From: kilroy@gboro.glassboro.edu (Dr Nancy's Sweetie)
Subject: What's New Age and What's Roman Catholic?
Organization: Rowan College of New Jersey
Date: Sat, 26 Sep 1992 05:01:36 GMT


Welcome to another episode of the world's most exciting game show,
"Quotation Showdown"!  In one corner, we have John Ankerberg (as reported
by Michael Kline) discussing `New Age in Schools'; in the other corner,
Eric Ewanco discusses `Materialism'.  And it's the first round!

Mr Ankerberg strikes first:

> Eric: In Arizona, there is a company that produces curriculum that's used
> through out the United States that has come to our attention in which
> the children taught that trees actually have spirits in them, that the
> water has spirits in them, that the rocks have spirits in them. And she
> says, "This is wonderful for them because the kids because they'll never
> need to be lonely in this world where parents are working and so forth, they
> often get lonely, but now they can know that they can contact a tree, and
> they can hug a rock, and they can talk to a tree. They'll never be lonely
> now." That's Pantheism.
>
> John: Yea, that's basically New Age Pantheism. God is all, and all is
> God, and so you can talk to these living things, such as rocks and trees.

[ Note: the person quoted by `Eric' only said that everything had spirits in
  them.  Not one word about what kind of spirits, or `God'.  Mr Ankerberg has
  drawn an unjustified conclusion, but that's of only logical interest right
  now. ]

But Mr Ewanco is prepared with a defense!

> Then you are a materialist, and you reject the spiritual world.  What
> Aristotle said could be understood by Western Christians in the
> following way.  Everything has both a material and a spiritual reality.
> Humans have a body and a soul/spirit.  Objects, too, have a spiritual
> component.  This is why objects can be cursed.  There is a spiritual --
> non-material -- reality behind everything.

The Ankerberg Team made a charge of `Pantheism', but Kid Ewanco struck back
with a charge of materialism and rejecting the spiritual world.  Round One
gives us no conclusion.  <Ding!> And they're out of the corners for Round Two!


Mr Ewanco is first to land a punch:

> Again, this is a materialist heresy and denies the existence of the
> spiritual world.  What you are arguing is as absurd as saying that who
> Darren is is no more than neurons and organic molecules.  Who you really
> are is based on your spirit, not the chemicals in your brain.  And your
> spirit is non-physical.  You are arguing that reality is based only upon
> electrons, protons, and neutrons, only things that we can measure and
> see. This is a materialist view.

Arguing that human beings have souls is a standard Roman Catholic trick;
but as we'll see, Mr Ankerberg will have none of that:

> And this was a term that was coined, John, by Abraham Naslow and others
> during the human potential movement.  And before he died, Abraham Naslow,
> the great humanist psychologist said, "You know what? Man is more than this
> overly qualified monkey. There's something that's spirit, something that
> goes beyond the five senses, beyond the human, trans-personal." What they're
> talking about is occultism.

 [ Note: That's probably Maslow, with an `M', for anybody who wanted to look
   this stuff up.  Similarly, the references to `Scenarian' programs probably
   mean BF Skinner. ]

That's right, believing that humans have a spirit beyond the five senses is
OCCULTISM!  Proper Christians wouldn't be caught dead believing in souls!


And so it seems we have a tie: John Ankerberg is a materialist who denies
the existence of a soul, but Eric Ewanco is a occultic pantheist.  Lots of
mud today, but both parties are equally dirty.  Join us next time for another
exciting game of "Quotation Showdown"!

 --

Right now, some of you are thinking that this is unfair.  Believing in a non-
physical reality, or believing that people have souls, does not make one an
occultist.  Arguing that some teachings about spiritual reality are non-
Christian does not make one a materialist.

So what is the point of this little exercise?  The point is that, when 
Mr Ankerberg is arguing against certain spiritual ideas, he sounds like
someone who doesn't believe in souls at all.  And when Mr Ewanco is arguing
against materialism, he sounds like a mystic from an Eastern Religion.

If we used these posts to guess about what these men believe, we'd be way off
base -- because in context, they are arguing against someone who has gone too
far in one direction.  If we take their statements out of context (as I have
done above), they themselves seem to be too far off in the OTHER direction.


Drawing conclusions based on arguments in specific situations, instead of
general statements, leads to errors in interpretation.  It's happened to me
several times -- a lot of you attribute to me ideas I do not hold, and only
a few of you really have any idea what I think.

The same thing may well be going on the next time you disagree with someone.
Before replying to something, think carefully about what was said, and in what
context.  Don't tell people what they believe: ask them to explain it so you
can understand.

(As it happens, I think that some of the comments on the Ankerberg show that
 we have seen are based on exactly the kind of mistake that I have satirised
 above.  In particular, Mr Maslow was arguing _against_ treating people like
 rats in a maze.  It seems that he is being interpreted from arguments-out-of-
 context, not from general explanatory statements.  I don't think Maslow was
 right about everything, but he had some good points to make.  Dismissing all
 of what he wrote as New Age hogwash is mistake born of prejudice and faulty
 research.)


Darren F Provine / kilroy@gboro.glassboro.edu
"Could you please continue the petty bickering?  I find it most intriguing."
                                                            -- Lt Cmdr Data
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU