NEW AGE: THE NEED FOR MYTH
by Ted Schultz

[This article first appeared in "Western New York Skeptics
Newsletter", July 1989.]

I am a sympathetic skeptic of the New Age and other unorthodox
belief systems. I am sympathetic because, whether or not they're
actually true, some of these unconventional ideas are fascinating
cases of human creativity and imagination. I am also sympathetic
because of sentimentality, having thrilled to many unorthodox
beliefs in my youth.

When I was in the seventh grade I wrote away for a book that was
modestly entitled "The Hollow Earth: The Greatest Geographical
Discovery in History." It described a vast "inner earth"
illuminated by a central sun and inhabited by an advanced race who
were the pilots of the flying saucers. I also wrote away for a book
called "Do Abominable Snowmen of America Really Exist?" advertised
in the classifieds in "Boy's Life" at a cost of 98›.

My interest in the paranormal obviously didn't end with childhood.
In 1973, at the age of twenty, I dropped out of college, left my
home state of Illinois, and headed for San Francisco. There I moved
into the heart of the Haight-Ashbury and immersed myself in the
budding New-Age movement. I explored Eastern religions, psychic
development systems, meditation, and various occult and psychic
practices.

Today, more than fifteen years later, I'm a biologist doing
graduate study in insect evolutionary biology at Cornell
University. I've become a scientist. One old New-Age friend wrote
to tell me that I had "sold out" to the "big Satan of materialistic
science." Naturally, I don't see it quite like that. Despite the
superficially radical transformation from mystic to scientist, I
haven't really changed very much. My consistent goal in life has
been to seek out the most wondrous, the most awe-inspiring
experiences the universe has to offer. What has changed in the last
fifteen years is that my standards for establishing what is true
have become a lot more stringent.

What I quickly came to realize as I explored the New Age -- and
what I had come to realize about paranormal theories in my teen
years as well -- is that many New-Age theories are mutually
contradictory. For instance, a lot of channeled teachings tell
completely different stories about rather important matters, like
how the universe was formed and where the stars and planets came
from. They disagree about where the origin and evolution of life on
earth, and about human evolution. They give differing versions of
history, with different ancient civilizations and different lost
continents; each has its unique complement of extraterrestrials,
levels of existence, celestial beings, life-after-death scenarios
etc.

As I encountered these contradictions during my exploration of the
New Age, it became obvious that some kind of objective standard was
necessary to figure out who was right. The most reliable objective
standard I found was the scientific method. Despite derogatory
New-Age epithets like the "big Satan of materialistic science,"
"Western science," "orthodox science," and "mainstream science," I
found that the scientific method is simply the application of
critical thinking and the rules of evidence to determine the
validity of propositions about the natural world. When I began to
apply the scientific method to the ideas that interested me, I
found, to my dismay, that in the New Age objective evidence is in
short supply.

I don't want to give the impression that I think that I wasted my
time in the New Age, however. I had many beneficial and rewarding
experiences. In retrospect I realize that these benefits have very
little to do with cosmologies describing how the universe really
functions -- instead, these beneficial experiences were largely
psychological in nature. New-Age practices have their most profound
effects in such areas as altered states of consciousness,
meditation, physical therapy (yoga, etc.), psychological
counseling, and the simple pleasures of sharing experiences with
friends.

How do most New Agers deal with the contradictory nature of New-Age
teaching? Obviously they haven't felt the need to resort to the
scientific method, as I did. Most New Agers attempt to evaluate the
truth or falsity of a belief system by appealing to feelings. In
the New Age it is frequently said that if a belief "feels right" to
you, then it is "true" for you. Thus, there are two ways we use to
try to understand: the scientific method (objective) and "feelings"
(subjective).

Is one method right and the other method wrong? The answer isn't an
easy yes or no. I think, instead, that each method is appropriate
within certain realms of human experience. Relying on intuition,
faith, and feelings is appropriate for the inner, "subjective"
realm of emotions, dreams, myth, metaphor, and symbolism. I think
even arch-objectivists would agree that, for example, feelings and
intuition -- and not objective standards -- are a good way to
determine whether or not a work of art, a novel, or a piece of
music is "good" or not. Likewise, a large degree of subjectivity
must prevail in one's choice of a system of psychotherapy or a
system of psychological or spiritual growth, since by definition
how the system makes you feel determines whether it works or not. 
The scientific method and the rules of evidence, on the other hand,
are appropriate for the other, "objective" realms of physical
reality or the natural world. The scientific method is the only way
to evaluate explanations of how the natural world functions.

Making this admittedly oversimplified distinction between inner,
subjective experience and outer, objective experience has clarified
for me how the cathartic psychological benefits of certain New-Age
beliefs can be high even though they simultaneously impart a large
degree of misinformation about the natural world. 

For example, there are many New Agers who feel that they've
benefited from past-life therapy, a controversial form of
psychotherapy in which the patient relives alleged past
incarnations while under hypnosis. Because this therapy has
improved their lives, they are convinced that reincarnation is a
fact. But the therapeutic effect of past-life therapy does not
constitute evidence one way or another for the existence of
reincarnation. This requires evidence of an objective kind, and
I've never seen any that has convinced me. (Why, for instance,
hasn't one of these thousands of past-life memories led us to an
old file in some obscure records office that verified the existence
of the previous incarnation?)

EFFECTIVE THERAPIES

Likewise channeling, psychic reading, or astrological counseling
may be beneficial on a psychological, subjective level. This says
nothing about whether disembodied entities, psychic powers, or
celestial influences on human affairs are objectively real
phenomena. Why, for example, hasn't one of the many thousands of
channeled entities ever told us the latitude and longitude of some
buried, ancient temple, which we could then objectively verify?

To clarify how New-Age therapies may be effective despite their
objective unreality, a useful comparison can be made with
"psychodrama," a form a psychotherapy that does not rely on any
paranormal theories. In psychodrama, patients participate in
imaginary interactions with their mothers or fathers (roles
sometimes played by the therapist or fellow patients). As in
New-Age-style therapies, the catharsis produced by such sessions
may be very real and beneficial. Unlike New-Age-style therapy,
however, the participants in psychodrama feel no necessity to
afterward insist that their mothers or fathers were actually
present, or that interactions were "real" in every respect.

New-Age teachings abound with claims that clearly lie in the realm
of empirical testing, including stories of lost continents,
communications from 30,000-year-old entities from other dimensions,
and strange histories that include unknown civilizations and
extraterrestrial beings. Though I have become skeptical about many
of these notions, I am highly sympathetic toward them. Whether or
not they are actually true, they can be appreciated from the point
of view of mythology and folklore, and as the products of
imaginative, eccentric minds motivated by the admirable human urge
to defy orthodoxy and think independently.

My position seems to provoke the ire of both ends of the
psychic-skeptic spectrum, so maybe I'm doing something right.

Copyright (C) 1990 BAY AREA SKEPTICS.  Reprints must credit "BASIS,
newsletter of the Bay Area Skeptics, 4030 Moraga, San Francisco,
CA 94122-3928."