While the media and popular authors continue to spread the message of Darwin's evolution-theory (and the new synthesis) as an established fact, more and more people, including a growing number of scientists, have their doubts about many of the claims made.

See Inverse logic in evolution-theory

Many of these objections have been known for a very long time. This raises the question why so many scientists choose to ignore the fundamental problems with evolution-theory.
Could it be they are afraid to acknowledge the possibility of spiritual views on life having any ground? It certainly seems so, judging the work of Richard Dawkins, whose work "The God Delusion" shows his ignorance of philosophical questions, beautifully shown by Alister McGrath, in his booklet "The Dawkins Delusion? Atheist fundamentalism and the denial of the divine".

Tags: Darwin, Dawkins, God, evolution, inverse, logic, natural, science, selection, spirit

Views: 121

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Spoken as a true materialist.
Spirituality never lacks relevance, save for the die-hard atheist/materialist.
Okay, please show me how spirituality arises directly out of cause and effect?
So, you suppose that spirituality arises out of cause and effect?
That is a supposition that requires analysis. It brings up a whole host of new questions, like the nature of cause and effect. Is cause and effect a "mechanical" process?
Are there spiritual causes for our predicament on earth? How do "spirit" and "matter" interact? Are spirit and matter different conditions of one substance? The compounded nature of matter? Free will versus order, and so on. I have devoted an ebook (see meuser.awardspace.com) and blog to many of these questions and you can find many pertinent ideas regarding these questions in the writings of people like De Purucker and J.G. Bennett. This obviously involves a complete philosophy of life.
That brings me to ask, how well versed you are in theosophical literature and philosophy in general. What is your belief system?
"So, you suppose that spirituality arises out of cause and effect? "

No.

"Is cause and effect a "mechanical" process?"

Yes.

"That brings me to ask, how well versed you are in theosophical literature and philosophy in general."


I am presently reading the materials I received from the society. My feeling are ambivalent .

"What is your belief system?"

All systems are open to change. I have faith so what is the point in believing. For me belief is a noun, faith a verb. This world is one of action (movement).
In Theosophy, as well as in all philosophical systems worthy of the name, Spirit is seen as a causative factor regarding manifestation (form-world).
I have written extensively on the use of the thinking faculty and its effect on one's life. This is ancient knowledge. The emperor-philosopher Marcus Aurelius has said some pertinent things about this too. I paraphrase him in my ebook.
(your life is a reflection of how/what you think).

Do you believe ("or have faith") in free will?

Faith is a verb with a resulting state of mind. Faith is born out of experience unless it is blind faith.
Yes, this world is a world of action.

Why is your feeling ambivalent, if this is not too private a matter?
"In Theosophy, as well as in all philosophical systems worthy of the name, Spirit is seen as a causative factor regarding manifestation (form-world)."

We are unable to see cause, however this would seem to be a resonable metaphor.

"Do you believe ("or have faith") in free will?"

Yes.

"blind faith."

Gratuitous indifference?

"Why is your feeling ambivalent, if this is not too private a matter?"

Thank you for asking. I am uncertain because the authors appear to presume.
No surprise here. It is a well-known fact that organisms can adapt to (changing) circumstances.
They in turn effect their environment. As to the so-called random mutations: we may never know what is truly random, if there is such a thing at all, and what not. Until now, biologists have evaded many basic questions around evolution, as you will find in the linked articles in my note.
Not to mention that most of them are in firm denial as to purposive evolution.

Yes. I would like to add that nobody can prove a theory.

Scientists, like everybody else, have to work with a perceptual framework/worldview/paradigm which determines what kind of experiments  they perform and how the data are interpreted. Their goal is to understand phenomena and be able to control-manipulate these latter. The danger lies in lacking the necessary wisdom and yet manipulate the kingdoms of nature. We will reap what we sow in that regard.


L.k.A. Kirui said:

I myself prefere a rational theory to a 'proven' theory. What is 'proven' to one person is not to another person. Experimentantion and scientific 'proofs' are not the ultimate sourse of knowledge. I came to spiritualists seeking not so much the facts but just rational explanations of which they offer far better ones than physicists who unecessarily ignore the 'unseen things' even just for the purposes of theory. The have only end up with irrational theories!I myself prefere a rational theory to a 'proven' theory. What is 'proven' to one person is not to another person. Experimentantion and scientific 'proofs' are not the ultimate sourse of knowledge. I came to spiritualists seeking not so much the facts but just rational explanations of which they offer far better ones than physicists who unecessarily ignore the 'unseen things' even just for the purposes of theory. The have only end up with irrational theories!

RSS

Search Theosophy.Net!

Loading

What to do...

Join Theosophy.Net Blogs Forum Live Chat Invite Facebook Facebook Group

A New View of Theosophy


About
FAQ

Theosophy References


Wiki Characteristics History Spirituality Esotericism Mysticism RotR ToS

Our Friends

© 2014   Created by Theosophy Network.

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service