Interface administrators, Administrators (Semantic MediaWiki), Curators (Semantic MediaWiki), Editors (Semantic MediaWiki), Suppressors, Administrators, trusted
4,970
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
mLine 16:
Line 16: − + + + + + + + + +
no edit summary
Further, Mme. Blavatsky proves that materialists have no grounds to charge them, Spiritists, with “false pretences” and portray them as being “lost to reason.” As for their “false pretences,” she mentions one of their fellows, medium Slade, who was arrested at the complaint of Duke Lancaster for cheating him and taking ''$5'' for a sole ''séance'', and she asks whether he is more guilty of false pretences than Huxley himself, a {{Style S-HPB SB. HPB underlined|soulless}} person who wheedled not 5 but 5,000 dollars out of credulous New York residents for imparting them a very old hypothesis that man descended from an antediluvian four-toed horse?
Further, Mme. Blavatsky proves that materialists have no grounds to charge them, Spiritists, with “false pretences” and portray them as being “lost to reason.” As for their “false pretences,” she mentions one of their fellows, medium Slade, who was arrested at the complaint of Duke Lancaster for cheating him and taking ''$5'' for a sole ''séance'', and she asks whether he is more guilty of false pretences than Huxley himself, a {{Style S-HPB SB. HPB underlined|soulless}} person who wheedled not 5 but 5,000 dollars out of credulous New York residents for imparting them a very old hypothesis that man descended from an antediluvian four-toed horse?
“To be consistent he must show that while the horse was losing at each successive period a toe, man has in reversed order acquired an additional one at each new formation; and, unless we are shown the fossilized remains of man in a series of one-, two-, three-, and four-toed anthropoid apelike beings antecedent to the present perfected Homo, what does Huxley’s theory amount to? . . ”<ref>''Ditto'', p. 229.</ref> What grounds do we have to believe such bold assumptions, undemonstrated by anything but the lecturer's authority,
“To be consistent he must show that while the horse was losing at each successive period a toe, man has in reversed order acquired an additional one at each new formation; and, unless we are shown the fossilized remains of man in a series of one-, two-, three-, and four-toed anthropoid apelike beings antecedent to the present perfected Homo, what does Huxley’s theory amount to? . . ”<ref>''Ditto'', p. 229.</ref> What grounds do we have to believe such bold assumptions, undemonstrated by anything but the lecturer's authority, more than numerous eye-witnesses of spirit phenomena? Of course, hypothesis, whether of positive sciences or of the realm of psychology, is no false pretence; but an unsupported assertion. However, as soon as it crosses the line, as soon as it is offered as a fact or enforced as a faith, such a hypothesis and its proponents can be charged with false pretences, especially when people are charged money (and a great amount at that!) for it.
If, satisfied with the osseous fragments, rather incomplete and scattered, of various antediluvian creatures, materialists assume the right (without taking the risk of being branded as people lost to reason) to build a complicated theory of self-generation and origin of species passing it off as the scientific truth, if Cuvier,<ref>Jean Léopold Cuvier, known as Georges Cuvier (1769–1832), was a French naturalist and zoologist.</ref> grants rights of citizenship in natural history to the image of a whole mammoth based upon a small bone, a small osseous fragment of the antediluvian giant, why should Spiritualists be branded as those lost to reason (asks Mme. Blavatsky) when they base their conclusions on far more definite principles? In support of their theory of afterdeath life, they do not exhibit just small bones but, rather, entire hands, feet and even human bodies that appear during their séances in which they frequently recognize their departed relatives and acquaintances.
Mme. Blavatsky closes her article by comparing the damage caused by the “system” of materialists, such as one propounded by the lecturer, with the evil presumably caused by Spiritists in promoting their highly (as she believes) moral theories of Spiritism. I need not say that she arrives at the conclusion that if the English found it possible to sentence medium Slade to three months in prison for extortion of five dollars, the Americans should have jailed materialist Huxley, at least, for three years – in proportion with the amount he was paid in New York for his false pretence!
Of all the sad things to be seen in this era of “shams”, our ardent Spiritist<ref>H. P. Blavatsky never regarded herself as a Spiritist. On the contrary, to oppose Spiritualism (which she viewed as necromancy) she put forward Theosophy as the true teaching about ethereal worlds and spiritual Nature.</ref> concludes, none is more deplorable – though its futility is often ludicrous – than the conspiracy of materialists to stamp out the multitude of facts corroborating the philosophy of Spiritists from history. What the ancient and modern authors narrate, “that can be used to bolster up the physical part of science, scientists accept and sometimes cooly appropriate without credit;”<ref>Op. cit., p. 232.</ref> while what they recognize as contrary to the order of nature, they “incontinently reject as mythical . . .” “They adopt the contrary course to Lord Verulam<ref>Francis Bacon, 1st Viscount St Albans, also known as Lord Verulam, (1561-1626) was an English philosopher, historian and statesman. Bacon has been called the father of empiricism and English materialism.</ref>, who, arguing on the properties of amulets and charms, remarks that, ‘we should not reject all this kind, because it is not known how far those contributing to superstition depend on natural causes.’ ”<ref>Op. cit., pp. 233.</ref> Clearly, humankind will never get to the truth as long as the freedom of thought and truthful exposition of scientific discoveries remains suppressed by preconceived opinions. More than that, “there can be no real enfranchisement of human thought, nor expansion of scientific discovery, until the existence of spirit is recognized, and the double evolution accepted as a fact. Until then, false theories will always find favour with those who, having forsaken ‘the God of their fathers,’ vainly strive to find substitutes in nucleated masses of matter . . .”
That's how the Russian Theosophist vigorously stood up for her brothers venturing to deal with the London scientist.