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

[lpetrich]

I found this most entertaining: Most “Nones” (& Lots of Christians) Believe in New Age Religion | Gene Veith

How do you account for the popularity of these New Age beliefs among both non-Christians and Christians? It isn’t because of some greater rationality and the march of scientific progress. Christianity is surely more rational and scientific than worldviews that are open to astrology and reincarnation. But that so many non-believers are open to such mystical beliefs is a good sign, suggesting that their supernaturalism might be directed to the true supernaturalism that also embraces what is natural.

He linked to ‘New Age’ beliefs common among religious, nonreligious Americans | Pew Research Center and I found Categorizing Americans' Religious Typology Groups | Pew Research Center

New Age is something rather woozy and difficult to define, but the second link defined New-Age beliefs as:

• Spiritual energy can reside in physical objects like mountains and trees
• Psychics have real powers
• Reincarnation
• Astrology

From the first link, by belief:

• Numbers: % who believe: spiritual energy in physical objects, psychics, reincarnation, astrology, at least one
• All U.S. adults 42 41 33 29 62
• Christian 37 40 29 26 61
• - Protestant 32 38 26 24 57
• - - Evangelical 24 33 19 18 47
• - - Mainline 43 44 33 30 67
• - - Historically black 41 43 38 34 73
• - Catholic 47 46 36 33 70
• Unaffiliated 47 40 38 32 62
• - Atheist 13 10 7 3 22
• - Agnostic 40 31 28 18 56
• - Nothing in particular 61 52 51 47 78

The most skeptical of the Xians were evangelicals, but they are very firm in their belief in the falsehood of every religion but theirs. Among the unaffiliated, agnostics were as skeptical as non-evangelical Xians, and the nothings even less skeptical. The champion skeptics: atheists.

When I read it, I found it curious that Cranach blogger Gene Veith made only a brief note at it, without considering its broader implications. Like atheists being more successfully skeptical than his fellow Xians.

The second link had a different typology of believers and nonbelievers:

• Full sample 42 41 33 29
• Highly religious
• - Sunday Stalwarts 29 32 19 16
• - God and Country Believers 0 28 21 16
• - Diversely Devout 96 68 63 57
• Somewhat religious
• - Relaxed Religious 0 28 22 16
• - Spiritually Awake 99 72 61 63
• Nonreligious
• - Religion Resisters 98 62 49 44
• - Solidly Secular 1 11 12 5

Part of this typology seems to be level of credulity toward New Age stuff.

 

[Atheos]

I find this hilarious:

Christianity is surely more rational and scientific than worldviews that are open to astrology and reincarnation.

Translation: "I believe Christianity and I don't believe in Astrology or Reincarnation so surely Christianity is more rational and scientific than those other things."

Christianity by definition includes a foundation of astrology. The wise men found baby Jeezus by looking for signs in the stars. Why resurrection is more rational and scientific than reincarnation is lost on me as well. Both rely on the unsubstantiated belief that there is an immortal soul that can be placed into a new body. The principle of karma exists in both belief systems. There is really very little difference between the two beliefs.

 

[Angry Floof]

I find this hilarious:

Christianity is surely more rational and scientific than worldviews that are open to astrology and reincarnation.

Translation: "I believe Christianity and I don't believe in Astrology or Reincarnation so surely Christianity is more rational and scientific than those other things."

Christianity by definition includes a foundation of astrology. The wise men found baby Jeezus by looking for signs in the stars. Why resurrection is more rational and scientific than reincarnation is lost on me as well. Both rely on the unsubstantiated belief that there is an immortal soul that can be placed into a new body. The principle of karma exists in both belief systems. There is really very little difference between the two beliefs.

I was about to copy and paste that same sentence for the same reason. SURELY our stupidstition is more rational that all those other stupidstitions that other people are indoctrinated with.

 

[lpetrich]

To clarify what I posted earlier, I found it odd that blogger Gene Veith didn't probe this issue any more than to say that atheists tend to be "consistent materialists". Could it be that he was afraid of what he might find? That his pet beliefs are no more justifiable than a lot of New-Age ones?

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

To clarify what I posted earlier, I found it odd that blogger Gene Veith didn't probe this issue any more than to say that atheists tend to be "consistent materialists". Could it be that he was afraid of what he might find? That his pet beliefs are no more justifiable than a lot of New-Age ones?

I'm going with Floof and Atheos. The guy is obviously clueless as to the irrationality of his own beliefs. Reports of Jesus and reports of Bigfoot are the same phenomenon. There's even a book out The Historical Bigfoot. I haven't read it but the title is obviously a misuse of language.

What is the difference between ghost sightings, bigfoot sightings and jesus sightings? The answer is that one is a religion.

 

[abaddon]

Veith asks: "How do you account for the popularity of these New Age beliefs among both non-Christians and Christians?"

Then later wonders: "... Christian beliefs that come close to these [New Age] beliefs or that fulfill the yearning for them might be points of contact for reaching these folks. For example, the desire for “spiritual energy in physical things” might mean that Christians should emphasize the sacraments. The attractiveness of astrology might mean that Christians should emphasize God’s providence; that is, His rule over all things, including the future. The belief in psychics might lead to an interest in how the Holy Spirit speaks through human beings in the prophetic words of Scripture. The belief in reincarnation is a yearning for eternal life."

I am guessing the appeal of New Age beliefs is that they allow people to feel more individualistic and more directly in-control of their lives. They get to be their own priests in their own personalized religion. "Spiritual energy in physical things" gives more direct access to communicating with those physical things than sacraments (with the intervention there of Boss-God's "official" representatives). Irt astrology... why trust in "providence" when you can [imagine to] see for yourself how things are going and make more direct personal decisions based on that? And with psychics... that must feel far more immediate than reading ancient prophecies. Reincarnation is a repeat of life HERE, not in a far-away dreamland.

So I think he's missing the point of neo-animism/new agism. It's earthly, it's immediate, it puts the believer in more direct control of his/her life than trusting the old intermediary institutions. I don't think Christians can "reach these folks" by offering stuff he thinks "comes close" that don't actually come close.

 

[Keith&Co.]

The thing that struck me most about New Age is the lack of institutions. Very Lumpenproletariat: pick the parts that work for you, jettison what doesn't.

And that means you don't need or want an authority figure telling you what or how to believe. Which is going to be a hard stop on any attempt to seduce them into the fold.
Kinda funny that the Protestant movement, rejecting the Authority of Rome, is surprised that people went a step further into gnostic anarchy.

 

[southernhybrid]

My next door neighbor and one of my sisters left evangelical Christianity and then adopted some of those new age beliefs. I suppose some people simply can't face the reality that we only have this one life and there is nothing supernatural. My neighbor believes in psychics, astrology, that inanimate objects can have bad or good energy, etc. She's somewhat agnostic about whether any gods exist. I've just told her that as long as she doesn't use her beliefs to harm anyone or if she doesn't trusts in her beliefs more than she trusts in science, it's not a problem. It just makes her feel better.

The problem with evangelicals is that they are able to literally believe in the nonsensical myths in the Bible, but anything outside of their little belief system is crazy to them. I remember as a child being told that Catholics are wrong because they believed in Saints and they prayed to the Virgin Mary. Amazing how they don't see the irony. Our crazy beliefs are true, but their crazy beliefs are false

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

Veith asks: "How do you account for the popularity of these New Age beliefs among both non-Christians and Christians?"

Then later wonders: "... Christian beliefs that come close to these [New Age] beliefs or that fulfill the yearning for them might be points of contact for reaching these folks. For example, the desire for “spiritual energy in physical things” might mean that Christians should emphasize the sacraments. The attractiveness of astrology might mean that Christians should emphasize God’s providence; that is, His rule over all things, including the future. The belief in psychics might lead to an interest in how the Holy Spirit speaks through human beings in the prophetic words of Scripture. The belief in reincarnation is a yearning for eternal life."

I am guessing the appeal of New Age beliefs is that they allow people to feel more individualistic and more directly in-control of their lives. They get to be their own priests in their own personalized religion. "Spiritual energy in physical things" gives more direct access to communicating with those physical things than sacraments (with the intervention there of Boss-God's "official" representatives). Irt astrology... why trust in "providence" when you can [imagine to] see for yourself how things are going and make more direct personal decisions based on that? And with psychics... that must feel far more immediate than reading ancient prophecies. Reincarnation is a repeat of life HERE, not in a far-away dreamland.

So I think he's missing the point of neo-animism/new agism. It's earthly, it's immediate, it puts the believer in more direct control of his/her life than trusting the old intermediary institutions. I don't think Christians can "reach these folks" by offering stuff he thinks "comes close" that don't actually come close.

I often bring up the subject of religious genealogy. If people only knew the myriad of different beliefs their family ancestors practiced it might spark some critical thinking on the issue. It probably would for some, but the hardcore head cases wouldn't be affected.

 

[Atheos]

Veith asks: "How do you account for the popularity of these New Age beliefs among both non-Christians and Christians?"

Then later wonders: "... Christian beliefs that come close to these [New Age] beliefs or that fulfill the yearning for them might be points of contact for reaching these folks. For example, the desire for “spiritual energy in physical things” might mean that Christians should emphasize the sacraments. The attractiveness of astrology might mean that Christians should emphasize God’s providence; that is, His rule over all things, including the future. The belief in psychics might lead to an interest in how the Holy Spirit speaks through human beings in the prophetic words of Scripture. The belief in reincarnation is a yearning for eternal life."

I am guessing the appeal of New Age beliefs is that they allow people to feel more individualistic and more directly in-control of their lives. They get to be their own priests in their own personalized religion. "Spiritual energy in physical things" gives more direct access to communicating with those physical things than sacraments (with the intervention there of Boss-God's "official" representatives). Irt astrology... why trust in "providence" when you can [imagine to] see for yourself how things are going and make more direct personal decisions based on that? And with psychics... that must feel far more immediate than reading ancient prophecies. Reincarnation is a repeat of life HERE, not in a far-away dreamland.

So I think he's missing the point of neo-animism/new agism. It's earthly, it's immediate, it puts the believer in more direct control of his/her life than trusting the old intermediary institutions. I don't think Christians can "reach these folks" by offering stuff he thinks "comes close" that don't actually come close.

I often bring up the subject of religious genealogy. If people only knew the myriad of different beliefs their family ancestors practiced it might spark some critical thinking on the issue. It probably would for some, but the hardcore head cases wouldn't be affected.

This is a really valid point. When I was in college studying textual criticism it became obvious that the Byzantine texts on which the Textus Receptus (and ultimately the King James Version was based) contained a vast number of alterations (both intentional and unintentional) when compared to earlier manuscripts. I was having a discussion with an older preacher who favored the KJV, suggesting that some of the more modern translations that were done from closer-to-original texts should be more accurate. His argument was that God wanted those changes to get made, which is why so many of the earlier texts were lost. God preferred the KJV.

I gave up on the debate because it wasn't worth the effort. But I couldn't help thinking that if an all powerful god wanted those texts hidden and preferred the KJV over them he did a piss-poor job of hiding them. You know, considering how easily mere mortals found them.

Sorry about the longish ramble. It just amazes me the lengths of illogical rationalization people will not only accept but actively strive for in order to justify their beliefs.

 

[Lion IRC]

Now, of course, as in all such studies, we need to attend to issues of definition...

Ya think?

"Where is the one who has been born king of the Jews? We saw his star when it rose and have come to worship him.”

"And Aaron cast down his rod before Pharaoh and before his servants, and it became a serpent. But Pharaoh also called the wise men and the sorcerers; so the magicians of Egypt, they also did in like manner with their enchantments"

"Then Saul said to his servants, “Find me a woman who is a medium so I may go and ask her what will happen." His servants answered, “There is a medium in Endor.”

"The demons begged Jesus, “If you drive us out, send us into the herd of pigs.” He said to them, “Go!” So they came out and went into the pigs..."

 

[Harry Bosch]

I found this most entertaining: Most “Nones” (& Lots of Christians) Believe in New Age Religion | Gene Veith

How do you account for the popularity of these New Age beliefs among both non-Christians and Christians? It isn’t because of some greater rationality and the march of scientific progress. Christianity is surely more rational and scientific than worldviews that are open to astrology and reincarnation. But that so many non-believers are open to such mystical beliefs is a good sign, suggesting that their supernaturalism might be directed to the true supernaturalism that also embraces what is natural.

He linked to ‘New Age’ beliefs common among religious, nonreligious Americans | Pew Research Center and I found Categorizing Americans' Religious Typology Groups | Pew Research Center

New Age is something rather woozy and difficult to define, but the second link defined New-Age beliefs as:

• Spiritual energy can reside in physical objects like mountains and trees
• Psychics have real powers
• Reincarnation
• Astrology

From the first link, by belief:

• Numbers: % who believe: spiritual energy in physical objects, psychics, reincarnation, astrology, at least one
• All U.S. adults 42 41 33 29 62
• Christian 37 40 29 26 61
• - Protestant 32 38 26 24 57
• - - Evangelical 24 33 19 18 47
• - - Mainline 43 44 33 30 67
• - - Historically black 41 43 38 34 73
• - Catholic 47 46 36 33 70
• Unaffiliated 47 40 38 32 62
• - Atheist 13 10 7 3 22
• - Agnostic 40 31 28 18 56
• - Nothing in particular 61 52 51 47 78

The most skeptical of the Xians were evangelicals, but they are very firm in their belief in the falsehood of every religion but theirs. Among the unaffiliated, agnostics were as skeptical as non-evangelical Xians, and the nothings even less skeptical. The champion skeptics: atheists.

When I read it, I found it curious that Cranach blogger Gene Veith made only a brief note at it, without considering its broader implications. Like atheists being more successfully skeptical than his fellow Xians.

The second link had a different typology of believers and nonbelievers:

• Full sample 42 41 33 29
• Highly religious
• - Sunday Stalwarts 29 32 19 16
• - God and Country Believers 0 28 21 16
• - Diversely Devout 96 68 63 57
• Somewhat religious
• - Relaxed Religious 0 28 22 16
• - Spiritually Awake 99 72 61 63
• Nonreligious
• - Religion Resisters 98 62 49 44
• - Solidly Secular 1 11 12 5

Part of this typology seems to be level of credulity toward New Age stuff.

I always think that it's funny when someone who believes in magic mocks someone else who also believes in magic.

 

[Harry Bosch]

Now, of course, as in all such studies, we need to attend to issues of definition...

Ya think?

"Where is the one who has been born king of the Jews? We saw his star when it rose and have come to worship him.”

"And Aaron cast down his rod before Pharaoh and before his servants, and it became a serpent. But Pharaoh also called the wise men and the sorcerers; so the magicians of Egypt, they also did in like manner with their enchantments"

"Then Saul said to his servants, “Find me a woman who is a medium so I may go and ask her what will happen." His servants answered, “There is a medium in Endor.”

"The demons begged Jesus, “If you drive us out, send us into the herd of pigs.” He said to them, “Go!” So they came out and went into the pigs..."

View attachment 29959

What does the above mean?

 

[Politesse]

New Age is also being defined... very loosely here. I mean, it's a loose movement, but it doesn't just mean whatever one fiinds woo-ish, it flourished at a particular moment, place, and time like any other new religious movement. I would not consider a Christian to be New Age simply because they read their horoscope and keep a few crystals around. If they have come to see Jesus as an Ascended Master among others come to save us from the great vibrational shift then yes, that would be legit syncretism (and not a problem in my books, but people will insist on their biases). And I have met such Christians, they aren't hard to find on certain parts of California that's for sure.



The idea that reincarnation is an inherently New Age tradition is especially insulting to... well, most of non-Communist Asia? Astrology has a more scattered but similarly ancient patrimony.

 

[Atheos]

Urim and Thummim - just more woo. Joseph Smith used two magical stones he called the Urim and Thummim to translate the book of Mormon out of Reformed Egyptian. Latter day woo. Same effect as that good old fashioned woo used by the ancients. Millions of people fooled into believing absurd religious teachings. Worked then, still works today.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

Urim and Thummim - just more woo. Joseph Smith used two magical stones he called the Urim and Thummim to translate the book of Mormon out of Reformed Egyptian. Latter day woo. Same effect as that good old fashioned woo used by the ancients. Millions of people fooled into believing absurd religious teachings. Worked then, still works today.

The Book of Latter Day Woo. The Woo according to Mark. The Woo according to John. The Woo according to Matthew. The Woo according to Luke. The Acts of Woo. Lots and lots and lots of woo. The list is endless.

 

[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.

 

[Angry Floof]

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.

It's not a catch all. It has a definition, which is anything people believe because it sounds science-y but is not. That's a bit more specific than a catch all. Anyway, even if someone uses it as a catch all it doesn't mean they're just talking about "everything they don't personally believe in," but rather things that are either unfalsifiable claims or stuff that's easily debunked by the scientifically literate.

 

[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.

 

[Angry Floof]

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."