Another fantastic and perhaps excerpt from Seth/Jane Roberts’ “The Individual and the Nature of Mass Events” that I think is most worth sharing with the world. As always Seth/Jane doesn’t pull any punches, hitting at the very core of the highly disputed and controversial subjects of Religion and Science. In almost 40 years not much has changed, the same debates between these two overgrown and over-sensitive giants of popular culture still rage. Here Seth/Jane pops that very large balloon in no uncertain terms, providing a very much needed alternate view.
As these are quite long excerpts that I want to present here, I am going to do so as parts 1 and 2.
“Most cults have their own specialized language of one kind [or] another – particular phrases used repetitiously – and this special language further serves to divorce the devotees from the rest of the world.
“…You have scientific cults as well as religious ones.
“Religion and science both loudly proclaim their search for truth, although they are seemingly involved in completely opposing systems. They both treat their beliefs as truths, with which no one should tamper. They search for beginnings and endings. The scientists have their own vocabulary, which is used to reinforce the exclusive nature of science. Now I am speaking of the body of science in general terms here, for there is in a way a body of science that exists as a result of each individual scientist’s participation. A given scientist may act quite differently in his family life and as a scientist. He may love his family dog, for example, while at the same time think nothing of injecting other animals with diseased tissue in his professional capacity.
“Granting that, however, cults interact, and so there is quite a relationship between the state of religion, when it operates as a cult, and the state of science when it operates as a cult. Right now your cultish religions exist in response to the cultish behaviour of science. Science insists it does not deal with values, but leaves those to philosophers. In stating that the universe is an accidental creation, however, a meaningless chance conglomeration formed by an unfeeling cosmos, it states quite clearly its belief that the universe and man’s existence has no value. All that remains is what pleasure or accomplishment can somehow be wrested from man’s individual biological processes.
“A recent article in a national magazine speaks “glowingly” about the latest direction of progress in the field of psychology, saying that man will realize that his moods, thoughts, and feelings are the result of the melody of chemicals that swirl in his brain. That statement devalues man’s subjective world.
“The scientists claim a great idealism. They claim to have the way toward truth. Their ‘truth’ is to be found by studying the objective world, the world of objects, including animals and stars, galaxies and mice – but by viewing these objects as if they are themselves without intrinsic value, as if their existences have no meaning.
“Now those beliefs separate man from his own nature. He cannot trust himself – for who can rely upon the accidental bubblings of hormones and chemicals that somehow form a stew called consciousness – an unsavory brew at best, so the field of science will forever escape opening up into any great vision of the meaning of life. It cannot value life, and so in its search for the ideal it can indeed justify in its philosophy the possibility of an accident [or incident] that might kill many many people through direct or indirect means, and kill the unborn as well.
“That possibility is indeed written in the scientific program. There are plans, though faulty ones, of procedures to be taken in case of an accident – so in your world that probability exists, and is not secret. As a group the scientists rigorously oppose the existence of telepathy or clairvoyance, or of any philosophy that brings these into focus. Only lately have some begun to think in terms of mind affecting matter, and even such a possibility disturbs them profoundly, because it shatters the foundations of their philosophical stance.
“The scientists have long stood on the side of ‘intelligence and reason’, logical thought, and objectivity. They are trained to be unemotional, to stand apart from their experience, to separate themselves from nature, and to view any emotional characteristics of their own with an ironical eye. Again, they have stated that they are neutral in the world of values. They became, until recently, the new priests. All problems, it seemed, could be solved scientifically. This applied to every avenue of life: to health matters, social disorders, economics, even to war and peace.”
(Roberts.J, 1995, A Seth Book: The Individual and the Nature of Mass Events, Amber-Allen Publishing)
Part Two to follow….