Galileo’s dilemma
© 2002 by Mark Macy

About 400 years ago, Galileo used one of the first telescopes ever made to look up into the sky. He saw pock-marks on the moon, indicating that the moon was once bombarded by asteroids. He saw sunspots, suggesting that the sun was a ball of churning, burning gases. He saw moons around Jupiter, suggesting that Jupiter, Mars, and Venus were not just points of light in the night sky. They were planets much like our own Earth. So the Earth was not the center of the universe, as scientists and Church leaders believed at that time. And the universe was not a perfect creation made for the delight of mankind. 

At that time, mainstream science in the Western world was intertwined with Christianity, and the things that Galileo saw with his telescope threw science and religion for a loop. Scientists and church leaders didn’t know how to handle Galileo. They were not able to believe that the Earth was little more than a grain of sand along an endless cosmic beach. Galileo’s findings could shatter their worldview. After a lot of debate, they came out with a proclamation: "God is perfect, and all of God’s creation is perfect. Man is imperfect, and therefore his inventions are imperfect. Why should we use an imperfect invention like Galileo’s telescope to see God’s perfect creation? Wouldn’t that corrupt God’s creation?" Eventually Galileo was brought before the Inquisition and pressured to renounce his ideas, or face imprisonment or death.

The Boggle Point 

We all have our own unique mental roadmap or model of reality, and we use it to navigate here on Earth. The model is made up of our beliefs and attitudes, which in turn have been formed by the things we learned in school and from our parents, and the information we have absorbed from books, magazines, movies, television programs, and other sources. As this information comes into our mind, we try to accommodate it by adjusting our model just a little bit. 

Sometimes, though, the new information is so radical that it simply won’t fit into our model of reality unless we disassemble the model and begin building it from scratch, using the new information as a foundation. Typically, when that happens, our mind tries to protect its model. It resists the new information and snaps shut. At that point, the mind has been boggled, and it doesn’t matter then what kind of solid evidence or absolute proof is presented with the new information, the mind is simply unable to accept it. 

Once we've gone beyond our boggle point, either we will ignore new information completely or else we will consider it a threat that needs to be disproved, in which case we'll sow seeds of our own doubt in the minds around us in an effort to build up a negative support group. The tendency to close down, often called "narrow-mindedness", is simply a means of self-protection. The more aggressive reaction of crusading against the new information is something I call "the debunker syndrome," and I believe it is often the product of narrow minds fueled by fear. 

Looking back on Galileo’s dilemma now, most of us realize that those early scientists and church leaders came up with a contrived, almost convoluted argument to protect their worldview from a new and higher truth that was made possible by Galileo’s telescope. That telescope offered a broader view of reality that would require science to undergo a complete overhaul, but the collective mind of science and religion of that era was boggled, and it resisted the inevitable changes for nearly a century, when Isaac Newton and other pioneer scientists constructed a new scientific model—a spiritless paradigm that took into account only the material universe…and that paradigm is still the navigating tool of science today. 

Today, the luminator offers a broader view of reality, and I believe that mainstream science is ripe for another overhaul. A few frontier scientists, such as Rupert Sheldrake in England, Burkhard Heim and Ernst Senkowski in Germany, and William Tiller in the United States, are talking about other dimensions of reality superimposed over our own, and the subtle energies and consciousness that can shape those realities. But mainstream scientists are not listening. They are unable to see such truths, which would cause a meltdown of their current model.  

ITC research today provides solid evidence—I would say proof—that our world is superimposed by various nonphysical realms flourishing with intelligent beings, and that those beings can and do interact with our world.