Theos-Talk Archives (July 2004 Message tt00150)

--- In theos-talk@yahoogroups.com, Bart Lidofsky <bartl@s...> wrote:
> Science, by definition, is materialist.

I almost agree. For historical reasons science is materialist, but 
by convention, not by definition. Science is EMPIRICAL by 
definition. Materialism is a philosophical position the acceptance 
of which is not enforced by empiricism. As one example, when I was 
in college, my thermodunamics textbook contained the statement that 
the authors were at the same time scientists and believers in God. 
At an abstract level what they were saying was that it is possible at 
the same time to be an empirical investigator and spiritually 
minded. That statement is correct whether their religious beliefs 
are corrrect or not.

That is what I have a hard time with about thr statements that 
phenomena are unimportant. Any scoence must have observations and 
phenomena to justify the theories it promulgfates. If there is such 
a thing as "occult science" (and am not saying there is or there is 
not) then phenomena are necesary, else the term becomes an ocymoron.

> Theosophy, according to the 
> Mahatmas is ultimately materialist.

??? Blavatsky condemned materialism constantly in the SD. I think I 
hear her turning over in her grave, except that she does not have one.