Science, Faith and Metaphysics

Stern's additions in the thread "how easy it is", let me make a few remarks on the matter of sciences, which are buzzing through my head... Dear Stern, in my heart I agree with you in principle, with your skeptical attitude towards sciences, nevertheless, they also have - properly applied - their good, as I think. I see the difficulty that they can only "measure" if they also have the right measuring instrument - if the instrument is missing, science usually denies the existence of a thing.

I see the fundamental usefulness of trying to catalog, measure, weigh, etc. an unknown and alien thing by means of certain criteria in order to get a more accurate picture of it. However, metaphysics remains unaffected by this, even if "criteria" can often also be applied in these areas of perception for further comparability.

To want to fathom this world metaphysically can happen conditionally also by means of scientific methods. A criterion of science is its systematics, which arranges the objects of observation, brings them into an order.

If it is talked about that metaphysics escapes the areas of the "normal" perception, one can nevertheless - so to speak in the run-up of a metaphysical experience - consult the logic to approach the problem. I give an example:

As people evolved into sedentary farmers, among other things, eating habits changed. The protein-rich food of the past (mainly meat) was supplemented with vegetables, and people (in their evolutionary history) ate more carbohydrate supplements. This changed the genetic program in the DNA over the course of generations, because, for example, less gastric acid is produced when carbohydrates are predigested in the stomach. Thus, the DNA stores the (genus-specific) information that future generations will "get by" with less stomach acid than previous generations (because they eat a diet higher in carbohydrates). Thus, an environmental influence is directly related to the active modification of our genome.

One can continue to spin this chain now only purely by means of the logic, and approaches then areas, which sound almost like prophecy, are nevertheless nothing else, than applied logical cause effect chains (relations), which are conclusively comprehensible. For example, we can draw from past knowledge the useful information to what extent our present behavior (shaped over several generations) affects our future development. We can use these cause-effect relationships to make predictions about the future, about our own development, for example. And these predictions, these forecasts, sometimes seem almost like prophecy. For example, nutrition, as the number one environmental factor that shapes us and with which a person interacts, has a particularly powerful effect on change. At one point in his remarks on the present day, Drunvalo points out that every time in the Earth's past that serious nutritional changes have occurred, the genome (i.e., the human species) has been momentously altered. He sees us today at the point where we can buy fruits from all over the world in the supermarket (for the first time in our experience of this earth period, we in Central Europe can eat mangoes and lichies with all normality, which are offered to us everywhere). And he concludes from this that serious physical changes in the course of the generations result from this.

Thus, purely by means of scientific systematics and its inherent logic, scientists can make predictions about the future - for example, the development of the human race - that seem highly plausible.

Science makes it possible to relate things to each other and to establish logical causal chains that help us to investigate further into the nature of things.


We could draw conclusions about the prevailing gravitation by the body size of the living beings of this planet alone, without knowing its value. On planets with higher gravitational effects, for example, the body sizes and -conditions of the planetary living beings are/were rather stocky, because they would be "compressed" by the gravitational effect in and with their weight. If, on the other hand, there is weaker gravity, the beings will develop taller than on comparable planets with higher gravity. These are all purely on the basis of logic related information, which are verifiable and therefore verifiable, simply on the basis of our own history of development. However, science also recognizes that many factors taken together, only make the description of a being validly feasible.

The interactions (i.e., cause-effect relationships) between various influencing factors (forces) first determine the (physical) nature of the being under consideration itself. Many of our mammalian characteristics have been anchored in our genome by environmental influences. For example, we developed the upright gait when we left the forests in Africa and approached the steppe. Here we could see far and therefore we straightened up to keep an overview in front of dangers, etc. A simple environmental factor (unlimited field of vision) triggered humans to walk upright.

Many of these atavistic imprints from the Stone Age continue to have an effect today. Our urge in prehistoric times to gather around the campfire and look into the light of the fire has found its modern interpretation in the televisions in our living rooms. The modern central light sources (the ground glass screen) are our modern-day campfire. Unlike back then, when we all told each other stories and let ourselves be captivated by them, today the fire itself tells the story. And we simply watch and let it think for us, talk for us, act for us - virtually. The hunter who pressed his spear into the flank of a mammoth in prehistoric times was the hero of that time; today he is called Indiana Jones or Lara Croft - and both are as artificial as the "fire" (the image on the TV screen) that they now are....

In contrast to the scientific approach to the mysteries of life is metaphysics. The mystical will of man to believe, which has its seat in the heart, needs no proofs and no arithmetic. It simply wants to be "breathed with the heart." The heart believes - and the heart knows.

The sciences illuminate a "problem", a question, a particularity with the glasses of the logic of correlations. Causal (cause-effect-relations) chains can be created with their help, in an effort to fathom our world. The heart, on the other hand, sees the Spirit of Truth holistically and without question - simply with loving acceptance. When we approach metaphysics, it always becomes holistic, we always become like little children who just want to love and be loved for their selves. And we have very fixed ideas of good and evil, wrong and right within us, which show us and enable us to follow our further paths. Every soul, which believes, is saved - I would like to say, even if I don't want to say with it that atheists won't become believers again after their respective lives, if they are taken up then one day again before the ONE ENERGY in symbiosis.

To the understanding of the metaphysics it is to be said that the laws of the cosmos "as above, so below" are also valid here. There are three basic statements to be made in the field of metaphysics, if we want to approach - conditionally scientifically - this border region:

1. if a thing appears worldly, fathom it worldly.
2. if a thing appears to be supramundane, fathom it supramundane.
3. both do not exclude each other.<br><br> I will give an example:

The aura sight. Some of us perceive the aura of other beings. We see colors, which change, if the mood of the regarded being changes - also depending on our own mood.

Science would now check if e.g. the blood pressure or the inner eye pressure of the aura sighted person changes during the "seeing". It would now ask whether the colors seen find their cause in the change of biological/chemical/electrical factors. And she would be thorough in her research, so thorough that the intended result of the measurement must be absolutely achieved …



The sense believers and heart thinkers would simply believe that someone can see an aura. They don't need any proofs because they themselves either have already made these experiences themselves or because their thought framework would be so consolidated in itself that it would not need further explanations.

And to point three: Both would be right. Yes, the aura visibility becomes scientifically documentable in measurable values and yes, the extrasensory perception of the truth is just as existent as it is the scientific way of approach. Both do not exclude each other, but rather both complement each other. Science chooses the "inner way", in describing a phenomenon, by trying to "systematize" and order an effect - and the power of the heart simply makes you believe in the experience you have had, without the search for "proof" of your own experience.


Dear ones,

I have kept a low profile here in the forum for the past few days. Nevertheless, here it goes "further". I have had UFO sightings, many strange experiences, which occurred in this way before and the like more. I have simply not written about it, not because I would not have considered it worth to write about it, but simply because I am of the opinion, now it should "go off" and there words do not help any more much. I have here "full program", I will say - IF you are interested, then I'll be happy to write about it - knowing that soon the "mail will go off for everyone".

First, I send you, as always, and always meant from the heart -.