IMG70

Ernst Mach

row. Thcir writhing motions wcrc morc obvious on thc light woodcn background than on thc carth. Using thc spadc as a knifc I cut one worm, then another and rcally thc scctions went thcir own way; rcmarkably thcrc was no blood flowing. “What arc you doing herc?” boomed a dccp voicc froin bchind mc. It was grandfathcr who obscrved my aciiviry from thc window of his first floor study and camc out to get a elose view.

Somewhat intimidated I cxplaincd my cxpcrimcnt. "Now supposc my boy a big giant would eonie and cut you in half to sec how long you could survivc; what would you say to that?”

‘‘Put thc worms back whcrc they werc and covcr them with carth!" grandfathcr ordered. Of course 1 complicd for I fclt bad and shccpish that I angered my bcloved good grandfathcr. The cpisodc lcft a lasting impres-sion for from then on I have ncvcr willingly harmed an carthworm or any other animal.¹⁶

IV

The shift toward Buddhism which many positivists madę around thc turn of the ccntury has sccmcd vcry odd to numerous obscrvcrs. Carl T. Jackson has dcscribed his own curiosity (196S):

It is fascinating that a tnan such as Carus, thc highly cducatcd product of XlXth ccntury positivistic currcnts who pridcd himsclf on his modern scicntific vicws should havc inclincd toward thc ancient religion of a non-scicntific culturc. Nor was hc thc only cxample of this pcculiar attraction. Lafcadio Hcarn and Ernest FcnaIos3, Carus's better known contcmporarics likcwisc grasitated toward Buddhism from positivism; both wcrc lifclong cnthusiasts of Herbert Spencer. Likc Carus they sccmcd to regard Buddhism and positivism as compatihlr and in many respeets cvcn idcntical systems. . . . Morc rcccntly Aldous Huxley and Gcrald Hcard followed somewhat thc same path. Both movcd in thc 1930's from vicws hcavily coloicd by science 10 a mysticism decply indebted to thc Oricntal reli-gions.¹⁰

Mach, of course, did not sharc this mysticism, and unlikc Carus and many odicr philosophical Buddhists who soughi to reconcile thc “esscntials” of thc great religions into an all-cmbracing pantheism, hc felt an uncomprornising aniagonism toward scvcral aspeets of Chris-lianity, its sects, dogma, and practice. Or to put thc matter another way, his cmotions ran much dccpcr against clcrical “hypocrisy” dian in favor of Buddhism. Mach ncvcr tired of abusing thc “Christian” foundation of Western “superiority.”

As soon as thc Christians had won great influence, they turncd against thc disscntcr5 both insidc and outsidc of thcir own community. In 415 a.d.

undcr thc lcadcrship of thc patriarch Chrillus, thc outstanding Alexandrine mathcmatician and philosophcr, Hypatia, . . . was gruesomcly murdcrcd.

The role of Jud«>(ircek philosophy in hclping to hring ahout thc endlcss conflicts which dividcd thc Christians into numerous srets is well-known.¹⁷

I considcr the philosophical point of vic\v of thc common man with all of its prehistorie superstitions as morc of a natural than an artificial dcvel-opment. ft sccms to mc that Jesus and Plato havc taken morę from thc common man than thc reversc.^1H

I am not in a position to dcal from a scicntific point of vicw with such a self-contradictory, unscicntific thing as thc [Popc’s] syllabus.¹⁰

Such disgusting stupiditics as thosc of thc Jesuits, how well I know them.

. . . One cvcn finds such nonsense with Faraday. With Newton thcrc is documcntary proof, and Brewster admires rhis sort of thing as much as hc docs science.²⁰

You [Ernst Mach) do Luther and mc [Marie Mach) an injusticc. Hc has not, as you say, bclicvcd 997 of cvcry icoo stupiditics, but 999.²¹

The fcar of spirits is thc truć mother of religions.²²

When a chcmist who is famous for wondcrful discovcrics in his spccialty yiclds to spiritualism ... thc intcllectual damage runs dccp, and not only with thc lay public.²³

Mach's hostility, his version of "ecrasez Pinfamc,” whilc gcncrally kept hiddcn from public vicw, was quitc marked in his corrcspondcncc. It also rcsulted in at least one strongly wordcd, lingering controversy with an old friend, Mach’s former student and assistant at Praguc, Ćcnck Dvorak. The latter, who had known Mach bcforc he bccamc a famous philosophcr, was a strong Christian who defendcd his position with cncrgy (Octobcr 12 and 18, 1905):

It plcascs mc that Flammarion did not borc you. Hc would havc viewed your interesting observation from thc ycar 1868 as proof of continucd existencc after dcath. . . .

I believc, that from this point of view, Flammarion's announcemcnt has greater imporfancc than all of thc achievements of science. For the con-solation which present-day science offers to mankind is as good as nonc at all. One pleasantly refers to thc bad conscqucnces of belief in immortality, and indeed, of belief itself; to that I would rcply, that inliniiely morc pco-plc havc becn brought down and destroyed by mistaken theories and un-skillful application of mcdical science than by all the witch hunts and religious wars put together.²⁴

Mach‘s answer to Dvorak's argument has not survived, but therc is somc cvidcncc that hc knew how to turn his anticlcric.il thoughls into

291