What Is a Scientist-Philosopher?

 

Q:      In all the things I have heard, and I have read your book—it sounds pretty far out. I have been searching for knowledge. I find myself in this position and I want to know is there anything you can say or prove that this is the path? What makes this different from the others? Why is the spiritual message given different from the Catholics or whatever?

 

RK:    It is obviously different from several things. We still talk about the same personalities and try to put, if nothing else, an alternative interpretation on some of the events that have occurred historically and what the import of what these different happenings are. There are no magic words we can use to convince somebody that our interpretation is correct. Just as a person who absolutely refuses to believe in God there is nothing you can say to him to make him believe in God, a person who is thoroughly convinced that there is one there is nothing that you can that can unconvinced him. Let me put it this way a little bit: We try to show or reconcile some of the things between the metaphysical approach, or the religious approach, to Truth and the scientific approach to Truth.

 

Obviously, religion and science are both attempting find out what is the Truth. One comes from “revealed” sources and the other one tries to analyze it to come up with the best deductions they can from the evidence they uncover. When it comes to a point when something is absolutely true, both of them, eventually, have to come to the same answer. It does not make any difference which direction you come from. If it is true, then both people will find it true. Some takes longer one way and sometimes it takes longer another.

 

There are some things which religion has just not gotten around to deciding if they could even be a valid thing to investigate. For instance, just thirty-five years ago if you talked to any scientist at all about the possibility of clairvoyance, he would immediately write you off as a nut. But, scientists are now beginning to investigate people who claim to be clairvoyant and find that regardless of what culture they come from they, indeed, all report the same kind of things and their EEGs are identical when they say they are in this certain state. The same with people who claim to have been psychics and could heal through just the power of the mind. That sounded pretty “far out” to scientists not so long ago, but scientists are the ones who have been investigating these things and find, indeed, religion was right all along: there are people who can heal and maybe Christ was one of those kinds of people. So, whenever people decide to investigate they begin to find, indeed, there is some truth to it.

 

There are a lot people who say, “Well, those cities that are written about in the Old Testament are just myths. But, archeologists are digging up the very places that they talk about and finding some evidence, in translating papyri or clay-tablets and so forth, that is the name of that place and that is the place it should have been and, indeed, people were there at that time. I do not know why it is that people who approach things from a scientific view seem to feel that it has to go according to scientific dogma and people who, in a religion, say it has to go according to religious dogma.

 

What I am trying to do in this book, that I published, is to show that if you let down your prejudice a little bit and let some information in you may shed some light on some dark corners that really would be valuable to forming a balanced view of what the Universe is like. Indeed, there are many people who are Nobel Prize winners who, obviously, are the tops in their scientific fields who believe in God. That disturbs a lot of scientists that somebody who is a Nobel Prize winner should believe in God because there is no proof of God.

 

But, the mind is capable of different kinds of logic. There is a kind of logic where you can add up one and one and get two, and take certain deductive kinds of logic and come up with an answer which holds up to pretty rigorous arguments. Yet, there are people who find that there are intuitive ways of coming up with information that are equally valid to them even though they cannot prove it according to the same scientific rule. I think we need to be sensitive to both forms of perception: that which is intuitive and that which is scientific. Indeed, most scientists say they intuited the answer before they came up with proof on a scientific basis. So, we do have to observe both ways.

 

If, reading The Ultimate Frontier, some people can be reconciled to both systems and see that they blend together, and something can be brought from both, then that is a very important thing that I have managed to have gotten across in writing that book. Indeed, there are a number of things in The Ultimate Frontier which have been verified scientifically since the time it was printed; at which time it was hanging out there all by itself and unsupported. That is very gratifying to me because I was acting on information that I had no way of proving personally. After a period of testing the information that had been given to me by my Teachers, I began to trust more and more the information that They gave me. When I tried it out in my life or tested my world-view in accordance with the principles they gave me, I found satisfaction out of it. So therefore, what They do tell me, I pay close attention to. Unfortunately, I still happen to be the “doubting Thomas” type and I always want to test it out first before I pass it along. What I have passed along in The Ultimate Frontier are those things which makes sense to me. (03-1983)

 

 

 

Return