The Immortality of Living Beings
The article: The Necessity of Spiritual Science
The Necessity of Spiritual Science
PART ONE
WHEN MANKIND SABOTAGES MILLIONS OF ITS OWN LIFE-CELLS
Chapter 1
Situations in which academic scholars are merely "laymen"
Before we proceed with demonstrating the necessity of spiritual science, it would be useful first to dwell a little on what "science" really is. The fact is that under this term many ideas, assertions and dogmas are hidden that in themselves are in glaring contrast to the laws of logic and cannot therefore possibly be "science". To a great extent there prevails the superstition that everything a professor, doctor or other authorised scientist or academic states is "science". That such authorised scholars have, by virtue of their academic training, qualifications for stating real, unshakable facts in many fields is a matter of course. But this naturally does not mean that the same people are infallible in all fields. Indeed, in certain fields they can even be totally ignorant. And in such fields professors and doctors or other academic scholars must, like the layman, incline towards suppositions or hypotheses. Their study at university or college does not enable these scholars, under the conditions prevailing up till now, to raise themselves completely above the level of the layman. There is an extraordinarily large area of daily life in which material or physical science cannot present things as facts and will never reach the point of being able to argue for or against them. Material science can only perceive and document in numbers, measures and weights. What cannot be expressed in this kind of result is, for the one hundred per cent materialistic scientist or researcher, absolutely unreal. He will therefore deny the existence of things that elude being checked as to volume and do not appear as time and space and cannot therefore be stated in terms of weights and measures.
      As regards the existence of "Something" that cannot be expressed in weights, measures or numerical results, the professor or the doctor is just as much a "layman" as anyone else who without an academic training. His "scientific" denial will therefore be just as "unscientific" as the ordinary "layman's" denial, if any, of the same "Something".