Dogmatic modern science: Science versus Spiritism

Paulo Degering R Jr
image_pdfimage_print

Translations, from Portuguese, are automatic. If you notice any errors in the text, help us identify them, clicking here.

Subscribe to our Newsletters and receive our articles directly in your email.

Views: 1,118
image_pdfimage_print

I have just responded to an objection related to the topic of Science versus Spiritism (the subject wanted to impute Spiritism to the imagination). I found it interesting to reproduce it here:

“X, it is clear that you speak of what you think you are, that is, you speak of your own opinion. This is not science. Your friend is probably unaware that Science (with a capital “C”) was formed together with metaphysics, and that the great geniuses of the past were also great philosophers, dealing with the question of God and Creation, far removed, however, from theology, dogmatic and retrograde. Natural, because Science, becoming as dogmatic as the Church, turned its back on metaphysics, labeling anyone who dares to touch on the subject of God or spirituality, even in a rational way, as superstitious, mystical or crazy. Well done, friend. That's exactly what those who started the project did. Rational Spiritualism, in the 19th century, and that was precisely what Kardec did in the study of certain phenomena that, despite crossing humanity, were treated in a dogmatic way, both by the Church and by Science.

What modern Science does not realize, because it has forgotten this knowledge, is that, in acting as it does, it acts as the Church does. While the latter led man through the dogma of the fall through sin and punishment, the former led man through the dogma of materialism. Both one and the other make him absent from his responsibilities: the latter, because he submits man to the will of third parties — one acts badly through the influence of the devil and one acts well through the influence of Christ — and the first because it makes man is that machine that acts in this or that way simply by virtue of sensations, acting chemically on his brain1. They fall into the same error as certain ancient scientists, who attributed good and bad behavior to white bile and black bile. The only difference is that modern science does not treat the psychological with leeches, but with pills.

I said that Science, in the past, dealt with metaphysics, in a rational way (and, of course, not at all mysticistic). It turns out that, for her, a key was missing, just as psychology of the time was missing, which investigated man as an incarnated soul only through the processes of logical induction and extrapolation. This key, which came to give, was Spiritism, not this false “spiritism”, gathered between the lines of false ideas, arising from errors and opinions of supposed mediumistic works, but the spiritism studied by Kardec, with methodology, that Spiritism that, more than 150 years ago, advanced knowledge, or paths to it, that modern Science is only now beginning to verify. It is important, of course, to separate the errors, natural to the human side, found in the science of the time (such as the theory of fluids), from the successes of the part that concerns natural law. What Kardec did was investigate the causes of certain effects, from which he deduced a Doctrine, which touches not only on the issue of certain material phenomena, but which is entirely moral in aspect.

The researcher and scientist who had the good faith to investigate the works “O Céu e o Inferno” and “A Gênese” (taking care to refer to the recent editions of FEAL, where we are sure that they are the original works of Kardec, untouched) would find, with great surprise, something very different from what they thought Spiritism was, and, however much they might end up disagreeing, by imputing whatever it was to Kardec, they could not conclude this study without realizing that he launched very seriously into this research, which constituted something that, contrary to what you think, was not a religion.”

image_pdfimage_print

Reading Recommendations (Books)

  1. Not excluding, of course, the influence that “body chemistry” and even genetics have on the individual. It should only be noted that they are not the only factors, because, faced with a great temptation, the individual can choose, of their own free will, not to give in to it. [↩]

Written by 

Leave a message

Your email address will not be published. Campos obrigatórios são marcados com *

Esse site utiliza o Akismet para reduzir spam. Aprenda como seus dados de comentários são processados.