Today all opinions pass through the internet. It is todays vehicle for communication. Each day I am on the internet listening to what people are saying. Waldorf schools are increasing coming under attack for its association with the "wacky" spiritual science of Rudolf Steiner. If you want to scare people with Steiner quotes about Lemuria, two devils, two Jesus children etc. it is easy to do. The opponents point to the religious cult of the Anthroposophical Society and the foolish faith-based belief system called anthroposophy to attack the public funding of Waldorf schools in the USA, UK, and Australia.

I advocate emphasizing that the core of anthroposophy and Waldorf is The Philosophy of Freedom which is independent of any group, dogma, or faith-based belief system. While Steiner's far out sounding clairvoyant readings are the focal point of a world wide attack on Steiner and Waldorf education the Philosophy of Freedom remains untouched by public criticism and instead finds even respect in the general public discussion.

When I warn anthroposophists of these growing attacks they are first usually surprised because they don't spend much time online so are uninformed. Then they say, "who cares". It is a smugness that implies that in the future the public will be turning back to the language of theosophy and ancient Eastern spiritual theory with its astral and etheric bodies and realize the anthroposophists were right all along.

Why would history move backward into the past? The medium of theosophy and its language was an appropriate vehicle in Germany 100 years ago. Steiner's work will be confirmed in the future, but likely using a new language appropriate for the culture. In contrast, the language of The Philosophy of Freedom is accepted today and should be for a long time.

Steiner recognized the limited life of his other books and lectures while he said the Philosophy of Freedom, which is about the fundamentals of knowing intended to make us all spiritual scientists rather than merely Steiner devotees, would endure.

Steve Sagarin of Barrington Waldorf high school in Massachusetts posted  these thoughts on his blog about understanding a term like "spiritual science".

We may swoon with delight or crinkle our noses in disgust at the term "spiritual science," but we should know its origins before we embrace or discount it.

If your daughter told you she was studying humanities in college could you imagine having the same reactions? "Geisteswissenschaft," literally, "spiritual science," refers in German universities to what we call the humanities. It's that simple.

Some claim that Husserl and Steiner, among others, use the term in a "new way," but I would argue that, if anything, they're actually reclaiming its older sense. That is, they aim to understand literature, philosophy, history--the humanities--as clearly and objectively as natural scientists aim to understand the natural world.

Whether or not they succeed, whether or not we agree with their method or findings, this was their project. Owen Barfield sometimes described his work in history and philosophy as aiming at a "science of meaning." I believe this is exactly what Steiner meant by spiritual science, and what we (used to) mean when we studied the humanities.

What are the alternatives to a science of meaning ("science" derives from Latin for "knowledge")? Accept the universe as meaningless? Teach that we each "create our own meaning"? I know it's wimpy not to accept these hard "truths," but, of course, they're not truths, they're assumptions. And I will hold them as such--possibilities not demonstrated--while I pursue the humanities.