Theos-Talk Archives (August 2002 Message tt00218)

In a message dated 08/23/02 2:58:24 AM, brianmuehlbach@yahoo.com writes:

>Professor from University : You will note there is no 'Theo' anything in
>any conventional degree program except Theology.
>
>Brian: Exactly Theosophy cannot claim to be "science", it is a religion,
>
>Theology.

So what? 

Does that mean that what theosophy asserts or logically theorizes about the 
nature of reality -- based on fundamental principles that science, which can 
only deal with observable and measurable "things," cannot deny (including 
those scientifically unknown "hard problems" of consciousness such as, the 
root and basis of will and awareness, the cause of experience or qualia, 
brain-mind binding, the root and nature of ESP, etc., etc., etc., that 
science has never been able to comprehend or answer) -- can't be true?

Unfortunately (for most skeptics' irrational arguments), since reductive 
science can't "falsify" (which every "scientific theory" has to be capable 
of) such metaphysical concepts or comprehend them -- they have to ignore them 
by claiming, without reason (and with an all knowing sneer) that the answers 
to those problems belong to "religion," and are not their concern. 

That's the ultimate cop out... And, gives no credence to those who claim 
that "science disproves theosophy." They might as well claim that science 
denies that there is a fundamental pre-cosmic reality or immeasurable "force" 
or source of cosmic motion or energy, upon which all their metric scientific 
reality emanates from, rests upon and is supported by.

Certainly, conventional science is not concerned with truth... Since, they 
admit that the only value of an accepted scientific theory, true or not, is 
that "it works" in the limited field of material reality it is concerned 
with. If that were not so, they would call them scientific "facts" rather 
than "theories." Just because quantum theories lead to high technology 
computers, CD's, digital photography and cellphones, etc., doesn't mean that 
this theory also explains how the brain-mind-memory works or why we are self 
conscious beings. And even though relativity can explain the bending of 
light around celestial bodies, it doesn't explain how the outer light of a 
visual image is converted to the inner light that we actually experience or 
see. In fact, neither relativity or quantum physics has ever agreed with 
each other about the nature of reality -- although Superstring/M-brane 
theories have just recently proven them both substantially wrong, and merged 
them into a multidimensional (7 hidden +3 metric +1 time) string-force based 
view of reality as a holistic continuum extending from zero to infinity that 
is remarkably close to the theories of universal origin, Cosmogenesis and 
evolution discussed by theosophy, and initially recorded and formalized (Ref: 
numerological formulas) in the Book of Dzyan.

LHM