atheism vs. new age

Some conservative pundit was fulminating about atheistic new age libruls -- I don't recollect who.

I have known atheists pretty well. Haven't been one myself since the '80's, but have written here about my late Dad. There's another atheist, still living, with whom I often dine. She is a very dear friend, and we agree about many things although not about theology. There are few things she is more negative on than the New Age movement. She is somewhat afraid of Christians (I used to think she was wrong about that, but my opinions on the matter have shifted). But the New Age, as she sees it, goes much beyond Christianity in rejecting the materialism she sees as the only reasonable world-veiw. Christians, in her view, are usually materialistic in practice, although not in theory; she sees this as a good thing, a concession to reality. But she sees new agers as just batty.

Since I lean a bit in a new-agy direction (though I'm too much a rationalist to lean far in that direction) she doesn't use these candid terms to express herself to me. So I might be exaggerating a little -- but I don't think so.

Well -- a good bottle of wine goes a very long way to making differences of opinion not matter.

New Age is basically an undoctrinaire form of mysticism, or a broad umbrella that encompasses accepts and tolerates any number of doctrines.

I don't think New Age reject materialism... rather it allows that there is "more to the story" of reality. For example, if this or that person can speak with the dead or has psychic powers, then that implies a larger immaterial reality of which we are not aware. Atheism denies that any such invisible reality can exist, whereas New Agers allow for and explore the possibility. I can see where there is conflict, but I would think that she would admire the open-mindedness and tolerance of the new agers a lot more than doctrinaire Christianity.

BurtWorm's response puts yours in perspective. The lady of whom I speak feels that New Agers are too tolerant of things one should not be tolerant of, such as deliberate falsification of history and muddying the fact of evolution with ideas closely related to "intelligent design." Unlike Sam Harris and me, she does not regard mysticism as a rational enterprise.

On the other side, well, since I reject materialism, I don't give the New Agers much credit for not doing so -- I think they are too tolerant of the logical contradictions that arise from this failure. My dinner companion and I do discuss my idealism sometimes. She is coming around a bit, I think, so far as my idealistic conception of science is concerned, but not to the point of appreciating my Emersonianism and interest in Sufi thought -- those she tolerates.

I'm glad she does, and I admire her integrity -- as well as certain other things about her. Taste in wine, for one.

Atheism is free thought. New Age, as divorced from Christian convention as it is, is not truly free thought. I have as much respect (i.e., not much) for New Age-ism as I do for Christianity, generally. I find them of a piece.

I have to wonder whether that particular dumbass even knows what either of them mean.

Feng Shui sessions at several hundred dollars a pop. Cheap common crystals supercharged with Quantum Energy Vibrations, ditto. Chartered trips with other woo-woos to "energy centers" like Macchu Pichu, Stonehenge and the Giza Pyramids, several thousand dollars. Expensive Magic Rocks to improve the sound of your stereo equipment...

Etc.

Rationality? Priceless!

My own failing, when I first read "materialism" I was thinking monetary, greed etc. However, your intent was correct, materialism in the sense of scientism or naturalism, no supernatural realm.

Having cleared my own brain flatulence, I agree with your friend. The only reasonable world view is a materialistic one, denying the supernatural realm because of a lack of evidence.

Christians are materialistic in practice, but not theory, a concession to reality? I don't know if I accept this statement. Gawd hurling hurricanes at the sinners, rattling the muslims with earthquakes, inventing AIDS to kill the sodomites, not to mention the images of Mary along the freeway or on the grilled cheese. Not much of a concession to reality.

New agers go in for pseudo-science, look for mystical reality, irrational interpretations of history, a mega buck new age of capitalism. But do new agers seek to initiate the unbeliever? Don't see many headlines demanding crystal power talks in science class, no opposition to abortion because of vortex energy perturbations.

I agree with your friend, christianity and new ageism are both irrational practices, but christianity holds the distinction of causing the greatest harm in this world.

but not necessarily materialists. As a mathematical Platonist, I don't agree that materialism is the only reasonable world-view, but I do perceive the consistency of materialism with our experience of science. So we (she and I, you and I) can discuss materialism reasonably.

What the Xians and the New Agers seem to have in common (and some Atheists I know too) is the idea that one can believe whatever makes one feel good. And that's an immoral attitude. One ought to use one's mind, to the best of one's ability, to figure out what's true and what makes sense.

I'm part of a New-Thought belief-system/religion (Church of Religious Science).

Religious Science, Divine Science, and Unity churches are new-thought systems. "As you have a new thought, you have a new experience.' In other words, one co-creates one's world with Spirit (God). One is responsible for that environment/world, via one's higher consciousness so-to-speak. We are referred to as 'mystical' religions.

We do not perceive god or gods or goddess external and separate to us, as deities.

I'm not exactly sure what new-agers believe, but we are not new-agers. Southern Baptists have referred to me as a new-ager, and that is just incorrect.

Unity for a while, too. Well, I have heard Religious Science folks take credit for having invented the "New Age" conception -- and deploring how it has deteriorated! --

The inspirational aspects did work for me. (And these churches were really "diverse" -- people of all kinds and colors). But there did seem to be a mind-over-matter conception there that turned me away, though. Not as doctrinaire as Christian Science, but in that mind-space.

Seems to me some things are REAL. My cancer, for one. Some things that are REAL are not material, and nothing material lasts forever. (Idealism). But I don't propose to try relying on prayer or mystical "treatments" rather than surgery to get rid of my cancer.

And my pastor wouldn't say any different. She would regard it as a health challenge. The medical community, your friends and family would support you in overcoming that challenge. And none of us would argue that you should rely on any one thing.

I guess I regard it as making the most out of the mind's capabilities, in conjunction with traditional medical therapies and surgeries. I don't believe in any guarantees. But affirmative prayer and meditation help (that's all).

I'm sending positive thoughts your way! Success in taking care of your health challenge!

Take care and peace,

But thanks for the positive thoughts. And no question the mind can do a great deal, especially for health.

I'm sure it varies from congregation to congregation. Didn't one of the founders say "The surgeon's hands are also the hands of God?" I seem to remember that.

We had some cousins who were in Christian Science -- not doctrinaire, but pretty skeptical about conventional medicine. When I quoted that saying to my Aunt, who was NOT CS, she really liked it.

I'll look it up, but it sure sounds like it.

I'll remember that one - it is great.

We believe, "It's all God."

Well, I'm really greatful that your prognosis is good; we'll focus on a smooth and complete eradication (of the cancer, that is) and subsequent healing.

Take care!

Maat

Any orthodox belief system has been tested by the ages. They have true gravity to them. New ideas and anything that strikes out on it's own is going to strike many as simply a fad. And it truth they may very well fade away.

The trouble with social groups is they don't always flow the way you think they will. It's very difficult to orchestrate something popular. Not if you wish to refrain from using tricks.

This is what the megachurch evangelicals are doing. They have turned to marketting and spectaculars to bring their numbers in.

A conscious path set by a group simply may not catch on enough to create a critical mass. Without that critical mass the movement will fade as soon as the core members leave or turn their attention to something else.

When you talked about megachurches, I thought of "Joel Osteen." He has this HUGE church in Houston. Every time I see it, I think, "Why would I want to go there? I wouldn't even be able to talk to the pastor. If I'm going to have to watch the spiritual leader of the church on a big screen, why don't I just buy the DVD and stay home?"

Eh ... our little church is growing by leaps and bounds, along with other area progressive churches such as the Unitarian-Universalist one.

that "traditional" religions are really all that old. They reinvent themselves as the world changes; indeed they must. "Fundamentalism" could not have existed before Darwin and really is a twentieth century phenomenon. Some fundamentalists regard the contemporary megachurch praise services and music as heretical; anyway they are an innovation. The "infallibility" of the Pope goes back to -- about the 1840's, I believe, and was pronounced by none other than -- the Pope. That would be funny if it were not Catholicism.

I don't really mean this in a negative way, please believe me. Human beings are creative and resourceful and are constantly reinventing their social reality, and THAT IS GOOD, indeed it is necessary. The problem is with people who are willing to believe what makes them confortable rather than choosing their beliefs on the basis of evidence and reason and then letting their flawed beliefs guide their creativity, inventiveness and resourcefulness. And that their flawed beliefs make it hard for them to come to terms with their own inventiveness, which is among their best characteristics.

Thats the thing. Older religions constantly change and adapt to fit society. But they do so gradually and while trying to maintain their own identity. There is a basis of tradition which is really just resistance to adaption that runs through the churchs. It is this that provides the gravitas and sense of continuity to the church.

Even though it is an adaptive system it will feel familiar to those within it. The church provides the environment which leads to the perception of society to those raised within it.

Keep in mind further that most people are not actively contemplating life, the universe, and everything. Most people simply want to get on with living. And adhering to a particular belief set is often a matter of convenience. If these are the rules they have learned to abide by they will simply move along within that structure. Finding their own level of comfort within.

Az:
"Keep in mind further that most people are not actively contemplating life, the universe, and everything. Most people simply want to get on with living. And adhering to a particular belief set is often a matter of convenience. If these are the rules they have learned to abide by they will simply move along within that structure. Finding their own level of comfort within."

Most human beings are not up to the self-examination process that is a necessary part of the spiritual process; that aspect of looking within and being honest with oneself. I'm speaking both of churched and unchurched people. Most are not willing to do the work, some of which is quite difficult and frightening.

Churches fulfill social functions and community functions as well as spiritual functions.

The 1960s really saw a time when many turned to new untried religious faiths and ideas in a need to ground themselves in a greater meaning for their lives. Some went strictly for established non-Christian faiths from other parts of the world, be it Zen Buddhism, or Islam, or Hare Krishna. Others developed faiths and churches that took what seemed to be important ideas from many different religions, and were less concerned with orthodoxy than in a concept that seemed to bring meaning to lives. These merged a number of ideas from meditative traditions and psychological ideas that resonated for them that could not be found in the traditional mainline Christian churches.

The traditional churches, for many, didn't reach or fulfill the needs of a large number of people. The numbers are still shrinking. Some of those are influenced as well, however, by ideas that come from outside traditional Christian practice.

The megachurch phenomena is something completely different. Each is really based around a charismatic preacher of some kind, and most will not have an extended life beyond the life of that preacher, as the institutional structure is not there. It is the whole "nondenominational" movement, however, that is interesting because details of dogma interest worshipers less and less all the time.

just as some fanatic religious folks and some atheists are. Not all new age thinkers fit that definition. I do think that most atheists don't try to cause those of faith to give it up and I don't think most new-agers try to force anything on anyone else either.

Everything changes and people do have a hard time with the changes that come as humanity grows more conscious. Ask any parent of a teenager how easy it is for them to accept things their kids do now that they never thought of. I bet many would think their own kids are batty but in a few years it will be old hat. Same will happen with the now negative "new age" batty definition.