New Age Religions...

[creativesoul]

Is it me, or are the new metaphysical books - The Secret, all of Deepak's sheeeought, etc. - which focus upon some sort of observer-created reality just a very clever way to grab ahold of the many ex-believers which still have some 'spiritual' remnant of the 'God' of Abraham' tucked away into their unconscious?

It seems like every time I read something of that sort, there is a reference to 'Jesus' or the 'mind of 'God' or some other ice-breaker which allows the writer to grab the reader by the unconscious balls and lead them around. Assuming that most people who are ex-believers have been logically led away from that, wouldn't they see the very same illogical bullshit in those other claims?

The often-used 'support' for these beliefs exists in QM phenomena such as entanglement, quantum tunneling, etc. These observations exist without our knowing exactly why, so it seems that this has been a sort of opening in science which religious people have grabbed ahold of in order to attempt to logically prove the existence of 'spirit', even going as far as calling the hypothetical 'quantum field' 'God'. Of course Einstein did not really help much with his famous 'God does not play dice...'

I have often given the objection of 'insert 'God' here'... or any other imagined thing of one's choice...

Thoughts?

 

[creativesoul]

Could a sound case be made that this sort of appeal to ignorance has devalued humans by default alone? Isn't that a dangerous thing in and of itself?

 

[Fictionarious]

Haven't read any of those books, but I know what you're talking about.
This is just another example of that infernal impulse to religious conviction known as the "God of the Gaps" argument. I would be willing to speculate that the "God of the Gaps" argument is the original argument establishing any supernatural invented bullshit. Then others are rationalized to defend it later.

 

[creativesoul]

Yes, exactly... the 'God of the Gaps'.

Imagine a thing, attribute to that thing some unexplained phenomena, and then call that thing 'real'. My concern really lies in the harm that such thinking does to one's critical thinking skills. People who use this type of argument do not see the inherent problem with ' fill in the blank with *whatever one can imagine*. The same argument can be used to support anything one can imagine.

Just as it does not logically support a belief in the existence of a pink and black elephantic smooge, it does not support 'God' or spirit any more or less.

And then so often those types will get all offended and resort to ad homs and/or some form other fallacious natured argument. The most popular one that I have seen recently amounts to the dismissal of causality or logic. Or one of my favorites, the absolutely certain statement that we cannot know anything with absolute certainty.


I am glad that someone has directed me to this site. I have read and learned much and look forward to what will surely be engaging conversation.