Theos-Talk Archives (August 2002 Message tt00268)

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. 
Brian

--- In theos-talk@y..., "Wes Amerman" <amerman@t...> wrote:
> Dear Brian,
> 
> You wrote several things of note:
> 1. <Even philosophy departments at Universitys will invariable 
characterize
> "The Secret Doctrine" as pre-modernism.>
> 2. <Daniel Caldwell and others once again disjoint my postings in 
order to
> find reasons not to answer the points brought up in them.
> 3. <Dallas: The general theories current when the S D was written 
over 110
> years ago, are still in place.>
> 4. <Religions (like Theosophy) have been built up around factual 
events,
> cultural perspectives of the world and gross elaborations over time 
until
> they come to be regarded as indisputable fact.>
> 5. <The above disputes the history of man as claimed on the Secret
> Doctrine.>
> 
> May I be allowed a brief reply to each:
> 
> 1. Why should theosophists care what those in the philosophy 
departments
> think? My experience with the "professional philosophers" in those
> departments has been that they regard "philosophy" as a sort of 
mental
> gymnastics, serving no particular purpose except the development of
> arguments. It may be good training for law school, but it has nothing 
to do
> with the "study of the fundamental nature of the universe" as 
eloquently
> described by Leon.
> 
> 2. This is a general complaint and is not substantiated. Just what
> questions do Daniel and the anonymous "others" not answer?
> At the same time, I asked you questions and raised issues to which 
you have
> not replied. See my posts of August 14 and 17. You never answered 
my
> statements about the theosophical view of "race," the nature of
> consciousness, "the great web of life" nor the purpose of "The Secret
> Doctrine."
> 
> 3. Dallas is correct in terms of the "general theory" of modern 
Science:
> that consciousness is a function of form and matter. A very few
> contemporary scientists (e.g., Roger Penrose) have seriously 
questioned this
> premise, but it is so deeply engrained that you seem totally unable to
> recognize that it is just as much a matter of faith as any religious
> conception.
> 
> 4. Again, EXACTLY the same thing can be said of YOUR 
religion: "Modern
> Science has been built up around factual events, cultural perspectives 
of
> the world and gross elaborations over time until they come to be 
regarded as
> indisputable fact."
> 
> 5. All your quoting of high school and college textbooks about the 
early
> "hominid" forms prove nothing about the inner man. So long as all you 
can
> see about human beings is what you can dig up and analyze, AND 
which fits
> your preconceptions derived from your Religion of Science, the 
science of
> human consciousness will forever elude you.
> 
> Best Regards,
> Wes