Christian blogger grumbles about fellow Christians believing in New-Agey stuff

[Politesse]

It's not a catch all. It has a definition, which is anything people believe because it sounds science-y but is not.

That is a correct definition of the term "pseudoscience". "Woo" exists only as a vague pejorative, and has no utility outside of proclaiming how proud the spekaer is of not being willing to think about other people's perspectives critically.

No, it means exactly that - pseudoscience, and that is how it's used. https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Woo

It probably does trigger offendedness in some people, but then again, so does "pseudoscience."

Are you seriously trying to make a case for "woo-woo" as a serious analytical term with no intent of pejoration? If so, I have no comment.

 

[abaddon]

Whenever the word "woo" comes up in conversation, I know the speaker's brain has turned off. Rational people do not have a pejorative catch-all term for everything they don't personally happen to believe in.

You could say the same about anyone thinking that different beliefs is just people holding different values.

How does it all devolve to "personally"? That sentiment doesn't stand up to scrutiny. Some ideas are false regardless that some people value them, we're not discussing people's favorite colors.

 

[Angry Floof]

No, it means exactly that - pseudoscience, and that is how it's used. https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Woo

It probably does trigger offendedness in some people, but then again, so does "pseudoscience."

Are you seriously trying to make a case for "woo-woo" as a serious analytical term with no intent of pejoration?

No. I'm saying that using it doesn't mean "the speaker's brain has turned off." Which goal posts do you want to actually address here?

 

[Politesse]

Whenever the word "woo" comes up in conversation, I know the speaker's brain has turned off. Rational people do not have a pejorative catch-all term for everything they don't personally happen to believe in.

You could say the same about anyone thinking that different beliefs is just people holding different values.

How does it all devolve to "personally"?

Because that's the only standard that is ever employed by people who use the term "woo". They are seldom practiced at examining their own absurd beliefs, it is always someone else's.

 

[Politesse]

No, it means exactly that - pseudoscience, and that is how it's used. https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Woo

It probably does trigger offendedness in some people, but then again, so does "pseudoscience."

Are you seriously trying to make a case for "woo-woo" as a serious analytical term with no intent of pejoration?

No. I'm saying that using it doesn't mean "the speaker's brain has turned off." Which goal posts do you want to actually address here?

Then it doesn't "trigger offendedness", as though by accident, doing so is its only purpose. And it isn't a synonym for pseudoscience, which has an actual, reasonably consistent meaning.

The Book of Matthew is "woo" in the above post, for instance, because T.G.G. Moogly personally dislikes the Book of Matthew. Not because the Book of Matthew falsely claims to be a scientific report (it obviously does not).

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

Whenever the word "woo" comes up in conversation, I know the speaker's brain has turned off.

How do you know that? Would I be wrong to claim that when people say "I believe in god" I know that their brains have "turned off?" People are different cognitively certainly, but a fabulous claim is still a fabulous claim whether uttered with sincerity or not.

Rational people do not have a pejorative catch-all term for everything they don't personally happen to believe in.

There's the word bullshit. But bullshit doesn't work because it implies that the speaker knows he is lying, telling tall tales, deflecting, generally being insincere. That's why woo works so well. Woo identifies that the fabulous claim is a fabulous claim regardless sincerity.

What do you think is happening cognitively when a person says "believe in" and not simply "believe?"

 

[Atheos]

Judging another's intellectual prowess and involvement in a conversation from little else besides their use of a particular word seems short sighted indeed. But I'll withhold judgment until I've seen such a person produce a more persuasive argument complete with a position and support for it.

Meanwhile I maintain that I've seen enough woo first hand to recognize it, no matter what form it takes. I've personally been involved in Pentecostal healings and foot-washings. I've been in rooms filled with people practicing glossolalia. I've played with Ouija boards. I've been to seances. I watched a few episodes of Crossing Over With John Edward. I've had close family members who believed in demon possession, wiccan spells, voodoo, ESP, copper socks, Shamwow and water divining. A lifetime of experience has taught me one inductive lesson: Be skeptical.

The only time skepticism is a bad thing is in the movies when the main character can't get anyone to believe there's really a vampire behind these people being attacked. In the real world skepticism works. It got us the scientific method, helping us toss out alchemy for peer-reviewed science. Without skepticism we'd be living in a world run by Shamans, trying to fight Covid 19 with blessings and amulets rather than a methodical march towards a vaccine. Without skepticism we would not be holding this conversation using sophisticated electronic equipment and technology.

Woo becomes science when it can pass critical peer review. Woo that only works if you believe it works is no different from placebos (which incidentally are also part of the scientific method).

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

No. I'm saying that using it doesn't mean "the speaker's brain has turned off." Which goal posts do you want to actually address here?

Then it doesn't "trigger offendedness", as though by accident, doing so is its only purpose. And it isn't a synonym for pseudoscience, which has an actual, reasonably consistent meaning.

The Book of Matthew is "woo" in the above post, for instance, because T.G.G. Moogly personally dislikes the Book of Matthew. Not because the Book of Matthew falsely claims to be a scientific report (it obviously does not).

Whether I dislike something or not has nothing to do with labelling it as woo. For instance I like the LOTR and Avatar movies, and they are certainly woo.

 

[Angry Floof]

No. I'm saying that using it doesn't mean "the speaker's brain has turned off." Which goal posts do you want to actually address here?

Then it doesn't "trigger offendedness", as though by accident, doing so is its only purpose. And it isn't a synonym for pseudoscience, which has an actual, reasonably consistent meaning.

The Book of Matthew is "woo" in the above post, for instance, because T.G.G. Moogly personally dislikes the Book of Matthew. Not because the Book of Matthew falsely claims to be a scientific report (it obviously does not).

No, just because it raises your religious hackles doesn't mean it's purely to offend with no other meaning or use. Yes, it's pejorative, but so is pseudoscience. It's more of a slang, but that still doesn't make it what you're insisting it is. Maybe talk to the people who actually use the word instead of defining it by your reaction to it.

 

[Politesse]

Judging another's intellectual prowess and involvement in a conversation from little else besides their use of a particular word seems short sighted indeed. But I'll withhold judgment until I've seen such a person produce a more persuasive argument complete with a position and support for it.

Meanwhile I maintain that I've seen enough woo first hand to recognize it, no matter what form it takes. I've personally been involved in Pentecostal healings and foot-washings. I've been in rooms filled with people practicing glossolalia. I've played with Ouija boards. I've been to seances. I watched a few episodes of Crossing Over With John Edward. I've had close family members who believed in demon possession, wiccan spells, voodoo, ESP, copper socks, Shamwow and water divining. A lifetime of experience has taught me one inductive lesson: Be skeptical.

The only time skepticism is a bad thing is in the movies when the main character can't get anyone to believe there's really a vampire behind these people being attacked. In the real world skepticism works. It got us the scientific method, helping us toss out alchemy for peer-reviewed science. Without skepticism we'd be living in a world run by Shamans, trying to fight Covid 19 with blessings and amulets rather than a methodical march towards a vaccine. Without skepticism we would not be holding this conversation using sophisticated electronic equipment and technology.

Woo becomes science when it can pass critical peer review. Woo that only works if you believe it works is no different from placebos (which incidentally are also part of the scientific method).

Who said anything about skepticism being bad? I think skepticism is the hope of humanity. Skepticism, though, requires rational consideration of new ideas without prejudice and assumption that may or may not lead one to a correct conclusion.

 

[Politesse]

No. I'm saying that using it doesn't mean "the speaker's brain has turned off." Which goal posts do you want to actually address here?

Then it doesn't "trigger offendedness", as though by accident, doing so is its only purpose. And it isn't a synonym for pseudoscience, which has an actual, reasonably consistent meaning.

The Book of Matthew is "woo" in the above post, for instance, because T.G.G. Moogly personally dislikes the Book of Matthew. Not because the Book of Matthew falsely claims to be a scientific report (it obviously does not).

No, just because it raises your religious hackles doesn't mean it's purely to offend with no other meaning or use. Yes, it's pejorative, but so is pseudoscience. It's more of a slang, but that still doesn't make it what you're insisting it is. Maybe talk to the people who actually use the word instead of defining it by your reaction to it.

Are we not?

 

[Angry Floof]

No, just because it raises your religious hackles doesn't mean it's purely to offend with no other meaning or use. Yes, it's pejorative, but so is pseudoscience. It's more of a slang, but that still doesn't make it what you're insisting it is. Maybe talk to the people who actually use the word instead of defining it by your reaction to it.

Are we not?

Ahem... No, I define it by its definition.

 

[abaddon]

Who said anything about skepticism being bad? I think skepticism is the hope of humanity. Skepticism, though, requires rational consideration of new ideas without prejudice and assumption that may or may not lead one to a correct conclusion.

These tu toque "you atheists" posts are always derails from the topic.

If I ask "what new or valuable idea was missed because someone said 'woo" here in THIS thread?", is the answer going to be "oh, well, I mean there's a problem with you atheists in general"?

If so, fuck that shit. Make the case if you can, but in its own thread. That, or make it relevant to this one. It's not relevant if you can't show that what was called woo is not woo.

 

[Politesse]

No, just because it raises your religious hackles doesn't mean it's purely to offend with no other meaning or use. Yes, it's pejorative, but so is pseudoscience. It's more of a slang, but that still doesn't make it what you're insisting it is. Maybe talk to the people who actually use the word instead of defining it by your reaction to it.

Are we not?

Ahem... No, I define it by its definition.

No, I mean, are we not talking?

 

[Politesse]

Who said anything about skepticism being bad? I think skepticism is the hope of humanity. Skepticism, though, requires rational consideration of new ideas without prejudice and assumption that may or may not lead one to a correct conclusion.

These tu toque "you atheists" posts are always derails from the topic.

If I ask "what new or valuable idea was missed because someone said 'woo" here in THIS thread?", is the answer going to be "oh, well, I mean there's a problem with you atheists in general"?

If so, fuck that shit. Make the case if you can, but in its own thread. That, or make it relevant to this one. It's not relevant if you can't show that what was called woo is not woo.

"You atheists"? I would define the folks who engage in this sort of antagonistic behavior as a very tiny subset of atheists as a whole. There are maybe three or four folks on this forum who do the "everything I don't like is woo so I don't have to think about it" style of nonsense? I could never imagine most of the atheist posters here saying something so foolish and self-congratulatory without a proviso or two. I do not, in general, consider atheists to be the kinds of people who let their emotions do all their thinking for them, no.

In any case, if I'd meant "atheists", I'd have said so, especially as we are talking terminology here.

I don't think my comment is irrelevant to the discussion, as "woo" was being used as an explanatory framework in the several posts above mine, and I did not feel that its use was really all that meaningful, considering. "New Age" was bad enough, I don't know how any of you think you're going to have a meaningful convsersation about a complex social phenomenon when the language you use to describe it is so vague and bias-heavy that it stops the conversation (and is clearly meant to stop the conversation). Unless you think T.G.G. Moogly meant to start a conversation about what "woo" is and how it is relevant to explaining New Age Christians, in which case how is my post in any sense off-topic? This sort of thing obfuscates reality, it does not illuminate it.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

Who said anything about skepticism being bad? I think skepticism is the hope of humanity. Skepticism, though, requires rational consideration of new ideas without prejudice and assumption that may or may not lead one to a correct conclusion.

These tu toque "you atheists" posts are always derails from the topic.

If I ask "what new or valuable idea was missed because someone said 'woo" here in THIS thread?", is the answer going to be "oh, well, I mean there's a problem with you atheists in general"?

If so, fuck that shit. Make the case if you can, but in its own thread. That, or make it relevant to this one. It's not relevant if you can't show that what was called woo is not woo.

"You atheists"? I would define the folks who engage in this sort of antagonistic behavior as a very tiny subset of atheists as a whole. There are maybe three or four folks on this forum who do the "everything I don't like is woo so I don't have to think about it" style of nonsense? I could never imagine most of the atheist posters here saying something so foolish and self-congratulatory without a proviso or two. I do not, in general, consider atheists to be the kinds of people who let their emotions do all their thinking for them, no.

In any case, if I'd meant "atheists", I'd have said so, especially as we are talking terminology here.

I don't think my comment is irrelevant to the discussion, as "woo" was being used as an explanatory framework in the several posts above mine, and I did not feel that its use was really all that meaningful, considering. "New Age" was bad enough, I don't know how any of you think you're going to have a meaningful convsersation about a complex social phenomenon when the language you use to describe it is so vague and bias-heavy that it stops the conversation (and is clearly meant to stop the conversation). Unless you think T.G.G. Moogly meant to start a conversation about what "woo" is and how it is relevant to explaining New Age Christians, in which case how is my post in any sense off-topic? This sort of thing obfuscates reality, it does not illuminate it.

Atheos introduced the word "woo" into the discussion in referring to Lion's seer stones. I then used it to describe books of the New Testament that are obviously filled with just as fabulous claims, referring to them as woo also. I use the word quite often in conversation because it's a word seldom used to describe crackpot ideas and fabulous claims. It says a lot quick.

I certainly don't use it to stop discussion. I'm skeptical of fabulous claims and like to dissect them rationally, scientifically. I'll stop referring to any fabulous claim as woo if it can be properly evidenced, even properly argued sometimes. I want my claims to be tested. I certainly learn from my mistakes.

That first table linked in the OP clearly has atheists outside the statistical control limits. Atheists don't believe in astrology, psychic energy, spiritual energy, reincarnation, astrology, and probably bigfoot too. Some obviously do but the numbers are statistically indicative. All those things are woo until evidence shows that they are not woo. That would be me.

 

[Angry Floof]

Ahem... No, I define it by its definition.

No, I mean, are we not talking?

Oh, you mean asking the question? No, I haven't seen you ask the question to any of us. But that's ok because several of us have given the answer anyway without needing to be asked based on your statement about what you think the word means, which reflects your reaction to it rather than an idea of what it really means or how people actually use it.

So are you still defending your original statement that it's just a "pejorative catch-all term for everything they don't personally happen to believe in" and if used, the "speaker's brain has turned off"?

 

[ruby sparks]

Personally, I would say it is more likely a sign that the speaker's brain has turned on.

But yes, it is a pejorative slang term.

For me it means 'supernatural superstition'. So yes, it applies to Christianity as much as what is called New Age stuff.

As to those who have the beliefs, they are imo generally very nice people, possibly above-averagely so. Only when I'm in an unkind mood would I refer to them as woo-heads, even though it is true.

 

[Politesse]

Ahem... No, I define it by its definition.

No, I mean, are we not talking?

Oh, you mean asking the question? No, I haven't seen you ask the question to any of us. But that's ok because several of us have given the answer anyway without needing to be asked based on your statement about what you think the word means, which reflects your reaction to it rather than an idea of what it really means or how people actually use it.

So are you still defending your original statement that it's just a "pejorative catch-all term for everything they don't personally happen to believe in" and if used, the "speaker's brain has turned off"?

Perhaps I am not correct in that, though I remain exasperated at the use of such a useless and divisive term in what might otherwise be a serious conversation, however it is defined by those who inexplicably see value in it.

 

[Angry Floof]

Oh, you mean asking the question? No, I haven't seen you ask the question to any of us. But that's ok because several of us have given the answer anyway without needing to be asked based on your statement about what you think the word means, which reflects your reaction to it rather than an idea of what it really means or how people actually use it.

So are you still defending your original statement that it's just a "pejorative catch-all term for everything they don't personally happen to believe in" and if used, the "speaker's brain has turned off"?

Perhaps I am not correct in that, though I remain exasperated at the use of such a useless and divisive term in what might otherwise be a serious conversation, however it is defined by those who inexplicably see value in it.

Kind of like making demonizing claims about how atheists are just selfish and worship themselves if they don't believe what you believe. That's definitely useless and divisive and definitely worthy of calling out as such. But this bullshit you're putting forth in this thread about the term "woo" is nothing more than reactionary pearl clutching. It's just not an issue, but I'm sure you'll keep pretending it is and pretending other people find it so very "valuable" in spite of it just being another word that people sometimes use. But kudos on admitting that you were wrong about the definition.