INTERNATIONAL THEOSOPHY CONFERENCES

VIDEOS & THEOSOPHY

 

Where, WHO, WHAT is God?

"WHEN, years ago, we first travelled over the East, exploring the penetralia of its deserted sanctuaries, two saddening and ever-recurring questions oppressed our thoughts: Where, WHO, WHAT is God? Who ever saw the Immortal Spirit of man, so as to be able to assure himself of man's immortality?"

"It was while most anxious to solve these perplexing problems that we came into contact with certain men, endowed with such mysterious powers and such profound knowledge that we may truly designate them as the sages of the Orient. To their instructions we lent a ready ear. They showed us that by combining science with religion, the existence of God and immortality of man's spirit may be demonstrated like a problem of Euclid."

"Tell one who had never seen water, that there is an ocean of water, and he must accept it on faith or reject it altogether. But let one drop fall upon his hand, and he then has the fact from which all the rest may be inferred. After that he could by degrees understand that a boundless and fathomless ocean of water existed. Blind faith would no longer be necessary; he would have supplanted it with KNOWLEDGE."

"Our work, then, is a plea for the recognition of the Hermetic philosophy, the anciently universal Wisdom-Religion, as the only possible key to the Absolute in science and theology. ...we do not at all conceal from ourselves the gravity of our undertaking..."

"And yet, when we consider the bitter opposition that we are called upon to face, who is better entitled than we upon entering the arena to write upon our shield the hail of the Roman gladiator to Caesar: MORITURUS TE SALUTAT!"

Full Text:
ISIS UNVEILED, by H. P. Blavatsky

http://www.blavatsky.net/topics/bible/GodWhoWhereWhat.htm

http://www.blavatsky.net/magazine/theosophy/ww/additional/christianity/God-WhereWhoWhat.html

http://www.theosociety.org/pasadena/isis/iu1-00in.htm


Op-Ed Contributor: Put a Little Science in Your Life (June 1, 2008)

As a former middle school science teacher and now a professor of science education, I couldn't agree more with "Put a Little Science in Your Life," by Brian Greene (Op-Ed, June 1). I am also of the opinion that science is taught backward, with the current trend turning off many a student who would otherwise love science if taught it properly.

There is a "cold" and a "warm" way to teach science. The cold way is to teach details and facts first, then to climb up the vertical ladder to the more broad theory. I think that the warm way is best — to teach the big concept first, the "exciting big idea," and to learn the details and math later. This is how Einstein himself experienced science.

People learn much easier when there is excitement for the content. This is not watering down the science curriculum, but a top-down style of learning that doesn't rely solely on memorization, but on love of science and wonder and amazement.

When the conceptual connections are learned first, then the math and structural details of formulas are more easily learned and understood. I taught Einstein's E=mc2 to sixth graders using this method, and it worked.

I remember being grabbed and hooked by science as a child, always asking why and how. Our children need to find this sense of wonder again.

Clair Berube
Norfolk, Va., June 1, 2008

The writer is an assistant professor of education at Hampton University and the author of a book about progressive science education.

•

To the Editor:

Brian Greene sees science as "the greatest of all adventure stories" whose overarching beauty is often ignored in the teaching of it. In school and college, I did poorly with some technical details but liked looking for "the breathtaking vistas" Dr. Greene sees lurking within.

Maybe more students would become scientists with such teaching.

There is also room in the heavens for us amateurs who appreciate science. As a nonscientist, I may yawn at minutiae of how mountains rose and fell, why Earth life seems such an oddity in the universe, how geography affects our lives and how puzzles of illness are solved.

Yet in books and even in some details on these matters, I enjoyed elements of poetry, mystery and discovery, all ingredients of good adventures.

For sure, when finished reading, I thanked the stars, without or without life on their planets, that I had to take no exams down here.

Ernest F. Imhoff
Baltimore, June 2, 2008

•

To the Editor:

Brian Greene is a co-founder of the World Science Festival, which was held from May 28 to June 1 in New York. On Saturday evening, at the opening of the festival panel discussion "What It Means to Be Human," the moderator, Charlie Rose, asked audience members to raise their hands if they knew.

What popped into my head, a few minutes later, was the thought that we humans are atoms that have self- organized into a means of recognizing that we are the universe looking at itself, with science as the uniquely human means of systematically collecting, synthesizing and communicating the multitude of views into patterns of truth.

For me, the possibility gels with Dr. Greene's observation in his Op-Ed article that "science is the greatest of all adventure stories, one that's been unfolding for thousands of years as we have sought to understand ourselves and our surroundings."

Jeff Robbins
Long Beach, N.Y., June 1, 2008

•

To the Editor:

At this point in history, when religious belief remarkably like superstition is practically a requirement to run for office in the United States and a motivation for enemies of freedom, Brian Greene's message has never been more important.

Religious faith, after all, is defined by the very notion of belief without evidence, and Dr. Greene wrote a compelling essay about belief in evidence and, even more important, how the process of scientific inquiry helps us experience powerful feelings without reaching for the comfort of an outside authority.

Zealots will continue to argue that meaning and purpose come only from faith in an unseen source. To the contrary, seeing what actually happens and learning from it are the key to a full, honest experience of the great gift of life.

Adam Davis
San Rafael, Calif., June 2, 2008

•

To the Editor:

As much as I appreciate Brian Greene's love of science, science itself does not provide "a language of hope and inspiration." Rather, it is a source of those feelings.

Dr. Greene's article is fraught with unarticulated values and beliefs about the nature of reality and the meaning of life. Yet science offers no means of exploring or critiquing those values. The narrative is implied but unexamined.

From where do explicit narratives come? Art and literature (which Dr. Greene mentions), yes, but also religion, which Dr. Greene avoids, perhaps in deference to those who presume that the only kind of religion is authoritarian and dogmatic.

Dr. Greene's religious sensibilities are admirable. He needs more than science can offer to express and examine them.

Karin J. Lauria
Marlborough, Mass., June 3, 2008