Letter’s to the Editor
I read the rebuttal to your article on Edgar Cayce. Mr. Kenneth Crosby’s suggestion that things outside the jurisdiction of scientific verification are quackery and deception, is rather dogmatic. I too am sceptical with regard to claims of psychic abilities, but for quite different reasons.
My own skepticism is largely based on the observation that people tend to abdicate responsibility for their circumstances by looking to others for answers. Seeking out guides and gurus has become a form of entertainment. Individuals possessing no particular perceptive skills, pose as psychics, Healers or Spiritual advisers; – A fool and his money will soon be parted !
Amongst the poseurs are those who make a positive contribution to others through the employment of their intuitive faculties. A case in point: the formulation of the Periodic Table by Dmitri Mendeleev in 1869, partly as the result of a dream. A quote from Albert Einstein: “The intuitive mind is a sacred gift and the rational mind is a faithful servant. We have created a society that honors the servant and has forgotten the gift.”
Human Consciousness remains largely a mystery to science, which is only recently making headway in describing its origins and attributes. This is a long way from proving any assumptions with regard to its absolute nature. Science has indeed been unable to prove the existence of psychic ability, but neither has it been able to disprove such a thing may occur. Quantum Physics is exploring the realms of consciousness, presenting concepts which appear to turn the rules of conventional science, topsy-turvy! Looking to science to prove or disprove dimensions of Human Consciousness, may be unrealistic. Can science prove the response of millions of people, to their religious convictions? Some scientists themselves are adherents to Faiths which purport such things as Virgin Birth; the transubstantiation of water to wine; or the presence of an invisible God-Man. Even seemingly rational human beings occasionally experience something outside the bounds of the known and explainable. Can science prove the brilliance of a great work of art or music? Is there a laboratory formula to demonstrate the cause and effect of things which inspire people and call them to something greater in their own lives?
Scepticism requires some degree of objectivity. Neither gullible acceptance nor outright dismissal should become fixed positions. If you set out to either prove or disprove a thing, you’ll likely confirm only those things determined by your own predisposition.
Richard Di Castri