Why was I not being taught about such things in the Natural Science schools at Cambridge?
Home | Comments | Creation | Redemption Period | Miscellaneous
Home > Comments > 2012 > Comment on 2012 May 9
2008 | 2009 | 2010 | 2011 | 2012 |
2012 May 9
Go to the end of this webpage:
The Church believes in body, soul and spirit. However I have asked quite a number of churchmen what they mean by soul and spirit. They simply do not know the answer. Read more:
Last month I brought three webpages,
2012 Apr 15 – How to make spiritual things tangible and
2012 Apr 20 – The human electro-magnetic field, and
2012 Apr 23 – Gravitation,
that contained quotes from a book by Tom Lethbridge and today I want to bring some more quotes from this book, but will only bring quotes about a subject that comes up again and again on this website and that is what science and religion have in common and that are the shortcomings they have in common.
When you read the now following quotes you will probably also see that Tom Lethbridge had a good feel for the falsities of science and for the falsities of religion and for true science and true religion.
So now the quotes from Tom Lethbridge:
Much of what I have to say will seem incredible to those who believe in the apparent completeness of modern study. But there is absolutely nothing to prevent most normal persons from obtaining the same results as we have done. The only real obstruction appears to be mental laziness. The proof of the pudding must always be in the eating and not in the theories of the author of the cookery book. The dogmas of Victorian science will no longer fit. Many of the better scientists know this. We have to cope with something far beyond the limited approach of exact measurement in three dimensions. It may take a revolution in thought to do this. But it has to come.
When people get to the end of this book, if they can be bothered to do so, they will see that all that we are finding out now is not really new. The facts were known to many men, in many lands, and through many ages. It is only during the last 100 years or so that they have become obscured. Men in the Stone Age apparently knew more about the real meaning of life than the most erudite professor of science today. If this is not just as great a shock as falling through a hole into the polar sea, then nothing is. For we were brought up and conditioned to believe that science either knew all the answers, or was just about to find them. It seems clear now that a huge slice of knowledge has been left out. If this book does no more than draw attention to this fact, it will have served its purpose. So now let us get on with it.
I never heard of such things as telepathy when a child, and do not think that I knew anything about them before I became an undergraduate at Cambridge. But since that time I have always found the subject very interesting. I can remember my astonishment at hearing an extremely tough and hard-headed old soldier remarking that he frequently communicated thoughts to his wife without speaking. Why was I not being taught about such things in the Natural Science schools at Cambridge? It was impossible to doubt what the old man said. The answer was of course that they did not come within the restricted bounds, which Victorian science had set itself. They were conveniently ignored, like an indecent joke made in the wrong company. To the Darwinian world they were impossible superstition. Yet they were observed fact. Thousands of people communicated thoughts every day without speaking. There is no need to try to prove it by cards and guessing games. It is as well known to the general run of humanity as that they have to breathe to live.
I am afraid I was terribly disillusioned by the Natural History schools of Cambridge. For years I had taken an intense interest in living animals and risked my neck times without number scrambling on dangerous cliff ledges to watch the behaviour of some bird or other. I had observed the wild red deer deep in the scrub oak woods on the edge of the sea in Devon, or on the mountain slopes in Scotland. But now I was expected to reduce the dead bodies of friends to minute fragments to see how they worked. Life had gone: this was mechanics.
Very many people, especially trained scientists, appear most unwilling to believe anything they do not experience themselves.
I heard the late Professor Joad once proclaim that ‘astrology is bunk’, but later he became a professing Christian, accepting many dogmas which seem far more improbable. I can accept most of the facts recorded in the Gospels, there appear to be some interpolations, but I cannot reasonably believe much of the dogmatic theory based on the interpretation of the Gospels. Having spent much of my life trying to disentangle the scanty facts about the Dark Ages and struggling to make sense of the contemporary chronicles, I find it very hard to believe that the interpretation of Christ’s teaching, produced by the Christian fathers during that epoch, is likely to bear much relation to what He really taught.
Jung was a keen student of parasychology and so have been several famous scientists. They were all believed to have gone mad of course, but that is the usual reward for anyone who has the courage to step over the fence of orthodoxy.
But to me it seems reasonable from what we have learnt; and I do not see that my reasoning need be any worse than that of trained philosophers and scientists, whose ideas are frequently shown to be wrong.
The Church believes in body, soul and spirit. Anyone might think then that this might represent the same idea. However I have asked quite a number of churchmen what they mean by soul and spirit. In sailing-ship parlance, they usually ‘fly up into the wind and hang in irons’. They simply do not know the answer.
The Church appears to have no knowledge of the all-important connecting link, the psyche-field.
Apparently this is the reason why much religious thinking is clearly in such pickle today. It is trying to fit a four-dimensional subject into a three-dimensional frame, and is going backwards from its intended line of evolution. It used to be four dimensional, but has listened to so much scientific talk that it has lost confidence in itself. The more it tries to be modern and up to date, the less probable it becomes. Yet I have not the slightest doubt that if it gave up trying to fit phenomena belonging to its own subject into a narrower world and applied itself to a scientific treatment of the other, it would soon discover that much of what it always used to teach was susceptible to real scientific laws. Even in this brief investigation we are surely beginning to realize that.
It is somewhat strange for me to write in this manner. I was trained in an environment in which everything was ultimately derived from an interpretation of Darwin’s ideas. I gave little thought to anything of a religious nature. But, if one is trained to reason in a scientific manner, you tend to apply this to things you do not understand. After following out various lines of investigation, all facts seem to point to one main conclusion. The assumption that everything is three dimensional and can be studied in terms of these three dimensions is wrong. There are many phenomena which are outside these dimensions. When you study these phenomena you find that most of them really fall into what seems to be a religious category. It is not necessarily confined to any religion; but it is something to do with a mind, or perhaps spirit, which is distinct from the body and acts with no regard to earthly time or distance. Its study throws great light on those most well authenticated accounts of the founder of any great religion that we have. If we study our phenomena and those of the actions of this religious founder, the similarity is clear. It is obvious that He had complete mastery of fourth-dimensional knowledge. Further than that I need not go. I regard the Gospels, to a very large extent, as completely accurate, simply because they fit into and agree with a definite line of research. It is surely a pity if the Church of England is giving them up just at a time when it is beginning to be possible to understand them.
So this were opinions of a scientist. But Tom Lethbridge was obviously a great exception. An exception among scientists and church men.
So two men are the real breaksmen of progress. And these are the scientist and the church man. And the scientists and the clerics have again and again been mentioned on this website as the people who cause our problems, of the people fully embedded in the regiment of Antichrist.
And the scientists are actually also clerics because they are the representatives, the high priests, of the religion of materialism. It is religion, the wrong religion, that is our problem.
Now to understand this will be critical, especially at the time of the end, when it becomes more and more important to understand what Antichrist is all about. He is the top representative of the religion of materialism. And this religion is not so much different from the real church in its setting up because it is more an organism than an organization - an organization like most of the man-made churches. It is an organism formed around the opponent of God and therefore not so easily visible than a man-made church, and that is the reason that it can fight all other religious organisations without being recognized as being one itself.
The church of Antichrist therefore tries to mimic the true church, the church of Christ.
Now most publications are part of this set up and will always support the beliefs of the materialists. They will do that automatically without being formally organized. I will give you an example.
Let us take as an example Wikipedia and there let us take the article about Tom Lethbridge. There I find the following:
Thomas Charles Lethbridge (3 March 1901 – 30 September 1971) was a British explorer, archaeologist and parapsychologist. According to the historian Ronald Hutton, Lethbridge’s “status as a scholar never really rose above that of an unusually lively local antiquary” for he had “contempt for professionalism in all fields” and purported theories that were never accepted by the mainstream archaeological community.
The writer of this article does not tell lies directly, but he uses a quote that does it for him. He writes that Tom Lethbridge had contempt for professionalism in all fields. Now that is a direct lie. It is exactly the opponent of Tom Lethbridge who has contempt for professionalism in all fields because he is the one who acts highly unprofessionally by bringing his materialistic, religious view into play when apparently presenting scientific information. The majority of scientists have contempt for professionalism in all fields. They are the ones who again and again distort facts in order to promote their religious views. The majority of scientists you can also call the mainstream of the scientific community.
Back to: 2012 May 9
Go to the top of this webpage:
2008 | 2009 | 2010 | 2011 | 2012 |
Home | Comments | Creation | Redemption Period | Miscellaneous
For an overview of this website and for access to the individual webpages go to:
The web address of this webpage is: