Welcome! » Log In » Create A New Profile

Is Martinus' world-picture or cosmic analyses science?

October 25, 2009 02:48PM
Question to Martinus quoted from Kosmos 6 – 1988:

What justification does one have for calling Martinus' world-picture or cosmic analyses ”science”? The majority of religious movements each claim that their teaching is ”science”. But ass all these movements at times show a very great falling off of followers and examples of doubt, their teaching cannot be truly scientific, cannot be an expression of the true facts. Things which are experienced as facts cannot create doubt. Doubt can only arise where things are still only hypotheses, suppositions or mere assumption. Will Martinus' analyses have better safeguard or will people here too begin to doubt and fall away?

Answer by Martinus:

It is true that many religious movements claim that their perception of life is science. But a perception of life does not become science simply because one believes that it is science and has a particular person as its source. A perception can be science only as far as it constitutes absolute truth or reality documented as fact. A higher documentation cannot exist and cannot therefore be given. Even if certain dogmas of the world's religions are in reality the unshakable truth, they do not become science as long as they are not substantiated by facts in nature or life. Until then, they will constitute blind claims and accertions for whose justification there is no evidence. Instead of this evidence one has confidence only in those beings who are said to be the source of the dogmas or assertions and in those people who today unshakably believe in the dogmas and try to get others to believe in them too. For a very strongly religious Christian every word or expression will be perceived as the unshakable truth simply because it is claimed that Christ is its source. A person so attuned does not demand any proof at all of whatever is found in the Bible.

For the really serious but nonreligious researcher, neither the Bible, nor prophets, priests nor any other ecclesiastical authorities are sufficient to create in thin and unshakable belief in dogmas or assertions. Unsubstantiated perceptions do not become science simply because they have such authorities behind them. Here an object's roots in nature itself must be capable of revelation through a logically substantiated progression of thought that can be checked as fact by the intelligence. One will in such a situation have not only the solution of things or objects but also of how any given object exist as a fact. When an object can be verified against one's intellect so that the same object becomes a fact, then this fact will be the same as ”science”. When an object can be documented as fact through its own analysis, this analysis is the same as a fact evident to the intellect, quite regardless of what other beings may say or thing about the thing or object. The perception of the object is thereby no longer a belief but constitutes concrete knowledge.

As knowledge is in turn based on intelligence, it cannot fluctuate with feeling. It has the same stability in one's mind whether or not one has sympathy for its object. Dogmas and suppositions fluctuate between belief and doubt in tune with one's own fluctuations between sympathy and antipathy for their objects.

But my cosmic analyses will all be rooted in coherent logical arguments grounded in the verifiable realities of life itself. They can therefore never be assertions of dogmas, but constitute for the developed researcher a demonstration of facts. For the human beings for whom the cosmic world-picture has through these realities become a fact there is no possibility of doubt or falling off. They possess within themselves the world-picture as an experienced living reality in the same way as they possess the experience of the sun, the day and the night. A being's perception of life is no longer a question of belief and doubt, of sympathy or antipathy. It is unshakable reality anchored in his brain and heart by the clear daylight of his own sovereign personal experience.

My cosmic manifestations, and the eternal world-picture revealed through these, are thus not a collection of postulates or dogmas but on the contrary constitute exclusively a verifiable description of the cosmic causes and effects which decide life and happiness for all living beings. What can be more entitled to be expressed by the term ”science”?

(Quoted from letter no. 28 1951 translation MMG)
» Reply » Quote
Subject Author Posted

» Is Martinus' world-picture or cosmic analyses science?

Martinus October 25, 2009 02:48PM

Sorry, you do not have permission to post/reply in this forum.