Carrying on some of the discussion from http://www.philosophyoffreedom.com/node/2772 (What if your kindergartener was labeled as a future psychopath?).  Apologies for the length of this one!!

My own slant on this discussion so far (feel free to disagree with/correct/supplement my summary!):

• We have conventional science which proves its practical value over and over again in our everyday lives (e.g. the fact that we are all communicating in this way over the Internet relies on us all utilising the forces of electromagnetism in a certain way).  This conventional science is still developing in such areas as genetics which is now raising questions about how it could/should be applied in everyday life (hence Tom's question about labelling kindergarteners as future psychopaths);
• We have philosophy which, while not generally as respected as science nowadays (maybe because every philosopher has a different point of view!), does allow us to discuss things like morality, goodness, beauty, truth, the soul, God and so on rationally without necessarily being labelled right away as unscientific, irrational, reactionary etc. etc.
• We have anthroposophy as one example of an alternative world-view to conventional science which is working itself out in the real world also (witness for example Waldorf schools, anthroposophical medicine, curative education etc. etc.).  It claims to be compatible with conventional science, for example see the following quote from Chapter 1 of "An Outline of Occult Science" at http://wn.rsarchive.org/Books/GA013/English/AP1972/GA013_c01.html:

  In the spirit and true sense of the word, no real scientist will be able to find a contradiction between his science built upon the facts of the sense world and the method by which the supersensible world is investigated. The scientist makes use of certain instruments and methods. He produces his instruments by transforming what “nature” offers him. The supersensible method of knowledge also makes use of an instrument. This instrument is man himself. This instrument, too, must first be made ready for higher research. The capacities and forces given to man by nature, without his assistance, must be transformed into higher capacities and powers. Man is thereby able to make himself the instrument for research in the supersensible world.

• We have The Philosophy of Freedom (PoF) presented on this website as a sure path to the realisation of the reality of spirit in our lives and a way to more fully realising the ideal of the free human being in our own lives.  As I've already quoted from "An Outline of Occult Science" I'll quote it again (Chapter 5 Part 3, http://wn.rsarchive.org/Books/GA013/English/AP1972/GA013_c05-03.html):

  The path is absolutely safe upon which the communications of spiritual science lead us to sense-free thinking. There is, however, still another path that is safer and above all more exact, but it is also more difficult for many human beings. This path is presented in my books, A Theory of Knowledge Based on Goethe's World Conception, and Philosophy of Freedom. These writings offer what human thought can acquire if thinking does not give itself up to the impressions of the physical-sensory world, but only to itself. It is then pure thought, which acts in the human being like a living entity, and not thought that merely indulges in memories of the sensory. In the writings mentioned above nothing is inserted from the communications of spiritual science itself. Yet it is shown that pure thinking, merely active within itself, may throw light on the problems of world, life, and man. These writings stand at an important point intermediate between cognition of the sense world and that of the spiritual world. They offer what thinking can gain when it elevates itself above sense-observation, while still avoiding entering upon spiritual research. Whoever permits these writings to act upon his entire soul nature, stands already within the spiritual world; it presents itself to him, however, as a world of thought. He who feels himself in the position to permit such an intermediate stage to act upon him, travels a safe path, and through it he is able to gain a feeling toward the higher world that will bear for him the most beautiful fruit throughout all future time.)

We are all familiar with these paths and world views to some extent.  Our constant challenge is to work with them in our own lives in the right way.  I hope that most people interested in this website will agree that the Philosophy of Freedom can help each of us to do this, regardless of our own particular favourite world view. 

I think this is something like the kind of message Jeff is trying to get across also!  As Jeff has pointed out, it is very possible to work with the results of an anthroposophical/spiritual scientific world view in an "unfree" way.  Just replacing a conventional scientific world outlook with a "spiritual" world outlook does not necessarily guarantee that you will be able to more fully realise the ideal of the free spirit in your own life.  If someone anthroposophical tells me I am of a phlegmatic disposition, for example, do I just use that as an excuse for my behaviour ("oh I'm a phlegmatic so I'll let the cholerics do the leading") or do I seek to understand and overcome any one-sidedness in my own life that this statement (assuming I can see some justification for what they are telling me) may point to?

However at this level we are still only scratching the surface.  Recall for example that Steiner repeatedly said that studying The Philosophy of Freedom enables us to develop a capacity for living thinking in our own lives.  In his anthroposophical lectures, for example, he repeatedly characterised this as a thinking based on the etheric (life) body of formative forces rather than on the dead/dying physical body.  He also stated repeatedly that we are able to think the clear thoughts of conventional materially based science using the forces of our physical body only.

I connect this living thinking with Steiner's characterisation of the arising of Moral Imagination (see Philosopy of Freedom Chapter 12 http://wn.rsarchive.org/Books/GA004/English/RSP1964/GA004_c12.html).  Then what is the relationship of living thinking to conventional scientific thinking?  Can one arise from the other?  Can they both exist side by side?  I think Steiner spent much of his career trying to illumine this area of human spiritual activity.

I'll deliberately take an example of something that, while standing right at the centre of Steiner's anthroposophical world view, is anathema to modern scientific consciousness - that is Steiner's bold (to say the least) statements about the Mystery of Gologotha, the Christ being and Jesus, the Resurrection and so on. 

But I'd also like to point out that it's very possible and totally OK (in my opinion) to reject Steiner's statements in this area and still derive great benefit from the study of Anthroposophy.  If it is really true it will become obvious to you eventually, you don't need Steiner, Billy Graham, me or anyone else to preach it to you!  Paradoxically I think it's fine to do that because any other winding path that leads you into Anthroposophy (be it curative eurhythmy, biodynamic agriculture, study of the fourfold nature of the human being or whatever) will eventually lead you back to this area of Steiner's work again for another look, as it were.

I'm currently working through the Lecture series "From Jesus to Christ" (http://wn.rsarchive.org/Lectures/FromJ2C1973/FJ2C73_index.html) and can especially recommend Chapter 6 on this topic.  There he touches on modern views of the Resurrection:

Let us ask how many persons of our present time who, according to the modern standpoint, must and do subscribe to these words, would say, ‘If I were obliged to recognise the Resurrection as historical fact, I would tear down my whole system of thought, philosophical or otherwise.’ Let us ask how should the Resurrection, as historical fact, fit in with a modern man's outlook on the world.

A little further on he develops this thought further, in connection with St Paul's teaching of the "first and second Adam" (see for example Paul's comments in 1 Corinthians 15 and Romans Chapter 5):

There is nothing more uncomfortable for the modern consciousness than this idea. For looking at the matter quite soberly, what does it demand from us? It demands something which, for modern thought, is really monstrous. Modern thought has long disputed whether all human beings are descended from one primeval human being, but it may be allowed that all are descended from a single human being who was the first on earth as regards physical consciousness. Paul, however, demands the following. He says: ‘If you desire to be a Christian in the true sense, you must conceive that within you something can arise which can live in you, and from which you can draw spiritual lines to a second Adam, to Christ, to that very Christ who on the third day rose from the grave, just as all men can trace lines back to the physical body of the first Adam.’ So Paul demands that all who call themselves Christians should cause something within them to arise; something leading to that entity which on the third day rose out of the grave in which the body of Christ Jesus had been laid. Anyone who does not grant this cannot come into any relationship with Paul; he cannot say he understands Paul. If man, as regards his corruptible body, is descended from the first Adam, then, by receiving the Being of Christ into his own being, he has the possibility of having a second ancestor. This ancestor, however, is He who, on the third day after His body had been laid in the earth, rose out of the grave.

This "something that can arise" referred to by Steiner above can be characterised from one point of view, I believe, as living thinking, which we can realise in our own lives through working with the Philosophy of Freedom. 

Anthroposophy I think can die and become a lifeless "dead" thinking in our souls just as conventional scientific thinking can if applied in the wrong way.  But to compare the two world views as totally equivalent and irrelevant to the progress of human evolution is perhaps also a simplification, just as I believe it is really a crime against the true nature of the human being to consider us as "just another animal".