Martinus: Livets Bog, vol. 3, sect. 912

912. The fact that one cannot purely physically survey the macrocosmos as a whole as easily as the microcosmos is no justification or reason for denying that it is guided or governed by the same principle as the microcosmos; on the contrary, this fact makes it all the more essential that one should imagine the macrocosmos as analogous to the microcosmos. What other method of investigation than precisely this can justifiably be called "scientific"? And how can any other method be firmly substantiated? Imagination, assumptions and dogmas cannot substantiate anything "scientifically" and neither are they the phenomena that generally form the basis for academic scholarship. If one has no concrete proof, it goes without saying that one cannot reveal concrete results. But if one has no concrete results, it is sometimes possible to have hypotheses. But if a hypothesis is not to be an empty assumption or a dogma, it has to be the very conclusion that one arrives at when one judges an unknown object by comparing it with a known object with which it seems to be more or less analogous. How else could a hypothesis be justified or be brought into contact with science? If one therefore denies the logical process of creation that has transformed the Earth from a sea of fire into the glorious world, full of life, that today represents intelligence, thought and thereby consciousness and a "living something" or originator that is connected to it, this denial would be – not a hypothesis – but an empty assumption, for in that case one would not have judged the unknown on the basis of the known. And one will then, instead of being a researcher, be nothing but a fanatic. One cannot deny that within the known, that is to say, within the area in which the human ability to observe has a one hundred per cent capacity, no logical creation can take place without being the product of a living source and without being manifested as a result of thought, intelligence, will and brain-functioning. This will then be the only fact from which one can with justification assess the even more logical process of creation that takes place in the area in which our sensory ability does not possess the aforementioned capacity, and for which reason this area, that is to say, Nature, the transformation of the Earth, the orbit of the stars or the universe as a whole – therefore constitutes for us a more or less unknown object.
As we can see, the honest and truly scientific researcher cannot avoid accepting, at least as a hypothesis, that there is a living, thinking originator behind Nature's great creation and that this is therefore a function of consciousness analogous to the process of creation brought about by ourselves. The researcher who flatly denies this is thereby revealing the insignificance of his own scientific talent in this field to the extent that we can see that it absolutely cannot be counted as playing a part in the elucidation of the field in question. He is one of those beings whose scientific ineptitude, coupled with a certain amount of ambition, causes them to rashly assert their atheism without the slightest notion that such an assertion is a glaringly false and unscientific conclusion that has not even the slightest possibility of being substantiated as a hypothesis. Atheists of all categories therefore also belong to the great band of beings who worship dogmas and assumptions, even though their dogmas and assumptions about the Godhead are irreligious and therefore express naivety instead of science.