In the spiritual mind science or known as exclusive Fifth Science, the soul is being trained to be a conscious receiver more than being an actor. Through the mind that speaks to the soul, it is believed that the possibility of renouncing judgment can be achieved. This sounds to be a complex thing to do but this is exactly what the Druze logic reveals in many doctrines that make up their unique spiritual identity. The metaphysical realm of such practice emanated from the ancient wisdom and knowledge theories of great ancient Greek philosophers who have significantly influenced Fifth Science as practiced by the authentic Druze Gnostics. There can be an endless debate among traditional spiritual societies associated with religions and cultures from which norms and beliefs are derived. In this unique spiritual mind science, one may wonder why such elusive and secret brotherhood exists without the benefit of mass consciousness. There are doubts and dubious criticisms hurled at the Druze Brotherhood and humanity have frowned at this community. The spiritual distinction in which this mind science evokes can be as confusing and baffling if not for the limited resources that continuously faced suppression in the new world.

The Gnostic Logic stemmed from Gnosis, which is derived from the Greek term meaning knowledge. Knowledge comes from the mind that communicates directly to the soul. It is then the soul that receives what the mind conceives and expressed through a form known as the human body. The Platonic Theory of Forms substantiates how the practice of meditation can further lead to religious guilt and moral degradation. The Fifth Science elucidates how thought and action is synergized with existence to achieve a better insight into existence itself. The doctrines that www.substance.com present provide a better and richer insight of man’s existence, as opposed to the monotheistics’ point of view. Bear in mind that there is no intent from the substance to bring its readers to convert. Primarily, the people behind the website aim to give their brethren the resources which they feel they have been deprived of and to shed light to reverse the misconceptions and harsh criticisms that this spiritual society has long suffered from. The doctrines are derived from an authentic Gnostic Logic that guided the Druze Brotherhood for a thousand years but were kept in secrecy and away from mass consciousness.

According to the Fifth Science, The Universal Mind which is the light of the internal sun, allows the soul which is referred to by the Gnostics as Sophia, to see Wisdom in a conceptual realm. Without such light,  the soul becomes insensitive and could not receive anything. This negates the real function of the soul as a receiver rather than an actor. If this happens, the soul is cut off from the Universal Mind which is the source of wisdom. In effect, the internal realm is nullified, getting lost in the myriad of external events which leads to perpetual emptiness. www.substance.com is committed to make the Fifth Science comprehensible for humanity to benefit from the universal nature of the spirituality driven by the mind.

Related Metaphysics Articles

How should the science be treated in Islam? slam and science has been an oft quoted term for thinkers, writers and common people. It has created so many new interpretations, sometimes positive and sometimes negative. Here our contention is to provide you the basic concepts in Islam to make the idea clear. Islam is a philosophy as well as science, only point to understand is how strong the link is between these two. Has there been any link or not? And if there is to what extent is it practical? We see number of people around us who do not consider science important and therefore do not bring it in their lives arguing that it is a materialistic approach towards life. Is this true for their lives? There have been so many Articles and lectures written on this specific topic and here our purpose is to show you the real picture and let you decide what the reality in Islam is.

Before going into any further detail it is important to know what science really means. There are so many interpretations and here is one of those, “Science basically is an understanding of a particular thing that exists physically and the use of the principles of that understanding for the benefit of the humanity”.

After reading the definition one can understand that it is not a new thing because its existence has been long since the beginning of humanity. Man has always tried to make things easier and simpler for his domestic and industrial life. Before Islam great names like Aristotle and Plato are examples for the great work that also highlights the importance of philosophy. Now we will discuss science after the existence of Islam.

Most of scientists and thinkers believe that arrival of Muhammad (SAW) and Quran was the most important and boasting point for science. It is basically arrival of reality that helps to understand the universe and purpose of its creation. In fact that was the period when science got new spirit despite of the fact that philosophical explanations were made continuously. Quran and Hadith describe their position openly and clarifies that there is no clash between Islam and science rather it is wrong explanation of science that has made it suspicious. First we look at the life of Muhammad (SAW). His life is true explanation of the basic of the science in which He rooted out superstitions and old traditions and told the people reality. He knew the importance of knowledge and made it compulsory for every men and women. He raised the degree of learning seventy times higher than prayer to prove that for the understanding of religion, knowledge about universe is important.  Is this not the purpose of science? Science also rejects superstitions and makes people aware of true facts of the universe. After Allah Almighty He is the only person who knows everything about this universe and to prove this He spent a practical life and gave principles with logics on all fields of life. Here a question rises, “Did He invent something?” The answer is no, because science is an awareness it does not require invention. Yet His teachings and philosophy are becoming theories of science day by day.

]]>

Now we come to Quran, almost every person believes that Quran is the only authentic and sacred book of this universe because books of other Prophets are either changed or not present today. The whole Quran is science in itself and calls the people to discern the hidden realities of the universe. It is said hundreds of times in Quran that there are signs for those who think and understand. Quran explains every field of science and predicts even those things that man does not know. From the creation of this world and man and to the destruction of this universe, Quran explains everything. To prove this following statement is enough, “There is no discovery or invention of the science which is against the basic teachings of Quran and Hadith,” Therefore Muslims, Christians, Hindus and Jews, they all know that Quran is the only book of this world that can guide them to find the hidden realities of this universe.

Then where the problem is? This is the real question and here is its answer. Islam says, “We should explore nature and universe to believe in oneness of Allah and to get the blessings of Muhammad (SAW).”  It means that the ultimate result should be the formation of a society where, by new discoveries, positive changes come and people becomes obedient to Allah Almighty. This is also the purpose of our creation and science makes it clear for us to be obedient to Allah and Prophet Muhammad (SAW).

What we have done is our wrong approach towards science. We have started to use science with materialistic approach which means we believe only those things that happen before our eyes or that have physical existence. This phenomenon makes us materialist. Basically this concept is against the construct of science because science can only predict something. It is true that there are so many theories that are considered final but on the other hand it is also true that they are not final verdicts. With the progress of science theories change time to time. Take the example of Biology that after every fifty years changes completely. Atom was considered undividable but now it has more than hundred sob-atomic particles. It is because Quran is final verdict not the science and Quran does not require any scientist. Science supports spirituality and those things that do not exist physically. With the scientific discoveries we can predict that there is Heaven and Hell, and that there is life after death. How strange it is that we believe Newton’s Gravitational Law and do not believe that if gravitation force is pulled out nothing will survive on the earth.

To make it short, Islam does not believe the materialistic approach towards science rather it takes science as an instrument to guide the people and to make the Quran and Hadith clearer for humanity. Its predictions are and discoveries, if we take them in their real sense, do take us near to Allah and show us the authority of Almighty. How strange it is that Quran that is sent for all the humanity, does not has the link with an ordinary field science.

(Your questions and comments are always welcomed by IQRA. You can send your comments or ask questions on svmnom@yahoo.com)

Philosophy of Science: An Anthology (Blackwell Philosophy Anthologies)

Philosophy of Science: An Anthology assembles some of the finest papers in the philosophy of science since 1945, showcasing enduring classics alongside important and innovative recent work.
Introductions by the editor highlight connections between selections, and contextualize the articles
Nine sections address topics at the heart of philosophy of science, including realism and the character of scientific theories, scientific explanations and laws of nature, singular casusation, and the

List Price: $ 66.95 Price: $ 29.00

Very interesting debate about God, evolution, free will, consciousness and death. Daniel Clement Dennett is a prominent American philosopher whose research centers on philosophy of mind, philosophy of science and philosophy of biology, particularly as those fields relate to evolutionary biology and cognitive science. He is currently the co-director of the Center for Cognitive Studies and the Austin B. Fletcher Professor of Philosophy at Tufts University. Dennett is also a noted atheist and advocate of the Brights movement. Robert Wright is an American journalist, scholar, and prize-winning author of best-selling books about science, evolutionary psychology, history, religion, and game theory, including Nonzero: The Logic of Human Destiny, The Moral Animal, and Three Scientists and Their Gods: Looking for Meaning in an Age of Information. He is a visiting scholar at The University of Pennsylvania and Schwartz Senior Fellow at the New America Foundation.
Video Rating: 4 / 5

Ever since man’s existence some 9-8 millions of years ago, a recent phenomenon in the age of our universe estimated between 13.3 and 20 billions of years, man is curious about explanations. He seeks explanations for his presence, the presence of the universe, his whereabouts of his coming, his life and death, and the nature of the universe in which he lives. This inborn curiosity has led to the knowledge of today.

Science offers tools to look into the universe and describe what it sees. But this does not represent complete knowledge. It is only part of the whole framework of our existence in the universe.

As if it were we are to live and search for our meaning. We search for a meaning for our existence and wonder about this vast endless universe. This confrontations is inevitable, We are obliged to confront with the universe being part of it. We face its mystery and face its beauty, its precise order and harmony. We are faced with millions of things that constitute our universe. We are equipped with the mind to think and have a specific span of life to live, wonder, discover and conclude.

Science ( from Latin scire refers to know) is a way of reasoning enabling us to think in a certain mathematical rational manner. It is mainly concerned with how things are and not with their ultimate questions such as the meaning of their presence, their origins and their finalities. Science remain at best short of explaining what is beyond its capacities. I

t is concerned with nature or the physical part of nature. It does not discuss what is nature or why is nature, but investigates in what already constitute nature. Physical phenomena becomes thus the main concern of science and scientific thinking. Being so we are bereft of understanding and explaining our origin, our purpose and our finality.

]]>

Science does not tell us how did we come about, why did we come about, what are we doing here and where are we going. It simply has no tools for these questions. It touches only on our physical being in this world and the physical being of our universe.

Science is concerned with what is and what can be proven experimentally. It believes in what it sees. But science with all its proclamations to reality and truth remain short of answering ultimate questions which underlie scientific knowledge itself.

Science deals with what can be proven only and rejects all other knowledge as conjectural thinking. Thus if a layman explains this universe and his own being by reference to an Almighty God, All Knowledgeable, science denies him the right to do so and call s his a liar. Poor layman he has no choice then but to reject God, should his convictions of God be feeble, and to resort to the god of science.

The shortcomings of science by believing in what it sees and its sterility to prove the non-existence of God and the metaphysical world, recoils man on his own convictions. Man is thus cornered by no choice of his own, and for lack of proof of science, to think for himself and make up his own convictions about a creator, a designer, an architect and a masterly powerful originator and controller of everything, the universe and man himself.

If Man did not make the universe and did not contribute to the creation of an amoeba then there ought to be someone who has done it.

Science remains silence about a creator-cause or a prime cause for its tools are limited and its outlook is limited to what science is. Science does not look beyond the physical part of existence and hence remains handicapped and blind to ultimate reality and ultimate truth. Unable to provide answers science satisfies itself with what it discovers.

Science cannot claim to any creation, not even the creation of a fly’s wing. Science only discovers what is, what already is in existence and what already is provided. Science did not make stars and galaxies. It did not evolute life but discovers stars and galaxies, discovers the physical presence of objects.

In order to release ourselves from the clutches of the limitations of science we resort to our own thinking. Our own minds provide us with our personal systems of knowledge discovering. Our own mind enables us to think, observe, understand and conclude. Our own mind presents to us the whole framework of our existence as part of the universe.

We make up our own thoughts and should not let the shortcomings of science overtake our thoughts. Everyone is free, ad in this lies man’s dignity and value, to think and conclude. We do not need a sterile handicapped tool for physical knowledge that explains only a small part of the how of knowledge.

Science remains at best short of providing us with satisfactory answers to our existence, its origin and purpose and the existence of the universe and our role in it. This personal thinking, this individual reflection and meditation is known as beyond-nature or metaphysical thinking.

Everyone is entitled to think as he sees fir and go beyond mechanical explanation of the rotation of earth around itself for example to seize the majestic idea of its presence, its form and shape, its structure and function, its origin and its movement, its products and life manifestations, in relation to all other stars and planets, its life systems and conditions, its movement and change. This the right of every one who has mind to think on its own and eyes to see.

Whether we conclude the existence of, an need for, an Almight God is left then entirely to us and not to science to decide. 

I have read a lot of books on self help, success, and other topics related to personal growth. It wasn’t until I read “The Science of Getting Rich” that all I had read really started to make sense.

Although Rhonda Byrne, the author of “The Secret” says that “The Science of Getting Rich” is was one of the books she was influenced by, she missed some crucial points about what Wallace Wattles had to say.

1. The Science of Getting Rich is practical.

It’s not about thinking positive thoughts, and it doesn’t matter if you are a positive person or a negative person. This book is about getting rich first. It’s about following specific principles. It’s not about dealing with your baggage or changing your mindset in a way that you become a more positive person.

2. This is not a study of metaphysics, and you don’t need to know how it works to make it work.

It’s like using a computer. You learn how to use a computer, but you don’t have to know what hardware or software is in order to make it work. You also don’t need to know the internal workings of a computer to learn how to operate your computer.

3. Faith is a crucial part of the process.

The Bible tells us in Hebrews 11:1 “Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.”

]]>

In order to make the “Science of Getting Rich” work, we first have to have faith. We have to believe something is true before seeing it come true. God won’t violate our free will. If we don’t believe, if we don’t have faith first, then what we want can’t become a reality.

This goes against conventional wisdom which says “seeing is believiing.” Wattles says you must first see it in your mind before you see it in reality.

4. To understand the underlying philosophy of the “Science of Getting Rich” you may read the writers he recommends.

Although Wattles doesn’t mention it, Wattles was a minister. He was Christian. He studied philosophy, as well as the Hindu religion. Wattles doesn’t say that much of the universal human truth outlined in his book is in the Bible.

What he does say is that you don’t have to study philosophy or Hinduism and its influence on Western culture in order to understand what he is trying to say.

5. It’s more important to read “The Science of Getting Rich” than to read the philosophy behind it.

Although reading the philosophy will help you understand how Wattles arrived at his conclusions, doing what the book tells you to do is the real secret to finding true riches in life.

Wattles approaches riches from the point of view of the mind, body, and spirit. We must satisfy all three areas of our lives to enjoy the riches we attain. If any area of our lives is out of balance, it will affect our happiness and create obstacles to our enjoyment of life.

6. The “Science of Getting Rich” is scientific not metaphysical.

I mentioned metaphysics earlier. Metaphysics is a branch of philosophy that examines the nature of reality. Wattles isn’t concerned with this. Wattles is concerned with how the rules of the universe operate and how to use those rules to become rich.

Whereas metaphysics deals with theories about reality, the rules of the universe have been tested and are a fact. This brings Wattles into the realm of science, with proven rules and processes that work. By applying these rules and processes to our lives, we achieve measurable results.

7. Action is crucial to success.

If you don’t take action, nothing will happen. Wattles says to read the book and do exactly what it tells you to do. Ultimately, this book becomes a blueprint for achieving what you want.

A Historical Introduction to the Philosophy of Science (OPUS)

Designed for first-time readers of the subject, this stimulating introduction offers a historical exposition of differing views on the philosophy of science. With concise profiles presenting the major philosophers whose contributions are discussed in this book, Losee explores the long-argued questions raised by philosophers and scientists about the proper evaluation of science. This new edition incorporates contemporary developments in the discipline, including recent work on theory-appraisal, e

List Price: $ 50.00 Price: $ 30.45

The second section (of three) of the fourth part of my series on the philosophy of science. In this video I cover the rise of logical positivism. I describe the basic concepts and ideas that constitute logical positivism. Up next: the fall of logical positivism. My History and Philosophy of Science playlist (so far): www.youtube.com
Video Rating: 4 / 5

Question by shawn: What did socrates do that is important in the development of modern science?
I have to do this for socrates please help!

An advertisement highlighting your philosopher and informing people why your philosopher was important in the development of modern science?

Best answer:

Answer by blackjack432001
you ‘have to do this’? no one has to do anything that isn’t wanted (to be done). choice, my friend, is a truly human and life altering event once understood. we all have choices but first knowing yourself on a unique basis is step one. ergo, and so it goes, socrates affects us still some thousands of years after his death. he was entirely instrumental in tutoring plato who went on to ‘school’ aristocrates, etc.. like ‘whadda’ guy. one man who in turn made possible two others who did overtly change the world then and continues today. socrates never wrote a thing down or at least what we know but his student plato did and because of his famous student, we know about the man. socratic method of teaching, which i use daily, is considered the best way to learn. there’s didactic and socratic. i prefer the socratic method as it is more affirmative and best for an indelible in meaning.

so you ask why socrates is important? ask yourself one question: are you important and if the answer is yes, as it should be, then you’ve answered your own question. if you know yourself then you are on the way of knowing the world. as for the rest? i rest my case.

Add your own answer in the comments!

 

Science is mainly concerned of how a thing is made, how an object is constructed and how this object functions. It does not deal, in any way, with the why a thing exists, why an object is constructed the way it is and why an object functions. A tree for example is studied in terms of its physiology, biochemistry and functional anatomy. Each science examines the life-cycle of this living organ.

All sciences enter into the game and every scientist looks at the object of the tree in from his particular angle. Here the scientist is face with a living dimension of flora and submits this object to exact organic sciences. All scientists focusing on the tree are concerned in how a tree is born, what it needs for its survival, conditions and features of earth, air, chlorific exchanges and effects.

Then scientists are concerned with its being in as far its structure and function. How does a tree function and its patterns of functioning. They are bent to study how the tree evolves and what maintains its survival, always in terms of what is subject to empirical investigation.

Scientists bending on the study of a tree are not concerned, in any way, of why should there be a tree in the first place, and why should the tree function as it does, and why should the tree be an object of scientific investigation. They are not concerned with its origin, whether this origin is nature, auto-production or God.

They are not concerned of the finality of tree. They study the tree in order to provide better means of survival for the tree and for humans. They are concerned with the how in order to better the conditions of the tree always for use and exploitation. They are not concerned with its philosophical aspect and lesser still with its metaphysical indications.

]]>

Philosophical questioning and metaphysical investigation does not give the scientist any way a solid empiric comprehension of the being of the tree nor of its overall dimension of life symbol. They do not interrogate about the possibility of a creation power, or a designing intelligence that may have brought the tree into existence.

They leave this to religion, to metaphysics and to philosophy. But is not their investigation short of reality? Is it not bereft of knowledge of what is most important namely of its origin and how come the tree came about into being. Why should scientists limit themselves only to the how of the structure and function and not to the ultimate questions of its existence?

After all their knowledge is lacking in the essence and nature of the object under investigation. Is it not? But scientists are satisfied with their laboratory analysis and conclusions. Whether a scientist sees a creating God behind the tree or not is not the concern of science itself. This is why so many scientists are limited to their fields of study.

Most are blind and deaf to ultimate questions. A scientist believes in what he sees. If he does not see God in the tree he does not believe in God. God, not being subject to laboratory analysis, chemical or biological, is rejected hence by the scientists.

It is when we bypass science and consider science as one step in an overall outlook that we see the shortcomings of science. It is when we consider the tree in its ultimate questions that require simple answers that we become aware of its dimensions, extra-scientific, but real.

It is when we bypass science and look the tree in the light of ultimate knowledge that the tree becomes vital and principle in our outlook. It is when we examine the tree in all its experience dimensions, whether physical, mental, aesthetic, spiritual or sensual.

The scientist is limited by his science to the physical part and not to the other parts of experience that are, if not equally important, then more important and more comprehensive. This is why we claim that science is limited to one phenomena of an object or a thing. But man is an overall being that needs explanations not only of the how but essentially of the why.

Science, being limited to one aspect of an object, is short of explaining ultimate knowledge of the object itself. This where science stops functioning and becomes sterile and where metaphysics takes over the floor for offering explanations and interrogating into the reality of an object, be it a tree, a human, an animal or a star, a galaxy or the whole universe.

Related Metaphysics Articles

: The Greek Philosopher, Aristotle(384-323 B.C.) remarked long ago that man is a social animal. Human beings are gregarious and so associate with their fellows in manifold forms of activity. The mutual relations that grow up between them are the very bonds of society. From various points of view these social relations can be made the subject-matter of a systematized study. The knowledge derived from each point of view, when properly co-ordinated forms a distinct science. The sciences which treat of man as a social and spiritual being and study his activities and operations as such, may be designated as social sciences.

: Social Sciences are to be distinguished from Natural Sciences. Man being a product of nature may be studied as such. The scientific knowledge of man as a mere physical being, without regard to his specific nature as a moral and social being, is the subject-matter of the natural science of human biology or physiology. The physical scientist is concerned, however, not so much with man as with natural phenomena. He has to explain the actual occurences in nature and this he does by establishing that, a certain event is the necessary consequence of another event. The physical scientist conceives phenomena of nature as united by an irrefrangible law of causality. By means of natural laws discovered by him a physical scientist is able to predicate what actually happens in a given conjunction of events.

: In the social sciences we are concerned with man as a moral or social being and have to arrange human acts according to the relation of means and purposes. The social scientist has to investigate what means should be adopted to answer certain social purposes and prescribe suitable rules of human conduct. Rules of human conduct enforced by political authority are laws. Jurisprudence as a social science addresses itself to those who study law as a system of knowledge. It treats of the activity of man in society from the point of view of its legal significance.

: The most general of the social sciences is sociology. It deals with the general principles underlying man’s thought and action at all stages of social development and in every relation of life. That branch of this science which treats of primitive man and his social institutions is designated Anthropology. Juristic science or Jurisprudence is chiefly, though not exclusively, concerned with man in a well-ordered social organisation, in an advanced stage of civilisation. Anthropological research, however, has shed much light on many juridical questions and has enabled us to penetrate to the origin of many legal institutions.

: Ethics is another social science. It expounds the principles and moral considerations which affect man’s conduct and which constitute his criterion of right and wrong. Closely allied to Ethics is Theology in which the principles inculcated are presented as immutable and eternal principles endowed with divine sanction and as matters of unquestioning belief and implicit obedience. Juridical science too is concerned with human conduct, but its principles are changeable, being man-made, and have no claim to divine sanction differing, however, from ethical precepts in that their enforcement may be compelled by human authority.

: Psychology is yet another social science. It treats of man’s mental states and processes, his emotions, thoughts and sensations. Jurisprudence is concerned with man’s external conduct and not with his thoughts and mental processes, but important branches of it, such as Penology, have benefitted much from the knowledge made available by psychological research.

: Social relations may be studied from the point of view of man’s activity in satisfying his wants, in producing and distributing wealth. This is the subject matter of the science of Economics. The intimate relationship between Economics and Jurisprudence was first noticed by Karl Marx (1818-1883) and the interpretation of jural relations in the light of economic factors is receiving the serious attention of jurists.

: Societies have developed compex organisations for their government. We may study the principles on which societies are governed and by which the relations between men and their governmental organisation should be regulated. The result of this study is the science of Politics. In a politically organised society there exist regulations, which may be called Laws, authoritatively laying down what men may or may not do. The study of the fundamental principles underlying these laws is the science of Jurisprudence. The closely allied science of Legislation deals with the principles by which the improvement of law may be effected.

: 

: Etymologically, as we have already seen, Jurisprudence means ‘Knowledge of Law’. The celebrated Roman Jurist, Ulpian (180-228) defined Jurisprudence as ‘The observation of things human and divine, the knowledge of the just and the unjust’. This definition is too broad and might well apply to religion, ethics or philosophy.

]]>

: Salmond defines Jurisprudence as the “Science of the first principles of the civil law”. Jurisprudence thus deals with a particular species of law, viz., civil law or law of the State. This kind of law consists of rules applied by courts in the administration of justice. It has characteristic features that distinguish it from law of every other kind. Of laws which govern the conduct of man in society we have three kinds: the laws of the theologian, the moralist and the jurist. It is with the jurists law only that Jurisprudence is concerned. The laws of the theologian or religious laws derive their authority from a divine or super human source. They are intended to regulate human conduct as well as beliefs and are enforced by spiritual rewards or penalties in the other world, that is, by utra mundane sanctions. The laws of the moralist are man-made. They exist in societies, the most primitive as well as the most civilised, and are enforced by no determinate authority save public opinion which visits the contravention of those ridicule social ostracism and the like uncertain penalties. The laws of the jurist are easily distinguishable from those of the theologian and the moralist. They regulate external human conduct only and not the inner beliefs, therein differing from the laws of the theologian. In their mature condition they exist in politically organised society, that is, a society which has an organised system of Government for its members who occupy a defined territory and over whom it can exercise an unlimited amount of control. They are enforced by courts or judicial tribunals of the society which apply a variety of sanctions ranging from capital punishment to a fine. The certainty of the sanctions and the existence of a dterminate authority for enforcement distinguish the jurist’s law from that of the moralist. It is the jurist’s law or, as Salmond calls it, civil law, that is the fit subject of Jurisprudence.

: Austin refers to jurisprudence as “the philosophy of positive law”. By Positive Law or Jus positivism, he means the law laid down by a political superior for controlling the conduct of those subject to his authority. “Positive Law” as used by Austin is thus identical with “Civil Law”. The term “Philosophy” used by Austin in describing Jurisprudence is somewhat misleading. Philosophy deals with the most general theories about things, human and divine, while Jurisprudence restricts itself to the general theory of man-made law.

: Sir. Thomas Erskine Holland has defined Jurisprudence as the “Formal Science of Positive Law”. A formal science, as distinguished from a material science, is one which deals not with concrete details but with the fundamental principles underlying them. Jurisprudence in this view should concern itself with the general portion of legal doctrine. It should deal with the general conceptions and pervading principles that constitute the basis of any mature system of law. In every system of law there are certain fundamental conceptions and broad principles which serve as the basis for the concrete details of the law. Notions of property, contract, possession, etc., are basic to any well-developed legal system. Jurisprudence separates these ideas and frames out a scheme of their purposes, methods and principles without going into the specific rules relating to them in any particular legal system. As Holland says: “Jurisprudence deals with the human relations which are governed by rules of law rather than with the material rules themselves”. Specific rules are the appropriate subject-matter of legal exposition or compilation rather than of juristic science. Since jurisprudence deals only in a “formal or abstract way with those relations of mankind which are generally recognised as having legal consequences”. Dr. Holland calls it a formal science.

: Prof. Gray in ‘The Nature and the Sources of the Law’ and Dr. Edward Jenks in ‘The New Jurisprudence’ have objected to the description of Jurisprudence as a formal scence. Prof. Gray remarks: ‘The relation of Juriisprudence to law depends not upon what law is treated, but how law is treated. A treatise on jurisprudence may go into the minutest particulars or be confined to the most general doctrines and in either case deserves its name; what is essential to it is that it should be an orderly, scientific treatise in which the subjects are duly classified and subordinated’. In this view a scientific treatise on any department of the law may be described as ‘Jurisprudence’. Such usage is by no means uncommon, but if we understand by jurisprudence ‘the science of law in general’, we must admit it to be a misapplicattion of this ponderous quadrisyllable. Prof. Gray’s criticism cannot, therefore, be

“Like the natural laws and education in math, cannot be different for different men, but the universal for everybody, in the same way, true and science grounded religion can only be one and universal for everyman.” These are the words of Bhagwan Dev Atma, the founder of Dev Samaj – A Science Grounded Religion.

The Dev Samaj, a unique religious movement, was founded in 1887 by the Most Worshipful Master Bhagwan Dev Atma. The fundamental object of Dev Samaj is to make us more capable of promoting the life mission of Bhagwan Dev Atma i.e. propagation of Truth, Beauty and Goodness in thought, speech and action, among all classes of people, irrespective of any consideration of caste, creed, colour and country.

 

 

Most Workshipful Lord Bhagwan Dev Atma was born on December 20, 1850 at Akbarpur, a town in Kanpur District, in Uttar Pradesh of India exactly at the time of sunrise.

 

He was born in a strictly religious Brahmin family. From such distinguished ancestors he had inherited in rudimentary from the unique spiritual force of love of truth and goodness and hatred for evil and falsehood. Even in his childhood, it was impossible for Him to compromise with anything that he considered to be against goodness.

After completing his education at his hometown he joined the Thomson Engineering College, Roorkee (now the Roorkee University) in Uttar Pradesh and passed the final examination with great credit winning the college prize.

 

After remaining in service outside Roorkee for sometime, he taught in the above Thomson Engineering College as Head Surveying Master. Major A.M.Ling, the European Principal of the college was deeply impressed by his extra-ordinary high character. “He promises to be a man of mark” were the remarks the Principal wrote about him in the college report.

In 1873, his services were transferred to Lahore where he served in education department for more than nine years. Even while in service, he tirelessly worked for the upliftment of his countrymen. He launched two journals, one in Urdu and another in Hindi. Inspired as he was with love for truth and goodness his writings had a magical effect on the readers. He was admired as a matchless orator.

 

In 1882 at the age of 32 years, he resigned his respectable government service and in a mammoth public meeting in Lahore, he embraced his unique life vow as under:

 

 

It was a strange co-incidence as this spiritual luminary was destined to illumine the spiritual world with the unique light of a scientific, universal religion that could stand all the tests of logic and experiment and was based on immutable laws and facts of nature. He was born in this world subject to the same natural laws which rule the birth of every other human child. No consideration of any kind would weigh with Bhagwan Dev Atma, even as a child to go against what he believed to be good. Whatever he felt and believed good for him, he felt and believed to be good for others too and hence tried to share those blessings with all.

 

Dev Atma set himself to apply the scientific methods to the study of soul, which is the central object of religion. Though, he was brought up on the orthodox family of Sanatan Dharam but with the passage of time, he developed the scientific attitude and put the conception of God to a scientific test and that is why Dev Dharam is called a Science Grounded Religion and shifted the focus of religion from God to Man, on scientific grounds, as the existence of God cannot be established in the eyes of science. Nature is the only and alone fountain source of all true knowledge whether physical, mental, ethical or spiritual.

]]>

 

Those who seek knowledge in Nature are more firmly placed than those who look for knowledge in the world of so called God. But the concept of so-called God stands rejected when the matter & force and cause & effect relationship, is understood especially keeping the scientific attitude in mind, which all the time wants scientific proof, to be tested on certain conditions. The truth of a belief does not rest on the number of people who hold it but the Shastras,  which means – vigyan, investigation for truth.

 

Bhagwan Dev Atma puts down his methodology in four Dev Shastras – the true religions books in which the highest teachings and life of Bhagwan Dev Atma are propounded. These are the one, true and universal Dharam for all mankind, Dev Dharma.

 

The first part of Dev Shastra contains the brief exposition of the various truths about the one real Nature on which, are based all the true teachings of the Dev Dharam about religion.

 

The second part of Dev Shastra deals with fundamental truths about human personality and life.

 

The third gives the philosophy of man.

 

The fourth part consists a study of meditation on inter-personal and infra-human relations. This volume is the practical religion of Dev Dharama in contra-distinction to its abstract philosophy. There are commandments and prohibitions, which gives them a grip over the mind and heart of the reader. In fact, He (Bhagwan Dev Atma) advised the code of conduct for mental harmony and adjustment.

 

For having admission in Dev Samaj, the society is marked by its unique constitution which makes it obligatory and pre-condition that one should have given up the following eight sins at least three months previous to the admission and pledge to refrain from them in the future.

i)        Taking of all intoxicants;

ii)       Taking flesh or eggs;

iii)      Gambling or abetting others to gamble;

iv)      Theft or its abetment;

V)      Bribes taking;

vi)      Suppressing debts;

vii)     Adultery or its abetment or marrying again during the life time on this earth of a husband or wife;

viii)    Knowingly by killing any sentient being except when obliged to so in case of self preservation or defense.

By refraining from the major and initial eight sins, Dev Dharam takes the individual on the path of perfection. Ralization of basic values is the minimum condition for a higher moral life. In fact, Dev Samaj does the job of Evolution of high feelings and feeling itself is a reality. Bhagwan Dev Atma did not believe anything on the basis of certain circumstances or on the basis of a particular belief. Nothing can be true before him simply on the basis that it has been told as truth in the books. The things which are true on the basis of scientific test, are truth for Him and believable.

 

The divine influences of Bhagwan Dev Atma have brought about metamorphic higher changes in human souls, have redeemed them from sinful life and evolved in fit souls altruistic feelings of reverence, gratitude and selfless service of others.

 

The great and illustrious founder of Dev Samaj, Bhagwan Dev Atma was deeply stirred by the suppression of women in Hindu Society. He made women education as one of the chief planks of Dev Samaj’s contribution. He wanted to regenerate mankind and transform the society through education of women. Now, the Dev Samaj Society is running a network of twenty four educational institutions in the country mainly for the enlightenment and character building of girls/women. Prominent institutions are located at Firozpur, Ambala, Chandigarh, Moga and Delhi.

 

In the first issue of Science Grounded Religion – monthly English journal, the first line of the first issue was that for the first time in the history of mankind, Science and Religion shook hands together and exchanged their choicest gifts.

 

Because of His unique, fundamental and scientific theory, He is right to say,

 

 

 

 

Dev Samaj Atheism strongly believes that every big or small organized existence belong to the four kingdoms, has the right to live happily in the universe but our lower desires, passions, egoistic power, false belief, ungratefulness forced us to move downward path of our life and degenerate soul life. Despite all the technological advancement and in the presence of so called gods and universally accepted religions look at the pathetic condition of the world. In each and every corner of the world, we can witness disharmony in relations. No respect for the lift of others. Go through the newspaper and you will find maximum news items on war, rape, dacoits, killings, kidnapping, extortions and caste religion based violence. What is the reason for it? Lakhs of people in the world don’t believe in the existence of God but can they set an example of higher virtues from their life for the younger generation to make their life more meaningful and beautiful? No, they cannot set the examples of higher consciousness and true life because of the absence of their strong and pious character and the feeling of great attitude reverence, respect, forgiveness, kindness and passion for truth and justice. Man is not only degenerating himself but also endangering the humanity and the very existence of mankind.

 

Dev Samaj Atheism is different from others that they emphasize on the harmony, sweetness and utmost honesty in inter-personal relationship. It is good to get rid of superstitious beliefs but more important is to live a pure and altruistic life by getting rid of lower desires, lustful life, lower thinking and sinful deeds. Being a science based religion Dev Samaj claims that by following the

Nothing that science despises more than metaphysics. Why? Because there is no proof for metaphysics. There is no scientific proof, that is, for metaphysics. An evident empiric and established proof, that leaves no doubt in the head of the scientist is primordial for science. In this way science, scientific reasoning that is, rejects metaphysics in bloc. In this way scientific knowledge which dependant on only what we see and only on what we can establish beyond any suspicion.

If a tell a scientist that you have two dimes in your pocket he would ask you to see it with his own eyes in order to believe you. No matter how hard you try in telling him he does not believe you. He simply has to see the two dimes. Then he would verify the two dimes according to his own knowledge registered in his grey cells.

But if he has not seen two dimes before, he would ask you to let examine the two dimes according to the official register books of money references. Should the books do not show any trace of the two dimes, the scientist rejects the two dimes you show him as true. Hard think to convince a scientist!

Likewise, if you inform a botanist of a black rose he would wonder if this is true and asks you to bring evidence. Again, you are obliged to bring him either the black rose and he has then to verify it according to the criteria of roses and then would believe in what you say. If no reference is found in his scientific books then he would reject what you say as false. He, bloody well, has to see the black rose.

No black rose, no belief in the black rose. If you inform him that such a rare rose can be found in some part in the Amazonian jungle, he needs to verify this information. If there is no reference on internet, or in Guinness Book of Records, then he would dismiss the idea of the existence of the black rose. Or you have to travel to the Amzonian jungle on a private venture and attempt to get one for the scientist.

Hard creatures scientists are, they need proof. Your problem could be more enhanced if you tell the scientist that a creator for the black rose and the universe, including the scientist himself, exists. There, your scientist, whether botanist, chemist, physicist, astrophysicist, nuclear or biologist, would need a determined proof for the existence of a creator. Well, you have doubled your chance of losing the faith of the scientist in what you say.

He needs proof, all scientists, following scientific reasoning and aiming at scientific  knowledge need a proof for a creator. Should there be no proof for a creator then scientists would not believe in such a creator, a hypothesis according to Laplace a master physicist and mathematician.

]]>

But Laplace, like Bacon and Descartes and recently the crippled Hawking, in body, mind and soul, do need proof for God, and a scientific proof that can be analyzed in their laboratories. They need an unquestionable proof or evidence for the creator, that is subject to empirical observation and its validity has to be verified without the least doubt. Well, good luck to you if you can help them in that.

But realistically speaking, if we look into the universe, its galaxies, stars and planets, its order and harmony, its laws and precision, its life and change, dilution, form, shape, color, energy then a brain of s scientist is not needed to tell us that a creator must be to bring about such a wonder. If you observe our solar system you would see more what the scientist can ever see.

You would see matter and mass, dimensions in time and place, exact celestial bodies that each has a perfect function and role, that each has a dimension and energy, that each has order and harmony, that each has a precise and specific role to play. What power has brought such bodies in their orbits and controls them in their orbits?

Is this not a sign, and a strong sign giving mental evidence to people of intelligence that there must be a creator that msut have created all these things? But the scientist needs proof for such hypothesis.

 Our planet earth a wonder in its form, shape, constituents, rotation, movement, tilting against its axis, breathing, a living celestial body turning in black material, can be ans very well is subject to order and harmony, all need the hand of an All Powerful All Knowledgeable and All Intelligent creator that must have ordained its existence, its order, movement and life.

But the scientist needs proof for such a hypothesis. If you look into all signs of living beings, humans, animals, plants, minerals, from big organs to the smallest microscopic creatures they all are wonders that give evidence to men of understanding, to men with hearts of feeling, to men who have eyes to see and ears to hear. The marvelous presence of insects with its millions of varieties , beauty, harmony and behavior, all are signs for a creator.

Look at the roses, whether black or otherwise, look at the millions of flowers, their structure, their beauty, their harmony, they all are submitted to the same laws of survival. In this are signs for men of comprehension, These men, or women, do not need to verify the existence of a creator, they do believe in a creator. But scientists deny a creator for they cannot see a creator. They blind themselves for Laplace, Bacon and Descartes with their blind scientific followers decided not believe in anything until they see it.

God must be submitted to experimental knowledge in order for scientists to believe in. Scientists must have absolute and doubtless proof of God’s  existence, otherwise God remains a supernatural hypothesis, rejected by most scientists.

Scientists, with all their knowledge now, they cannot even create an amoeba, a microbe, let alone a butterfly or a sparrow. They are not only incapable of creating anything, but only discovering what already is in existence, but also are unable to find out what is matter, the subject of all their fields of knowledge and observation and conclusion.

Science did not determine what matter is, what time is, what energy is, what origin underlies the presence of the universe, life and the scientists themselves. They find themselves in this world, forced to come, forced to live, forced to interact with the universe, forced to be in their form and shape, a trunk, a head and four limbs. They find themselves having to submit to conditions of living, eat, drink and sleep, then think and conclude.

But they limit their small brains to observing and refuse to see reality itself behind their sensible objects. They fail, because they blind themselves to what is beyond what they see and exercise in their laboratories, limiting their little brains to what they observe and proof.

But, we laymen, have more intelligence to go beyond what we see and observe. We laymen can have a wider vision and a more comprehensive outlook to refuse to stick the sensible and see what is beyond the sensible namely the intelligible. We laymen cannot limit ourselves to what we see with our naked eyes, but go beyond to see with our mind’s eye, the handiwork of a great creator, an absolute power and intelligence that has brought everything into existence, us included and the scientists donkeys.

We do not have to brainy, nor be Einsteins, to realize that God is behind everything, the creator-designer and controller of everything. In order for the universe to exist, its atoms have to be created, put together and kept together, then controlled and are submitted to change, energy, movement and other features.

In order for the scientist to exist his atoms have to be created, put together in its form and shape and function according to what the creator designer of atoms wants them to be. Or perhaps scientists, some billions of years ago, assisted the creator in His creation, in His plan, in His program, in His efforts? Who knows? Perhaps scientists know?

How ignorant, How arrogant, Scientists are?

I am going to start, by giving you a quick historical perspective, in so far as, in our world culture and writing link has begun to unravel, we cannot stop letters to continue. But they do like a progressive displacement.

If you look French through ages, you will quick understand that that knowledge is obviously connected to the conditions that are culturally ours. Well, we should be aware that it is what we recently said: “In the Middle Ages, there were French texts which were worth. There was, for example, the Roland’s song, etc.” Medieval university has completely ignored these French texts, even those produced by Rutebeuf or Villon. And, why did the Middle Age deliberately put aside these texts? Because this was not made to know, but, as Nietzsche very nicely said: it was the “gay science,” or the anti-science, the science used to protest, not recognized by the university: the science of that time, and until the XVI century, was Latin, French and these sciences were not more than a gay science.

When was the first displacement, which led the birth of “French literature,” effectuated? In the Renaissance, when the “Modern Times” were appearing with Rabelais. If Rabelais is ludicrous, “Gallic,” a pig and everything you want, it is because he was just rehabilitating the medieval gay science, but in French. It was a very great revolution: before, French texts had any status, from now on, they have one. Of course, there were a few years that it was being prepared. There was a pre literature, a “protohistory” literature, if I can say, represented by those that has been called the major Rhetoric men, which rhyme in French and who began to try to place their productions into the refined society. But Renaissance is a breath of oxygen; it is the French all fronts, the gay science carefully promoted.

But what has done this gay science promotion? At the beginning, it was liberation, with all the excesses that all liberation has: a real passion! However, little by little, the passion had decreased, and this was the birth of what we have called “literature,” which consisted to express even the most serious things in French, things of that time, the science of that time. But this was not the science of the university, which continued to be expressed in Latin, but, in some way, a science for university, which was passed in French. In these circumstances, you understand that texts such as those of Madam de La Fayette, the tragedies of Racine, or the comedies of Moliere were literature, as well as the speech of the Descartes’ method, the thoughts of Pascal or the spirit of the laws of Montesquieu. When we see Descartes’ writings included in the XVII° manuals of literature, we can see this: “What can the speech of the method do for literature?” Well, the answer is that because Descartes expressed his method in French. It was the same, with Pascal. There are certainly many illegible things on his writings, but it was the theology in French. Do you understand now that what makes good a tragedy of Racine, Descartes, Pascal or Montesquieu, was that these authors expressed in French a science that, since the middle age to the XVIII° siècle, would not interest anybody, because the science was written in Latin. We must see the “French literature,” as a phenomenon in the margin of university, and almost in conflict with it. If you want to see like this, university was the science of the “right,” and literature, the science of the “left””: this literature consisted to speak like a “decent man,” and not like an old grimoire reader, and this was not a science the same as the one of the university. You understand, in these circumstances, why the ancestors of our current “human sciences” are the psychological novelists, the classical theater, the moralists’ writers, etc. We see these texts as works of art. They had certainly this character-here too, but they had mainly this particular nature of represent a science in separation with the University of that time, and not only one that was worth as a university science but one that had hoped too well exceeds it.

When was the second displacement, which superintended the birth of our “human sciences,” effectuated? In the XIX°, that was the époque of Balzac and the realism. From the realistic movement, things are starting to evolve. Literature becomes a “literature of message.” From that time, who has worked with sociology for example? Zola. It is the thesis message, if I dare to say: novel to thesis, theater to thesis, written by philosophers (at university, at this time there was a long time that we haven’t think!)

And we are in the third displacement, this means: the culmination of thoughts (this means the end of literature), like Sartre: read what he tells in Situations of the “committed literature.” From the moment where literature has been committed, this is no more than a war weapon, this is no more than a gay science (it is even terribly sadder!) and this is no more literature, it became another thing (it belongs to you to name this as you want). “And after Sartre, you will ask me, what remains of the French literature?” The answer is: nothing. It is Byzantine; I mean the “new novel”, the “absurd theater,” the “new criticism.” Nothing! One day, someone asked me what is left of the French literature since the end of the second war (1945) to now. My first reaction was, precisely, to answer “nothing!” And then, after a carefully thought, I replied: “perhaps the words of Sartre, and the memories of Hadrian of Marguerite Yourcenar.” You must admit that this is not very much! You must conceive that French literature is dead, when the Science of men born.

This does not mean that it does not present any interest. Because, who spoke of the man, until the middle of the last century? Well, literature did. For the reason that since Bacon, it was born what he called the naturalist philosophy by the time of the Renaissance, and from this philosophy it comes the issues of our “nature sciences.” And to make a science of Man (with a capital letter!) this creature quasi divine, was excluded. Consequently, literature (history and philosophy included), has filled the historic role of conservatory of the man (“pre human sciences,” or, the gay science of Modern Times). People sometimes ask me this question: “How is it that, after having done your humanities studies, then you devoted to linguistics, and then to anthropology?” You understand that the only thing that I was interested in life was the answer to this question: What is a man (with a tiny letter)? Literature gave me the first answers, then I started to be engaged to what are the highest antiquities and the first real science of Man (thinking that language was natural in men), to be exact it is grammar, called “linguistic” when I was teaching, linguistics took me, logically, to anthropology. You see that there is, in my route, an intellectual and a perfect consistency. I close parenthesis here and I return to my business.

You understand that when somebody says to you, “I teach French literature” (from Rabelais to Sartre!) It became completely clichéd (it is good to be on museum) and, above all, how would you like to put all of these works in the same cart? This is ridiculous!

In the other hand, we must see that the texts we continue to call “literary” are a mass of determinisms. That is what I blame to my childhood teachers because instead of deconstruct the text, they took it globally (it was the famous “text explanation”), but it should have different specialists who would have treated those texts with different methods: there is, indeed, in the literary text the sociologist works, the psychoanalyst, the historian, the psychologist, the linguist, etc. In a single literary text there is a lot for what to devote a full year, the year which would be more informative as the exam, more or less intuitive of a series of “chosen pieces.” But it is true that such as education would require, of the professor in French Literature, a series of knowledge and a synthesis gift which is quite unusual! You can believe me, this is what I have tried to practice while I was a student (a superior student, it is true). But, believe me, I do not regret this: I am proud to believe, I am proud of passionate my students of License while explaining them… “The rabbit and the turtle”! I have never stopped to teach them to read, but wearing another glasses (already!) This is why I have always thought, and continue to believe that the question of programs and schedules have no interest (this is the kitchen ones.) The content, in a general way, have too little to do with the spirit formation. What really counts are the glasses, this means what some people call the method. That is why I think that literary texts cannot be successfully used in higher education.

]]>

Is it necessarily to remove the teaching of French Literature in our secondary education like some people, not without reason, want? I will answer: “no”, for the simple reason that, nobody (only a barbarian) is going to burn files. But if we do, we should also burn all our museums! But a museum, we can range that, we can range a few stops before to select certain oeuvres. I could take another example: the metropolitan. You go in the train and you browse the line, with the intention to stop in a few stations. Take again, these small tourist trains you make the “historic” tour of a city marking the time of stops before that or that monument. You all are going to laugh, but when I arrive in a city that I do not know; I borrow these small tourist trains and then I return to visit that or that monument which interested me the