Legit traditions can also be anti-science. Beware that.
It’s not just the wacky newage groups that can be harmful.
If you’re new here, welcome. I work with “woo”, but I don’t reject Science. Nope, not even a little bit. I wholeheartedly trust the scientific method. You won’t find me saying or implying otherwise. THIS is what I mean when I say we have a problem with dualism. It’s not just the “uninitiated” in Buddhism (or insert tradition here) that struggle with dualism. It’s the insiders too! Even some known gurus! They’re belittling and disregarding the importance of Science. Why? Because of dualism. Isn’t it? Science here, yang. Spirituality there, yin. One wins, the other loses. Dual. That’s a problem.
Think of the Yin-Yang symbol. Why is it the way it is? And not just one big grey circle? Ever wondered? In my own understanding, that’s because monoliths are bad. (The grey). We need harmony between black and white, but we also need to acknowledge and honour their differences and limits; where one ends and the other one begins; their boundaries. Boundaries! A concept so many gurus of today have a problem with (but shouldn’t).
I always say, and will repeat once again: Science is objective; Religion is subjective. The former, you CAN prove and disprove (and you SHOULD do that! That’s how Scientific discoveries and advancements are made possible). The latter, you CANNOT prove or disprove (and you SHOULD NOT do that. It doesn’t work. Either you believe or you don’t, and belief is a choice, period. Just like art is subjective — maybe you like the feelings that art evoke and you look for art for that reason, but maybe you don’t, and both choices are fine. One choice, say, to pursue it, isn’t objectively better or worse than the other, namely, to reject it).
I’m not saying the above to sound superior to other spiritual bloggers and influencers (although if you wish to read it that way, feel free). It’s rather unfortunate that so many people in the spiritualist community DON’T fully support Science. I find it outrageous, in fact. But it is what it is, what can I do?
It’s mind-boggling to me when people start trying to outsmart completely different areas of knowledge as if both couldn’t be valid at the same time. It’s as weird as, let’s suppose, an art teacher trying to disprove math because the math teacher is apparently working for this big conspiracy theory where they’re out to get art teachers and replace them and leave them jobless… Or the math teacher trying to ridicule and discredit art because “look at these lines, they’re all crooked, who calculated this?” When in fact, art is art and math is math. One is exact, the other one isn’t, so what? What’s the matter? We can have both. Don’t we have both at school? Yes. There’s no need for competition or paranoia. You’re not comparing like with like. Two completely different things CANNOT compete against each other, for heaven’s sake.
Most people are programmed, brainwashed if you will, to think that subjectivity and objectivity are the same thing or one cancels out the other (in both instances, there can only be one unit. One thing. Not both. No diversity. Only monoliths). But just because that’s the common line of thought, it doesn’t mean it’s true. A lot of things that were common in the past are now in the History books and we read about them and feel outraged. Why is that? Well, because of what I said: just because something is commonplace (or used to be commonplace), it doesn’t mean it’s the right thing to think and to do.
One must have critical thinking. But critical thinking takes work, doesn’t it? If you stay forever on a surface level, you won’t reach it. You’ll just eat-up every kind of snake oil people are selling.
Today’s disdain for Science is not blatant. It’s covert.
If it was overt, guys, I wouldn’t be talking about it. I don’t teach the obvious. I trust that my readers can figure out the obvious by themselves. So… do we have obvious and overt examples of Science being dismissed by religious people? Of course! Everywhere! Take your pick of Evangelical Christian, for starters. But will I talk about that here? No. Because it’s obvious. There’s nothing new I could possibly tell you about it. You already see it.
So, let’s talk about this emerging kind of anti-science sentiment that is increasingly common in spiritual communities (especially the Buddhist — one I have experience with): the act of dismissing Science in between the lines, with a smile and words of apparent kindness.
I won’t make citations or name names here. This is my personal decision every time I call people out. I’m not exactly afraid, I just don’t want to give them visibility. So, if you don’t believe me, actually that’s great! It means you’re lucky! It means you haven’t crossed paths with these predators. Let’s keep it that way.
For those who relate, though, I hope the following helps.
When I say “dismissing Science in between the lines, with a smile and words of apparent kindness”, what I mean is implied superiority and condescension. It’s not visible at first impression. It’s hidden underneath several layers of rhetoric and colorful language. I’m not kidding when I say “hidden”. I’ve been attending a pretty intense oracle training, and even I struggle to see this hidden intention behind some gurus’ words when I cross paths with them. Imagine how much more vulnerable are the people who don’t even work with the unseen!
I’ll give you one example: maybe one day you were listening to a guru talk about Wu Wei (click for definition) applied to pain relief. Let’s suppose it’s, IDK, a video on YouTube for example. And in this video, public for everyone to see, the guru mentions that a man had arthritis and struggled to perform everyday tasks because of the pain. Eventually, this man had the intuitive idea of trying not to force his body to work harder to move when the pain is bad, and instead accepting that he needs to be gentle and patient — and voilá, suddenly he regained some mobility as if by magic! That’s Wu Wei. Hurray! Everyone likes and comments praising his teaching. No mention of the possibility this man might already have a treatment plan with a mainstream doctor, among other supports that shouldn’t be stigmatised in ANY community.
Stay with me. I have a point and it’s coming up VERY soon.
So, on a different piece of communication — a blog post, perhaps — the same guru makes a comparison between Science-based medicine and egotism, claiming that because Science-based solutions exist within Capitalism, they’re automatically geared towards benefitting the few at the expense of the many. This guru is smart and knows better than to go straight to the point (using, perhaps, common dog-whistles of the conspiracy theory community such as “big pharma”), and instead doesn’t. What he does is claim that, “oh, we’re not collectivistic like the hunter-gatherers of the past, only indigenous tribes today retain this collectivistic philosophy, so we unwittingly end up developing solutions from a paradigm of greed even if we have the best of intentions”. On a surface level, this looks like it’s fine. He’s not using us-vs-them terminology or any other populist fallacies. The problem is underneath the surface, and we’ll get to it, bear with me.
Let’s suppose you felt captivated by the free material and you ended up paying for private consultations with this guru. So, at a certain point, you guys are talking about a specific meditative practice that allegedly provides pain relief. You mention his initial video that you saw and liked, and you ask, “I’ve been trying one of your alternative methods of relief for a specific pain I’m feeling, but it’s not working yet. What should I do?”. His answer is to keep practising, because it’s not an instantaneous remedy, it can take several months to really learn. Then, you go like, “so I should just suffer through the worst of it for several months?”, and he finally says, “oh, no, of course not. If you need to take painkillers every now and then, do that. This practice is complimentary”.
If you’re really quick-witted, you’ve probably already realised my point. But if not, fear not, just keep reading.
“Who? Me? I said that? Oh no, sweetie, I didn’t. You must be mistaken.”
…Usually followed by “I’m not deceiving anyone. This subject is just nuanced. You’re struggling with nuance, that’s okay, we all do at some point” (oh, the condescension! What’s next? A pat on the head and a smile of fake concern that actually is a cover-up for a superiority complex? I’ve seen that movie already. As a toddler).
A lot of modern gurus rely on the motte and bailey fallacy today when dismissing the importance of materialistic Science. Click for an explanation.
They don’t preach passionately against logic and reason like a pastor in an Evangelical Church, because that’s easy to mock. Instead, they go for motte and bailey. On one hand, they manifest their disdain for Science by *not saying in public* how valid and helpful it can actually be (the bailey), but when questioned about it, they directly address it, preferably in private (the motte) so that potential followers who are openly against Science won’t see this in public: “meditative practices are complimentary, not a replacement, to scientific solutions”. (Or insert here similar disclaimers with a different wording IN THE SAME ARTICLES where the person is advocating for alternative solutions — that’s the ethical thing they should do, but choose not to).
You see… you can’t simply point to ONE thing the guru said in ONE place as proof and evidence that this guru is anti-Science. The anti-Science message is, instead, diffused in a pattern of communication that can only be put together and perceived once you 1) remove the superficial layers of fluff and jargon, and 2) compare and contrast different pieces of communication by the same guru on the same topic.
I know how to do that. I’m learning decryption and encryption. But how many others have the same privilege? A minority only.
It’s a great strategy to prevent criticism, because it ensures only the people who have some serious research and cross-referencing skills can uncover the problem (which the majority does not; the depressed and vulnerable certainly won’t have the presence of mind to do that).
This level of “carefree” gurus exhibit when delivering their ideology to the masses is similar to, let’s suppose, a frozen lake where nobody bothered to place a sign warning visitors that the lake is deep and the ice is thin, so there’s danger of falling in and freezing to death. “Oh but they should have researched and found out how deep is this lake” — yeah, no, that’s not how accident prevention works. Let’s not be obtuse.
“This is not a replacement for conventional therapy”, says a guru in a private session to a consultee who ASKED (because in some cases, if you don’t ask, you don’t even find the goddamn disclaimer. Or you find it in a random place far away from the more ideological pieces of communication — akin to placing the above warning sign inside a box that you need a key to open. How many people are afraid of confrontation? How many are people-pleasers? How many are just plain shy and opt for not asking what their intuition wished they would ask, and then “fall on the lake accidentally”? Are we not going to protect them?).
So, no, a lot of today’s gurus aren’t saying they’re anti-Science. They just leave things far too open to interpretation because deep down they don’t really care if people read it one way or the other, do they?
That’s also a way of being irresponsible, I’m sorry to inform. Similar to how pansexuals don’t really care about clearly excluding paraphilias from their denomination, like I pointed out in a previous article. Oh, who knows, maybe they’re pure innocent souls who overestimate everyone’s kindness and sincerity… Or, more likely, they accept the risk of getting their label co-opted because they’re too invested in their political extremism to care. But I digress.
Basically, this is a case of disingenuous communication. The bane of every oracle’s existence, I’m sure. Personal beef aside, I don’t think it’s fair on the uninformed people (not unintelligent! But uninformed. When you’re a beginner at anything, you’re uninformed and vulnerable to deception). That’s why I write these call outs.
We all have an intuition. Keep that in mind. Feel free to explore metaphysical and spiritualist material, but if something feels off, don’t gaslight yourself. Chances are your intuition wants to protect you. If you’re finding it hard to trust somebody or something, ask yourself, why? But ask it in silence, just on your own — why? There probably is an answer, even if it’s complex and takes a while to unfold.
Never EVER rush into anything or anyone’s counsel — even if recommended by a really close friend. Close friends can fall prey to opportunists. Take things at a snail’s pace when it comes to spirituality. And trust your doctor. If he was out to get you, he’d have gone for a career in casino instead.
