Theos-Talk Archives (August 2002 Message tt00278)

Brian wrote:
<If your belief is based on "inner feelings" (the "inner man") , "religion"
("Theos-" ) or even so-called "common sense" as you might claim, it is
far more likely to be wrong than theories based on scientific evidence.

If what you claim is based on more then religious faith then
present the evidence that supports SD creation myth, the posting below
and the content of your two previous postings. And I' be glad to discuss
them.>


Dear Brian,

Ah, yes, the problem of "evidence." I'm perfectly willing to accept that my
"inner feelings," intuitions and "religion" may be entirely wrong. However,
I make no "claim" to be able to "prove" anything to someone whose world-view
accepts nothing but what can be weighed and measured. The subjective, the
intuitional and the mythic only have value to those with whom and in whom
they resonate. They simply don't "exist" for anyone else, and certainly
cannot be "proven."

Since you choose not to respond directly to what I have already written --
twice -- I don't think we really have much to talk about. If you are really
willing to discuss the points I have already raised, I will gladly do so.
They are readily available in the archives of this list.

However, I will list just a few of the things which come up "short" in my
assessment of the traditional system of modern science. Others who
participate here may wish to add areas I have neglected:

1. The phenomenon of consciousness itself.

2. The lack of "evolutionary" value to awareness of self, or
self-consciousness.

3. The fact (in my experience and that of thousands) of precognitive
experiences of all kinds (including but not limited to dreams,
"premonitions," and non-drug or -alcohol induced visions) and the utter lack
of satisfactory "scientific" explanations.

4. The well-documented phenomena of past-life memories and out-of-body
experiences (See "Reincarnation: the Phoenix Fire Mystery," by Head and Cran
ston, and "Reincarnation: A New Horizon in Science, Religion and Society" by
Cranston and Williams just as beginning points).

5. The tremendous volume of disregarded archeological evidence that does
not fit the current scenarios, as noted in the work of Cremo and Thompson,
and others such as Michael Denton's "Evolution: a Theory in Crisis."

6. The "cultural" aspects of modern "scientific" thought, and the
limitations inherent in that world-view. (Points four and five in my last to
you).

One final, important note. You wrote to Dallas:

< Brian: Please present your evidence that supports your creation myth
other then religious belief alias the belief supernatural Hierarchical
beings that supposed to have created this planet acording to the SD.>
<And the evolution of modern man since he split of from the chimps.>
<give us your scientific theory of theosophical creationism, and tell us
how we can test it using a scientific method.>

You have completely and utterly misrepresented Theosophy in saying it has a
"creation myth," or that it advocates "creationism," theosophical or
otherwise. Theosophists are "emanationists," not "creationists," and reject
the idea of "creation ex-nihilo" by an extra-cosmic Deity as firmly as any
modern scientist.

We can discuss the implications of the latter if you like, but only after we
take up the other points above.

Best Regards,
Wes