One day he said:
In this world there is a pleasure of the intellect, which is satisfied in science, and a pleasure of the heart, which consists principally of the fact that human beings mutually ease the troubles and burdens of life. But if it is the job of the highest being to shape creatures on special spheres and to let them exist 80 or 90 years in order to prepare such a pleasure for them, then that would be a miserable plan.120 Whether the soul lives 80 years or 80 million years, if it perishes once, then this space of time is only a reprieve. One is therefore forced to the view, for which there is so much evidence even though without rigorous scientific basis, that besides this material world another, second, purely spiritual world order exists, with just as many diversities as that in which we live—we are to participate in it.
One of Gauss’ intimate friends was Rudolf Wagner (1805–1864), professor of comparative physiology and zoology in Göttingen from 1840 to 1864 and head of the department of physiology after 1842. Wagner was inclined to the spiritual and had become involved with Karl Vogt in a public controversy on religious matters. He wished to use the great name and authority of Gauss to support his views. During the last months of Gauss’ life Wagner would visit him and discuss religion as well as related matters. He then hurried home and wrote down all that he could recall. One should remember that Gauss was then very old and not in good health; he probably said things which he would not have said at other periods of his life. Also, one should remember that Wagner had an ax to grind and should discount his report accordingly. And yet much of what he wrote agreed with material found in other sources. One cannot help being reminded of Eckermann’s conversations with Goethe. Wagner composed an essay on the views of Newton, Haller, and Gauss on religion—an essay which he read to various circles but never published because Weber, Sartorius von Waltershausen, and Therese Gauss forced him to suppress it.
On December 19, 1854, Wagner went to Gauss at noon. Gauss was sitting in a large easy chair, was breathing with difficulty, and thanked Wagner for sympathy about his health, as he pressed his hand. Very soon in the course of the conversation he regained his usual freshness and vivacity of speech.
His first question was whether Wagner had read the fifth volume of Radowitz’ writings. It lay open in front of him on his desk. Gauss took up the remarks of the famous statesman121 about Goethe, immortality, and Catholicism. He discussed Radowitz’ Catholic views. In order to avoid this delicate point, Wagner said that Radowitz had also been busy with mathematics. Gauss did not know his works but said that Dirichlet had told him they were unimportant and asked whether Wagner (as he had heard) was close to Radowitz.
Wagner soon turned the conversation to Whewell’s History of the Inductive Sciences. As a matter of fact, Wagner had given much attention to the book because he wanted to ask Gauss several questions about Newton. This led Gauss to Whewell’s work Of the Plurality of Worlds, which the author had recently sent him. Gauss arose from his chair without apparent difficulty and fetched the book from his library in an adjacent cold room. He then explained briefly his opinions of it and gave its main results in the following closing words: “. . . only the earth is inhabited by intelligent beings, because the Savior had appeared only for these.” Wagner said he could not imagine that the other cosmic bodies were created on the side just for fun, and that he could not support the arguments of many theologians from the Bible because from brief references which Holy Writ gives about the astronomical world they seemed to conclude too much. Gauss seemed to agree with this view without expressing himself definitely. He thought that the earth was only the third planet and in contrast to many other cosmic bodies was “only a clod of dirt.”
The conversation then led them to Kepler, Newton, and Leibniz, their scientific accomplishments, and their views on supernatural things. Gauss said: “Kepler often expressed himself very inappropriately and strangely in his astronomical works about religious things. Newton also treated such matters, but always quite differently, always moderate, dignified, never losing himself in peculiar and excessive speculations.”
Gauss rated Newton very high, but Leibniz much lower. On this occasion he said:
In a certain respect one can rather say of Leibniz that he spoiled mathematics. His invention of the differential calculus is not anything so great; it was actually already prepared by Archimedes. Leibniz’ universality is indeed admirable, but it would have been better if he had limited himself more, then he would have accomplished more in mathematics. But the greatest thing is purely mathematical thinking; this is worth much more than the application of mathematics. Here I can give no applause to my friend and pupil Encke in view of certain remarks in his last rector’s address (in Berlin).
Gauss now made fun of a circle of young mathematicians in Berlin, who in their arrogance had formed a sort of alliance to turn their powers only to pure mathematics, while they designated the application to physics as something degrading. Gauss said further that he rated his Disquisitiones arithmeticae and a few of his shorter memoirs much higher than his Theoria motus and the works on terrestrial magnetism, even though he had gladly busied himself with practical questions. But the above researches were pure works of observational material. Wagner reports that Gauss then spoke in his “grand and amiable” manner of the wonderful feelings and the great inner pleasure of such thought movements. He also remembered Newton, who in various passages expressed himself about these feelings.
He then spoke of his relationship to Kästner, Lichtenberg, and Olbers. When Wagner left. Gauss gave him Whewell’s book to read. As Wagner was walking across the courtyard of the observatory, he noticed on the white paper jacket of Whewell’s book a number of Bible references in Gauss’ neat handwriting.122 He saw at once to what they referred and resolved to ask Gauss about them next time.
On December 23 Wagner again visited Gauss at eleven o’clock. Before he sat down Gauss asked, “Well, have you read Whewell’s book?”
“Yes, at least thumbed through.”
“What do you say about his arguments which are purely theological?”
“I am in general not very much satisfied with such treatment of that kind of materials; it doesn’t accomplish much. But meanwhile I find that Whewell clings to the correct relationship between scientific research and faith. But first of all permit me a question: On the jacket you noted a number of Bible passages; I would like to know from what source and for what purpose?”
Gauss answered, “Oh, you mean these?” He pointed to them. “They are passages which refer to immortality. At the moment I can’t say where the collection came from. But I find these passages are all not so striking and coherent. In general, dear colleague, I believe you are more believing in the Bible than I. I am not, and,” he added, with the expression of great inner emotion, “you are much happier than I. I must say that so often in earlier times when I saw people of the lower classes, simple manual laborers who could believe so rightly with their hearts, I always envied them, and now,” he continued, with soft voice and that naive childlike manner peculiar to him, while a tear came into his eye, “tell me how does one begin this?”
Wagner was overwhelmed by great inner emotion and was in some embarrassment as to how he was to answer. He reports that he perceived the whole seriousness and greatness of the moment. The manner of Gauss’ question reminded him of the ancient, often mentioned question: “What shall I do to inherit eternal life?” Again reverence for the entire personality of the man gripped him. He was reminded that Gauss’ colleagues treated him not as an equal but as someone on a higher plane, as someone for whom others step aside and make way. Wagner felt that there was something imposing in his sharp gaze overshadowed by highly arched eyebrows.
After Wagner had regained his composure, he meditated and began to tell the story of his life. Gauss listened very quietly and interrupted him only once with words: “Do you perhaps have the good fortune to have had a believing father or a believing mother?”
; Wagner closed his short narrative with the remark, “Faith is a gift.”
Gauss commented pensively, “You say that faith is a gift; this is perhaps the most correct thing that can be said about it.”
“Of course, faith is a gift; but as a rule it is conferred only when one seriously asks for it. Then this gift is never denied. For there exists concerning it a promise sublime above all doubts: To him who asks, shall be given.”
Gauss said, “Even in my life, experiences occurred which often disconcerted me and which led me to a Providence in the individual case, which you assume. Such, for example, is the dispensation which made me an astronomer, which also led me to Göttingen. I was to go to St. Petersburg. There I would have become a pure mathematician. Now Zimmermann, professor at the Carolineum in Brunswick, at the moment of his departure for Weimar gave me the numbers of Zach’s Monatliche Correspondenz in which the discovery of Ceres by Piazzi was reported.”
In the further course of the conversation Gauss asked whether Wagner assumed a continued development of the soul in the direction of earthly occupations. The invention of the method of least squares, for instance, which Gauss had already made as a young man, but at that time kept secret, had enabled him to send in calculations of the Ceres orbit with speed and precision which astonished all contemporary mathematicians and astronomers.
Wagner expressed the opinion that such a development from the standpoint of faith was indeed not favored directly by Scripture on the basis of revelation, but was also not directly excluded, and in a limited way appealed to him personally. He added that he was talking only of the advanced individual in the field of higher intellectual recognition.
Wagner then began to develop his views on the harmony of worlds, on the necessity of a mutual action between physical and moral world order, whose laws of causality we could not now penetrate.123 These laws would of necessity exist, if moral freedom and the course of world events were not to appear senseless. A history of humanity without continuation and perfection at another scene is inconceivable and a contradiction of infinite harmony and fixed legitimacy of the world of physical phenomena. Behind the scene of this world there must be another, terrible power to punish evil, and also in the field of freedom there must exist a connection resting finally only in “divine mathematics.”
Wagner mentioned that our own life teaches us that the smallest things, all events of the individual, point to this. He said that it was impossible for him to mistake a pre-established harmony even in the course of human science. As an example, Wagner cited here the rescue of the famous physicist Fraunhofer, who in 1801 in Munich was buried in rubble as the result of the collapse of a house, but after several hours came out alive. This directed the attention of King Max Joseph to him. After the healing of his wounds the King gave him eighteen ducats, which the fifteen-year-old boy used to purchase a glass cutting machine. This and the attention of other patrons directed to him led him to the profession in which he accomplished such great things through a rare union of theoretical and practical training.
Gauss accepted the above assumption and spoke repeatedly of Radowitz, whose writings Wagner had sent him. He showed Wagner passages which he considered suitable to stimulate thinking, yet he repeatedly explained that the arguments of the author did not correspond to his wishes. He said that Radowitz came forward again and again with ecclesiastical and dogmatic proofs and had only a few words for other deductions.
Then he asked Wagner whether he had read Jean Paul’s views on immortality. Besides the Kampaner Tal he quoted the other essays. All these presentations had always been very attractive to him, except where Jean Paul referred to animal magnetism, those were the weakest supports of immortality.
Wagner agreed completely and after he had referred to the mistaken interpretations of alleged magnetic phenomena, for example, in the seeress von Prevorst, he quoted the well-known Bible passage: “If you do not believe Moses and the prophets, you will not believe that one rises from the dead.”
Gauss then returned to the continued development of the Soul after death in the sense of earthly occupations; only thus could he explain many things in the course of the fate of individual human beings, for example, the early death of Eisenstein, who barely attained the age of thirty and gave promise of the greatest accomplishments.
Wagner asked, “Do you really consider Eisenstein so important?”
“Yes! One of the greatest talents of all times. He did some things which give testimony of the most refined and rarest concepts.”
As Gauss now returned to Jean Paul and the quoted Bible passage about Moses and the prophets, he said: “I must confess that such old theologians and song writers as Paul Gerhard have always made a great impression on me; a song by Paul Gerhard always exerted a wonderful power on me, much more than, for example, Moses, against whom as a man of God I have all sorts of qualms.”
After Wagner had again taken up his remarks on pre-established harmony and reciprocal action of physical and moral world order. Gauss became very silent and listened with the greatest attentiveness without interrupting him. Then he said very seriously: “It always appealed strongly to me when Jean Paul calls out to one who doubts and asks about the solution of the secrets of earthly things in another world: ‘Look over the cemetery wall at the graves, there lies the answer!’ ”
His voice had become weak and trembling, and he broke out in a stream of tears. Wagner reports that this emotional outburst in a man usually so resolute made the strongest impression on him. He remained silent before him and grasped his hand. Thus they sat quietly for a long while. To Wagner it was one of the most solemn moments of his life. He thought of Gauss’ words: “How does one begin to believe?”
Wagner comments thus on his own feelings:
I perceived what was going on in his soul and how to this vigorous thinker with all foreboding of future things the world which lies behind the gates of eternity was shown less certain in its outlines than to the consciousness of a believing child. But the very childlikeness of his own question awakened in me a happy hope for him. I thought of the wonderful beauty and sublimity of feeling in the occupation with the theory of numbers, of which he had spoken to me. But perhaps I felt more strongly in this unforgettable moment that there is a far more splendid feeling, namely, that which the evangelist had when he could say: “I believe, Lord, help thou mine unbelief” (Mark 9:24).
Finally Wagner got up slowly and pressed Gauss’ hand. Then Gauss said in serious serenity: “Yes! The world would be nonsense, the whole creation an absurdity without immortality.”
Several days after this incident Wagner again went to Gauss, but only in order to inquire about his health, and did not think of evoking conversation from him. However, he resolved not to avoid conversation. In order to prevent at the very start any fear of urging the issue, he had taken along the Life of Sir Humphry Davy,124 which he had edited, to remind Gauss of an earlier epoch of his life, when he met Davy at Olbers’ home in Bremen. Gauss sent out word that he was feeling very ill that day, but that he would see Wagner for a short time. The conversation lasted less than half an hour. Gauss visibly avoided emotional matters such as had occurred the previous time. Wagner, too, avoided them.
Down to the smallest details Gauss remembered the dinner with Davy and Schumacher at Olbers’ home in 1824, without knowing the passages in the book which Wagner was reading to him. Gauss said: “I do not believe that Davy made false personal observations, he appeared harmlessly happy to me. That must refer to a man who understood the natural history of catarrh and whom Olbers summoned because Davy had great disciple interest in this matter. I still remember the astonishment of this man; his name was Böse.125
Wagner began with that episode from Davy’s life, which Gauss retold with the smallest details. But Gauss, who was very short of breath and who was sitting on the sofa, said that he would not have received Wagner if he had not had something urgent to say to him, after he had read his pamphlets M
enschenschopfung und Seelensubstanz and Ueber Wissen und Glauben with great interest. They lay open beside him on the sofa. Wagner felt pleased because he assumed that Gauss agreed with the contents. He said: “I see that you assume the possibility of a transposition of the soul after death to another cosmic body. I too am of this opinion about soul substance, but would prefer a comparison of the speed of locomotion with a galvanic current to your simile of the movement of light, since in that instance one can think more easily of the advancement of something, even though imponderable but substantial, than in the case of light.”
Then Gauss explained his thoughts on how and under what conditions, magnitudes, and forms a new “change of clothing” of the soul (which Wagner would also have to assume) might appear on the sun, or a small planet or asteroid. He even took up Wagner’s thoughts about the assembling of souls of deceased human beings after the end of generations, in a great cosmic space. He had calculated that on the sun in accordance with the law of gravitation we would have to have a much smaller body “about like a big bug,” and added, “If we were as big on the sun as we now are, then we would believe that we had lead in our arms and legs and would not be able to stretch out our arms, which would be awful. On Ceres or Pallas our body could be much larger than now. On the sun there would be room enough for all of us.”
He added that he wanted to tell Wagner this because sometimes he had read it wrongly indicated, as though human beings on the smaller cosmic bodies would also have to be smaller. Gauss elucidated all this with great seriousness. When Wagner could not suppress a smile. Gauss himself joked in a mildly serious manner about these plays of fancy.
Wagner was again impressed by the greatness of the man. He realized how much Gauss had meditated about the future of the human soul, and how he was always striving to harmonize such views with the principles of mathematics. He closed these reminiscences with the words of Leibniz: “The mathematical sciences, which treat of the eternal truths rooted in Divine Mind, prepare us for the recognition of substances.”
Carl Friedrich Gauss, Titan of Science_A Study of His Life and Work Page 35