II.

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. [8] 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.” [9]

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. [10] 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.” [11] 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. [12] 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. [13] 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. [14] 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.” [15]

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 place “where Christ’s physical body is walking around”? And is it true that when Jesus answers a prayer for healing, “it is the sun force that heals”? And can it possibly be true that the “healing power” of Jesus or the Sun “can flow down only when the external sun has set”? Unfortunately, Steiner did not supply any scientific 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. [16] 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. [17]

IV.

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. Moreover, he taught that we might make additional discoveries of our own. Like any good science, Anthroposophy is a work in progress and will someday be supplanted by an even more complete explanation of the universe.

Some of that 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?

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.

• 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, “Unenlightened.”) 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’s no reason to think any form of intuition is dependable.

• 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.”) Sometimes Steiner went even farther, asserting that we can use deep soul powers to create images or “imaginations” of spiritual truths, including some truths we brought into this life as memories from our past lives in the spirit realm. (Steiner taught that we live many lives in a long process of reincarnation and evolution. For more about childhood intuitions carried over from past spiritual lives, see my essay, “Thinking Cap.”) The question becomes, then, whether the third type of imagination can be considered reliable.

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 intuition. You imagine something, it seems right to you, so you believe it. This is deeply subjective and obviously unreliable. It certainly is not a scientific process.

At Waldorf schools, fostering intuition and imagination may be considered limbering up exercises for clairvoyance. Kids are led to produce vivid mental pictures, an ability that may smooth the way for conjuring clairvoyant images. Note that a form of imagination that produces clear, correct images of the spirit realm is virtually indistinguishable from clairvoyance. The educational goal of developing what I’m calling third-level imagination amounts to an effort to foster clairvoyance, which is bad news since clairvoyance is almost surely poppycock. Anthroposophists would argue that my analysis here is mistaken, because the sorts of spiritual images I tossed out do not proceed from the sort of deep spiritual powers Steiner had in mind. Fine. But do such powers even exist? Steiner spoke of the need to develop organs of clairvoyance. 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 good-natured skepticism.

• Inspiration is arguably more reliable than intuition or imagination. At least, in advocating it, 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. I cannot prove that the Holy Ghost does not exist (indeed, I have little desire to do so), but this is beside the point. If you believe that you have been filled by an invisible spirit that leads you to various sorts of knowledge or behavior, surely you should want evidence that your belief is valid and not simply a fantasy or even a psychotic episode. What is your evidence? (This question may not carry much weight within the context of religious faith, but remember that here we are discussing science. In science, evidence is always crucial.)

Artistic inspiration surely exists, as do other forms of useful, real-world 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 intuitive, subjective, and untrustworthy.

All of 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.

V.

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. Here are some excerpts. When reading them, bear in mind that some of von Laue’s scientific knowledge is now almost a century old and thus 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].” [18]

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.

Von Laue quotes Steiner as arguing that science cannot tell us “anything about ... what is possible and impossible.” Von Laue replies that “one would do better to select science over the ‘occult observations’ of the esoteric scientists’” such as Steiner. 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.”

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.” 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.” 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 similarites — now and in the distant past — between the states of gaeous, 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.” 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.

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.

One might be inclined to dismiss von Laue’s words, which are 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].”) 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 ignoramous.

Observing Rudolf Steiner in action is instructive. 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.” [19]

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, “Legends”), 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

#


ENDNOTES