When you are speaking of your life's experiences, you are not speaking from rigirous scientific analysis. That doesn't make your deductions any less true, but it's anecdotal. What you have seen and experience may or may be true over a wider statistical sample, and in fact, may not be true at all. Your perception, for example, could be wrong.
I could not agree more. Nobody is claiming that scientific investigation and anecdotal evidence are the same thing. However whilst scientific investigation is a formulated method of studying empirical evidence to obtain maximum objectivity and reliability it is also quite possible to have empirical evidence that is not part of a scientific study of any sort.
Physical evidence that exists in an objective reality external to the experiencer. Physical evidence that can be independently corroborated by other conscious beings inhabiting the same objective reality as yourself.
When I see something mundane and everyday I quite justifiably assume it to be really there and not a figment of my imagination. I have a lifetime of empirical experience of witnessing things that are also being witnessed by others around me. I have no reason to think I am imagining the evryday and ordinary.
If I were in the habit of seeing things that nobody else could see or hear I might not be quite so presuming with regard to this matter. Similarly if I witnessed something extraordinary I would very possibly not believe my eyes unless there were fellow witnesses equally as stunned and able to corroborate what I had seen.
According to you it seems that there is scientifically verified evidence and then all other forms of evidence which are all equally valid. Empirical and non-empirical. This is foolish. I don't need to scientifically study each individual I meet to know that they are real. I have a lifetime of empirical physical experience on which to base the conclusion that they are real.
However extraordinary claims such as UFO experiences, bodies rising from the dead, interracting with angels etc. etc. etc. are by their very nature not mundane, not ordinary and not able to be assumed as reliable as there is not a wealth of previous empirical evidence on which to base such a conclusion. In such cases more thorough analysis is needed to render the conclusion reliable.
In short nobody is suggesting that day to day empirical experience is a substitute for scientifically rigorous investigation. However nor is it possible (or even desirable) to subject every day to day claim to thorough scientific analysis. In the case of the mundane we can still make highly reliable conclusions based on past empirical experience. Extraordinary claims however obviously require more analysis in order to be rendered reliable.
It is not a difficult concept. If you stop confusing empirical evidence with scientific investigation then I am sure you will get it eventually.
My understanding of theosophy points me to draw certain conclusions that perhaps other people have not made.
1. As we are in a 4th round, 5th race, science (a 5th activity) is very instrumental in aiding the human progress, however the 4th activity is art and music, creativity, imagination. That 4th activity is showing a predominance by round lasting longer than race. The round is across seven globes which include 7 races per globe.
2. The next round will be the 5th round which shows a continuing emphasis and leaning towards the practice of science for enjoyment as well as for learning and direction. Theosophy suggests we are "evolving" (a bold use of the term) towards a greater need or desire to think things into existence and place by observation.
3. Neither of these key ingredients seem to be able to minimize the need for the other characterizations given by theosophy which are 1) power or government, 2) love or religion, 3) understanding or intellectual study, 6) devotion or progress through service, and 7) magic or progress through an unexplainable (unshareable) technique.
I would just like to contribute the thought that our world is becoming steadily more scientific and scientists will never lose but will continue to gain and get stronger, however for the sake of living in a 4th round, creation also has a pretty firm foundation from which science may work.
The parable given by Jesus about the seeds that fall 1) by the wayside and are trampled or eaten, 2) on the rocks and whither 3) in weeds and are choked, and 4) in good soil is augmented by the upward climb on the reverse arc, which include 5) space, 6) water, and 7) sunlight. (An upward arc is influenced by my thinking of life through planes of fire, air, water, and earth.)
It is fun and fascinating to follow the thinking of a good scientist. It is noble to serve a great man as a means of becoming great, but is is totally intriguing and beyond our ability to think of causing occurrences, causing events in ways that we CANNOT possibly convey to others, and isn't this true to some extent by the charisma and rise to power that we see in a politician's life? How does one person become so elevated over the others? If we all had a little bit of this, would the world be a better place?
P.S. I followed the last post in "How do scientists believe in God and evolution?" with links to statements by Straggler and Bluegenes into this forum. I hope it isn't a problem.
Here I am in the forum "Is it Science?" and I am so thrilled to be participating in this "adherence to the form of science" in the light of securing a place for science apart from creation as dependent upon evidence.
If there is or was a designer, it is wonderful that once all the work of creation is done, we are allowed time to consider what is here to the point of actually developing something in ourselves based on what we view occurring around us.
Theosophy teaches us that evolution doesn't end and that while we aren't too familiar with higher kingdoms at this point in our lives, and that there is a long evolutionary chain extending "UP TO GOD" if you wish. Before evolution became fashionable, no one used to claim that God is one result of evolution and therefore very difficult to pinpoint with our limited view of things. It would probably be viewed as heretical to say that humans will evolve into "gods".
While these cycles of evolution from kingdom to kingdom and from higher to lower planes and back again are not very predictable, they are sometimes colored by our desire for order. Living in an ordered world helps us to predict change, forbear and endure states that change, and look forward to a brighter tomorrow.
There is, I suppose, little or no evidence to suggest that we evolve into greater and greater beings, but the theory should be able to predict that a chain isn't 4 links and that's all. While I have learned of Elohim, Kumaras, Archangels, and other "named" and "unnamed" figures written about in the literature, it is of particular importance that God not be used so losely as to cover every type of life that contributes to the well being of the earth.
In theosophical or Saint Germain Foundation literature, we hear that Elohim are instrumental creators and "ships" that carry a kingdom on its journey from one globe to the next. We learn that Kumaras are resident planetary beings (one per planet) that have an order in their cycle of influence. The Kumara for Saturn is given as Jehovah and we are only under the influence of Jehovah for a certain period of time (a cycle of 7 races) on this globe (the fourth). When we pass on to the next globe, a different Kumara becomes the guiding force for humanity.
I found a totally strange internet book written by Jehovah and it had such amazing claims in it that at the time, I couldn't even read it. Imagine, mobile schools, like ships, with teachers being mechanics (Ha) (I guess they had to keep the machines running.) I couldn't read it. It was too unique. But there might be a brave soul somewhere who could and who could actually help the rest of us with liking it.