Theos-Talk Archives (January 2009 Message tt00087)

I haven't read Dawkins but wouldn't mind a brief synopsis of this theory. However, found this in my archives which may stimulate debate
Cass
A CRITIQUE OF WESTERN SCIENCE
The technological triumphs of science over the past 300 years - of which Newtonian Physics is considered the foundation - provided strong support for the concept that the universe was entirely a physical phenomenon associated with the concepts of Philosophical Materialism. 1
Ironically, this is not a position embraced by Newton himself. For him the creation of the Universe was inconceivable without divine intervention of a superior intelligence or Creator. Newton believed God created the universe as a system governed by mechanical laws and once it had been created, it could be studied and understood as such.
"However, whilst Newton's followers kept the image of the universe as a deterministic super machine, they disposed of the notion of an overlighting intelligent creative principle as an unnecessary and embarrassing leftover from the 'irrational' dark ages. Sensory data about material reality ('objective' data) became the only permissible source of information in all branches of science." (Stanislav Grof) 2
The concept that the universe was essentially a 'material' system operating under the laws of Newtonian Mechanics reflected the basic metaphysical assumption of Philosophical Materialism and, because it seemed to describe so well much of what has been observed about the Universe, it came to dominate entirely the thinking in all disciplines of science including biology, medicine, psychology, psychiatry etc. From the perspective of philosophical materialism, 'matter' is the elemental stuff comprising the universe and logically the scientific discipline concerned with the study of 'matter' - namely physics - became the pre-eminent scientific discipline to which all other disciplines were subordinate. 3
"The determined application of this logic ensured that the findings of other disciplines were not allowed to be in conflict with the basic theories of physics, resulting in the systematic suppression or misinterpretation of findings in many fields that could not be brought into consonance with the materialistic worldview." (Stanislav Grof )4
As Grof quite rightly states:
"This strategy was a serious violation of the basic principles of science. Strictly speaking, scientific theories apply only to the observations on which they are based and they cannot be automatically extrapolated to other disciplines. Thus for example, theories about the human psyche should be based on observations of psychological processes, not on the theories that physicists have made about the material world. ... The criterion for the validity of scientific findings and concepts in a certain area should be based on the rigour of the scientific method with which they were obtained and not on the compatibility with the theories of another field " (Grof) 5
Exacerbating this situation has been the tendency of many scientists to adhere - without questioning - to outdated theories taught to them by their mentors and peers and then mistake them for being accurate and definitive descriptions of reality.
This distortion of the scientific principle has become so entrenched within contemporary Western Culture - that any new evidence suggesting that the basic paradigm underlying the contemporary scientific understanding of reality may be flawed - is routinely dismissed without proper investigation. No other better example of this sort of behaviour can be found than with Darwin's Theory of Evolution.Thus, despite the lack of any empirical evidence in support of it, and the growing list of seemingly insurmountable technical 'problems' associated with the finer details of the theory, Darwinists continue to argue that the mutation - selection mechanism associated with the theory must have produced the changes required for the evolution of new life forms - not because the mechanism has been observed to work or that there is some irrefutable scientific proof of the same - but rather because their guiding philosophy assures them that in the absence of an
 overlighting 'Creative Principle', no other means is available to do the job. In other words, the theory must be right because in their eyes, there is no alternative! 6
In a sense the scientific community has forgotten its purpose (raison d'etre) and the underlying ethic pertaining to that purpose.
True scientific procedure calls for keeping an open mind to all phenomena whilst maintaining a questioning attitude at the same time and being prepared to modify or dispose of any theory that no longer accommodates evidence collected in a systematic manner.7
Today most academics professing to be scientists do not observe this process - but rather display anuncriticaladherence to a materialistic philosophy taught them by their peers and superiors and because of this, they tend to ignore or treat as 'unreal' phenomena that do not fit into the orthodox paradigm of reality. 8
This process has resulted in contemporary science becoming ensnared in a very limited view of reality and the nature of the universe. This position is summed up succinctly by Cornell University professor, William Provine, who said:
"... modern science directly implies that the world is organised strictly in accordance with mechanistic principles. There are no purposive principles whatsoever in nature. There are no gods and no designing forces that are rationally detectable ..."9
Now of course, Professor Provine's position is a philosophical one and is not based on anyempirical evidence and as such is a breach of the very principles underlying scientific technique. Professor Provine is entitled to hold and express any philosophical position he so chooses, but he isnotentitled to imply the philosophical position expressed above is somehow based on scientific methodology because "science it ain't". 10
By defining and adhering to such a proscriptive interpretation of reality, contemporary 'science' is denying itself the opportunity to contribute to an extraordinary new chapter in human understanding as to the nature of reality and who we are.
Professor Provine's inability to distinguish between 'science' and 'philosophy' is very destructive of true scientific endeavour because his views as a senior respected scientist clearly affects the thinking of those who look up to him as their superior. Most scientists, like the general public, acquire the vast majority of their knowledge and values on what they are taught by their peers and mentors, and not on what they personally experience. It is for this reason that Professor Provine's views are so prevalent within the scientific community and why so many aspects of science have become moribund.
So how will Western Science deal with the plethora of 'New Age' phenomena now being discovered? 11
If history is anything to go by, the contemporary scientific community will almost certainly embrace an orthodox position and embark on a concerted campaign of trenchant denial about 'New Age' phenomena. However, this is not such a bad thing, as practically all the major advances in human knowledge and understanding have emanated from the minds of dissenters who have rejected the orthodox position of their contemporaries and postulated what were considered heresies at the time. Presumably, the issues pertaining to the plethora of 'New Age' phenomena now being discovered (and their wider implications) will be treated no differently from any new 'heresy'. As with all matters, eventually the truth will become recognised as "self evident" and future generations will look back at the position of contemporary orthodox science in much the same way we now view our ancestors who fervently believed the earth was flat! 12
___________________
NOTE: Article based in part on extracts from:
	* 'The Cosmic Game' by Stanislav Grof (p232 - p235)
	* 'Darwin on Trial' by Phillip Johnson (p126)
Â




________________________________
From: Morten Nymann Olesen <global-theosophy@stofanet.dk>
To: theos-talk@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Tuesday, 6 January, 2009 4:16:46 AM
Subject: Re: Theos-World Re: TS Adyar's policy or non-policy?



Dear Joseph

My views are:

Yes. But Dawkins is accepting too much (dualism) and rejecting too little as far as I read him.
Some info:
http://www.sirbacon .org/links/ dawkins.html and http://www.fbrt. org.uk/pages/ essays/frameset- essays.html

But I honestly find http://www.sirbacon .org a quite interesting website.

Shakespeare and Sufism.
http://www.sirbacon .org/mshrew. htm 
It places the Gurdjieff - Sarmoung Brotherhood in Usbekistan at Bokhara: http://en.wikipedia .org/wiki/ Bukhara

-------

You did not answer my previous e-mails questions, especially not this one:
And I keep hearing you agree upon that Alice A. Bailey is political and not non-political as H. P. Blavatsky and Morya was. Is that true?

So your silence to this question tells me you do not know the answer.

M. Sufilight

----- Original Message ----- 
From: Joseph P. Fulton 
To: theos-talk@yahoogro ups.com 
Sent: Monday, January 05, 2009 4:29 AM
Subject: Theos-World Re: TS Adyar's policy or non-policy?

Morten and Cass,

Thank you very much for your interest. The names mentioned above are
there to represent an entire point of view, namely the "rational
materialist" point of view which makes up the prevailing opinion of
our culture. I hope that clarifies things a bit. Richard Dawkins is
a prime target, in this case. He forms a great deal of opinion in the
field of religious studies and evolutionary biology.

Joe

--- In theos-talk@yahoogro ups.com, "Morten Nymann Olesen"
<global-theosophy@ ...> wrote:
>
> Dear friends and Zaitzev
> 
> My views are:
> I will certainly not quote all the Alice A. Bailey book in an e-mail
to prove you wrong.
> Just have a look at the online editions. There are no words about
them being "first editions".
> It is you who need to prove it to be otherwise by quoting, what I
tell you is not there to be found.
> 
> Even "A Treatise on Cosmic Fire" have had added several footnotes in
various translations and as far as I hear from others also in the
online editions.
> 
> But why not add, what edition Problems of Humanity is? Why hide it?
> And I keep hearing you agree upon that Alice A. Bailey is political
and not non-political as H. P. Blavatsky and Morya was. Is that true?
> 
> 
> 
> M. Sufilight
> 
> 
> ----- Original Message ----- 
> From: Konstantin Zaitzev 
> To: theos-talk@yahoogro ups.com 
> Sent: Saturday, January 03, 2009 9:50 PM
> Subject: Theos-World Re: TS Adyar's policy or non-policy?
> 
> 
> --- In theos-talk@yahoogro ups.com, "Morten Nymann Olesen"
> <global-theosophy@ > wrote:
> 
> > And ALL of them First editions? I doubt that! 
> > It is for instance - as far as I am aware - not written anywhere
> online, that the book "Problems of Humanity" have seen several
editions..
> 
> Doubt isn't enough. Prove that. Some of the books, at least, look like
> facsimile copies with old typeface, for example "Treatise on cosmic
> fire". Though I admit that such books as "Problems of Humanity" could
> be updated as they deal with politics.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

 


      Stay connected to the people that matter most with a smarter inbox. Take a look http://au.docs.yahoo.com/mail/smarterinbox

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]