What's so bad about "woo-woo" beliefs?

[HerDotness]

Yes, I know all the stuff about New Agers and occultists believing in false gods and demons. So, please, no rants about "Yes, that's all you guys believe in, and someday you'll find out how sorry you're going to be for doing that."

What I'm asking is why so many people are dismissive of New Agers, witches, Pagans and the various other occult faiths-practices?

I suspect it's just ignorance, fear and a sizable amount of "Pastor says you're all demon worshippers going to hell."

But even in churches that claim they're openminded and tolerant of diversity of belief, I've encountered prejudice against me for being into "woo-woo" stuff...first New Age and now Thelema, the latter of which I typically don't explain at all but merely refer to it as an occult discipline.

I'd hoped after Shirley Maclaine's openness about her involvement in New Age spirituality got so much publicity...and so many bad jokes from the late show hosts and comedians...that maybe the climate would open up a bit more. But except for generally quite liberal areas of the U.S. that have always been openminded about peculiar beliefs, the rest of the country doesn't seem to have progressed much at all in the 30-some years I've been into the occult.

Why not, do you think?

 

[Bob Dixon]

I'm guessing that, besides the general ignorance, part of it comes from the idea that New Agers, Pagans, Witches, etc. are not genuinely in it for the religious belief aspect, but rather as a reaction to mainstream society. Like a fashion trend.

Or perhaps because New Age, etc. beliefs are associated with things like crystal healing and other such unscientific practices.

It's a variety of factors that come together.

 

[beerisit]

I'm no more dismissive of new agers than I am any other religious belief.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

One big difference occurs to me: in the case of most mainstream religions, people tend to follow the religion of their parents or culture, so that points to why they believe it: they were raised in it.

OTOH, occult and "new" religions don't have this. The majority of people in them are converts, which means, presumably, that the person has been convinced that the factual claims of the religion are true.

Maybe more people than we think look at religion through the lens of societal norms or "keeping Mom happy" rather than as a matter of genuine devout belief.

Something else occurs to me, too: New Age seems to me to be full of ideas that lend themselves very well to testing: astrology, psychic healing, "crystal power", etc. In general, I think that when these ideas have been tested, they've been found to be false, which I think reflects on New Agers themselves.

Also, though I think this might be a bit of an unfair generalization, I've seen some correlation between New Age and accepting bad ideas that are probably beyond New Age itself... things like homeopathy and the anti-vaccination and anti WiFi movements. I don't think this helps to create an impression that New Agers are clear, rational thinkers.

 

[Penumbra]

I don't view New Age or similar beliefs in any substantially different way than other religious beliefs. My mother is very into New Age religions, and I just kind of have very one-sided phone conversations with her as she describes her spiritual things and I just kind of go, "uh huh", "I see", "ok cool" to try to avoid hurting her feelings, and she keeps trying to convert me in a polite way.

As far as ethics go, I find many of these New Age type beliefs as less harmful than some of the more doctrine-focused religions. They seem like pretty nice people with pretty friendly beliefs. But as far as the accuracy of their claims I concerned, I don't give them much credit.

One big difference occurs to me: in the case of most mainstream religions, people tend to follow the religion of their parents or culture, so that points to why they believe it: they were raised in it.

OTOH, occult and "new" religions don't have this. The majority of people in them are converts, which means, presumably, that the person has been convinced that the factual claims of the religion are true.

Maybe more people than we think look at religion through the lens of societal norms or "keeping Mom happy" rather than as a matter of genuine devout belief.

Something else occurs to me, too: New Age seems to me to be full of ideas that lend themselves very well to testing: astrology, psychic healing, "crystal power", etc. In general, I think that when these ideas have been tested, they've been found to be false, which I think reflects on New Agers themselves.

Also, though I think this might be a bit of an unfair generalization, I've seen some correlation between New Age and accepting bad ideas that are probably beyond New Age itself... things like homeopathy and the anti-vaccination and anti WiFi movements. I don't think this helps to create an impression that New Agers are clear, rational thinkers.

^This is pretty much how I view it.

 

[Gjallarhorn]

Yes, I know all the stuff about New Agers and occultists believing in false gods and demons. So, please, no rants about "Yes, that's all you guys believe in, and someday you'll find out how sorry you're going to be for doing that."

What I'm asking is why so many people are dismissive of New Agers, witches, Pagans and the various other occult faiths-practices?

In my own experience, I dismiss them because there is no meat to it. They typically blather on about crystals, moon phases, "the Goddess", mana, etc but don't DO anything with it. I understand worship, I understand ritual, but there is no application aside from idle chatter.

As for New Agers, they tend to try to "pretty up" things by ignoring key ideas. Everything has to be shiny and pure. No room for those nasty things that lurk in the bowels of the un/conscious mind or in the outer reaches of space.

 

[A Troubled Man]

What I'm asking is why so many people are dismissive of New Agers, witches, Pagans and the various other occult faiths-practices?

Most likely because we are understanding that the universe itself is far more interesting, awe inspiring and wonderful than all the belief systems, religions, occults, pseudosciences and as you say, "woo-woo stuff" combined.

 

[Quintessence]

I object to classifying contemporary Paganism as "New Age" as there are some important distinctions between the movements with respect to their origins and points of focus. There is cross-pollination between the movements, but they are not the same. Therefore, I don't regard these as synonymous; being dismissive of "New Agers" is not the same as being dismissive of "Neopagans" (and neither of these is the same as being dismissive of the "occult" either). I think there needs to be a clearer distinction amongst various ideas for the purposes of discussion, because my criticisms of each of these three areas is not identical. Not sure where to begin.

 

[1137]

Well ignorance is a big part of it, sure. But you have to realize that the majority of "new agers" and supposed occultists really are nothing of the sort. They want to rebel, experience some sort of 'taboo' freedom, simply seem cool or scary to peers, etc etc etc. There are so many of these people out there giving the practices a bad name that we don't really have a chance at being taken seriously. I mean, on of the first sites a serious researcher may be drawn to is the Church of Satan website. Have you seen the picture they have when you go there? How could someone possibly take us seriously when these types of things are the first they will find?

 

[Quintessence]

I want proof that the "majority" of "New Agers" or "occultists" or "Neopagans" don't take their practice seriously or are doing it for the "wrong" reasons. This is often said, but never supported with evidence other than personal anecdotes. Not good enough, especially since the scholarly books I've read Neopaganism (such as this study on teen witches by Berger) suggest that precisely the opposite is true.

 

[1137]

I want proof that the "majority" of "New Agers" or "occultists" or "Neopagans" don't take their practice seriously or are doing it for the "wrong" reasons. This is often said, but never supported with evidence other than personal anecdotes. Not good enough, especially since the scholarly books I've read Neopaganism (such as this study on teen witches by Berger) suggest that precisely the opposite is true.

High school is probably father behind you than I. I was one of those people myself. Sure, if you consider things like LaVeyan Satanism and fluffy bunny Wicca to be legitimate, most people are serious. I think that occultism takes far more than wearing a pentagram, meditating a few minutes a day and doing some intense wishing. For me, occultism is about serious dedication and self evolution, it is an endless path of practice and growth, 24/7. But, this is all subjective to my beliefs. Considering that these paths are self initiation, anyone who gives you stats is lying. 86.66% of stats are made up after all

 

[Me Myself]

There are posers in many religions. When you were atracted as a teen, this is even easier because you may even completely ignore you are a poser. God! Teens don´t know what they want!

Teenage girls are even worst! And when they are in that day of the month, May God and it´s shiny crystals protect us! :cover:

 

[gnomon]

Yes, I know all the stuff about New Agers and occultists believing in false gods and demons. So, please, no rants about "Yes, that's all you guys believe in, and someday you'll find out how sorry you're going to be for doing that."

What I'm asking is why so many people are dismissive of New Agers, witches, Pagans and the various other occult faiths-practices?

I suspect it's just ignorance, fear and a sizable amount of "Pastor says you're all demon worshippers going to hell."

But even in churches that claim they're openminded and tolerant of diversity of belief, I've encountered prejudice against me for being into "woo-woo" stuff...first New Age and now Thelema, the latter of which I typically don't explain at all but merely refer to it as an occult discipline.

I'd hoped after Shirley Maclaine's openness about her involvement in New Age spirituality got so much publicity...and so many bad jokes from the late show hosts and comedians...that maybe the climate would open up a bit more. But except for generally quite liberal areas of the U.S. that have always been openminded about peculiar beliefs, the rest of the country doesn't seem to have progressed much at all in the 30-some years I've been into the occult.

Why not, do you think?

I don't know about new and "alternative" religions in general being labeled woo-woo. The number of people looking into Wicca, paganism, etc. seem to be growing to me and I don't know many in the skeptical community outright calling such beliefs woo-woo. Not that some don't. One day in an AA meeting one member couldn't help calling someone's version of a higher power as the "wind in the trees" as odd and whatever rocks their boat. Maybe there is a lot of people who do use that label for spiritual views different from their own.

What I do know of those beliefs skeptics often call woo-woo are those beliefs which actually have a practical effect, or bad effect, in many areas. Homeopathy, psychics taking money from people, new age healing, faith healing, chiropractic for serious illnesses, etc. These types of beliefs which can have serious detrimental health and economic outcomes are the ones I know of called woo.

I don't call them woo. I call them dangerous. And they can be found in any spiritual system and even some of them among non-theists or people who consider themselves irreligious. But the general explosion in alternative forms of spirituality in general in Western cultures I don't find dangerous or call woo.

Might be that much of the newer forms of spirituality are just that. Still new to most people in our culture.

 

[1137]

Most likely because we are understanding that the universe itself is far more interesting, awe inspiring and wonderful than all the belief systems, religions, occults, pseudosciences and as you say, "woo-woo stuff" combined.

That's interesting, considering that occult science and science do not contradict. Occult science has been making claims that physics and psychology have begun making. It really depends on subjective definitions as I said before.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Occult science has been making claims that physics and psychology have begun making.

Which claims?

 

[1137]

Which claims?

How about that there is a non-material underlying foundation of the universe (aka quantum physics). Or the power of the mind in magick. That all that we observe is subjective. What about medicine in general.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

How about that there is a non-material underlying foundation of the universe (aka quantum physics).

I question your suggestion that "occult science" originally claimed quantum physics.

Or the power of the mind in magick.

I can't quite make sense of this to translate it into an actual claim. AFAIK, science does not support the idea that magick exists.

That all that we observe is subjective.

Again, I can't quite make sense of this to translate it into an actual claim.

What about medicine in general.

What about it? "Medicine in general" existed long before any occult religion in existence today.

 

[1137]

I question your suggestion that "occult science" originally claimed quantum physics.

No, of course not. But the ideas of quantum physics do not contradict with the ideas of mysticism in religions such as Taoism. I really hate when people speak down about past beliefs. How could they possibly have been able to claim things such as string theory with their limited knowledge. It is so unbelievably stupid when people speak down because they did not know what we do now. Ridiculously absurd.

I can't quite make sense of this to translate it into an actual claim. AFAIK, science does not support the idea that magick exists.

Really? That is news to me. I was sure that we understood the power of placebo effects, symbolism, positive thinking, etc.

Again, I can't quite make sense of this to translate it into an actual claim.

Older religions, especially Eastern, say that what is external is unimportant as there is no objective truth in it. We know that this is a fact today, at least for the most part. The 5 senses interpret completely subjectively.

What about it? "Medicine in general" existed long before any occult religion in existence today.

Any occult religion in existence today? What does that have to do with anything at all? Occultism and especially mysticism have been around since before recorded human history. You can say that old medical practices were not occult as perhaps sciences were not frowned upon, I am not sure. Again, it depends on your subjective definition of what occultism is.

 

[1137]

Could you please provide your evidence supporting that the placebo effect is a hoax as well as that things such as cognitive behavioral therapy are BS?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

No, of course not. But the ideas of quantum physics do not contradict with the ideas of mysticism in religions such as Taoism.

They also don't contradict the recipes in The Joy of Cooking. I don't see your point.

I really hate when people speak down about past beliefs. How could they possibly have been able to claim things such as string theory with their limited knowledge. It is so unbelievably stupid when people speak down because they did not know what we do now. Ridiculously absurd.

Who said I was "speaking down" about them? I try to be realistic about the beliefs and knowledge of the past. I don't think that ancient peoples were idiots, but OTOH I tend to think that we have a better handle on things like science. For instance, I credit the Mayans for their engineering and their astronomy, but I don't think they had special insight on when the world would end.

Really? That is news to me. I was sure that we understood the power of placebo effects, symbolism, positive thinking, etc.

And you consider these things to be "magick"? Do you think that this was what people meant by the term in the past?

Older religions, especially Eastern, say that what is external is unimportant as there is no objective truth in it. We know that this is a fact today, at least for the most part. The 5 senses interpret completely subjectively.

I still think you're mixing up a few concepts here. I'm not sure how occultism made this claim, anyhow.

Any occult religion in existence today? What does that have to do with anything at all? Occultism and especially mysticism have been around since before recorded human history.

And what do any of the forms of occultism that don't exist any more have to do with the merits of what you practice?

You can say that old medical practices were not occult as perhaps sciences were not frowned upon, I am not sure. Again, it depends on your subjective definition of what occultism is.

Well, that's up to you to define. You made the initial claims about "occult science", so it's up to you to explain what you meant.