What is the Harm in a Little Woo?

[Augustus]

Not all religions, but religion as a concept. We see the first religions always together with the rise of high cultures, Egypt, Mesopotamia, Indus Valley, Maya, Inca, you name it. They all had a powerful priest caste, often with the (god) emperor at the top.

Why would that require them to be about controlling the masses though?

That advanced societies and organised religions co-evolve could be down to many things.

Top down cynicism doesn’t seem all that plausible to me, especially as religions have often been subversive.

 

[Quintessence]

This reply is almost completely divorced from any of the actual arguments the author of the article makes. Not once did she criticize "having emotions." What she said is that trusting emotions, which are notoriously fickle, or faith-based, evidence-free beliefs over actual empirical evidence is a recipe for making poor decisions.

To have emotions inevitably means following them - "placing trust in them" as you put it - from time to time, if not on the regular.

The pulls of emotions are hardly fickle to one who knows thyself. Emotional reactions come from the core of who and what we are, from our very identity and character. Following that current in a self-aware fashion is to be in keeping with who and what you are. It is not, as this random blog writer claims in the quotation, some sort of recipe for disaster. That's not to say it cannot cause challenges either, but this random human is being far too dismissive of the importance of emotional lives and the ability for humans to exercise emotional maturity and discernment with their own feelings.

 

[Heyo]

Why would that require them to be about controlling the masses though?

Those early religions were state religions. The priests had secular functions and power. It's not a requirement but a brute fact.

That advanced societies and organised religions co-evolve could be down to many things.

For instance?

Top down cynicism doesn’t seem all that plausible to me, especially as religions have often been subversive.

There may be examples, though I can't think of one. But that doesn't change the overall trend.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

Why would that require them to be about controlling the masses though?

That advanced societies and organised religions co-evolve could be down to many things.

Top down cynicism doesn’t seem all that plausible to me, especially as religions have often been subversive.

William Tyndale ran into problems which seemed entirely due to the desire of the Church to maintain control, using laws of the realms to do so. Eventually his heresy cost him his life, but his impact was quite profound.

Religions can certainly be subversive, in much the same way political views can be. But when aligned with the ruling body, they can also be a key plank in controlling the people. Because, ultimately, those in power tend to work towards maintaining that power, whilst the disenfranchised...when organized...do the opposite.

So the Catholic Church was operating to maintain power and influence and control at the same time Luther (and the Protestant Reformation) was being subversive. And the Protestant Reformation ended up somewhat co-opted by the King of England for his own purposes in any case, at least in some ways.

There is no clear case to suggest religions are used to control the masses as any kind of imperative. But it's pretty clear that at times they have.

 

[stvdv]

New Religious and spiritual belief encourages people to believe in their own feelings and instincts

And Scientific people are encouraged to not trust their feelings until proven correct by science it often seems

Too bad in the case that Science runs behind the facts decades, centuries or even millenia, which happens very often

Even worse if Science happens to be impotent to solve/prove it at all

I rather trust my conscience any time above Science

 

[stvdv]

Yes, in the US at least, you have the freedom to believe what you want but, should you

YES
That's great about "Freedom to believe"

Trumps dictatorship imposing "lack of freedom to believe"

 

[Yerda]

People, including those who label themselves as sceptics, don't seem to appreciate the sheer volume of unsupported and often unsupportable statements they make and believe in. Critical thinking is great though, don't get me wrong.

What we describe as 'woo' might depend on many factors that aren't directly related to the state of evidence at play. For an example, until very recently the suggestion that there is a fundamental experiential component to the world was generally treated as risible. Panpsychism has since caught on again in academic philosophy cirlces and the idea is often treated with a measure of credence. You can teach classes discussing the possibility that consciousness goes all the way down. Or hold seminars or be invited to speak at science conferences or get published in Scientific American. The empirical evidence hasn't changed at all - what happened is a few academics started to explore the idea again and have made coherent arguments for or against.

I'm not saying academic interest can turn astrology into a subject of real investigation and repeatable prediction or anything - just that sometimes we dismiss things as woo that are maybe not.

 

[We Never Know]

Religious and spiritual belief encourages people to believe in their own feelings and instincts... even when those feelings and instincts are contradicted by reality or logic. It discourages people from being aware of the fact that their feelings and instincts can be easily deceived, played on by con artists and charlatans, or just by our own wishful thinking. It discourages people from being aware of this well-documented fact, and trying to stay vigilant about it. Every unsupported belief you hold makes you that much more vulnerable to other ones... and that much less likely to value skepticism and critical thinking at all.
What's the Harm in a Little Woo?

Yes, in the US at least, you have the freedom to believe what you want but, should you?

Well you are talking about the US where eating tide pods and snorting condoms up the nose were popular and every tiktok challenge has to be done.. so there's that.

 

[George-ananda]

As a believer myself in much the Scientism type would call 'woo', I would say: Too much gullibility is bad. Too much skepticism is bad.

We must maintain our 'reasoned all things considered' judgment.

If I believe in something others call 'woo', I have my 'all things considered' reasons.

 

[Nakosis]

Lots of interesting assumptions that author makes. It lays bare their personal values, if nothing else, but says little about the human condition as a whole.

We have enough problems in my country with the humans here undervaluing (if not shunning) emotions, leading to poor emotional intelligence and dysfunctional mental health.

Having emotions - being human - does not make one easier to deceive or hinder awareness of charlatans. Having emotions - being human - does not make one less able to practice skepticism of critical thinking. That these words need to be written at all is some sort of ridiculous. If anything, failure to be emotionally mature causes these things because you aren't self-aware enough to understand your own triggers.

We are talking about beliefs. Belief in Tarot cards and psychics and the healing power of crystals. Beliefs who's truth can't be verified.
For example, if one is having relationship problems, instead of seeking professional help, going to the store and purchasing a "love" crystal with the belief that the relationship problem will be solved.
Or as mentioned in the article "by visualizing a protective barrier of white light over her cervix" a person can prevent pregnancy.

Part of emotional maturity is knowing that reliance only on emotions or your feelings can be misleading. Woo can only rely on your emotions/feelings since it is not possible to validate the truth of a belief. So not discounting emotions but emotions along without rational thought behind them can cause self destructive behavior.

 

[Nakosis]

Summed up as

"I don't believe in it is so it's BS"... Woo

I don't belief in much because my beliefs can't be verified and therefore can let me down.
My beliefs have let me down before so I guess that does make those previous beliefs BS.
Certainly has made me less trusting of beliefs I still have.

 

[Nakosis]

The Mental Health Benefits of Religion & Spirituality | NAMI: National Alliance on Mental Illness.

Religion, which in many secular circles, would be considered woo, is beneficial for people more then a hindrance.

No mention of Tarot cards, healing crystals, Chakras, etc...
Religion can provide stability, predictability, social structure, community. Some people do need that kind of support/security for their mental well being, but they tend to include some woo as well.
Like the power of prayer. So as mentioned in the article, if one can walk the fine line to get the benefits of religion while avoiding the woo she is not against it but it is difficult to not get pulled in by it.

Look I bought some crystal a while back. They are really cool looking. They are claimed to provide wealth and mental health. I got them, look at them and briefly considered trying to believe in the woo. However the truth is they don't have magical properties. I know that. I thought it'd be cool to have them, spiritual, but it is not. They are just rocks. That's reality. Wanting to believe something else doesn't change that.

I'm at peace with nature. Nature doesn't need any mystical properties for that.
At one time thinking otherwise held some entertainment value for me. I suppose I am no longer looking for that kind of entertainment.

 

[Nakosis]

YES
That's great about "Freedom to believe"

Trumps dictatorship imposing "lack of freedom to believe"

Not everything is about politics IMO, but ok.

 

[Nakosis]

And Scientific people are encouraged to not trust their feelings until proven correct by science it often seems

Too bad in the case that Science runs behind the facts decades, centuries or even millenia, which happens very often

Even worse if Science happens to be impotent to solve/prove it at all

I rather trust my conscience any time above Science

Your conscience was programed by culture mostly. Maybe some genetics.
You just got to hope your culture is better than the next guys.

 

[Nakosis]

Absolutely certainly.

So, you are ok with all of the evangelical Christian who believed Trump was destined by God to save the US?
The problem being not the belief but the actions that result from the belief.

I'd think you'd rather have me using rational decision making than woo to make my choices.

 

[The Hammer]

No mention of Tarot cards, healing crystals, Chakras, etc...
Religion can provide stability, predictability, social structure, community. Some people do need that kind of support/security for their mental well being, but they tend to include some woo as well.
Like the power of prayer. So as mentioned in the article, if one can walk the fine line to get the benefits of religion while avoiding the woo she is not against it but it is difficult to not get pulled in by it.

Look I bought some crystal a while back. They are really cool looking. They are claimed to provide wealth and mental health. I got them, look at them and briefly considered trying to believe in the woo. However the truth is they don't have magical properties. I know that. I thought it'd be cool to have them, spiritual, but it is not. They are just rocks. That's reality. Wanting to believe something else doesn't change that.

I'm at peace with nature. Nature doesn't need any mystical properties for that.
At one time thinking otherwise held some entertainment value for me. I suppose I am no longer looking for that kind of entertainment.

Those things are accessories of religions, so yes of course it inst going to be mentioned specifically. Just like prayer,.confession, etc wasn't mentioned. Just the overall benefits.

 

[The Hammer]

So, you are ok with all of the evangelical Christian who believed Trump was destined by God to save the US?

They are entitled to believe what they want, whether I agree or not.

 

[Nakosis]

This rather shallow passage seems to me to contain at least one false idea about religion and makes some tendentious assertions.

It is untrue that religion encourages trust in feelings and instincts to the point of contradicting reality (whatever that means) or logic. Some branches of some religions may do this but it is not intrinsic to religion in general. And who says what "reality" consists of in the first place? As for the notion that every unsupported belief you hold makes you more open to others, what's her evidence for that? And again, who decides what constitutes an "unsupported" belief? Supported or unsupported how?

It is also objectionable to suggest that religion = woo. Woo is a term used for pseudoscience. Religion is not remotely like pseudoscience.

So in sum, a fairly lousy article. Or that's my reaction at least.

Ok, what is religion without the woo?
There maybe be something there but I suspect very difficult to untwine.
If you took all of the woo out, what would be left?
A social club?

 

[Nakosis]

Those things are accessories of religions, so yes of course it inst going to be mentioned specifically. Just like prayer,.confession, etc wasn't mentioned. Just the overall benefits.

Ok, but it is the accessories she sees as the problem.

 

[Nakosis]

They are entitled to believe what they want, whether I agree or not.

Ok, do you think any harm was cause by it?