The positivists have a simple solution: the world must be divided into that which we can say clearly and the rest, which we had better pass over in silence. But can any one conceive of a more pointless philosophy, seeing that what we can say clearly amounts to next to nothing? If we omitted all that is unclear we would probably be left with completely uninteresting and trivial tautologies.Heisenberg, Werner
As stated by Huxley, Comte’s religion is “Catholicism minus Christianity”, for it has all the rituals and sacraments but no God. The Positivists overthrows Spiritualism in favour of their religion. Their paradoxes are particular, and their accusations against spiritualists irresistible in logic. Spiritualism, unlike Positivism, never claimed to be a religion, but a growing philosophy, or a research in the hidden. Positivism is not a tentative in advance on scientific development, but a limitation in its reach, for it only considers as valid what is experimented by the objective senses.
With theology kept in the background, the scientists have put their both hands in despotism, keeping people away from the non perishable world. Knowledge is power, but abuse of power is excess of ignorance. Spiritualists might be considered “hallucinated fools”, but is who is who to say who is a fool? Science men practice fanaticism themselves.
And what is consciousness? The facts of consciousness are unthinkable. How are the physical processes of the brain connected with the facts of consciousness? This is intellectually impassable. We could never seek understanding and freedom without transcendence. The unknowable is a barrier only to people without spiritual intuitions.
For sure, we should hold respect and admiration towards science, it is the understanding of facts. But it just takes into consideration a very very small part of reality, the observable material phenomena is nothing but a fragment of reality, such is the limitation of science.
The Universe is animated by an occult impulse.
The objective emanates from the concealed, or subjective, the eternal thought of the ever-invisible Deity passes from the abstract into the concrete or visible form, yet multiple are the visible forms, and many are its manifestation, being the dense material world we are incarnated only a small, very small, portion of it all. The archetypal forms of all are called into existence and thus become manifested.
As stated by Spinoza: “Deus est omnium rerum causa immanens, non vero transiens” (God is the Immanent Cause of all things, never truly transcendent from them). The Universe as well as its Creator are infinite and eternal (beyond time and space), one form emanating from its own essence, and creating another. The whole soul is present in the whole and every part of the body. There is nothing without participation in being, and there is no being without essence. There is nothing new under the sun; that which is is that which was. (Ecclesiastes 1:9). Therefore science is a study of facts of a small part of the manifested world, a generalisation per laws of the observed reality. In essence, a more or less ordained observation of the patterns which is, at its core, animated by the occult impulse – for the lack of language and human capabilities of understanding the true nature of this impulse. In its core, everything is based on this occult impulse, even nihilism and the secular Positivism. Everything, including our “Modern Science”.
A longing for some kind of divinity, a craving for the “unknown” is a feeling congenital in man. M. Comte not only thought he found the principles, traced the outlines, and furnished the method, but that he had deduced the consequences and constructed the social and religious edifice of the future.
“Comte’s positive philosophy”, presents Professor Hare, “after all, is merely negative. It is admitted by Comte, that he knows nothing of the sources and causes of nature’s laws; that their origination is so perfectly inscrutable as to make it idle to take up time in any scrutiny for that purpose…. Of course his doctrine makes him avowedly a thorough ignoramus, as to the causes of laws, or the means by which they are established, and can have no basis but the negative argument above stated, in objecting to the facts ascertained in relation to the spiritual creation.”