Origin and destiny of religion

Keith,

The conflict between science and religion is only a deliberate surface projection. Mike tried to get his evidence for survival looked at by the Royal Society. They refused owing to their need to comply with an ancient directive. Charles II about 1667 granted their charter but it contained the clause, "meddle no otherwise with Divine things". If you look at Hawking's book you will find he went to the Vatican to see the Pope to discuss demarkation lines. The two disciplines collaborate to maintain the division between them. Hawking avoids religion on weekdays but, Mike found, worships as an Anglo Catholic on Sundays. Many other scientists do similar things.

This artificial division is blocking the progress of both disciplines since there can be only one truth.

You are quite rightly an atheist because most of the Christian religion was cobbled together at Nicaea in 325 AD under the extreme pressure of Constantine the great who had threatened to put them to the sword unless the 150 or so fragments came to agree on a single doctrine he could force on everybody. Consequently little of historically accurate value was incorporated.

However, quantum theory based on wave particle duality has been showing for a long time that something deeper must exist. Physicists all avoid such questions as, "what made the quantum waves and provide the energy source required and what kind of intelligence organised these waves?". My own study suggests a conscious intelligent background medium has to exist. I think you need to look into the available evidence, the most recent being the Scole report published by the Society of Psychical Research in 1999. Their two year study of physical mediumship at Scole shows amazing things happened such as film cassettes straight from the shops being developed after the sittings and showing diagrams for apparatus to be made for helping communication. The signature on one of these films corresponded exactly with that of Edison.

However, nobody really accepts any of this without personal proof and mine came from an attempt to check out the validity of mediumship by sitting in a circle for psychic development for a year. What you then personally experience amounts to total proof of the existence of a parallel universe with which we are able to communicate under exceptional and favourable conditions. My view is that nobody has even a right to assert a negative opinion unless some effort has been made to at least study some of the evidence. The evidence is now so strong as to amount to total proof and this has frightened theologians so much, because of the threat it poses to their power structure, that they make huge efforts to discredit and suppress this evidence. They still have almost total control of all media outlets and make sure that the propaganda dispensed is wholly dismissive. A set of three programmes of this kind appeared on Channel 4 last Saturday. A small amount of positive evidence was permitted and included a most convincing demonstation of mediumship. However, its effect was totally obscurated by the overwhelming negativeness, most of it being totally dishonset. I think you ought to look into the data available starting with that of Sir William Crookes over a century ago.

SURVIVAL PHYSICS: A Brief Summary by Ronald Pearson

Does the Society for Psychical Research have a "corporate policy"? - Letter from Ronald Pearson to John Samson (August 13, 1999)

The Chemist Sir William Crookes Proved Survival With Repeatable Experiments Under Laboratory Conditions - by Michael Roll