How to effectively critique New Age ideas?

[Edwardo Piet]

@ the OP: Try to explain why logical proof and empirical evidence is important, if you can't do that then you're fucked.

[Euler]

Try to get them to define 'energy' in a meaningful way.

[NomenMihiNon]

Try to get them to define 'energy' in a meaningful way.

That's the thing. Much like the biblical literalist who insists that God planted false evidence about the universe's age and origins in order to test our faith, the New Ager can claim that such energies are simply beyond the current perception of science. Granted, one could point out that if such energies existed then science would at least be able to perceive their influence on the material world, and so on. But eventually the discussion will reach the New Ager's threshold for speculative reasoning, and any further points will be met with a "well, it just doesn't work that way" or some such nonsense.

Again, like Minimalist said, the only real difference with refuting New Age ideas is that their adherents tend to be nicer about it.

[Euler]

I'll grant you that. Debating anyone that disagrees with science by appeals to science is doomed to failure.


Skeptic: "Define (enter irrational, religious or otherwise pseudoscientific belief) such that it can be tested and verified (or falsified.)"

Believer: "no."

The reason for this is either:
1. Believer doesn't accept/understand science.
2. The believer know that their belief will be disproved.

[Confused Ape]

Try to get them to define 'energy' in a meaningful way.

I've got one of those brains which produce odd experiences (which is why I'm so interested in neuroscience).

I've sometimes had a really strange sensation which can only be described as like walking into an energy field. It feels like I'm full of this energy on the inside as well. Scientists could investigate the bit of ground I'm standing on until the proverbial cows come home but they wouldn't find anything because the experience is purely subjective on my part. I have no idea why my brain does this kind of thing but I've often wondered if this is what New Agers call energy. If so, it means that the ones who experience it have brains which produce odd experiences too.

[NomenMihiNon]

The reason for this is either:
1. Believer doesn't accept/understand science.
2. The believer know that their belief will be disproved.

Another problem is that those in the former category think they understand science, because they learned about it from "gurus" like Deepak Chopra whose misinterpretation of quantum theory makes it seem as if it proves the existence of the supernatural, when it does nothing of the kind.

I guess I was lucky that when I read How to Know God, I was clinging to straws in the final phase of my antipiphany and thus more annoyed than enlightened by it. Had I read it at an earlier, more impressionable time, my life could've taken very different turn...

---

Try to get them to define 'energy' in a meaningful way.

I've got one of those brains which produce odd experiences (which is why I'm so interested in neuroscience).

I've sometimes had a really strange sensation which can only be described as like walking into an energy field. It feels like I'm full of this energy on the inside as well. Scientists could investigate the bit of ground I'm standing on until the proverbial cows come home but they wouldn't find anything because the experience is purely subjective on my part. I have no idea why my brain does this kind of thing but I've often wondered if this is what New Agers call energy. If so, it means that the ones who experience it have brains which produce odd experiences too.

See, the very fact that an atheist can have such experiences strongly suggests (if not outright proves) that they're purely internal rather than communion with external entities or forces. Neuroscience has been able to observe the changes in the brains of people during meditation and prayer, but here's the real kicker: not everyone's brain is capable of achieving such states. I spent many years attempting to do so, only to realize it was all in vain when I happened upon an article about the discovery of the responsible gene which only some of us possess. So if it is indeed communion with a higher power, why would said higher power only give some of us the capability? Hell, the only time I came remotely close to such a feeling was while under the influence of cannabis, so if my mind could only feel that way with a foreign chemical acting on my brain, I'd consider that evidence that mind cannot transcend the brain but is rather just a product of it.

[Euler]

I would like to point out that antipiphany is just about the greatest portmanteau I have ever come across.

*tips hat

[NomenMihiNon]

I would like to point out that antipiphany is just about the greatest portmanteau I have ever come across.

*tips hat

Why, thank you.

[Creed of Heresy]

---

Well, that's the thing. Christians have their "evidence", however flawed it may be, in the form of scripture and dogma. Whereas New Agers' beliefs tend to be based on an amalgam of theirs and others' speculations, which can be much harder to refute. But you're right, at least the New Age folks are more likely to actually discuss it as opposed to argue about it.

It's not harder to refute. "I refute the so called 'evidence' produced by New Ageists". There, easy. Also, from what I've seen, the people who practice New Age crap and other superstitious shit are actually just as hard to reason with as the staunchly religious.
My mother had a delicate and almost suicidal friend, who was deeply into psychic readings and would regularly hold séances and practice spirit healing. When I tried to talk to her about her practices she got excited, but the moment she realized I was trying to ask for evidence and was a little sceptical, she immediately sunk into a defensive shell and seemed so disgruntled that I was worried I might make her suicidal condition worse, and I didn't persist any further.
She was so emotionally invested in her new age nonsense that she couldn't handle the slightest criticism.
Funnily enough, her delicate emotional condition had arisen out of her being in deep debt. The reason for this it turned out, was she that was getting financial advice from one of her "spirit guides".
I'm not sure all New Ageists are even remotely like this lady, but I do not think for a moment that they are in the least bit open minded about whether their beliefs are true or not, and very few would be bold enough to be tested in a scientific experiment.

---

Yeah, all of this, basically. I have yet to meet any new-ageist who is any more rational, open-minded, or willing to discuss their silliness than any theist...in fact, to be entirely honest, it seems quite often like new-ageists are fully aware of how unrealistic and utterly bullshit their silly practices are; ANY criticism to prove their bullshit as being nothing more than exactly that is met with an irrational level of defensiveness. This generally suggests a level of self-consciousness that is usually in proportion to the amount of defensiveness displayed, and it's highly likely that the self-consciousness comes from an active awareness in how unsubstantiated their stance is. Their stances are harmless for the most part but as it is with every other form of stupidity, if I see it being practiced or I hear it being talked about I'm going to openly mock the fuck out of it. Like the "herbal naturalists" who claim shit like grapeseed can somehow cure or treat autism. I knew someone like that once upon a time. The dumb bitch.

[Confused Ape]

Another problem is that those in the former category think they understand science, because they learned about it from "gurus" like Deepak Chopra whose misinterpretation of quantum theory makes it seem as if it proves the existence of the supernatural, when it does nothing of the kind.

Or they could get ideas from articles like this -

The Biocentric Universe Theory: Life Creates Time, Space, and the Cosmos Itself

I checked Robert Lanza out.

Robert Paul Lanza (born 11 February 1956) is an American Doctor of Medicine, scientist, Chief Scientific Officer of Advanced Cell Technology (ACT)[1] and Adjunct Professor at the Institute for Regenerative Medicine, Wake Forest University School of Medicine.