In the service of science - Part 3

16 When academics show doubt in a spiritual phenomenon or an otherworldly contact, one has to absolutely ascertain whether they preserve their logic and objectivity. Their arguments could be trying to talk things out of existence, malevolent negations or defeatism . • A negative person, inclined to derisiveness, will ignore all logic or objectivity confronted with, because all he wish to do is to drag the supernatural down. We accurately familiarised ourselves with the attitude of the average citizen over the years. The good ones look for goodness. The evil ones seek evil. The deriders look for derision. This has nothing to do with objectivity. Spiritualism does not have to look for evidence for long. There is an enormous amount of evidence available. Most of it was often masterly recorded in writing and also published. When one asks an academic derider and doubter for this type of evidence they often have no inkling that this knowledge exists. They assess according to what they feel and naturally also according to the templates of the sciences they made during their studies. These templates are an evil and they hinder serious science from getting closer to the truth enormously. The Psychic Peace Circle continues to report its experiences March 1968 Universities do not teach atheism , but the sciences stay so obviously clear of theology that nobody can fail to see an atheistic rejection in this in spite of this. This inevitably raises the question of whether theology teaches a lot of nonsense that the natural sciences find impossible to accept. When accurately delving into the Bible one comes to the conclusion that the writers and narrators of its stories actually existed and that they encountered phenomena that were witnessed by a number of other people too. These phenomena however remain incredible, respectively impossible in the eyes of the sciences in spite of this. Theology is therefore not inclined to discuss the likelihood of these miracles. They verily make their job easy by demanding that people have to blindly believe what they say, because rejection would be a great sin. The sciences do not care whether it is a sin or not. All they want is exact evidence. GOD’S existence can only be verified subjectively . This is why the sciences and theology are at war with one another – and politics uses this discord to its advantage. The situation is different with psycho-science , because it furnishes objective evidence, at least in regards to the human existence after people’s demise. The sciences would however like to see this objective evidence relegated to within the arena of theology that one distrust anyway. This is how it has unfortunately been for millennia. Intensive research based on better experiences and better means, for instance of a technical nature, promote better results. We are about to be confronted with the fact that psycho-science is turning into one of the most important disciplines within the natural sciences. The miracles described in the Bible are falsely interpreted observations, ergo based on false witness statements. This assessment, it can be objectively verified, is certainly not a deathblow to religion, this fascinating adjustment of the facts actually gives religion and biblical accounts judicious credibility. This credibility rates higher than any religious belief in miracles.