The Secret

[Eos of the Eons]

Yep. If you believe it, you can make it happen! Control the world around you, control others, with your MIND!

If you want it, you can make it happen!

Oprah loves this. Are we ready for this "science"? I mean, the "what the bleep" movie was just the tip of the iceberg. This "science" will now change the world! The secret is OUT!!
The Rosicrucian Order, AMORC, is one of the most scientifically oriented mystical schools in existence today.http://www.amorc.org.uk/html/not_scientific_.html
*gnashes teeth"

It IS our fault for not teaching people what science actually is in grade school folks. Nobody to blame but ourselves.

On the other hand, some people really LOVE this "science".

Quantum mechanics corruption, here we go!

http://thesecret.org/

The Rosicrucian teachings (http://www.rosicrucian.com/)

What is old is new AGAIN! Whee!

[Slimething]

It IS our fault for not teaching people what science actually is in grade school folks. Nobody to blame but ourselves.

Agreed. Scientists (and I am one) act like science is too much of a priesthood. I know I'll draw fire but my definition of scientific knowldege is any fact derived by the scientific method, knowingly or not.

Skepticism is a form of science. There's no need to make people in non-scientific fields feel less knowledgeable about the universe merely because they don't publish in peer-reviewed journals. In my book, a chef systematically establishing the best combination of flours to reach a desired texture or a child figuring the focal point of a lens (pity the poor ants!) is doing science.

Science is more pervasive and helpful than woo but science as a whole has done a pretty piss-poor job of convincing people of this.

[Apathia]

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=73527

I am now going to take the New Age equivalent of the Blasphemy Challenge.

I am a loser! I cannot find and hold a good paying job! All my friends are going to desert me! In a year's time I'll die of stomach cancer!

[Eos of the Eons]

My problem with this, and I agree with Slimething, is that they profess it is a science, and corrupt science to make it sound like science. This wasn't discussed so much in the other thread (thank you for the the link!).

What was discussed to some degree was that it is good to have goals. I feel you also have to plan along with these goals. My goals as a child changed due to circumstances far beyond my control, and I'm still struggling to reach any of my goals due to circumstances beyond my control. I've tried not to get curmudgeonly about it, and still try to plan to reach my goals even when people think I'm crazy to do so.

But, and this is a big but, to call this "imagine it to make it in order to make it happen" is simply not science. I'd like someone to imagine me a flying pig. Every day until it happens.

Most people don't even know what science is. What IS science?

My experience is experimentation to explore variables in order to come up with an answer to a hypothesis. You therefore have to gather data and compare results. You need a control group and double blinding in most cases, to prevent bias. You need to control the experimental environment to a degree in order to explore just a small number of variables.

Can anyone else explain science in a layman's perspective? Can anyone sum up why this "secret" is therefore not science?

[Apathia]

I think in some casees we have to reeducate people about the difference between Science and superstition. But for many people it just takes some patient pointing out that it is superstition. Some of my friends who have bought into it, have needed time to try it out, find it doesn't work, and realize that reality isn't their vending machine. For some, though, it just takes pointing out that these "Secret" bozoids teach that smoking, for example, only harms you if you believe it can. Or that one can disregard physical reality and expect to come off uninjured. The sheer stupidity of it is all some people need.

But then again, I had to wait on one friend to get through toward the end of this sewer because anything I said against the "Law of Attraction" was taken as a personal attack on her religion.

It is a new religion. And in my opinion is more pernicious than the old prayer based paradigm.

[Arg9]

Can anyone else explain science in a layman's perspective? Can anyone sum up why this "secret" is therefore not science?

Eos, my quick attempt at defining science (coming from a layman) would be 'the practice and discovery of how everything works'.

As to your question about why the "secret" is therefore not science, I think it's more of an example of social science (vs hard science) but it's glued together by faulty assumptions and very limited observations that are claimed as being fact - thus making it woo woo material.

Funny, I just watched "The Secret" today. You didn't know this Eos, but it was actually me that manifested this thread...:D

[clarsct]

Science has a culture to it, in a social sense. For those who have had little to no exposure to art, a Rodin sculpture is simply a lump of metal, except to those few who pick up on the message somewhat instinctively.
To really understand the eloquence of a Theory like Evolution, one must have a mindset, a connection upon which to frame it.

I have made a new friend recently(YAY ME!) who, like most people around central IL, is a Xian.
Not that there's anything wrong with that.
And the topic of evolution came up. Now, this is a fairly bright dude with a good career. Not college educated, but still smart enough to have taught himself more about computers than I'll probably ever know. But I was astounded that he didn't have a distinction between Natural Selection, Evolution, and Abiogenesis. I had to seperate and explain these terms to him. He expressed the idea that each side was presenting their views rather passionately, and he had no basis for trying to decide which was which. In other words, he had no appreciation for the science behind Evolution. Most people I have spoken with equate Evolution with Abiogenesis. This isn't as much a victory for the IDiots, as a failing on our part to translate jargon into something understandable. We have a medium in which we can translate information quicker and more accurately than ever before.....and we're losing ground.

THe culture of science must change from 'Ivory Tower' to something that is accessible and useful to the ordinary person. Just as most people do not need a degree to run a computer, neither should most people need a degree to understand the basics of Science. This is what we ought to be aiming for.

[Avita]

It is a new religion. And in my opinion is more pernicious than the old prayer based paradigm.

How do you figure that? To me, it seems like both paradigms are very similar, in that they employ magical thinking (normally typical of young children, so it's very disappointing to see it being promoted for adults). The Universe, or God, can't help but respond to your thoughts - they are that powerful. Of course, there's a variety of explanations for why you didn't get what you wanted, or why that terrible thing that you expected didn't come to pass. The only possible difference I can see lies there, in that in religion, it's because you didn't satisfy the requirements set by God, while in New Age, it's because there's something wrong with you. But I'm not sure that I could predict which would be more pernicious in the long-term, so I am interested in hearing your thoughts on this.



Can anyone else explain science in a layman's perspective? Can anyone sum up why this "secret" is therefore not science?

Well... I don't have an overaching definition of science. But one aspect of that definition is that science keeps looking for "mechanisms" to explain every step of why things work as they do. So it's not enough to claim that the Law of Attraction works because the brain sends out quantum mechanical waves. That's not science, that's just a claim. Science would be to check every step of that explanation. Does the brain emit such waves? If it does, with what? How far do those waves propagate? How does the universe match up the form of the brainwave "I want money" with the actual physical cash, especially the many forms of it that we have these days? What interferes with the waves? Do any of the explanations violate either the known possible mechanisms of action (e.g., inverse square law) or the relationships between different mechanisms (quantum effects do not occur at the macro level)? And so on. If something cannot be investigated in this way, then it's out of the realm of science.

[Apathia]

Avita wrote:The only possible difference I can see lies there, in that in religion, it's because you didn't satisfy the requirements set by God, while in New Age, it's because there's something wrong with you.

That's pretty much it. I admit it's probably a subjective judgement on my part to find the New Age prattle more disgusting.

If you don't get what you want in the Secret model of reality, it's all your fault because reality is at your beck and command.

But even with the prayer model, you had to agknowledge that reality was more complex than your genie. There are others involved with wills and desires including all those other people praying for favorable outcomes and God's own will.

Secret: Everyone is expected to serve your desires.
Prayer: Parent in the sky can say no.
Reality: You learn to share your toys.

I guess I'd say the Secret is infantile.

[Eos of the Eons]

It's starts with the education. The teachers are biased against science in most of my experiences. I have no idea what quantum physics is, what astronomy is. I only know about evolution and life sciences because I paid big bucks to go to college. My grade 8 science teacher told me evolution was CRAP, and to ignore the part of the textbook that went over the earth's age, time periods, etc.

My teacher right now is against "chemicals", "drugs", and "conventional medicine". How do these teachers get these jobs? They don't have the background, they don't have the secondary education. Yet they are allowed to teach the garbage they think is "true" in spite of the course materials.

This isn't right, and it breeds these crazy ideals that make the woos of the week rich. It's not right.

Great posts guys. Keep them coming. It's helping me think through this. How do I explain science without arguing, like clarsct did? Kudos clarsct!

[clarsct]

Well, we really just debated, in a friendly manner. He's pretty good with Evolution now, but not so sure about Abiogenesis.

How do you make sense of Abiogenesis to someone without a biochem degree? Oh, and make it make sense and entertaining enough that they actually listen?

Until we can accomplish that, we're going to have problems with the IDiots.

[Arg9]

It's starts with the education. The teachers are biased against science in most of my experiences. I have no idea what quantum physics is, what astronomy is...

It's sad, I can't say I remember being taught evolution at all in school. I don't know much about science. I don't know what abiogenesis is (actually, I do now). In 4th grade I had to get a parents excuse NOT to go to church during school (it was a class by default!). That's why I'm on this forum though. Geesh, gotta educate myself.

I wish it were easy to explain things just right so that woos would actually listen instead of going into defense mode. When my ex (the one who introduced me to "The Secret") and I talk it's totally one-sided. She can explain to me her spirituality and "psychic" experiences but as soon as I try to bring science and critical thinking into the picture, she withdrawls and doesn't want to "debate". SO FRUSTRATING!

[clarsct]

Well, obviously you can lead a horse to water, but you can't make them think.

What I am saying is that science is inaccessible to the general population because they do not have a background on which to hang scientific ideas.

[pmckean]

I find it quite interesting how pervasive this idea of the universe remodelling iteself around your personal requirements has been.

Call it magick, cosmic ordering or.... prayer, they're all just names for the same basic idea.

Here's a strange story.

When I was about 19, I was returning to college after the summer break, and feeling pretty bad about. I was stopped in the street by this old tramp, who asked me if I could spare any change. He was wearing several layers of old clothes and a hat. I could just see his eyes through his matted beard and dirty face. I rummaged through my pockets and came out with a shiny pound coin - more, frankly, than I'd wanted to give.

Reluctantly, I handed him the coin and he grabbed it quickly. I started to walk away, but as I did so, he callled me - "Laddie...". I turned, to find him pointing at me. "Laddie, you'll hae a lot'a luck, today. You'll hae a lot'a luck". And with that, he was off.

"Weird", I thought, but walked on, wishing that college could be cancelled. Anyway, a few minutes I get there to find that staff strike has been called and I have an extra WEEK off! I was so pleased, but didn't think about the tramp. Home I went. Shortly after I arrived, my father poked his head around the door to tell me that the bank had called - there'd been a mistake on my account and they owed me £50. They were putting the cash back in immediately. Amazing! Literally a few minutes later, my mum appeared. She'd been visiting my grandparents, and wanted to ask me a question; "had they given me a birthday card last year?". I couldn't remember. "Well," my mother explained, "they just found your card - forgot to send it, apparently. It's nearly a year old, of course, so there's no point in sending the card, but they gave me the cash inside for you." Cha-ching! I'm now £80 up on the day and got an extra week off.

Still didn't think about the tramp.

Anyway, I'll truncate the rest, except to say that my luck continued - a legal situation resolved itself neatly, and a chance meeting led to a great night out.

And finally, I remembered what the old man had said to me earlier that day and for a second - just for a second, I ruminated on whether he'd blessed me in some way. And then I dismissed it all as the minor coincidence it truly was.

I recounted this story to my girlfriend, a Christian, and she said; "Ahh, the old man was an Angel. You were being tested and you passed. He granted your wishes.". I also told a friend - not religious, but a bit New-Agey. "Ahh," he said. "He was a wizard. He cast a good luck spell."

For either of those circumstances to be true, the world would have to have been manipulated around me in the most amazing way, without regard for such trivial things as the linear progression of time.

*For my week off college, the Universe would have to provide unsatisfactory pay to thousands of college staff leading to a union ballot and strike decision. The decision on the strike would have been made before I met the old man.

* For the bank's accounting error, the Universe would have to remake the past to debit £50 unnoticed from my account the month before that day, and then manipulate the company to discover the decision so that it could be resolved and reported back to me at just the right time.

* For my birthday card cash to come just then required that no card was sent the year before and that I not notice this. It then required my gran to happen across the card and hand the money to my mother, manipulated into visiting her that very day. And my gran located the card in a skip (left that detail out). What was she doing in a skip?!

...and so on.

Now I don't mind the Universe remaking all of reality and time just to give me a good day, even if the ripple-effect from this affects the lives of thousands of people. Cool. One problem, though; isn't everyone else's reality being manipulated in the same way, and don't those competing realities clash?

I guess that's why they don't call people who believe in this stuff rational.

[sophia8]

Ask anybody who's wealthy and successful how they got that way, and they'll tell you it was nearly all hard graft, with perhaps just a little bit of luck. They're very proud of having got to where they are by working their socks off; suggest that they got rich by sitting around and wishing for it, and they'll laugh at you.

[Earthborn]

The Universe, or God, can't help but respond to your thoughts - they are that powerful.I disagree. Most people who believe in prayer believe that God has a say in the matter. God can decide not to grant what you wish for. That's a pretty substantial difference. If you don't get what you want, you can say that God has other plans for you and other considerations and that since God knows best, it is for the better that you don't get what you wanted. Prayer tends to make people accept whatever the outcome is; they plead their case to God but do not expect to always get what they want. To many people, prayer is a ritual that helps them accept what comes their way.

This "Law of Attraction" whoever is supposed to work automatically and without any say in the matter. If you believe in it, you can only blame yourself for not getting what you want because you 'thought the wrong thoughts.' You don't have a "it's probably for the best" excuse.

Suppose two parents have dying children. One believes in prayer and prays to God that the child recovers. The other believes in this "Law of Attraction" thing and tries to save the child with the right thoughts. The children die. Which parent is going to have the least emotional problems: the one who now says "I prayed, but God wanted her besides Him and He must have had His mysterious reasons." or the one who must now admit "I killed her because I could not stop myself thinking about her dying." ?

Add to that the fact that most people who believe in prayer do not believe that you should bother God with material demands (like Mercedes Benzes) while the Law of Attraction just encourages one to be greedy.

[Luke T.]

I don't know why, but this leeching onto the science of quantum mechanics by the woo crowd really, really gets under my skin.

I got so worked up watching the Oprah show with Alison Dubios and John Edward and hearing psychologist Dean Radin talk about how the properties of "entanglement" in physics shows that psychics are real made me so angry I nearly gave up on the human race.

Seriously.

I am a very forgiving person. I have a very long fuse. I will overlook a lot of faults in a person. I will tolerate all kinds of nonsense. But when I see a person like Radin speak as an authority on Quantum Mechanics and even write a book about it (http://www.deanradin.com/NewWeb/EMindex.html), well, something happens in my head. I want to entangle with Radin and slap his greasy little face off.

I hope for both our sakes that we are never in the same space together.

And I used to respect Oprah. I had no idea she was such a woo. I have not only lost respect for her, I have nothing but contempt for her now.

It's been days since I saw the show and I'm still pissed off about it. I'll probably end up ranting some more later. I just can't seem to let it go.

[Luke T.]

If this Secret wishful thinking what-the-bleep-do-we-know entanglement crap really worked, Dean Radin would have been writhing on the floor in extreme pain for the last week.

He would be crying for his momma right now. He would be coughing up blood and holding his intestines in his hands. His back would be breaking from spasms as his knees pounded over and over into his beaky nose.

Yeah.

Every glass of water around me would be a solid black mass of jelly.

Son of a bitch piece of trash bastard ass scumbird prick.

[sophia8]

"If there is a God, why did He let Margaret Thatcher live and John Lennon die???" No points for reference, just one of my favourite quotes.
Advocates of this "Your thoughts create your reality" crap always have an out - if you fail to get what you asked for, it's because you must have had negative thoughts! And nobody on earth can say that they never have negative thinking about anything.
Which poses an interesting question: people do get what they want clearly have done insufficient amounts of negative thinking. So how much negative thinking can you can you get away with in getting what you ask for?
If this is all supposed to be scientific, such things can be measured, right?

[Luke T.]

I see. In the slaphappy universe of visualized whirled peas, quantum particles are all +.

Jackass moron wish puppies.

[Eos of the Eons]

Sigh, yes, and if this crap about the Secret were oh so true, then I wouldn't need to wish and yearn for science teachers to be properly educated in the sciences before they taught them.

That IS my one wish. But, science education is so expensive, is so involved.

I just don't see an end to this nonsense. I really don't.

So, now what??

[flume]

Skepticism is a form of science. There's no need to make people in non-scientific fields feel less knowledgeable about the universe merely because they don't publish in peer-reviewed journals. In my book, a chef systematically establishing the best combination of flours to reach a desired texture or a child figuring the focal point of a lens (pity the poor ants!) is doing science.

Science is more pervasive and helpful than woo but science as a whole has done a pretty piss-poor job of convincing people of this.
I have some problems with this idea.
I was involved as a parent volunteer (i.e. no real input) to a committee that was setting up a course on science inquiry. The very first exercise was for each student to draw a picture of a scientist. The assumption was that lamost everyone would draw a white male in a lab coat with a microscope. This would give the teacher the change to talk about a) diversity and b) how each and every one of the students WAS a scientist in their daily life and in the classroom. So this idae is definitely out there in the schools.

(I was annoyed by the drawing exercise and suggested that they tell the kids to draw three different scientists so taht the kids themselves might consider different options rather than being made to look closed-minded. But my suggestion wasn't taken.)


We had a topic on this before. IMO while there's some truth to the idea that you act as a scientist when you do certain investigations in the kitchen etc, it's also true that the career of a scientist, and the development of experiments that are statistically valid and controlled and can stand up to peer review and that add to a large established base of knowlegde is NOT what you do in your kitchen or your science class as a 6th grader or 9th grader.

And I think the idea that people with zero science background ARE scientists and able to use their knowledge of the world is part of the problem. Because people's knowledge of the world is very subject to conclusions without controls and improper cause and effect connections and little awareness for how much information there exists and how it crosslinks to form a supported structure.

I am bugged by the way it seems that ifsomeone states an idea no matter how flaky, that seems to give it some claim to validity forever in some people's minds, even if it has been disproved. For instance the idea that plants have consciousness, shown in the lab (by Backster): this information seems to stick even though the measurement was not repeatable and there was and is no basis for taking it seriously. The very fact that someone claimed the idea was true seems to give it a basis in some people's minds. Same with Emoto and his ice crystals.

[Eos of the Eons]

Love your post Flume. You are lucky your school system seems to have a clue!

We could learn a lot from you in how to get kids thinking about real science. It is so true. Cause and effect. Testing out ideas. Seeing if something can be repeated.

These are very basic concepts that go along with critical thinking, and needs to be taught to our children. The kitchen is a great place to start! Chemical reactions, causes and effects!

Thank you Flume!

[flume]

Thanks, Eos, but my post was kind of incoherently written, so I'm not sure if you liked the same things I liked! But I agree with what you have said in all your posts here.
The local school system has in the past had volunteer scientists from the local university, which I think helped. My kids are old enough now that I am out of touch with the schools.
I mentioned Emoto; when I was doing a google search on his stuff, the one skeptical test of his ideas I could find was done in a high school class. I think that would have been a useful demonstration.
Another site I found last night while thinking about this ridiulous Backster stuff was this:
Kansas School Naturalist (http://www.emporia.edu/ksn/v35n4-april1989/sect03.htm#20)

I watched The Secret online, and hated the part about thoughts having frequencies. Hated it!

[Luke T.]

I watched The Secret online, and hated the part about thoughts having frequencies. Hated it!

Do you have a link to the online version? I'm feeling kind of masochistic today...

Thoughts have frequencies. Was that in the alpha, beta, delta, and theta brainwave vein; or was it in the "I would like Dean Radin to die in a prolonged horrible death involving lots of glass and razor blades = 23.452 Hz" vein?

Because if it is the latter, I can just turn on a signal generator at the right frequency and crank it up to 500 kW and have a machine do the work.

Would that be attempted murder, cranking out 23.452 Hz at 500 kilowatts?

Radin better get a tin foil hat to protect himself. I'm gunning for you, you entangled rat bastard!

[Luke T.]

What's the frequency, Kenneth Dean?

[Eos of the Eons]

Eeek! Luke is promoting dark energy and killer mind frequencies! Where is my tin foil helmut! Auuughghg!

*runs around in circles*

Ohhh, I should sell these nutters/customers some quantum ear muff thingies that help the universe receive their thoughts and demands more readily over their "enemy's" wishes.

Hm. What to call them, what to call them?

[flume]

Luke, when I watched it, although I didn't realize it, it was an illegal (not sure illegal is the right word) link to a for-pay site, and the link was later blocked. I've seen another one recently posted and I don't know if it's illegal or not. If I find it I'll post or PM it if it seems okay.

[Luke T.]

Luke, when I watched it, although I didn't realize it, it was an illegal (not sure illegal is the right word) link to a for-pay site, and the link was later blocked. I've seen another one recently posted and I don't know if it's illegal or not. If I find it I'll post or PM it if it seems okay.

Okay. Thanks!

[Luke T.]

Ohhh, I should sell these nutters/customers some quantum ear muff thingies that help the universe receive their thoughts and demands more readily over their "enemy's" wishes.

Hm. What to call them, what to call them?

Entanglers.

Qadar, or if that is too subtle for them, Q-Radar.

The Secretions.

[Eos of the Eons]

Secradar!

[Slimething]

IMO while there's some truth to the idea that you act as a scientist when you do certain investigations in the kitchen etc, it's also true that the career of a scientist, and the development of experiments that are statistically valid and controlled and can stand up to peer review and that add to a large established base of knowlegde is NOT what you do in your kitchen or your science class as a 6th grader or 9th grader.

And I think the idea that people with zero science background ARE scientists and able to use their knowledge of the world is part of the problem. Because people's knowledge of the world is very subject to conclusions without controls and improper cause and effect connections and little awareness for how much information there exists and how it crosslinks to form a supported structure.

I am bugged by the way it seems that ifsomeone states an idea no matter how flaky, that seems to give it some claim to validity forever in some people's minds, even if it has been disproved. For instance the idea that plants have consciousness, shown in the lab (by Backster): this information seems to stick even though the measurement was not repeatable and there was and is no basis for taking it seriously. The very fact that someone claimed the idea was true seems to give it a basis in some people's minds. Same with Emoto and his ice crystals.

flume, you snipped the part of my post where I stated that, in my opinion, any systematic fact determined by the scientific method is science. That doesn't make someone who does this on an occassional basis a scientist. (Hell, there are some scientists I've met who don't even do that occassionally!) Also, the scientific method precludes any woo from surviving systematic, unbiased testing.

I really don't think you and I are in much disagreement. But, even if we are, it's only my opinion. (I state that humbly even if I can never be wrong! :D )

[Yahzi]

Ask anybody who's wealthy and successful how they got that way, and they'll tell you it was nearly all hard graft
Yes, the vast majority of rich people I know got there through graft. Also corruption, malfeasance, and plain old theft.

:D

[Yahzi]

Jackass moron wish puppies.
That's the funniest thing I've read all week.

:D

I'm gonna nominate this one.

[Arg9]

And I used to respect Oprah. I had no idea she was such a woo. I have not only lost respect for her, I have nothing but contempt for her now.

Well, Luke T if it makes you feel better I never watched Oprah. The one time I did was when she was talking about human poop and how it's supposed to look. So what happens when I even just hear the name Oprah? You guessed it, I associate the name with crap.

[Arg9]

Now I don't mind the Universe remaking all of reality and time just to give me a good day, even if the ripple-effect from this affects the lives of thousands of people. Cool. One problem, though; isn't everyone else's reality being manipulated in the same way, and don't those competing realities clash?

Yes - it seems to me if you use the "secret" you're playing sort of a half-assed god role and the universe is finishing it for you however it wishes. Hell, if you're going to be able to control so many people in the morning so that rush hour traffic won't exist and you can therefore make it on time to work, that's pretty extraordinary! I hope the reason those people were missing from rush hour wasn't because I made the universe make their car break down, or their child sick, or a good 'ol morning heart attack! Wow, that'd be pretty negative!!

[Juustin]

I'm tempted to ask: What if two people who both know "the secret" decide they want to be the richest person in the world? I suspect we might have to bring the multiverse theory into this one so everyone can get what they want.

[thomps1d]

Hm. What to call them, what to call them?

How about:

"Quantum Burrito Field Muffs"?

Seriously, they're aimed at the sort of people whose eyes start glazing over in rapturous ignorance the second the word "quantum" is used.

You could probably call them "Quantum I'm a big dummy with too much money and too little critical thinking skills muffs", and people would jump on them. You can even imagine the typical transaction:

"Ohhh...shiny display. Wonder what's on it? Quantum - mumble mumble mumble. Sweet! And only $854.99? Universe, you've pulled through for me again!"

[thomps1d]

What if two people who both know "the secret" decide they want to be the richest person in the world?

That was one of my first thoughts, too. Also, what would happen if one person who knows "the secret" decides that they want to be successful, and a second person who knows the secret decides that they want the first person to be poor?

There's only one way to solve a problem like that:

Quantum Deathmatch!

[Dancing David]

Yep. If you believe it, you can make it happen! Control the world around you, control others, with your MIND!

If you want it, you can make it happen!

Oprah loves this. Are we ready for this "science"? I mean, the "what the bleep" movie was just the tip of the iceberg. This "science" will now change the world! The secret is OUT!!
http://www.amorc.org.uk/html/not_scientific_.html
*gnashes teeth"


There is no secret, they are an extension of the Golden Dawn transferred through A. Crowley to Israel Regardie, it is European ceremonial magic with an overlay of John Dee and Enochian. The goal is the perfection of the self through the realization of the "True Will" as embodied through the knowledge of the "Holy Guardian Angel".

But who knows what trash they would reveal. those who are truely interested should read Magick in Theory and Practice by Crowley. then investigate the Golden Dawn, the writings of Elivas Levi and Regadie, and then investigate the OTO and the AMORC.

I would personaly avoid anything by Dion Fortune.

[Dancing David]

Science has a culture to it, in a social sense. For those who have had little to no exposure to art, a Rodin sculpture is simply a lump of metal, except to those few who pick up on the message somewhat instinctively.
To really understand the eloquence of a Theory like Evolution, one must have a mindset, a connection upon which to frame it.

I have made a new friend recently(YAY ME!) who, like most people around central IL, is a Xian.



I live in Shampoo-Banana, the oasis in Mighty Whitey Land.

[Dancing David]

It's starts with the education. The teachers are biased against science in most of my experiences. I have no idea what quantum physics is, what astronomy is. I only know about evolution and life sciences because I paid big bucks to go to college. My grade 8 science teacher told me evolution was CRAP, and to ignore the part of the textbook that went over the earth's age, time periods, etc.

My teacher right now is against "chemicals", "drugs", and "conventional medicine". How do these teachers get these jobs? They don't have the background, they don't have the secondary education. Yet they are allowed to teach the garbage they think is "true" in spite of the course materials.

This isn't right, and it breeds these crazy ideals that make the woos of the week rich. It's not right.

Great posts guys. Keep them coming. It's helping me think through this. How do I explain science without arguing, like clarsct did? Kudos clarsct!

Sounds like you have had some dreadful teachers.

Science is the practice of replaction of events. The variables present at the event are controlled so that hopefully only one variable is changed at a time. Then there is the consclusion that changes in the evnt are related to teh change in the single variable.

In social science the problem is that many people are not practicing science but opinion.

[Dancing David]

Well, we really just debated, in a friendly manner. He's pretty good with Evolution now, but not so sure about Abiogenesis.

How do you make sense of Abiogenesis to someone without a biochem degree? Oh, and make it make sense and entertaining enough that they actually listen?

Until we can accomplish that, we're going to have problems with the IDiots.


You use the doohickey and thingamabob model.

In the primordial ocean there were many chemicals and various compounds of chemicals. Imagine that there is a compound that we call a doohickey, this doohickey has the abilioty to help create the chemical compund thangamabob. This is called catalyze. Imagine then that we have a third compound federcal that has it's creation aided by thingamabob. That means that the precense of doohickey makes the precense of thingamabob more likely, and thus they both make the precense of federcal more likely. Imagine then that the precense of federcal makes the creation of doohickey more likely. We then have three compounds that all together create an enviroment where the other compounds are more likely to exist. This is called a self catalyzing set.
Etc.

[Apathia]

I would personaly avoid anything by Dion Fortune.

I prefer J.K. Rowling to Dion Fortune.

[Dancing David]

She (JK) is a much better author, the psychic detective stuff of Dion is truely gagful, I read it in desperation, just like I read Lord Foul's Bane. (It was cold and snowy, there was nothing in the house to read at all)

[SirPhilip]

Yep. If you believe it, you can make it happen! Control the world around you, control others, with your MIND!
If you want it, you can make it happen! (Brother Philip stares at his system, hoping it will transform into an nVidia Quadro Plex..)

This doesn't appear to be working.

[NorwegianSquirrel]

So the reason I don't win the lottery is because I don't believe in it?

Just have to try harder I guess...

[Dancing David]

(Brother Philip stares at his system, hoping it will transform into an nVidia Quadro Plex..)

This doesn't appear to be working.

Crowley tells the following story:

An adept sits by the river for many years focusing his concentration and will on learning to walk on water. After a great deal of time he focuses his mind, emotions and imagination to the point where he stands and walks across the river on the water. he goes to his master and tells hil "Master, i have just crossed the river by walking on the water!"
His master looks at him and shakes his head in dismay and says "Foolish man, people have been using the ferry everyday to cross the river.

;)

[Avita]

That's pretty much it. I admit it's probably a subjective judgement on my part to find the New Age prattle more disgusting.

If you don't get what you want in the Secret model of reality, it's all your fault because reality is at your beck and command.

But even with the prayer model, you had to agknowledge that reality was more complex than your genie. There are others involved with wills and desires including all those other people praying for favorable outcomes and God's own will.

Secret: Everyone is expected to serve your desires.
Prayer: Parent in the sky can say no.
Reality: You learn to share your toys.

I guess I'd say the Secret is infantile.

Thanks for the explanation. I agree about it being infantile, except that I still think that both the secret and prayer can be equally infantile. Earthborn gives an example:

I disagree. Most people who believe in prayer believe that God has a say in the matter. God can decide not to grant what you wish for. That's a pretty substantial difference. If you don't get what you want, you can say that God has other plans for you and other considerations and that since God knows best, it is for the better that you don't get what you wanted. Prayer tends to make people accept whatever the outcome is; they plead their case to God but do not expect to always get what they want. To many people, prayer is a ritual that helps them accept what comes their way.

This "Law of Attraction" whoever is supposed to work automatically and without any say in the matter. If you believe in it, you can only blame yourself for not getting what you want because you 'thought the wrong thoughts.' You don't have a "it's probably for the best" excuse.

Suppose two parents have dying children. One believes in prayer and prays to God that the child recovers. The other believes in this "Law of Attraction" thing and tries to save the child with the right thoughts. The children die. Which parent is going to have the least emotional problems: the one who now says "I prayed, but God wanted her besides Him and He must have had His mysterious reasons." or the one who must now admit "I killed her because I could not stop myself thinking about her dying." ?

Add to that the fact that most people who believe in prayer do not believe that you should bother God with material demands (like Mercedes Benzes) while the Law of Attraction just encourages one to be greedy.

But we know that people who believed in prayer have come up with all sorts of ingenious "reasons" for why their prayer might have failed ("I'm a sinner, so God is punishing me by killing my daughter, so really, I am the one who killed her.") So, despite there being only one "reason" provided so far by the "official secret," I have no doubt that people who don't want to blame themselves for the failure of their desires will find alternative explanations. It's not that hard - the people in this thread have already come up with plenty (It's not my fault my daughter's dead, because I know I was only thinking good thoughts - someone else must have been thinking nasty negative thoughts about her.) So in the end, I think the exact degree of infantile-ness of either prayer or the secret depends a lot on the person.

Also, just to clarify what I meant by God being unable to help responding to your prayers - yes, the Great Sky Daddy can say no. But he still has to listen first, and probably, to have important reasons for saying no. (I am reminded irresistibly of Tevye in the "Fiddler on the Roof" - "Would it spoil some vast, eternal plan/ If I were a wealthy man?")