Problems with the "all religions are One!" New Age spirituality approach (2 of 6)

[TheWayshowerTube]

New Age is tolerant nice hahaha.

[ToddAllenGates]

@TheWayshowerTube

> New Age is tolerant nice

True--it may be philosophically incoherent, but at least it's tolerant and nice!

[TheWayshowerTube]

@ToddAllenGates New Age Occult is Satanic. Because incoherence is chaos and satanic symbology is chaotic. But some things are actually beneficial, we just need to filter out with scientific methods what is actually beneficial and wotnot. Sometimes people must exchange older beliefs with new beliefs to grow in understanding.

[winstono75]

There are various degrees of depth to New Age thinking, and you probably are dealing with the most naive kind.

[winstono75]

So when Jesus said "I and the father are one", it makes sense, but Christianity has turned it into worshiping of Jesus as the only son of god.

[winstono75]

New age spirituality is personalized spirituality. There are no authorities. That ought to be a step in the right direction from a rational perspective.

[ToddAllenGates]

@winstono75

> That ought to be a step in the right direction from a rational perspective.

I agree that New Age spirituality has many advantages over fundamentalism--people with "flexible" spiritual beliefs are very unlikely to declare Holy Wars in the name of "The Truth from Their Version of God." It's just that when one tries to defend the "all religions are One" idea, well, I feel it's hard to do that "rationally."

[winstono75]

@ToddAllenGates All religions are based on the same spiritual experiences. Spirituality is universal. You can study spiritual experiences scientifically. I would suggest reading Stanislav Grof.

[ToddAllenGates]

@winstono75

1 of 3:

Religion & spirituality are huge topics, and tangents abound at every turn. So I find Youtube discussions to be the most productive when I limit each video (or video series) to one narrow topic. The topic of this particular video series is "Is it coherent to say that All Organized Religions—which includes their Holy Scriptures—come from a Single Source? And if so, how do we make sense of the many intra-religious contradictions?"

[ToddAllenGates]

2 of 3:

(For ex: one god vs. many gods; the gods tolerate homosexuality vs. God Hates Homosexuality; the gods demand idolatry vs. God will send you to hell for the crime of idolatry, etc.)

New Agers I've spoken with who defend the "All religions are One" hypothesis do so in multiple ways:

[ToddAllenGates]

3 of 3:

- glossing over intra-religious contradictions and focusing only on common threads,

- claiming that God made different religions for different needs

- saying that different Holy Scriptures *used* to be harmonious with each other, but man has corrupted these texts over the years

ETC.

The narrow scope of this video series is an exploration of how defensible these various explanations are, or are not.

[winstono75]

@ToddAllenGates I didn't listen to all of your series. I'm suggesting a different new age understanding of religion: They're all based on spiritual experiences, but take different forms in different cultures.

[ToddAllenGates]

@winstono75

When you say "spiritual experiences," are you referring to some sort of interactions with a Creator who kick-started the Big Bang and is responsible for turning non-life into life? Or to the purely human experience of awe and wonder? Or something else? And if something else, what?

[winstono75]

@ToddAllenGates I mean what is commonly referred to as mystical experiences. There are various degrees of depth to mystical experiences, but some people actually experience that there is no separation between them and God. They actually know that they are God. This is a type of knowing far more absolute than any ordinary type of knowledge. It permeates the being of the person.

[ToddAllenGates]

@winstono75

1 of 3:

> They actually know that they are God.

This goes a bit beyond the narrow scope of this video series, in the sense that the belief that God exists in all of us is a more "Eastern" idea, whereas this series examines New Age thought from the "Western" perspective that God created man as something totally separate from Himself. (To put it very broadly, and a bit simplistically.)

[ToddAllenGates]

2 of 3:

So when you speak of "God," I assume you're not speaking of one who created all the animals in one week, cursed Eve & all women henceforth because Eve ate magic fruit from the enchanted tree, sends non-Christians to hell, etc.

[ToddAllenGates]

3 of 3:

What role did this "God" that you speak of (the One we are all part of) have when it comes to the Big Bang, the creation of life, evolution, biblical passages about stoning women who aren't virgins on their wedding nights, Hindu scriptural passages about the caste system, Koran verses about killing apostates, etc.?

[winstono75]

@ToddAllenGates I'm not talking about a belief that God exists in all of us. I'm talking about the experience of God, described by mystics. The mystical experience is neither Eastern nor Western, although the East has emphasized more the availability of the experience.

I'm not speaking of the mythological God that Christians know all about.

[winstono75]

@winstono75 The religious texts that you mention are of course full of nonsense. I am only pointing out that the origins of religions lie in authentic spiritual experiences, which have been massively distorted into the religious teachings. Religions are not a path to God. They have no value in themselves, except that we are able to recognize their common origin.

[winstono75]

@winstono75 The Big Bang theory is fine, but the Big Bang is obviously not a cause in itself. There is no way to scientifically learn the why's of the universe. Science only discovers mechanisms. So spirit unfolds through evolution, no problem.

[ToddAllenGates]

@winstono75

1 of 7:

> I'm not talking about a belief that God exists in all of us.

> The religious texts that you mention are of course full of nonsense.

Okay, so far we're on the same page. (My own belief is that a Supernatural Creator—or Supernatural non-Creator for that matter—is more improbable than probable. Some say that makes me an atheist, others say that makes me an agnostic. The title isn't important to me, so I don't mind either way.)

[ToddAllenGates]

2 of 7:

> I'm talking about the experience of God, described by mystics.

"Mystics" may converge on a certain sensation of awe and wonder, but you can also be a hardcore atheist and have that same experience. One of my atheist science friends is a star-gazing astronomy enthusiast and he talks about the deep spirituality of the universe and the "oneness" of All Things at the time of the Big Bang, but he has zero belief in any supernatural forces.

[ToddAllenGates]

3 of 7:

I hope I don't sound rude or challenging--it's just that my own research is lacking in this area, so I have to ask: "Which specific mystics are you referring to? Do you find that multiple mystics agree with each other on specific beliefs?" The only "mystic" I've read in depth is Sri Ramakrishna, and he had very specific religious beliefs about God creating specific religions in different areas to address people's different needs.

[ToddAllenGates]

4 of 7:

> I am only pointing out that the origins of religions lie in authentic spiritual experiences, which have been massively distorted into the religious teachings.

I don't know what you mean by an authentic spiritual experience.

[ToddAllenGates]

5 of 7:

> The Big Bang theory is fine, but the Big Bang is obviously not a cause in itself.

As far as I know, science doesn't make any claims about "knowing" the details on how or why the energy/hydrogen that made up the Big Bang existed. Science can only explain what happened. Do you believe "God" was the cause of the Big Bang? If not, did "He" (for lack of a better pronoun) exist independently of the Big Bang? Develop from it?

[ToddAllenGates]

6 of 7:

> There is no way to scientifically learn the why's of the universe.

Maybe there's NO "why"! Maybe the energy/hydrogen just existed without a "why": maybe there is no great Supernatural Spirit out there, and life is just something that can evolve in very rare circumstances, and "intelligent life" is something that evolves under even rarer circumstances.

[ToddAllenGates]

7 of 7:

> spirit unfolds through evolution

I don't know what you mean by "spirit" or "unfolds." When a theist mentions "spirit," I have an idea of what kind of Supernatural Being they're talking about. When my "spiritual" atheist friend talks about spirituality, I know he's just using religious language in an attempt to capture the awe & wonder he has when taking in our unspeakably beautiful but utterly indifferent universe. But I confess ignorance to what you mean by "spirit."

[winstono75]

@ToddAllenGates A mystical experience may well happen to an atheist. I'm not sure if your friend has had what I consider a mystical experience, as that is an experience of the oneness of all things NOW. I am not referring to specific mystics, but to the description of their common understandings given by Ken Wilber. I recommend Ken Wilber, as he brings together intellect and spirit in dealing with these issues.

[winstono75]

@winstono75 By authentic spiritual experience I mean an encounter with an energy not found in ordinary life, an opening up to a larger dimension. Or really, I am still talking about the mystical experience.

Scientists make claims about the existence of God based on the Big Bang theory. I believe Stephen Hawking just made some such claims. If God is everything there is, of course he was the cause of the Big Bang. God is spirit, and the physical universe is just one manifestation of this spirit

[winstono75]

@winstono75 The physical universe has a beginning, God as spirit does not.

When you say things exist without a why, you are talking metaphysics. Scientists believe in no values because they can't discover values. But we should recognize when scientists make claims that go outside their area of knowledge.

[winstono75]

@winstono75 By spirit (God) I mean the unmanifest timeless energy that is the source of everything. It contains the physical universe, but it also exists independently of it. Spirit was complete before the creation of the physical universe, but in this specific universe spirit unfolds, evolves, from matter to various complexities of life.

[ToddAllenGates]

@winstono75

Sorry to always take so long to get back to you (been crazy busy at work). I'll check out Ken Wilber ... thanks.

[Revenous33]

It does have beneficial result for those great dividers in our bridge of unity, it is a slow grasping notion that we need to unite in some sort of way. The whole personal God concept is fading with time as the study of naturalism shows another side of creation more than anthropocentrically measurable about the complexity of a creator than that of a man in the clouds that judges human concepts. It is slow but is definitely getting there.

[ToddGates]

@Revenous33

> The whole personal God concept is fading with time

Except in the Bible Belt! Muslim fundamentalists, too, seem to take the Koran quite literally. The threats of violence against those who "insult Islam" is simply obedience to directions from their personal God.

[dankeewolnir4042]

wait a while, while the New Age concepts gain momentum in this Global world. Eventually when its big enough, the UN, and NWO are pushing it, while also pushing that war (the ones they profit from) comes from the diversity in religions, and in-tolerance. They will then be able to call all these groups terrorist it will be outlawed etc... none of it is new, if you read Manly p Hall, HPB, which you may have... you get it straight from the source, along with the world agenda.

[dankeewolnir4042]

cont: and this is why they can so easily preach HPBs Luciferian Doctrine on oprah, and mainstream now... through much much work over the centuries... and Just as predicted, it will be the new religion, for the NWO, that through Gnosis, Knowledge, we can reach "Christ/Budda's consciousness... that is ancient (ie garden of eden) with knowledge/fire/science etc, we dont need God, or a concept of God. We can become like gods if we eat from the tree of knowledge

[dankeewolnir4042]

the new age movement has been at the root of every war and "revolution" for the last millenia, because people have know that the new age is coming (aquarius). and the elite have always controlled through the dominating religion... so the diversity in religions are not the reason for lack of peace... it is governments, who have always been controlled by priest (just like today). They are busy defacing the teachings of the greats ie Yehshua, by combining it with pagan worship, and evil doings

[dankeewolnir4042]

your thoughts are very well put together and i respect that, but the New Age concept is ancient... the Masons are the ones that have pushed the concept of all paths lead to the same place, and they did this with their power and their Magazine once called The New Age Mag.(called that until the last few decades) The problem lies in that this concept sometimes comes with the belief that we are God or can become "light beings" what have you. This is Luciferian Doctrine, which is being pushed by UN

[ToddAllenGates]

> the New Age concept is ancient

Quite true—but the "different religions are different roads to the same destination" is commonly referred to as a "New Age" today, so it was the most convenient term to use. And my main point was just to focus on the way this philosophy tries to explain religious contradictions, and how well its explanations hold up to scrutiny.

[TheGeoffalope]

I am interested to see these arguments. I do not consider myself 'new age' but more...freethinking spiritualist. It will be interesting to see arguments against something that is decentralized and has no formal organization.

[Frogstomp121]

New age really isn't that new. It's concepts have been around since ancient times.

[SuperiorSavior]

Good to hear the benefits of new-age religion, i usually associate these benefits with Deism and Pantheism but the new-age sees to end up making fundamentalism seem more rational... I've seen people defend fundamentalist christianity with a form of the new-age argument. Plus it disrespects the problems with religion, and is a form of self-delusion.

[rememberwheni]

another thought, the ambiguity that is imbued in this religion does not allow for argument as an easy response is just to claim that it is your view and you are entitled to it. It is the same problem that exists in post modern philosophy. I agree with the tolerance point and it is a reason why i feel a degree of empathy to this perspective.

[ToddAllenGates]

> an easy response [from New Agers] is just to claim that it is your view and you are entitled to it.

I agree that people are entitled to their own opinions, even those such as "I think the moon is really made of cheese." But the response "Why do you think so?" is a fair one.

[rememberwheni]

true, because who can say it is not. however there is a general rule for some kind of evidence to back up a premise...the question why, is the most important one as the answer will convince or not an individual of the integrity of an argument.

[wonderist]

On tolerance: All it takes is for a destructive new age cult to become a full blown religion. And that doesn't take much. Look at Scientology, Aum Shinrikyo (sarin gas attacks in Japan), Raelianism, etc.

The only reason New Age is not intolerant is that it's too new. Give it time. When you base your beliefs on faith, it's only a matter of time till you become intolerant.

[daveheet]

hmm, without putting too much thought into this, it seems like new age stuff is just a very very loose form of regular religion, where you can pick whatever you want to believe and its all "right". This is obviously just pseudo-intellectualism.

[ToddGates]

> This is obviously just pseudo-intellectualism.

In some cases, I think it's just a combination of ignorance (of how deeply different religions can contradict each other) and wishful thinking! At least, I think that was my frame of mind back when I found this idea intriguing (up to age 16 or so).

[kalsolarUK]

another great video! Incidentally, I'm about 2 thirds the way through your book now... havent been able to read as much as I'd hoped over the last week or so but I'm getting there! Very well researched by the way!

[ToddGates]

> another great video!

Thank you several more videos for this series are on their way.

> I'm about 2 thirds the way through your book now... Very well researched by the way!

Thanks again! When I first started writing it, I thought it would be a 10-page essay that would take just a few months. Little did I know that it would end up a 300+ page book that would take me over seven years!

[lovasip]

Well, they do not proselytize.

So, that they sometimes do not even like to debate their ideas. Which is also a bad approach IMHO.

[ToddGates]

> they sometimes do not even like to debate their ideas.

I've found that too--during the research stage of my book, it was much easier to talk to Christians about their beliefs than it was talk to New Agers. As soon as I tried to explore all the repercussions of New Age beliefs, I found that New Agers generally wanted to change the subject.

[DefaultPosition]

I'm very impressed by these videos: thorough and well thought through.

I have philosophical issues with New Agism, though Newagers are essentially benign.

[ToddGates]

> I'm very impressed by these videos: thorough and well thought through.

Thanks--more on the way!

> I have philosophical issues with New Agism, though Newagers are essentially benign.

I have the same mixed feelings ... it employs slippery logic to justify itself, but in many ways it's harmless, so I often don't bother to counter it.

[DefaultPosition]

I'm about to have a discussion with a guy I know who is a pagan/new ager.

I'm expecting a particular line of line of thinking from him that coincides with much of what you say in this video.

I suspect that Newagism is simply diluted mainstream religious belief.

How do I go about buying a copy of your book?

[ToddGates]

1 of 2: > I suspect that Newagism is simply diluted mainstream religious belief.

Yes - it seems to skip past all the ugly aspects of the world religions (the stonings etc.), and then build a collage by skimming off the attractive parts of various faiths. Which is generally harmless ... but when New Agers take the step of saying that all these religions came from the same Higher Source, that's when it becomes philosophically indefensible.

[ToddGates]

2 of 2:

> How do I go about buying a copy of your book?

It's not in bookstores, but you can get it from online bookstores: amazon, barnandnoble, BookLocker (my publisher's site), etc.

Thanks!!

- Todd