Why are the New Age movement and other exotic ideas so attractive?

[Edward_H]

Actually, no. The religions in question all make contradictory claims, which means that they cannot all be true at once.

Now, you’re free to make up a story about them “approaching the same Truth” and just veiling this Truth in different symbols – that is, to reinterpret all religions as different exoteric cloths wrapped around some esoteric truth – but to do so is to 1) run counter to the claims of these religions themselves and 2) to disregard their claims of in favor of making up any old unfalsifiable story you please just because it gives you the warm and fuzzies to tell yourself parables about blind men and elephants.

Listen to your assertions. “the religions in question all make contradictory claims”.

You need to calm down a bit and be more thorough in your thinking. Show your claimed rationality a bit more deliberately. On what specific points do they make contradictory claims, are all such points essential to their truth, are all equally contradictory, are they really diametric or antipodal? Are such claimed contradictions really contradictions, have the various factions even agreed on the basic terms? Etc.

Be a bit more rigorous. I love it when self-claimed “rational” people make it so easy to rebut. “All”

 

[Edward_H]

Good points.

But I would like to add: the more good one does, the more the devil attacks. At this point I feel as if I’m surrounded by savages who test me all day long.

I often wonder if other Catholics feel this way… Or if I’m imagining things.

In any case, you are correct overall, I’m just exhausted.

Well I understand the struggle. “Now is the time to ask for more grace”. Prayers and sacrifices to you in your renewed struggle.

One last thought. At least be prepared to love, to give, without the slightest expectation of any good feeling or diminished assault from evil. Be prepared for this, and be willing to love through it.

From one of my favorite spiritual books: He and I (Gabrielle Bossis)

“You hear these little goldfinches chatting in undertones without ever stopping?..Talk to Me like that, ceaselessly, sottovoce.”

“Sometimes you feel Me more or less, but I never change. Don’t let praying tire you. Why do you give yourself so much trouble? Let it be utterly simple and heart warming, a family chat.”

“I transform your prayers into My prayers, but if you don’t pray…”

Gabrielle asks: “Is it love when my heart beats more quickly when I think of you?” The voice responds: “Yes it is love. But it’s also love when you make an effort to be good for My sake without the slightest pleasurable feeling.”

 

[AntiTheist]

On what specific points do they make contradictory claims, are all such points essential to their truth, are all equally contradictory, are they really diametric or antipodal?

On what specific points? Virtually all of them: different religions assert the existence of different gods, different characteristics possessed by different gods, different moral systems, different requirements, different concepts of the afterlife, different criteria for afterlife rewards, etc.

It cannot be that, for example, Hinduism and Catholicism are simultaneously true, unless you discard what these religions actually claim and invent a new made-up position that declares them both to be “different paths to one truth” – in which case, you’d be saying that their claims are both false and that the claim of your new, made-up position is the true one. In that case, it cannot be that your new position and Hinduism and Catholicism are all simultaneously true.

 

[AntiTheist]

Or it could be certain truths are only discernible via certain means.

If you have a “means” of discerning truth other than evidence-based inquiry (that is, applying reason to evidence), then I’d love to hear it. I’d also like to know how you’d be able to determine that the conclusions of your new “means” are actually true without relying on evidence-based inquiry.

 

[Edward_H]

On what specific points? Virtually all of them: different religions assert the existence of different gods, different characteristics possessed by different gods, different moral systems, different requirements, different concepts of the afterlife, different criteria for afterlife rewards, etc.

It cannot be that, for example, Hinduism and Catholicism are simultaneously true, unless you discard what these religions actually claim and invent a new made-up position that declares them both to be “different paths to one truth” – in which case, you’d be saying that their claims are both false and that the claim of your new, made-up position is the true one. In that case, it cannot be that your new position and Hinduism and Catholicism are all simultaneously true.

Well you picked a good one…for when you say “Hinduism” you picked not a religion but a wide ranging religious tradition…just from wikipedia: “Hinduism is a diverse system of thought with beliefs spanning monotheism, polytheism, panentheism, pantheism, monism, atheism, agnosticism, gnosticism among others;[69][70][71][72] and its concept of God is complex and depends upon each particular tradition and philosophy. It is sometimes referred to as henotheistic (i.e., involving devotion to a single god while accepting the existence of others), but any such term is an overgeneralization.[73]”

So a comparison between “it” and Catholicism isn’t yet ready. Your conclusion is premature.

 

[Lost_Wanderer]

If you have a “means” of discerning truth other than evidence-based inquiry (that is, applying reason to evidence), then I’d love to hear it. I’d also like to know how you’d be able to determine that the conclusions of your new “means” are actually true without relying on evidence-based inquiry.

Evidence-based? You’re rather obscure. Seeing as what qualifies as evidence itself is subject to categorization, context, not to mention the way you just deliberately ignored the possibility of evidence being interpreted wrong as well our kind’s history and capacity with tampering said evidence, I find your instant demands for evidence to be quite, no heavily, blind.

 

[AnAtheist]

I like what Chesterton said in The Everlasting Man, which bears on your point and the parallels being drawn here: "In truth the Church is too unique to prove herself unique. For most popular and easy proof is by parallel and here there is no parallel. It is not easy, therefore, to expose the fallacy by which a false classification is created to swamp a unique thing when it really is a unique thing. "

Every religion has its unique elements. Still parallels can be drawn. What makes the uniqueness of Christianity so speical is a matter of faith not of classifiction.

 

[Edward_H]

Every religion has its unique elements. Still parallels can be drawn. What makes the uniqueness of Christianity so speical is a matter of faith not of classifiction.

I like this point. See if you want the Chesterton quote I put in here somewhere above.

Faith is in part our willingness to offer even our much-loved intelligence to God our Father.

This needs to be done much like in Genesis where Abraham offered up his own son for God, a son he loved more dearly than his own life.

Now that’s love, hope, faith, all combined into one great act.

That’s what a Christian’s response to God needs to struggle to be.

We need to be willing to give up everything for God.

It might be our pride, our vanity, our seeking comfort, even our goals…

It might be our “intelligence”, our doubt, our skepticism, our habitual way of doing things.

It might be our fruitfulness or our fecundity; priests give this up for God.

It might be our anger or temperament.

It might be our laziness, our self-seeking.

It might be our accumulated wealth, our books, our “titles”.

Etc.

God wants to see if we love Him so much that we’re willing to give up anything and everything in a huge act of faith for Him.

Just like Abraham, the rich man, the Samarian woman, etc.

This is really the central focus of the Holy Mass, Jesus giving up His life for us to the Father.

We are to struggle to love as Jesus did.

Our life needs to become one big combined act of Faith, Hope, and Love for Him and for others…

This is a radically “different” sort of religion, one without parallel.

 

[AntiTheist]

Well you picked a good one…for when you say “Hinduism” you picked not a religion but a wide ranging religious tradition…just from wikipedia: “Hinduism is a diverse system of thought with beliefs spanning monotheism, polytheism, panentheism, pantheism, monism, atheism, agnosticism, gnosticism among others;[69][70][71][72] and its concept of God is complex and depends upon each particular tradition and philosophy. It is sometimes referred to as henotheistic (i.e., involving devotion to a single god while accepting the existence of others), but any such term is an overgeneralization.[73]”

And I reiterate that any of the belief-systems categorized as Hindu cannot be true at the same time as the claims of Catholicism.

Lost Wanderer:

Evidence-based? You’re rather obscure.

No. As you point out, we might have to have a discussion as to what contitutes evidence for a particular claim (for example: your inner feelings might indeed be evidence for claims about your inner state, but inner feelings cannot count as evidence for claims about the external world, no matter how hard religious believers might try to convince themselves otherwise). but the fact remains that all people must use evidence.

Trying to turn evidence-based inquiry into another form of faith (“Oh! You have to have faith in evidence, so you’re using faith too!”) makes the evaluating of claims into foolishness.

 

[Edward_H]

And I reiterate that any of the belief-systems categorized as Hindu cannot be true at the same time as the claims of Catholicism.

Lost Wanderer: No. As you point out, we might have to have a discussion as to what contitutes evidence for a particular claim (for example: your inner feelings might indeed be evidence for claims about your inner state, but inner feelings cannot count as evidence for claims about the external world, no matter how hard religious believers might try to convince themselves otherwise). but the fact remains that all people must use evidence.

Trying to turn evidence-based inquiry into another form of faith (“Oh! You have to have faith in evidence, so you’re using faith too!”) makes the evaluating of claims into foolishness.

Well, you look at religions and see scatter shot, random and fixed points. I look at them and see both points and lines and some struggling movement. There is more order than disorder.

Some see fixed stars, and others wonder about the order of the whole universe.

 

[SteveVH]

There’s an old atheist saying: you pray for me, and I’ll think for you.

Yes, that sounds like an old atheist saying. It contains the necessary ingredients of pride, arrogance and elitism.

There’s a possibility in the same sense that virtually anything could be possible, but I think the odds that I actually am deluded are exceedingly low. This is because I base my thinking on evidence and reason.

Like I said…

Consider: there are hundreds (thousands?) of religions and “spiritual beliefs” in the world, all of which make incredibly different claims and all of which couldn’t be true at the same time. All of them could be argued to be beliefs that serve to “spice up” life, and all of them have at least some members who have had “internal experiences” that confirm their beliefs.

So your reasoning is that because they can’t all be true at the same time then none are true. And you base your beliefs on evidence and reason? Ok. I have never heard a religious person say they believe because it “spices up” their life. I have heard of people leaving religions for this reason.

So there are only two mutually exclusive options:

1. One single one of these thousands of religions is the correct one, which means that every other single religious person (and “spiritual person”) is deluding themselves.

or

1. None of them are correct, and all religious people (and “spiritual people”) are deluding themselves.

Now, this dichotomy doesn’t at all prove that there’s no god(s), but it does make it clear that every religious/spiritual person believes that every other religious/spiritual person, except those in one special group, is “deluded.” Atheists just go one step further: maybe they’re all deluded.

Well, as a Catholic, yes, I believe there is only one Church which contains the fullness of truth. However I do not believe that other Christians are deluded in any way. They also possess truth, but we do not believe they possess the fullness of truth. As for non-Christian religions, for the most part, they consist of people in search of truth and certainly contain truth to one degree or another, otherwise no one would follow them.

I would say, really, that the only completely deluded persons are atheists, who, in their pride, discard the possibility of anything or anyone greater than themselves. It is they who are to be pitied. In any event, If I am wrong, I am no worse off than you. My faith has given me an incredibly fulfilling life. If I am right, and it is you who are deluded, you will suffer the consequences of your pride for eternity. I would much rather be me.

 

[Edward_H]

Yes, that sounds like an old atheist saying. It contains the necessary ingredients of pride, arrogance and elitism.

Like I said…

So your reasoning is that because they can’t all be true at the same time then none are true. And you base your beliefs on evidence and reason? Ok. I have never heard a religious person say they believe because it “spices up” their life. I have heard of people leaving religions for this reason.

Well, as a Catholic, yes, I believe there is only one Church which contains the fullness of truth. However I do not believe that other Christians are deluded in any way. They also possess truth, but we do not believe they possess the fullness of truth. As for non-Christian religions, for the most part, they consist of people in search of truth and certainly contain truth to one degree or another, otherwise no one would follow them.

I would say, really, that the only completely deluded persons are atheists, who, in their pride, discard the possibility of anything or anyone greater than themselves. It is they who are to be pitied. In any event, If I am wrong, I am no worse off than you. My faith has given me an incredibly fulfilling life. If I am right, and it is you who are deluded, you will suffer the consequences of your pride for eternity. I would much rather be me.

Well and charitably said.

 

[AnAtheist]

This is a radically “different” sort of religion, one without parallel.

The gods of the nordic pantheon are mortal. Gods and men are fighting side by side against destructive forces. This is a radically “different” sort of religion, one without parallel.

 

[Lost_Wanderer]

Lost Wanderer: No. As you point out, we might have to have a discussion as to what contitutes evidence for a particular claim (for example: your inner feelings might indeed be evidence for claims about your inner state, but inner feelings cannot count as evidence for claims about the external world, no matter how hard religious believers might try to convince themselves otherwise). but the fact remains that all people must use evidence.

Is that all? I only listed half the things you have to consider, What about the means to obtain such evidence? Are they valid? See this is where I meant about different means really. Throw in the complexity of already evaluating such evidence then you got a long way to go before making any of your assertions.

Secondly, as much as I’m inclined to believe separating the internal and the external, there is still a clear relationship between the two. As a student of language, I know that relationship cannot be constant but that relationship still exists. Furthermore, it doesn’t mean neither is any more “real” than the other.

Trying to turn evidence-based inquiry into another form of faith (“Oh! You have to have faith in evidence, so you’re using faith too!”) makes the evaluating of claims into foolishness.

You haven’t even explained why it isn’t. You say it is about obtaining evidence yet you oversimplify the ramifications and are not even answering the question. Take historical evidence for instance. Do we have a record and detailed biography of every single soldier’s life in every war of man’s history? What about every doctor or the simple farmer? For all you know, there could be many nameless lonely individuals in the time span of our existence and in the millions who have gone before us yet the only evidence we have of their existence is the massive collection of the civilization they lived in and the bits and pieces that civilization left behind. Can you really kid yourself to believe that, for instance, that one person you have in mind existed in that mass? There’s as good a chance that he didn’t.

What about cases where a certain document shows up that challenges a current historical position of a certain event? Reversely, what about cases where a man had been caught and charged with destroying important documents that could have proven something crucial like confirming the existence of a certain operation, unit, or even a whole secret organization? As you can see, there is much a case against you (perhaps even more) having faith in our fallible means of procuring and interpreting evidence as you have against believers.

 

[PJM]

I suspect that it evolves around two common characteristics:

Do what is easy [rather than what is right]

Me first and everyone and everything else is second, third or ninty-sixth…

In this age of “instant gratification” anything that does not agree with my way–hit’s the Highway.

Because they offer an easier way; that even allows you to select what is right and wrong [not just for yourself but for everyone]; [but don’t judge me and I woun’t judge you either].

It’s marketing done “right???”

Besides there ain’t no god anyhow.

May God save us from ourselves!

Pat

 

[Edward_H]

The gods of the nordic pantheon are mortal. Gods and men are fighting side by side against destructive forces. This is a radically “different” sort of religion, one without parallel.

I am not sure your truncated description provides enough data for us to draw a conclusion. I realize that lack of data doesn’t stop you from making a conclusion, but some of us are wondering what you think you’ve proven.

 

[seeker57]

I suspect that it evolves around two common characteristics:

Do what is easy [rather than what is right]

Me first and everyone and everything else is second, third or ninty-sixth…

In this age of “instant gratification” anything that does not agree with my way–hit’s the Highway.

Because they offer an easier way; that even allows you to select what is right and wrong [not just for yourself but for everyone]; [but don’t judge me and I woun’t judge you either].

It’s marketing done “right???”

Besides there ain’t no god anyhow.

May God save us from ourselves!

Pat

I think you oversimplify neopaganism, “New Age,” or whatever religion or faith or spritualtiy you are describing.

Christianity is actually much easier than other traditions because Christians are told what to believe.

All you have to do is follow.

Seeker

 

[Lost_Wanderer]

Christianity is actually much easier than other traditions because Christians are told what to believe.

I can think of a few Christian philosophers who might wanna have a word with you.

 

[Edward_H]

I think you oversimplify neopaganism, “New Age,” or whatever religion or faith or spritualtiy you are describing.

Christianity is actually much easier than other traditions because Christians are told what to believe.

All you have to do is follow.

Seeker

Seeker, you misunderstand tragically what it really means for a Christian to live a Christian life.

I can net it out for you by simply adding a couple of words to your last sentence.

All you have to do is follow Christ up Calvary.

 

[GEddie]

I think you oversimplify neopaganism, “New Age,” or whatever religion or faith or spritualtiy you are describing.

Christianity is actually much easier than other traditions because Christians are told what to believe.

All you have to do is follow.

Seeker

Every religion tells it’s adherents what to believe.

The difference lies in how much thought- policing the religious establishment engages in.

You wouldn’t be a real Hindu if you rejected reincarnation; but who’s checking?

You can’t be a Catholic and reject the Trinity; but the Church doesn’t make “conscience checks.”

Methinks in Islam they are stricter about the rules of faith.

ICXC NIKA.