New age and its problems

[morphles]

I guess everyone here knows that new age stuff is kinda lots of *ahem* bs. There is interesting video on youtube http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sxpAKDyHtXs by Nykytyne2 where he expresses his points and concerns about new age.

I on the other hand have different concerns about new age. Namely some new age stuff seems to have habit of pretending to be sciency. And this is disturbing for me. Then describing their stuff (healing, enchantments, techniques etc...) they often use words from science (of course most of the time it used in a wrong way), then they find people, and sometimes they seem to be real scientists, who dress in lab coats and the like and talk very seriously.

The problem i see with this that: first - this can fool a lot more people than traditional religion which doesn't pretend to be science, and spread ignorance/stupidity this way; second - probably more important, they can discredit/tarnish reputation of science when some time in future all this bullshit is debunked people might talk: "o these scientists knew nothing why should we believe them again" or something like that, i hope you get the point.

The reason i decided to post this is this video on youtube: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qPpY-H_PTm4&feature=email. I should be honest the video seems utter brainwash to me(Terminology, conspiracy; title quantum communication, but this term seems to have not been used in video itself; it's totally unclear why they use word quantum here; spyrographs(wtf...) superimposed on "spiritual" images; production by some unknown _entertainment_company, etc. ). But i checked some of the people shown there, and they seem to be real scientist with some articles published(i must admit i haven't spend much time on this, haven't read their articles, but still they at least have several articles). Now i believe this forum has lots of smart and knowledgeable people who might help understand how plausible the stuff in video is, maybe some of you are from fields like those scientist and can say something about their credibility.

And also it's interesting what people here think about new age stuff? It's seems it's far less discussed than i.e. creationism.

 

[)O( Hytegia )O(]

There is no authority made by man so pure as it cannot be corrupted by man.

I admit, there's some people out there to try to coin a few bucks off of morons, but some New Age ideals are basically "the Occult Renessance - part 2."
It's not ALL bad, just a new way to look at things. I hope that the parts that can be dishreveled as cons and crooks will be seen through, but to write off an entire idealistic outlook on life just as "con artists and crooks" is kinda biased. I mean, look at me. I'm a Pagan. 70 years ago, I would be a miserable Christian based on the area that I'm living now, and this outlook on life makes me pleasently fulfilled!

 

[borrofburi]

It's not ALL bad

Yes it is, because at *best* it is a sloppy way of thinking. At worst it downright conflicts with reality.

 

[Finger]

It's not ALL bad, just a new way to look at things. I hope that the parts that can be dishreveled as cons and crooks will be seen through, but to write off an entire idealistic outlook on life just as "con artists and crooks" is kinda biased. I mean, look at me. I'm a Pagan. 70 years ago, I would be a miserable Christian based on the area that I'm living now, and this outlook on life makes me pleasently fulfilled!

We don't criticize the New Age movement because of the con artists it attracts. We criticize it because it, like religion in general, requires the fundamental rejection of science and/or rational thought. Replacing organized religion with New Age spiritualism is just replacing madness with a different flavor of madness.

 

[)O( Hytegia )O(]

Fine. As counter to this discussion I present myself as proof. I believe you would consider me some kind of "New Age" person:

Name one ideal where I have said "Your Science is WRONG and mine is right and I can prove it" whilst pulling out uncitable sources and obviously rejecting anything you have to say to the contrary.
Infact, in all I've said, I made sure to BOLD AND UNDERLINE the fact that I cannot prove it simply because it's not a scientific process and is, therefore, a matter of Faith.

If you're saying it is ALL worthles liars of Cons and Theives then I have disproved to the contrary.

 

[borrofburi]

Name one ideal where I have said "Your Science is WRONG and mine is right and I can prove it" whilst pulling out uncitable sources and obviously rejecting anything you have to say to the contrary.
Infact, in all I've said, I made sure to BOLD AND UNDERLINE the fact that I cannot prove it simply because it's not a scientific process and is, therefore, a matter of Faith.

Which makes you a prime example of sloppy thinking.

If you're saying it is ALL worthles liars of Cons and Theives then I have disproved to the contrary.

I don't think anyone said anything of the sort (though I may have misread (or failed to read all of) the thread).

 

[)O( Hytegia )O(]

Which makes you a prime example of sloppy thinking.

There's nothing but an ad hominem here, so I must respond with an appropriate Kirby in place of a usual discussive material.

t(-.-t)

 

[RichardMNixon]

Which makes you a prime example of sloppy thinking.

There's nothing but an ad hominem here, so I must respond with an appropriate Kirby in place of a usual discussive material.

t(-.-t)

I don't think it counts as ad hominem if you've personally directed the subject to discuss yourself. Even then, he didn't just attack you. You commented on your way of thinking and beliefs and he commented on those beliefs, which just happened to be yours.

He said New Age is bad because it rejects rational thought in favor of superstition/faith/presupposition whatever you want to call it. As far as I can tell, you responded "I prefer superstition to rational thought, but I admit it," which leaves him only to reinforce his position, this time about you.

 

[)O( Hytegia )O(]

Actually in my posts I have reiterated that everything I believe is somehow linked to the natural world, and that Science has a direct effect on my beliefs.
Head in the Clouds, feet on the ground.

You could say that my mind has a "seperation of Church and State" here. ^^ My belief rarely effects how I approach a Physical problem, and the likewise (it's like using a metric toolset on a U.S. Standard bearings, and vice-versa). Does this make me irrational?

"When the Logical is all but eliminated, the only thing left is the illogical." -Sherlock Holmes

 

[morphles]

Considering what )O( Hytegia )O( wrote I'd side him with those unsure Christians, like the ones who "believe" because majority believes. That is then thinking how much there belief affects there everyday life it would be not too much. But still this seems like holding on straw you don't really need. Well maybe those people are in it just because they need other people that are in it and not belief itself. I think that Nykytyne2 in video in my first post makes some good points about some stuff )O( Hytegia )O( says. Like how new age often tends to be something like "cult of self" or something similar where people pat them selves on the shoulder.

So no one can say anything about that "quantum communication? video?

 

[scalyblue]

Ascribing to any belief system where "I do not know" is supplanted by the supernatural is intellectually dishonest.

 

[Finger]

Hytegia, do you really expect me to sift through every one of your posts just to dredge up past topics in an unrelated thread? You've been here far too long for that. If you really think it is possible to simultaneously practice "New Age" thought and rational thought, then present an example yourself.

"When the Logical is all but eliminated, the only thing left is the illogical." -Sherlock Holmes

I've never heard of that Holmes quote. The only one I can think of that is similar is:

"How often have I said to you [Watson] that when you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth?" -Sherlock Holmes, The Sign of Four

Has quite a different implication than the one you presented, doesn't it? I cannot help but note the irony of looking to Sherlock Holmes in order to justify belief in the supernatural.

 

[nasher168]

I cannot prove it simply because it's not a scientific process and is, therefore, a matter of Faith.

Yes, and faith is-as Finger put it-a fundamental rejection of rational thought.

 

[borrofburi]

Thank you RMN, that's basically exactly what happened. Concepts of "belief without evidence" or "supernatural of the gaps" are sloppy thinking, Hytegia's response was, basically, that he doesn't reject rational thought and science if they have answers, but when they don't he turns to supernatural based on "faith", which is an example of the very sloppy thinking I was talking about. I probably could have made that more clear.

It's a bit like me saying that homeopaths, at their best, embrace bad pseudoscience (and at their worst spew outright lies), followed by a homeopath posting "I don't lie, I just understand that water molecules have memory", which leaves me with not much more than to re-iterate that it's bad pseudoscience, especially if it's something as impervious to reason as "I have faith".


Anyway, we should clarify the definition of faith before people start to miscommunicate.
Faith:
belief without evidence

 

[)O( Hytegia )O(]

Hytegia, do you really expect me to sift through every one of your posts just to dredge up past topics in an unrelated thread? You've been here far too long for that. If you really think it is possible to simultaneously practice "New Age" thought and rational thought, then present an example yourself.

Okay then.
I can start it here, since I am the evidence in question.

Covering "I do not know" certainly is Irrational. I never replace a statement of the lack of Knowledge with some insanely concocted statement. I DO, however, approach things from an open-ended standpoint and believe that all things being related in some reason.

How is that illogical?

I believe in supernatural existances that cause things to happen by Natural Means (key word? NATURAL). Doesn't mean I take a mystery and say "GODZ DID IT."


It this illogical?

 

[scalyblue]

correlation is not causation, and there is no evidence that everything is interconnected.

 

[borrofburi]

Covering "I do not know" certainly is Irrational. I never replace a statement of the lack of Knowledge with some insanely concocted statement. I DO, however, approach things from an open-ended standpoint and believe that all things being related in some reason.

How is that illogical?

Because it lacks evidence.

Also the "open-ended" bit reminds me of this video on open-mindedness:

 

[Finger]

Hytegia, a specific example was what I was looking for, not a general assessment of your own beliefs. All you'd need to do is find a new age belief that you hold for rational reasons and explain specifically why.

I believe in supernatural existances that cause things to happen by Natural Means (key word? NATURAL).

If the means are natural, then how can they be supernatural at the same time? That sentence is self-contradictory.

 

[)O( Hytegia )O(]

correlation is not causation, and there is no evidence that everything is interconnected.

Everything you have ever learned can somehow be tied to something else by a huge chain.

For example - Trig.

In second or third grades, I'm sure you spent your time doing 2 x 3 or the like. Simple? Certainly - but guaranteeingly linked to the advaced mathematics you're being taught in Trig. You can also equate Trig to portions of history in order to calculate various statistics to cannonfire and such-
Everything is relative to one another in a huge-ass web, basically. If one variable was to change, the rest would change accordingly. The more variables you have, the simpler it is to see the underlieing change amongst them all... I think I might have just quoted the Chaos Theory, now that I think about it.



"If the means are natural, then how can they be supernatural at the same time? That sentence is self-contradictory."
Not necessarilly. They are not both at the same time, but simply mirrored. One executes another. Change in one reflects upon the next. They are not the same - just linked.

 

[scalyblue]

in order for a stance to be sound, it must also be refutable given appropriate evidence. Since there can be no evidence for the supernatural, or against the supernatural, the supernatural is an irrefutable stance. Believing in irrefutable principles clouds your cognition.

Everything you have ever learned can somehow be tied to something else by a huge chain.

no, it can't. You think it can, because humans have evolved to find patterns where none exist. Correlation does not equate causation.