AR14 - Publisher's Comments by Douglas Kenyon

Ancient Mysteries

Future Science

Unexplained
Anomalies

Super Search On:

Douglas Kenyon

Publisher's Comments

Your Ad Here

Shop Atlantis Rising Online

Home | Archives | Discussions
Back Issues | Subscribe | Links

	Publisher's Comments by J. Douglas Kenyon
Index of Issue 14

As a loyal and appreciative reader, you may be surprised to learn not everyone approves of this magazine. Some such detractors, in fact, have communicated their displeasure directly to us, and not always, we should add, in terms entirely civil. Without suggesting that Atlantis Rising be exempt from censure heaven forbid we feel a few observations on two familiar themes of such negative feedback might be possible without supplying more ammunition to our critics.

Group one: THE OFFENDED. These would be better off if they had never seen the magazine in the first place. Typical is the recent caller wanting to cancel his subscription. A friend had insisted that he (the caller) couldn't do without it, but upon his shocking discovery of articles on the paranormal and that we were not presenting what he considered hard science, he wanted AR out of his house pronto. In this category are not only those who reject our challenges to orthodox science, but those offended by exceptions to orthodox (i.e., conservative) religion as well. Both camps, while despising each other, still agree on one thing a distaste for Atlantis Rising and its ilk. The significant common thread here is a willingness to accept notions based on authority, provided of course the authority is approved.' To true believers,' from Darwinist to fundamentalist, publications like this, which reject conventional wisdom and present arguments based strictly on common sense and actual evidence, are seen as either impudent or irreverent...or both...or worse.

Group two: THE IMPRACTICAL. These seem willing to reject all the old authorities of both science and religion, as long as replaced by another their own. Included are most of those who claim direct personal revelation from other dimensions. From these, the magazine receives frequent offerings which must be declined with the unwelcome explanation, it is our policy not to rely on intuitive or strictly subjective sources for our editorial content.

For each of the above, a better explanation of what AR does rely on may be in order.

We hold that arguments seeking to persuade, based solely on authority, whether academic consensus, biblical doctrine or channeled revelation, are all but variations on the familiar playground taunt, you better do this or my big brother will make you.

Ideas which challenge conventional thought, we feel, deserve consideration or rejection without prejudice and on their merits. And many true believers, regardless of persuasion, we like to think, would find their faith enriched by exposure to such. We at AR find this approach lacking in most current media, so we will continue making it our business to provide it.

Let the chips fall where they may.

J. Douglas Kenyon