◊Etheric bodies and astral bodies are Theosophical concepts. ◊Other Theosophical concepts Steiner adopted include nature spirits (deriving originally from pagan nature worship) and root races. ◊The four humours were first conceived by the ancient Greeks. ◊In occult tradition, the Akashic records are written on Akasha, or astral light, which mediates clairvoyance. ◊In Western folklore, goblins are mischievous or malicious sprites; gnomes are deformed goblins living underground and guarding treasures. ◊The Guardian of the Threshold comes from the novel ZANONI (reprinted by Rudolf Steiner Publications, 1971). ◊Steiner’s pantheon is inhabited by beings taken from Norse myths and similar sources (see Odin and Freya, mentioned above). [For much of this information, I am indebted to the ENCYCLOPEDIA BRITANNICA at www.britannica.com .] Anthroposophists often cite the work of other mystics and thinkers as confirmation: Steiner must be right, because his work contains themes and patterns also found elsewhere. But Blavatsky and Steiner specifically sought to sweep up elements from multiple sources, working to affirm apparent parallels and to reconcile apparent conflicts. The recurrence of various themes and patterns in sundry traditions may reflect underlying truths, or it may simply reveal the process of borrowing and mutual influence, as well as the unconscious predispositions of human psychology. Steiner’s work naturally reflects the sources from which he drew, but often the results are discordant, as in his effort to reconcile reincarnation and Christianity. ---- On the question of belief: Despite claiming that Anthroposophy is a science, not a religion, Steiner repeatedly stressed the importance of belief and faith. Thus, he equated faith or the "faith body" with the astral body, one of our essential spiritual members. Losing faith would mean losing the means of evolving upward spiritually: “[T]he forces expressed in the word ‘faith’ are necessary to the soul. For the soul incapable of faith become withered, dried-up as the desert ... If we do not possess forces such as are expressed in the word ‘faith’, something in us goes to waste ... Were men in reality to lose all faith, they would soon see what it means for evolution. By losing the forces of faith they would be incapacitated for finding their way about in life; their very existence would be undermined by fear, care, and anxiety. To put it briefly, it is through the forces of faith alone that we can receive the life which should well up to invigorate the soul. This is because, imperceptible at first for ordinary consciousness, there lies in the hidden depths of our being something in which our true ego is embedded. This something, which immediately makes itself felt if we fail to bring it fresh life, is the human sheath where the forces of faith are active. We may term it the faith-soul, or — as I prefer — the faith-body. It has hitherto been given the more abstract name of astral body. The most important forces of the astral body are those of faith, so the term astral body and the term faith-body are equally justified.” [Rudolf Steiner, ESOTERIC CHRISTIANITY AND THE MISSION OF CHRISTIAN ROSENKREUTZ (Rudolf Steiner Press, 2000), pp. 162-163.] Belief must be paired to spiritual knowledge, Steiner said — his system, Anthroposophy, is intended to provide such knowledge. But belief is nonetheless indispensable; indeed, it is the "fruit" of Christ's cross: “Out of the womb of time there is born for us human beings that which is beyond time. If we stand on this firm support, we base upon it, not a blind belief, but a belief permeated by wisdom, truth and knowledge, and we may say: What must, will come; and nothing prevents us from throwing our best energies into what we believe to be inevitable. Belief is the real fruit of the cross.” [Rudolf Steiner, THE EAST IN THE LIOGHT OF THE WEST (Kessinger Publishing, 1999), pp. 2-3.] [3] See, e.g., Rudolf Steiner, KNOWLEDGE OF THE HIGHER WORLDS AND ITS ATTAINMENT (Anthroposophic Press, 1944). Publishing reproducible results is a basic requirement of science. Accepting new results that may modify or overturn accepted theory is another. Steiner made gestures toward both requirements, telling adherents how to see what he had seen, and holding open the possibility that further discoveries might be made. But these gestures do not rescue his nonsense. Steiner’s clairvoyant visions are indistinguishable from subjective imaginings — we cannot know that they are accurate reflections of reality, and neither could he. For more on these matters, see my essays “Thinking Cap” and “Steiner’s Illogic”. In truth, whether or not Steiner had (or thought he had) clairvoyant visions, he derived most of his doctrines from Theosophy and other occult sources. Steiner was an intellectual, an academic, and his wide reading is patent in his pronouncements. When early critics pointed out the derivative nature of his work, he defensively asserted that he could personally vouch for everything he asserted. This is, at best, a terribly thin tautology; and it is wholly unscientific. Some of Steiner’s successors in the Anthroposophical community have offered their own avowals of clairvoyant powers. Yet most work done by Anthroposophists today consists of poring over Steiner’s books. So we find today’s Anthroposophists trying to glean a priori insights from a “scientist” who gained his a priori tenets from earlier mystics. This enterprise has nothing in common with genuine science. [4] Ibid., p. 28. [5] For more detailed discussions of Steiner’s claims of clairvoyance, see “Unenlightened” and “Steiner’s Logic”, among others. [6] Anthony Storr, FEET OF CLAY (Free Press, 1996), pp. 170-171. [7] Rudolf Steiner, AT HOME IN THE UNIVERSE: EXPLORING OUR SUPRASENSORY NATURE, (Steiner Books, 2000), p. 84. T. H. Meyer edited a fascinating book that contains, among other treasures, messages Rudolf Steiner said he received from a dead German general: LIGHT FOR THE NEW MILLENNIUM (Rudolf Steiner Press, 1997). In his introductory comments, Meyer attempts to substantiate the claim that “spiritual science is just as exact and objective as any science which really deserves the name.” [p. xxvi] “Generally speaking, any results of spiritual scientific research may be verified in basically three ways: 1) As to the inner logic prevailing in the research presented; 2) By relating the results of spiritual scientific research to ordinary life and asking whether the latter becomes more comprehensible by taking them into account; 3) By adopting the methods given by Rudolf Steiner to develop the spiritual faculties of Imagination, Inspiration and Intuition for oneself.” [p. viii] Let’s dispose of these tree forms of “verification.” 1) The “inner logic” of Steiner’s system is that everything falls into place. There are seven planets, for instance, and seven human cultural epochs, and seven notes in the musical scale, etc. Problem: The solar system actually has eight planets (nine if we count Pluto), human history can be subdivided into any number of phases, varying musical scales have varying numbers of notes, etc. Steiner imposes an arbitrary order, he does not find an inherent logic. 2) One may subjectively consider any belief system illuminating, but this does not mean that the system has any scientific validity. E.g., “My factory job is awful because, as Karl Marx explained, we have not yet established the dictatorship of the proletariat.” Many people have accepted Marxism because it makes the world comprehensible to them, but this does not mean Marxism has been scientifically proven. Ditto Anthroposophy. 3) If one develops clairvoyant powers and then sees everything Steiner saw, one might then convince oneself. But how can s/he convince others? On what basis would others believe him/her? As I pointed out in my essay “Unenlightened” we would have made no progress at all. A new “seer” would tell us about the spiritual realm, but we would have no evidence, no proof. Even the “seer” should be skeptical of the “seer’s” observations, since the human capacity for self-deception is well established. In brief, none of Meyer’s three methods of verification is valid or scientific. Let’s return, briefly, to the question of inner logic. Steiner was generally successful in making his various statements consistent with one another — but not always. His work is actually riven with contradictions and loose ends. Consider his use of the term “planets,” for instance. Sometimes Steiner accepted a more or less scientific view, referring to planets as large natural satellites of the Sun (although, for occult reasons, he tended to deny that Uranus and Neptune are true planets). At other times, he said that the planets do not orbit the Sun but move through space in line with the Sun, three planets ahead of the Sun and three behind. At still other times, he referred to the planets as stages of evolution, and he counted as planets the Moon, the Sun, and Vulcan. If one works hard at finding a rationalization for these varying comments, it is more or less possible to make them seem, in an esoteric sense, coherent. But such rationalization has little to do with logic. [8] Rudolf Steiner, FACULTY MEETINGS WITH RUDOLF STEINER (Anthroposophic Press, 1998), pp. 30-31. [9] Ibid., p. 607. [10] Ibid., p. 29. Steiner doesn’t deny that dropped objects tend to move downward, but he comes close. “Gravity is ... perceived only by those beings that live on a solid planet ... Beings who could live on a fluid planet would know nothing of gravity ... And beings who live on a gaseous planet would regard as normal something that would be the opposite of gravity ... [B]eings dwelling on a gaseous planet instead of seeing bodies falling towards the planet would see them always flying off ... Gravity begins when we find ourselves on a solid planet.” [Rudolf Steiner, SCIENCE (Rudolf Steiner Press 2003), pp. 136-137.] He denies gravity’s significance, calling it “only a phenomenon.” He explains that in observing the acceleration of a dropped object, we can “develop what people call a law, but is actually only a phenomenon.” He extends his disparagement of physical phenomena to electricity: “Today, you can certainly speak about electricity without speaking about forces. You can remain strictly within the realm of phenomena.” His point is that physical phenomena like gravity and electricity should not be elevated to the status of laws or forces, terms that should apply only to higher truths. In MAN IN THE PAST, THE PRESENT, AND THE FUTURE & THE SUN-INITIATION OF THE DRUID PRIEST AND HIS MOON-SCIENCE (Rudolf Steiner Press, 1982), Steiner presents what he calls ancient wisdom: “It was known that man is not just a clod held fast by the Earth’s gravity ... for him as an earthly man it is the Earth which holds the upper hand. But as regards his head-activity, the effective influence on it is the negative gravity that draws him away. Thus though man might not be able to fly, at least he could raise his spirit to the starry spaces.” [p. 39] As a poetic sentiment, that last sentences isn’t bad. But as science, the entire statement is junk. NASA got to the Moon not through mere aspiration — wonderful though aspiration certainly is — but through understanding and use of the physical sciences. Steiner’s “spiritual science” has produced no comparable achievements. (Indeed, some spiritualists — including some of Steiner’s followers — prefer to think that the Moon landings were faked precisely because they do not wish to acknowledge the truth and potency of physical science.) Coming back down to Earth, here's how Steiner wrapped up the subject of gravity for Waldorf teachers: “Over there is a bench and on it is, let us say, a ball ... [T]he ball falls to the ground ... Saying that the ball is subject to the force of gravity is really meaningless ... But we cannot avoid speaking of gravity; we must mention it. Otherwise, when our students enter life they may some day [sic] be asked to explain gravity ... Just imagine what would happen if a fifteen-year-old boy knew nothing of gravity; there would be a terrible fuss. So we must explain gravity to children; we must not be foolish enough to close our eyes to the demands of the world as it is today. But by working on their subconscious, we can awaken beautiful concepts in children." [Rudolf Steiner, PRACTICAL ADVICE TO TEACHERS, Foundations of Waldorf Education (Anthroposophical Press, 2000), pp. 116-117.] The "beautiful concepts" are antiscientific fantasies. [11] Anthony Standen, SCIENCE IS A SACRED COW (E. P. Dutton & Co., 1950).  [12] Friedrich Georg Juenger, THE FAILURE OF TECHNOLOGY (Henry Regency Company, 1956). [13] Bernard Heuvelmans, ON THE TRACK OF UNKNOWN ANIMALS (Hill and Wang, 1959). [14] See, e.g., Rudolf Steiner, THE FIFTH GOSPEL: From the Akashic Record (Rudolf Steiner Press, 1995). [15] See, e.g., http://www.enlightenedbeings.com/ and http://www.edgarcayce.org/about_ec/cayce_on/akashic/ . I last checked these sites in 2007. [16] Rudolf Steiner, THE UNIVERSAL HUMAN: THE EVOLUTION OF INDIVIDUALITY, Lectures from 1909-1916 (Anthroposophic Press, 1990), pp. 65-6. [17] KNOWLEDGE OF THE HIGHER WORLDS AND ITS ATTAINMENT, p. 84. [18] Anthroposophists sometimes jump on the term "theory," as if it means that science is shaky. But in science, "theory" does not signify deep uncertainty; rather, a scientific theory is a testable, systematic explanation of phenomena. All scientific theories may eventually be supplanted by later, more advanced theories, but all stand on solid evidence. An Anthroposophist can test the "theory of gravity," for instance, by jumping out of a high window. (For Steiner’s views on the phenomenon of gravity, see endnote 10.) Steiner firmly rejected Einstein's work. Here is a strikingly odd instance: "[A] passing comment on the present state of our civilisation, for I cannot avoid pointing out how many harmful ideas live in our culture (such as the theory of relativity, especially in its most recent variation). These ideas run a ruinous course if the child becomes a research scientist." [Rudolf Steiner, PRACTICAL ADVICE TO TEACHERS, Foundations of Waldorf Education (Anthroposophic Press, 2000), p. 117.] [19] Max von Laue, “Steiner and Natural Science” (Transition no. 61-62, Collingwood, Vic, Australia, 2000) {translated from “Steiner und die Naturwissenschaft,” Deutsche Revue, 47 (1922), pp. 41-49}. I am indebted to Peter Staudenmaier for providing me with a copy. Sal P. Restivo gives the following brief account of von Laue’s essay [THE SOCIAL RELATIONS OF PHYSICS, MYSTICISM AND MATHEMATICS (Springer, 1985), p. 82]: “Max von Laue, for example, took note of the charges brought against natural science by the Rudolf Steiner school. Planck applauded von Laue’s counterattack on Steiner, and went on to complain about the widespread antiscientific currents of the time, manifested in such forms as spiritualism, occultism, and theosophy.” The “Rudolf Steiner school” is the first Waldorf School or, more generally, it is Anthroposophy, which is Steiner’s version of “theosophy.” Max Planck won the 1918 Nobel Prize in physics. (http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/physics/laureates/1918/planck-bio.html .) For more about von Laue, see http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/physics/laureates/1914/laue-bio.html . [20] Max von Laue, “Steiner and Natural Science,” p. 163. [21] Ibid. p. 163. Steiner frequently urged Waldorf teachers to teach the students about ancient "realities" or "wisdom" while also disavowing modern science: For example, “[W]e should not be afraid to speak about the Atlantean land [i.e., Atlantis] with the children. We should not skip that. We can also connect all this to history. The only thing is, you will need to disavow normal geology since the Atlantean catastrophe occurred in the seventh or eighth millennium.” [FACULTY MEETINGS WITH RUDOLF STEINER, p. 25.] [22] Ibid., p. 163. On p. 18 of ATLANTIS AND LEMURIA (Health Research Books, 2000), Steiner says “[S]cience and logical thought can, owing to their inherent attributes, never say the final word as to what is possible, or impossible.” [23] “Steiner and Natural Science,” p. 163. [24] Ibid., p. 163. [25] Ibid., p. 164. On p. 58 of OCCULT SCIENCE - An Outline (Rudolf Steiner Press, 2005), Steiner says “As light appears in seven colours and the musical scale in seven notes, so does human nature — for all its singleness and unity — appear in the seven members discussed here.” The “members” are the physical body, the etheric body (or life body), the astral body, the I (or ego), the spirit-self, the life-spirit, and the spirit-man. Go figure. [26] “Steiner and Natural Science,” p. 164. [27] Ibid., p. 164. On p. 117 of OCCULT SCIENCE: AN OUTLINE, Steiner says “The researcher in spiritual science sees the matter differently. Warmth, to him, is something of which he can speak in the same sense as of a gas, or of a liquid or solid body. It is only a yet finer substance than gas.” The translation here diverges from that in “Steiner and Natural Science,” but the meaning is the same. [28] “Steiner and Natural Science,” p. 164. [29] Ibid., p. 164. Steiner speaks of psychic or clairvoyant organs both in terms of initiation and in terms of evolution. On p. 28 of KNOWLEDGE OF THE HIGHER WORLDS AND ITS ATTAINMENT (Anthroposophic Press, 1944), he says “[J]ust as natural forces build out of living matter the eyes and ears of the physical body, so will organs of clairvoyance build themselves .... ” On p. 88 of ROSICRUCIAN WISDOM (Rudolf Steiner Press, 2000), he says “You will have a more highly developed organ, a psychic organ, on Jupiter; on Venus there will be an organ through which the human being will be able to develop physically the consciousness possessed by the initiate in the Devachanic plane. And on Vulcan, the spiritual consciousness will prevail ....” The “Devachanic plane” is a Theosophical concept, standing for a mental/heavenly stage or state. Vulcan is a nonexistent planet. (Oddities in the orbital motion of Mercury were thought, by some, to be caused by the presence of a hidden, mystery planet: Vulcan.) [30] “Steiner and Natural Science,” p. 163. [31] Ibid., p. 164. [32] See, e.g., Kendrick Frazier, editor, SCIENCE CONFRONTS THE PARANORMAL (Prometheus, 1986); Kendrick Frazier, editor, THE HUNDREDTH MONKEY AND OTHER PARADIGMS OF THE PARANORMAL (Prometheus, 1991); Martin Gardner, HOW NOT TO TEST A PSYCHIC (Prometheus, 1989); and Carl Sagan, THE DEMON-HAUNTED WORLD (Random House, 1995). The Encyclopedia Britannica devotes all of 288 words to the topic of clairvoyance, ending with this: “Research in parapsychology — such as testing a subject’s ability to predict the order of cards in a shuffled deck — has yet to provide conclusive support for the existence of clairvoyance.” ["clairvoyance." Encyclopedia Britannica. 2008. Encyclopedia Britannica Online. 18 Oct. 2008] According to the U.S. National Research Council, ‘the best evidence does not support the contention that these phenomena exist.’ [David G. Myers, PSYCHOLOGY (Worth Publishers, 2004), p. 260.] “After thousands of experiments, a reproducible ESP phenomenon has never been discovered, nor has any individual convincingly demonstrated a psychic ability.” [Ibid., p. 260.] [33] At Waldorf schools, the word “imagination” sometimes means clairvoyance or a precursor to clairvoyance. “In three stages, through Imagination, Inspiration and Intuition, we gain access to the supersensible world.” [THE SPIRIT OF THE WALDORF SCHOOL, p. 79.] Steiner insisted that while he employed nonrational modes of thought, he simultaneously maintained a rational perspective. In other words, he denied that he was disconnected from reality. I examine this contention in the present essay as well as in such essays as “Steiner’s Illogic. In discussing imagination, inspiration, and intuition, I have adopted fairly strict definitions of these terms. I do not mean to deny that much productive thinking is irrational and subconscious. The human brain is complex. The left hemisphere is generally logical and the right hemisphere is generally not, but much good thinking occurs in the right hemisphere and then pops out, as if from nowhere. There’s nothing spiritualistic in this, it is merely how some parts of our brain work. The results of right-brain thinking can be useful and true. Defending his beloved science from charges that it is cold and inhuman, mathematician Gregory Chaitin has written, “[I]n discovering and creating new mathematics, mathematicians do base themselves on intuition and inspiration, on unconscious motivations and impulses, and on their aesthetic sense, just like any creative artist would.” [Gregory Chaitin, META MATH (Pantheon Books, 2005), p. 8.] Chaitin is not referring to spiritualistic “revelation” but to right-brain thinking. Note, however, that any scientist who gets a new idea from the right brain must then submit it to the careful logic of the left brain. A discovery cannot be accepted until it is rationally defined and supported by objective evidence from which logically impeccable conclusions are drawn. An artist does not labor under the same requirements, but a “spiritual scientist” such as Steiner should be held to these standards. In his book, THE BLIND WATCHMAKER (W. W. Norton & Co, 1996), Richard Dawkins discusses Argument from Personal Incredulity: the tendency to reject ideas that we personally find hard or impossible to believe. The flaw in such arguments is plain: We may not know enough about a subject to form a rational conclusion; our disbelief may arise from ignorance. Then, too, even if we are well versed in a subject, our personal, emotional needs may lead us to disbelieve something regardless of the facts. In sum, it is a fallacy to decide that something is wrong simply because we don't believe it. Taking a cue from Dawkins, we might consider a form of argumentation I'll call Argument from Antipathy. Most of us are prone to it. Confronted by an idea we dislike, we reject it. This is a natural response, but it is clearly illogical. You tell me that human beings utterly cease to exist when they die. I dislike this idea intensely. Therefore, I reject it. Such thinking may, indeed, lie at the heart of many belief systems. Averse to harsh possibilities, we turn to alternatives that we like better, possibilities that comfort us. The flip side of Argument from Antipathy might be called Argument from Appeal — we embrace ideas that appeal to us. I want to live forever. Therefore, there must be an afterlife. This, too, is a very human response, and it is very irrational. Steiner advocated Argument from Appeal, although he did so without appearing to understand what he was doing. He argued that we must cultivate our subjective, emotional responses, we must find our way to "truth" through the use of heartfelt imagination, and/or inspiration, and/or intuition. These are the forms of thought advocated in Waldorf schools. But the hazards should be plain. What we feel to be true — what we imagine or intuit or are inspired by — may be utterly wrong. We may like it, but it may be poppycock. Indeed, if the main reason to accept an idea is that we find it congenial, then the idea should be extremely suspect. This is how Steiner's followers, trying to heed his directions, often reason: To them, a statement is true because they find it congenial or appealing. It rings their bell. They feel its truth and see no need to argue the matter out; or, if they engage in argument, they only offer statements that ring their bell and reject all statements that don't. Indeed, they may have come to Steiner in the first place because his statements rang their bell. Sadly, finding truth may often be very different from finding what is appealing. The truth may not appeal to us — but if it is the truth, then we need to have to strength to accept it, no matter how much it may inspire antipathy in our soft, quailing hearts. The difference between Steiner's admirers and his critics is not that we disagree about the kinds of ideas that are unpleasant, on the one hand, or appealing, on the other. Here's an idea that I find very unpleasant: When Roger Rawlings dies, he will be snuffed out, gone forever, kaput. No! my heart cries. No! God wouldn't do that to ME! It makes no sense! And I'm inclined to agree. And here's an idea that I find quite appealing: Roger Rawlings is immortal. When he dies, he will go to a higher realm, and thereafter he will rise higher and higher in glorious wisdom and bliss. Yes! my heart cries. Surely that is true! Surely, oh, surely! And again, I'm inclined to agree. But when I present these heartfelt truths to my rational mind, it most annoyingly asks for evidence. You don't want to die, it says. I understand. But so far you have given me no reason to believe in the eternal survival of said Roger Rawlings. Drat. [34] Steiner preferred subjectivity. He often claimed to advocate thinking and intellection, but he often contradicted this claim. He taught that emotions or feelings are superior to thinking in that they link us directly to the spirit realm. “[T]hinking is oriented to the physical plane. Feeling really has a connection with all the spiritual beings who must be considered real ... In the sphere of feelings, human beings cannot liberate [i.e., separate] themselves from the spiritual world.” [Rudolf Steiner, PSYCHOANALYSIS AND SPIRITUAL PSYCHOLOGY (Rudolf Steiner Press, 1990), p. 70.] But feelings do not have the power Steiner attributed to them. They come from the intermediate level of our brains, the paleomammalian brain. [See, e.g., Temple Grandin, ANIMALS IN TRANSLATION (Scribner, 2005), p. 54.] All other mammals experience emotions similar to ours, arising from similar brain circuitry. If animals, ruled largely by their feelings, can often behave foolishly, so can we when we submit to the dictates of our feelings. As we all know from daily experience, feelings are unreliable guides. Steiner’s advocacy of subjective states helps explain his devotion to the “science” of the German writer Johann Wolfgang von Goethe. In considering phenomena, Steiner said, Goethe included the inward spiritual reality, whereas Isaac Newton and modern scientists in general operate only on the external, physical plane. “Here we have the quintessence of the contrast between Goethe and the modern scientists as represented by Newton. The scientists of modern times have only looked in one direction, always observing external nature in such a way as to attribute all things to centric forces....” [Rudolf Steiner, SCIENCE (Rudolf Steiner Press, 2000), p. 97.] By “centric” forces, Steiner meant forces arising from a phenomenon itself, whereas “peripheral” forces flow in from the cosmos, or from the spirit realm. [Ibid., p. 78] The difference between Goethe’s approach and Newton’s shows up in all investigations, such as inquiries into the nature of light and color: “A person must really have lost all knowledge of the spiritual world to speak of Newton’s color theory. People who are still inwardly stimulated by the spiritual world, as was the case with Goethe, will resist it ... Goethe never censured so severely as he censured Newton.” [Rudolf Steiner, THE SECRET STREAM (Anthroposophic Press, 2000), p. 200.] And yet today Newton stands with Einstein as mankind’s premiere scientific geniuses; Goethe’s contributions to science are essentially nil. Inquiring into spiritual phenomena is, of course, important for any thinking person. But notice that, by Steiner’s own account, Goethe’s subjective predisposition determined the sorts of conclusions he would draw — he was “inwardly stimulated by the spiritual world.” He didn’t objectively find spirit, he imputed it. This is not science, a point that Steiner simultaneously understood and rejected. He claimed to be a scientist, and he claimed that Goethe was a scientist, yet he persistently derided science because it functions differently from faith by emphasizing objectivity rather than inclination. “Scientifically, man tore himself loose from his god, and thus from the spirit ... What happened here explains why a man like Goethe found it impossible to go along with Newton on any point ... Goethe always had the feeling that man has to experience everything ... that the cosmos was only a continuation of what man had inwardly experienced.” [Rudolf Steiner, THE ORIGINS OF NATURAL SCIENCE (Anthroposophic Press, 1985), p. 52.] This celebration of subjective experience is attractive, perhaps; the idea that we have an innate inner awareness of transcendent truths is attractive, certainly; the difficulty objective science has in coming to grips with spiritual questions is vexing, for sure — but reality is reality, our limits are our limits, and wishing otherwise doesn’t make it so. The teaching of science at Waldorf schools is always potentially problematic. Parents should carefully investigate the science curriculum at any Waldorf they are considering for their children. The title of a lecture announced in February, 2009, may suggest the challenge: “Teaching Sensible Science in the Waldorf School.” [auburnbuzz.com] We can’t know, from this title, what is being proposed. “Sensible” science may be an excellent concept — or it may indicate departures from real science. Parents should inquire whenever they are confronted with such concepts at Waldorfs. [35] See, e.g. James Phillips and James Morely, IMAGINATION AND ITS PATHOLOGIES (MIT Press, 2003). Steiner said that hallucination exists on a scale extending from error caused by the body to true clairvoyant insight attained by the spirit: "Hallucinations, pictures that appear before human consciousness and that do not reveal a corresponding reality upon closer, critical examination — such hallucinations, such visions, are something diseased if we consider them from the standpoint of human life as it unfolds between birth, or conception, and death. When we describe hallucinations as something abnormal, however, as something that certainly does not belong to the normal course of life between birth and death, we have in no way grasped the inherent nature of hallucination. "... If the body conceptualizes as body, it conceives hallucinations; that is, it brings hallucinations into consciousness. If the spirit conceptualizes as spirit, then it has imaginations; if the soul, which is the mediator between the two, begins to conceptualize, that is, if the soul conceptualizes as soul, then neither will the unjustified hallucinations pressed out of the body arise, nor will the soul penetrate to spiritual realities. Instead it will reach an undefined intermediary stage; these are fantasies. Picture the body; between birth and death it is not an instrument for conceptualizing. If between birth and death it conceptualizes nevertheless, it does so in an unjustified and abnormal way, and hallucinations thus arise. If the spirit conceptualizes in really rising out of the body to realities, then it has imaginations. The soul forms the mediator between hallucinations and imaginations in faintly outlined fantasies. "If the body conceptualizes as body, hallucinations arise. "If the soul conceptualizes as soul, fantasies arise. "If the spirit conceptualizes as spirit, imaginations arise." [Rudolf Steiner, THERAPEUTIC INSIGHTS (Mercury Press, 1984), lecture 3.] [36] For a discussion of Steiner’s strangest visions, see my essays "Everything" and the essays that follow it. [37] Rudolf Steiner, UNDERSTANDING THE HUMAN BEING (Rudolf Steiner Press, 1993), p. 30. [38] For a sympathetic presentation of Waldorf education, see Todd Oppenheimer, “Schooling the Imagination,” THE ATLANTIC MONTHLY, Sept. 1999, offprint distributed by the Association of Waldorf Schools of North America, p. 7. Note the title of the article. [39] I’ve already presented one quotation about this. Here’s another: “From the stone there flows into the soul one kind of feeling, and from the animal another ... Out of these feelings and the thoughts that are bound up with them, the organs of clairvoyance are formed.” [Rudolf Steiner, KNOWLEDGE OF THE HIGHER WORLDS AND ITS ATTAINMENT (Forgotten Books, forgottenbooks.org), p. 29.] [40] UNDERSTANDING THE HUMAN BEING, p. 30. [41] Ibid., pp. 30-3. [42] A.C. Harwood, PORTRAIT OF A WALDORF SCHOOL (The Myrin Institute Inc., 1956), pp. 23-24. [43] Rudolf Steiner, THE ILLUSTRATED CALENDAR OF THE SOUL (Temple Lodge Publishing, 2004), meditation #7. [44] Richard Ramsbotham, WHO WROTE BACON? (Temple Lodge Publishing, 2004). The book digs into the silly debate over whether Sir Francis Bacon is the real author of Shakespeare’s works. Ramsbotham’s conclusion is that both Bacon and Shakespeare were actually the spiritual puppets of King James I, a mystic predecessor of Rudolf Steiner. Temple Lodge Publishing is devoted to furthering “spiritual science, or anthroposophy, as founded by the Austrian thinker Rudolf Steiner.” [www.templelodge.com/pages/about.php ] [45] Ibid., p. 4. [46] Ibid., p. 4. [47] Ibid., p. 4. [48] Ibid., p. 5. [49] Ibid., p. 7. [50] Ibid., p. 5. [51] Ibid., p. 5. [52] Ibid., p. 5. [53] Ibid., p. 7. [54] Rudolf Steiner, SECRET BROTHERHOODS and the Mystery of the Human Double (Rudolf Steiner Press, 2004), p. 92. |