|
|
|
My agency helped put a symposium together which is happening today and tomorrow. Today I found out that an astrology was one of the speakers. The reason she was there is that she wrote a book vaguely on the topic. I had a total fit. An astrology on the roster at an event that my agency put together! I think all my colleagues thought I was being even more ridiculous than usual. I'm still pissed about it though. Astrologers are like pick pockets to me. So I guess we all get a little testy about these new age things.
So I can perfectly understand your feelings about this, and it was certainly right for you to speak with the teacher. It seems from what you describe like a fairly harmless thing she was doing. Maybe something she got from her yoga class. But there could be more behind it, so it is good to stay informed.
In any case I wouldn't take him out of the school or anything that dramatic. At some point or another he will come into contact with that sort of thing. It is much better to talk with him about it. Maybe it's even good to let him keep doing it, so he knows what it is like. It sounds like a five minute time out and relax kind of thing. Or is there more behind it?
I can say for myself I had zero religious training as a child and my parents were both pretty none involved in what I did anyway. I think that made me extra vulnerable.
Maybe you should just talk with him about it and explain where it all comes from, that it is part of Asian spiritual philosophy, but it is also just a relaxing technique. I'm thinking that if you make a big issue about it he might get all worked up and confused unnecessarily.
|
|
|
|
It saved me the trouble of saying much the same thing. Although I don't understand the educational value of her wanting to get young kids to do this, the way the teacher has gone about it doesn't look like much of a threat to anyone's sanity. Presenting meditation as a 'relaxation technique' might also have an innoculation effect: if the kids in later life later encounter similar practices but packaged as the 'keys to immortality' or any such nonsense, they'l just go, 'oh, that! - yeah (yawn)'. I am more concerned by what British junior schools still teach in the orthodox Christian tradition. A few years back, my then eight-year-old said, 'Daddy, I know God exists!' 'How do you know that?' I replied. 'Because, if he didn't exist, we wouldn't have to say prayers to him at school.' You can't fault the logic, can you?
|
|
|
|
Nigel:
Where do they allow prayer in public schools? If you're talking about prayers said in schools in Australia I'd frankly be more worried that this would lead to irreligion, since that has been the consequence of almost every close association between the state and religion. (Somehow I can't seem to convince my religious friends of this, however.)
Incidentally, the hot question right now is whether Islam is compatible with democracy. Asifa Quraishi presents a fairly good theoretical case that it is.
|
|
|
|
Over here, we're ahead of you in some ways (eg, not teaching Creationism as science) but behind you in others. School morning assemblies are still encouraged to have a 'largely Christian component'. Just one website googled at random: http://www.spinnaker.org.uk/ Is Islam compatible with democracy? - probably no less so than Christianity. (Consider Iran prior to 1953.) But I don't think this is the place to talk about it. Since its launch, this forum has been mercifully free of political discussions (apart from some exchanges about Rennie Davis's past) and I think most posters here would prefer to keep it that way. Nige
|
|
|
|
I know the terminology is different there. Are you saying that the government sponsored tax supported schools are still "largely Christian"? Wow, that is very different than US. Here, US- public school is the tax supported no tuition school most children attend available to everyone. Private school are schools parents choose and pay tuition for children to attend. What is the terminology there?
|
|
|
|
Unlike in the States, the UK has never made a separation of church and state. The monarch is still 'defender of the faith' and although Christian assemblies are becoming a thing of the past (especially in multi-cultural inner-city areas), they are still legally legitimate. And I don't mean specifically 'faith schools' here. Those are the ones which are privately-run but get government funding and promote a particular religous viewpoint, be it Catholic, Islamic or whatever. Ordinary 'state schools' still have a basic Christian orientation, even though it is mostly lip service these days. What we (stupidly) call 'public' schools are actually private schools, funded by the parents: elitist education for rich kids and future prime ministers.
Modified by Nigel at Fri, Mar 10, 2006, 14:30:04
|
|
|
|
I knew that public school meant Eaton and such for some odd reason but I didn't know about the no separation of church and state. No wonder we split off from you guys! I also only recently learned "bloody" was a swear word !
|
|
|
|
only about 10% of the UK actually is serious about religion ( all religon not just Christianity) whereas over on your side of the pond half the folk in the USA don't believe in evolution but rather take the Bible literally. So, personally speaking, I'm more than happy you split from us guys  Theory is one thing ( Church/State and what not) and is pretty much window dressing in many respects but reality on the ground is a wholly different matter. And the "literal belief" trend in the States is actually on the increase. It was consistently 45% since the early 80's but is now 53%. I'm more than happy to have some Church /State mumbo jumbo ( well that's not strictly true - I oppose it and would like rid of it but it isn't too much of a problem anyways) yet live in basically secular society.But then, I'm not really a religious believer.No bloody way : ) Cheers...
Related link: Gallup report ..US belief trends
Modified by Dermot at Sat, Mar 11, 2006, 05:53:20
|
|
|
|
When we Americans are little kids we all learn how the pilgrims came to the US to be able to practice their religion. Then they had a nice dinner with the Indians and everyone lived happily ever after....or something like that. You are rignt, plenty of fundamentalists around. But at least where I live, California which is obviously more liberal than most of the US, public education ( government sponsored education) IMO has more liberal than conservative bent. More likely for New Age stuff to sneak in than a prayer. LOL about no bloody way! I really only just learned that.
|
|
|
|
Some friends and I recently went to see the movie Eight Below. It's definitely a "boy kinda flick," (and they must have had indepth interviews of the dogs to figure out the sequence of events after the humans left) but we also sort of fell in love with an actress with the improbable (and probably Amerind) name: Moon Blood Good. Got no clue what it means, but she was cute as the dickens.
|
|
|
|
If you really liked it I might take my son to see it. I have seen the promos for it. Also want to see Shaggy Dog. ( Funny, thats another American/English funny title )
|
|
|
|
... and that act of collective worship must be "wholly or mainly of a broadly Christian character"http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/education/1209608.stm Incidentally Nige, don't forget all the RC and CE voluntary aided state schools - their ethos goes much further than simple "lip-service". In fact teachers in most of the RC schools have to be practising catholics - and their parish priest has to sign a reference to that effect!
Related link: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/education/1209608.stm
Modified by cq at Sat, Mar 11, 2006, 06:14:51
|
|
|
|
re. the status of teachers in RC schools - it's only Headteachers and Deputy Headteachers who have to get their parish priest to sign a reference to the effect that they (the HT/DHT) are practising catholics. Thanks, Lexy (who's been a teacher in catholic schools) for pointing that out, and apologies to anyone I might have misled as a consequence of my error.
Modified by cq at Sat, Mar 11, 2006, 11:05:07
|
|
|
|
Hi Nigel (and Susan)
Religious assemblies are not only legally legitimate in the UK,but they are legally compulsory. Every school has to have a religious assembly every day.
As you point out Nigel, nowadays these are often multicultural. I used to take assemblies regularly when I was a teacher, and I told stories from all religions and mythologies.
Anth the Universal Teacher (and he really must decide...)
|
|
|
|
My husband this morning was bemoaning that he has to work with a different assistant than usual today. He said, "It's hard to be mean to Victoria because she has an upper class British accent, its like being mean to Mary Poppins". Then I told him about our discussion here and he said its DOF Susan. I say "huh"? Defender of the Faith. Then we both prayed to the sun and he left for work.
|
|
|
|
But I don't think this is the place to talk about it.
I'm not sure I can see how a discussion about Islam's fitness for democracy is more "political" than the contention that "Creationism" is taught in US public schools (which it isn't). But I'm not an expert on Islam, so leave that up to them, apart from observing that the Sunni Kurds don't seem to have a problem, at least over the last decade or so. I could get into a discussion about how "Intelligent Design" isn't "Biblical Creationism," but that would bring me into direct conflict with the mechanistic view of science and rationality. But for argument's sake, even if Behe were a Creationist he doesn't have to be. It's not something that's necessary to the contention that design might be involved. In fact Behe's hypothesis is simply the Type II version of Darwin's own Type I hypothesis: that if someone could point to a "part of an organism" (in this case on a molecular scale) that couldn't possibly have "evolved" then his theory, as a theory of the origin of all new life forms) is disproved. Simply contending that the Type II version is illegetimate (show me how organism part X could have evolved and I'll acknowledge my theory that it's designed has been falsified) doesn't make it so. The confusion is that people don't seem to know very much about Type I and Type II hypotheses. One might argue that a Type II hyothesis is inappropriate, but that's a complicated judgment call, and not an argument that it's unscientific. This isn't to say that I think Behe's theory worthy of being taught in elementary and secondary school, any more than the theory of Continental Drift was worthy of being taught in schools until it had built up a level of credibility through practical argument and evidence. There was a time when the only people who believed in Continental Drift were the Theosophists, who saw it as a legitimation of their beliefs about Atlantis and Mu. That didn't make it unscientific. But the ID hypothesis is scientific, nonetheless, even if the arguments proposed by its supporters aren't.
|
|
|
|
>I'm not sure I can see how a discussion about Islam's fitness for democracy is more "political" than the contention that "Creationism" is taught in US public schools (which it isn't). Did I make that comparison? I don't think so. I think Behe is full of crap, for sure (having read both sides of that debate at length), but I discuss that kind of thing elsewhere on the web. My point was a reply to Susan about the legitimacy of presenting religious or quasi-religious viewpoints to children as fact or science. Whether or not Islam is compatible with democracy is interesting enough, but beside the point, IMO. Others might want to discuss it, but I sure don't.
Modified by Nigel at Fri, Mar 10, 2006, 14:53:35
|
|
|
|
Fair enough, but I just want to point out that you're the one who made the presumptive statement about Creationism being taught regularly in US public schools. US public schools are enjoined by the courts from teaching creationism as an alternative to evolution, so the statement is simply factually incorrect, even if the law is breached once in awhile. The prevailing paranoia is that teaching ID will open the door to teaching Creationism, and that may even be the hope of the Creationists. But that doesn't mean that ID is what they hope it is, or that their wishes will easily become reality.
And even if you think Behe's hypothesis and defense are "crap,' that doen't mean the basic contention couldn't be reformulated and better defended. (I'm not as disparaging about him, but that's a judgment call.) I'm puzzled as to why that hasn't become the argument from scientists. I'm led to conclude that Kuhn may have been more right than I thought, about the nature of science as a social construction.
|
|
|
|
Is the latter a *tiny* bit less stupid or something? Are you sure no US schools are teaching ID? I read quite a few states are now, through recent court decisions, doing just that. I'd even be relieved if you can correct me on that point. There are a few faith schools in the UK who now teach ID as a 'plausible' alternative to Darwin, but thankfully not many. If Behe's contention could be 'reformulated and better defended', I'm sure someone would have managed to do so by now, given the amount of evangelical funding that goes into making a legal and political football out of this non-issue. Maybe they should fund some scientific research instead, gather a bit of evidence before trying to bamboozle impressionable young minds with bullshit. ID is not science - simple as that. It offers no evidence or testable hypotheses. And don't get me started on Kuhn 
|
|
|
|
In my discussions about this with actual real-life scientists I've found that they aren't terribly pleased with Dawkins, because his position tends to lend credibility to the argument that evolutionists are attempting to disprove the possible existence of a Creator, and they're a lot more comfortable with saying that religion and science are separate and therefor not contradictory. From my own perspective the fact that Dawkins apparently believes in some rather goofy political conspiracy theories tends to undermine my assessment of his scientific creds. At any rate he isn't typical of the scientific establishment, most of whom are perfectly happy to avoid treading on religious territory.
From a perspective involving the philosophy of science most people seem to think he's naive, at best... and somewhat ignorant.
|
|
|
|
The existence of God cannot be disproved, but the reasons for believing in God can be shown to be logically flawed. This is an ideal topic for the Non-Rawat Talk forum!John.
Modified by JHB at Fri, Mar 10, 2006, 17:10:42
|
|
|
|
It looks a little empty, though.
|
|
|
|
Juan,
You were the inspiration behind it! Actually, no you weren't - I've been intending starting an associated OT forum for a while, but your entry into PRT seemed an appropriate time to do so.
John.
|
|
|
|
I actually only thought of posting when I read about the cult-deprogramming of jihadists. As you know I've long seen this as connected to the cult thing in general, and specifically to the concept of charisma. Ernest Gellner thought that Islam constitutes a "charismatic society." If he was right then the emergence and expansion of an extreme version like Wahabbism was inevitable. In fact, if Sant Mat got the sort of sponsorship that Safafism enjoyed then the Guru-thing would become just as radical and murderous as al Qaeda, once power was consolidated. And as you know there are fascist versions of Hinduism already.
Anyway, thanks for creating the alternative to not-very-much-of-anything goes.
|
|
|
|
The validity or otherwise of ID does not depend on Dawkins' views on religion. The article I linked to was specifically about the invalidity of ID as a scientific hypothesis. Nor does it depend on the views of some other scientists about Dawkins. In fact Dawkins could undergo a religious conversion tomorrow and throw in the towel, and ID would still be exercise in wishful thinking rather than evidence-based theory building. It's almost a shame that Richard Dawkins is one of Darwin's most eloquent exponents, because natural selection is hardly his own pet theory, even though he boldly attracts most of the fire, and people seem to imagine that discrediting Dawkins will somehow undermine the evidence-based principles underlying modern biology that have been painstakingly assembled from Darwin onwards, via Mendel, Crick and Watson etc. There are plenty of other working scientists (as opposed to science writers) who are studying natural selection, first-hand as it happens and are more interested in just getting on with the science. And - sorry - life sciences have no need for the hand of God. That 99% of biologists don't speak out against religion doesn't make them closet Creationists. (Read, say, Jonathan Weiner's 'Beak of the Finch' for an account of a 25-year study of the hybridisation of Galapogos finches in relation to environmental changes for some compelling evidence that ID could never account for.) Anyway, I don't think it is Dawkins' aim is primarily to 'tread on religious territory', as you put it. Rather, he is defensive about religionists trying to tamper with the science curriculum, as is bloody-well right to be so, IMO. Ok, that's my rant for the day. I won't add any more on this subject, unless its over on the non-Rawat forum. Nigel
Modified by Nigel at Sat, Mar 11, 2006, 01:27:46
|
|
|
|
Anyway, I don't think it is Dawkins' aim is primarily to 'tread on religious territory', as you put it. Rather, he is defensive about religionists trying to tamper with the science curriculum, as is bloody-well right to be so, IMO. Actually that was Stephen Gould's position. It's not true of Dawkins, and he has said as much unambiguously. Anyway, as I have heard Behe state his hypothesis it seem, in general, valid. That might not be the case at the margins, but it isn't hard to perceive a valid hypothesis very much like Behe's... which in my mind raises the question: What's the fuss all about? Why is so much invested in defaming Behe? I remain convinced that this is the case because many scientists see the possibility of the entire scientific/rational project coming unraveled. And they see that, because their foundational beliefs about science are partly based on phisolophical postions they don't really understand very well. Now, one might well believe that Behe's hypothesis is trivial... if the error he thinks important isn't important to you, or you think it impossibly unlikely... but that's not the same as saying he's unscientific, and it's also apparently "not good enough" to merely insist that the weight ought to go to your side of the boat. Hence, the interloper has to be destroyed. Ultimately something very much like Behe's hypothesis will have to be accepted, and we'll take the next step... without presumptions about where it will lead.
|
|
|
|
Is the latter a *tiny* bit less stupid or something?
Actually to say that Creationism is "stupid" is to acknowledge (falsely) that it's a rational hypothesis. I'm pretty sure you didn't mean to do that, but ID isn't Biblical Creationism (which is what is meant by the term unless you're worried about Sumerian Creationism or something) because falsification of the Darwinian hypothesis doesn't establish the existence of a Divine Creator. Interestingly there's actually a position that would tend to falsify Behe's hypothesis without necessarily upholding Darwin's: the "emergent phenomena" conjecture of "complexity theory." If that happens then we'll be in the realm of philosophy, rather than science, becauses we'd have to reformulate the scientific or rational enterprise itself, which you can't do with the tools of science. Are you sure no US schools are teaching ID? I read quite a few states are now, through recent court decisions, doing just that. I'd even be relieved if you can correct me on that point. There are a few faith schools in the UK who now teach ID as a 'plausible' alternative to Darwin, but thankfully not many.
Again ID isn't Creationism. In that sense it's like Continental Drift. If it turns out to be true it might momentarily open the door to some non-rational theories, but it's also capable of closing them in due time. In spite of the fact that Continental Drift turned out to be true not many people believe in Atlantis. If Behe's contention could be 'reformulated and better defended', I'm sure someone would have managed to do so by now, given the amount of evangelical funding that goes into making a legal and political football out of this non-issue. Maybe they should fund some scientific research instead, gather a bit of evidence before trying to bamboozle impressionable young minds with bullshit. ID is not science - simple as that. It offers no evidence or testable hypotheses. Of course it does. You can falsify Behe's hypothesis by demonstrating how evolution could produce the molecular machines he's talking about. Now, it would take more than a theoretical argument, probably. It might take some actual empirical evidence. And it's also not sufficient to point out how evolution might produce that result, because that wouldn't reach the threshold of a Type II hypothesis. But having said that the evangelicals aren't motivated to reformulate it, because their position isn't scientific in the first place. From their perspective Behe's theory as stated "good enough." What puzzles me is why scientists don't reformulate it. Again, I think the reason is the socially constructed nature of the scientific endeavor. They appear to be afraid that if they give any legitimacy to this theory it'll undermine the foundutions of science itself. In a certain sense they're right, but not necessarily in the sense they fear. There's no real rational reason to fear that we'd head back toward superstition and blind faith. Just the opposite. And don't get me started on Kuhn I would have said, a year ago, that Kuhn was obviously wrong. The sophomoric nature of the "defense of evolution" is convincing me otherwise. As with many issues, the crux of the matter is to understand the difference between a Type I and a Type II hypothesis, or what some methodologists call Alpha and Beta hypotheses. You can take your pick between them, but blending the two isn't allowed. In this case a type II hypothesis will appeal to anyone who is concerned that non-obvious instances of design might be overlooked, and who consider that more problematic than overlooking instance where evolution isn't given sufficient credit. I used to have a good reference for Type I and Type II errors, but the link seems to have eroded. I can post the text here if you like, but it's a little long. The bottom line is that the choice between the two is dictated by the risk assessment associated with the possibility of making an error, not with the odds of being correct. Naturally if you think there's no chance you're incorrect you don't tend to take that risk seriously... but such a position isn't scientific, it's just human.
|
|
|
|
>Again ID isn't Creationism. In that sense it's like Continental Drift. If it turns out to be true it might momentarily open the door to some non-rational theories, but it's also capable of closing them in due time. In spite of the fact that Continental Drift turned out to be true not many people believe in Atlantis.
If Behe's contention could be 'reformulated and better defended', I'm sure someone would have managed to do so by now, given the amount of evangelical funding that goes into making a legal and political football out of this non-issue. Maybe they should fund some scientific research instead, gather a bit of evidence before trying to bamboozle impressionable young minds with bullshit. ID is not science - simple as that. It offers no evidence or testable hypotheses. Of course it does. You can falsify Behe's hypothesis by demonstrating how evolution could produce the molecular machines he's talking about. As always, the burden of proof is on the claimant. If Behe believes any perceived anomaly in evolutionary orthodoxy is evidence for his design hypothesis, rather than simply an open question worthy of further attention, then his scientific responsibility is to offer testable predictions that will demonstrate (a) that a designer must be involved, and (b) how that designer went about it. Simply presenting your conclusions ('a designer must have done it') as argument is circular reasoning in my book.
|
|
|
|
As always, the burden of proof is on the claimant. Apart from the context of ID this is purely a methodological issue, and "burden of proof" depends on which type of hypothesis you chose, based upon which kind of error you think more harmful. Darwin formulated a Type I hypothesis that placed the burden of proof on those who would claim his theory totally invalid. Since a valid ID hypothesis generally acknowledges the mechanism of evolution, it isn't seeking to invalidate the mechanism, but simply to say that design plays a role. Therefore, it's appropriate to adopt a Type II hypothesis assuming there are instances of Darwins "parts of organisms" that can't be excluded as exceptions. They have some burden of proof, since they can't propose a molecular machine that clearly could have evolved through natural selection... but it's perfectly OK to point to a mechanism that seems to meet the requirements of an exception and say "prove it isn't." In general Type I hypotheses are more common that Type II, but that's only because of the distribution of risk that humans perceive. One isn't inherently more valid than another. I'm not leading you astray on this. For what it's worth here's Rusty Shackleford's excellent post of Type I and Type II error. I'm reproducing it because I can't get the original link to open. It was posted in blogger, which tends to go haywire from time to time. [Note: Clipped because not methodologically relevant.]
Most people work under the false assumption that they either know or don't know something. The truth is that knowledge is not a dichotomous choice-->1) know or 2) don't know. Rather, when we say we "know" something, we really mean that the probability of it being true is very near 100%. Being near 100% is not 100%, though. There is always a chance that we are wrong, even if that chance is 1/1,000,000. So knowledge is a continuum ranging from complete uncertainty to very close to certain.Another false assumption people work under is that they must only act when they "know" something, not when they are unsure of something. But, since we can never be 100% sure of something we see that this cannot be the case. What you really mean is that you don't want to act until your knowledge of something is close enough to 100% that you feel very confident that you aren't wrong. However, in real life decisions often cannot wait until you are sure of something. For instance, you and I are both pretty freaking pissed about gas prices. We want to pay the lowest price possible, so we shop around a bit until we find a gas station that is lower than the rest. You buy the gas. Now, was the station the lowest price? The truth is that you don't know. It seemed to be the best price based on the information you could gather, but since the gas tank won't wait for you to do a complete canvas of all gas stations you are compelled to act. Even though we all want to act upon complete information in any situation it is simply impossible. Unless you are God, all decisions are made on something less than 100% complete information. Since ALL decisions are made on something less than complete information, each of us must weigh the consequences of what will happen if we make the wrong decision. Sometimes, being wrong is of little consequences, but other times the consequences can be dire. In statistics when we try to test certain hypothesis we differentiate between the consequences of being wrong as a Type I or Type II error. A Type I error occurs when a null hypothesis is rejected even though it is true. A Type II error occurs when a null hypothesis is accepted, even though it is not true. So, in the gas tank example we come up with this hypothesis: "The Jawa gas station has the lowest prices." A Type I error would be if you rejected that hypothesis. No, you say, I don't have enough information to confirm that the Jawa gas station has the lowest prices. So, you continue to search for another station. Since you have already determined that you will only buy gas when you find the station with the lowest price you eventually run out of gas. Oops, you were wrong, the Jawa gas station had the lowest price and now its too late to go back and fill up. A Type II error would occur if you went ahead an bought the gas, but then you go down the block only to find that the Unibrow gas station sold gas for 10 cents a gallon lower. Oops, you acted as if your hypothesis was correct but it turned out you were wrong. In statistics we always treat the Type II error as if it was the worse one, but this is only because in science we don't want to announce a new and significant breakthrough before being pretty close to certain that we're right (remember the announcement that cold fusion had been discovered, oops). In real life we must calculate the costs of either type of error being wrong and then decide which is costlier. In our gas example, clearly the greater cost is associated with not buying gas than is the risk of finding out you hadn't paid the lowest price possible. Humans make these error calculations on a daily basis, but most of the time we're not aware of what were doing. On some basic level we understand that all of our decisions are based on imperfect information, that there are potential hazards in making the wrong decision, and then we make decisions anyway. Can you imagine if in the gas example the person simply opted not to make any decision, but instead just kept their car in the driveway? Somehow, we manage to muddle through life and don't become paralyzed by our imperfect skills at gathering data. The following is an example that illustrates how decisions must be made on the basis of imperfect behavior, and how calculating the risk of a Type I or Type II error is important in making that decision. In your neighborhood there has been a rash of eggings. You know what an egging is. Thats when some punk drives around the neighborhood and throws eggs at a house. Well, this is starting to piss you and your neighbors off. "What about the children!" cries one lady at the block meeting. So, each of you decides you will try to catch the culprit. Using your children as a network of informants, you send them from house to house looking for large quantities of eggs. Your immediate suspicion goes to the O'Gara family *cough, cough*. They always make a lot of noise, the father wears wife-beaters, and the kids are a bunch of punk red-heads. You ask your son whether or not he has seen any eggs over at the O'Gara's trailor (yes, and they live in a trailor). No, he hadn't. Of course, he only was able to sneak a peak into their fridge on a couple of occasions and the only thing he had noticed was some Alomo beer and some Armour hot-dogs. He wasn't able to go through the whole fridge and he also reminds you that the eggs used to spoil the neighborhood were probably rotten and might not have been properly stored. Are the O'Gara's the eggers? No, or at least you won't accuse them simply because they are white trash. If your wrong, and it turns out they are the eggers you or someone in the neighborhood might get egged tonight. If your right, and they aren't the eggers, then no big loss. That night you're up late when you noticed that your neighbor's house is getting egged! Who is doing it? Why, its the O'Gara kids. Oops, your initial suspicion has been confirmed. Apparently, the reason stereotypes have such lasting power is that they are usually true. You've committed a Type I error and your neighbor is suffering the consequences. That does it, you won't make that mistake again. You and your neighbors confront Mr. O'Gara with the new evidence. He's appalled! He'll stop the kids from egging in the future and by the sounds of the kids getting beat that night, you assume he will stop the behavior. Unfortunately, the eggings continue. They are more sporadic now, but the smell of rotting eggs still tortures the block. As block captain you go to Mr. O'Gara and confront him. He claims its not his kids, it can't be his kids, he hasn't bought eggs since the day his brats were caught and he sent them to County General. Can you come in and see the fridge, just to be certain? Nope. Mr O'Gara claims the house is a mess and anyhow it wasn't his kids. What should you do? Well, now you are confronted with a choice. You must act. If you accuse the O'Gara kids to the cops and it turns out they were innocent, you are afraid Mr. O'Gara might go ape on you. If you accuse the O'Gara kids and they are guilty, then everyone is happy. But, if you don't accuse them-even though you believe they are probably guilty-and it turns out to be the same Irish brats causing havoc, then you are at risk of getting egged. You choose to not accuse the kids. Better to get egged than get punched in the face. Then it happens. You had no idea the kind of damage eggs can cause to paint until it happens to your house that night. It literally ruins all the paint it touches. Its not just the house, its the car. Your car's paint is ruined! It will cost you thousands of dollars! Maybe getting punched in the face would not have been as bad as getting egged? At least your face will heal pretty fast, but the car and the house will take quite awhile to repair. That's it. You go to the cops and accuse the kids. The cops call on a "mediator" to resolve the dispute. The mediator works out a deal. The O'Garas will let you enter their house and check to see if there is anything in the refridgerator if you promise not to have their kids put in juvie. Ok, you agree. The first day you walk in and see this in the fridge:
What the freak! They still have eggs in the fridge. Yes, but the eggs are only for home consumption claims Mr. O'Gara. They won't be used on you. Nope, not good enough, you want them gone. Ok, he agrees to get rid of the eggs. For the next few weeks you go over to his house and don't find any eggs. After awhile he gets miffed at you coming around and starts complaining around the neighborhood. "Really," he says, "this man is quite obsessive. He keeps coming in to my house and searching for eggs disturbing my family. Its even effecting my pest-control business and I'm losing money. It has to stop!" Some of your neighbors are sympathetic. Of course, these neighbors were the ones who never got egged and so don't really know what a hassle it is. The decision must be made. Should you trust that he has no eggs and let him continue life as if nothing had ever happened or should you continue to bother his family and intrude on his privacy? Either way you run the risk of being wrong. If you stop the inspections, he could begin to buy eggs and thus the egging *may* begin again. If you continue the inspections, though, you could eventually ruin his business and force him into poverty, even though he *may* never buy eggs again or if he does his kids *may* never take up their egging hobby again. Well, as long as your block captain you are in charge, dangit. You continue searching his house for eggs. Just as the neighborhood is about to turn on you and force you to resign your position out of sympathy you discover something of great importance: When confronted at the next block meeting, though, Mr. O'Gara denies it. He admits he has a carton, but he uses that for his rock collection. As proof he brings this to the meeting: Well, you didn't actually look in the egg carton did you? No. So it could be that you simply saw the rock collection, right? Yes. But given the family history you want to play it on the safe side. You insist on continuing the inspections. You go back to the house and search some more. Days go by. The neighborhood is getting antsy, they want you to stop. You don't, though, convinced that he still has eggs and that if your inspections stop his kids will begin to use them again. One day, while looking under a stack of High Society you find this: Aha! Proof that he was lying all along. But O'Gara refuses to let you open the carton. Its the rock collection and nobody is going to look at them! But, its too light to be rocks, you say. Ok, its not rocks, O'Gara retorts, but it contains *ahem* precious bodily fluids so he doesn't want you to see *ahem* it. Your first reaction is *sick*, but you also realize you want to see because he could be lying. You insist on opening the box. He refuses. You call in the mediator and the cops. Finally, he is forced to open the carton. Here is what you see: You were vindicated! But he claims that he forgot about these eggs. He had been wondering where the smell was coming from, thanks for finding them. He puts them in the garbage disposal as the whole neighborhood watches. He swears that is the last of them. Will you please, he urges, stop showing up to his trailor. His business is just about in ruins and then he will be forced, along with his innocent wife and daughters, to move out of the neighborhood and go on "the welfare". A few on the block think he has turned over a new leaf, but most of the others say the inspections should continue in light of the fact that he had lied before. As far as the majority of the block is concerned, he has always had eggs. In spite of a concerted effort on his part to show the suffering of his family, you continue to show up at his house. Everyone agrees that he still has eggs, but many think the inspections are a little over the top. Maybe, they say, the risk of his kids throwing the eggs at a house has been diminished. So what if he has eggs, they certainly wouldn't use them after all the suffering they have gone through. For weeks there is no evidence that he has eggs, until one day this shows up: Mr. O'Gara, again, claims that it is his rock collection. In fact, he's done with you dropping by the house. He refuses to let you in. Now, you've seen the box but are not allowed to look inside. What is in the box? Is it eggs? Is it his rock collection? You are at a decision point. You do not know for 100% certainty what is in the box. O'Gara will not let you look inside, but you must make a decision based on incomplete information. You can either assume that he has the eggs or that he doesn't, but in each case you can't know if you are correct. Either way, there are certain consequences if you make an assumption and it turns out you are wrong. Its also possible you make an assumption and your assumption turns out to be correct. 1) Assume he has the eggs. You press charges. The police come and find the carton is full of eggs. The kids go to juvie and life in the neighborhood gets back to normal. O'Gara goes out of business and moves. 2) Assume he has no eggs. You don't press charges. The inspections stop and life in the neighborhood gets back to normal. O'Gara gives you stern looks every day. 3) Assume he has the eggs. You press charges. The police come and find the carton has rocks in it. You look like a jack-ass. No-one blames O'Gara for punching you in the nose. You heal. 4) Assume he has no eggs. You don't press charges. The inspections stop and life in the neighborhood gets back to normal. You get egged. O'Gara winks at you as he passes by in his U-HAUL. He is moving. What do you do? There is a chance that O'Gara has no eggs in the carton, but given past experience it seems like a fairly low probability that this is the case. It is much more likely that there are eggs in the carton, you believe. If you are wrong, and it turns out that there were no eggs in the basket, then the worst that could happen is that you get punched in the face. Which is worse, getting punched in the face once or getting egged? It is your call, you must decide. You press charges. The cops come and find the egg crate. Here it is: Oh, snap. No eggs! Even though in most people's estimation he still had eggs, there always existed the slim chance that he was actually (finally) telling the truth. Because there was no way of knowing for sure, you had to act in the face of some amount of uncertainty. Did you do the right thing? The answer to this of course is purely subjective. It always depends on what the risk is of making a Type I or Type II error. Which is worse, getting punched in the face or having your house egged? Some may fear a bruise on the face, but others will fear the egging. Of course, in real life the consequences of making an error can be either more or less severe. The consequences of being wrong about the lowest gas prices are pretty minor. However, when designing the O rings for the Space Shuttle, it was once thought that 1/10,000 chance of failure was acceptable risk. Then Challenger happend. D'OH! Are we sure that O rings will never fail again? NO! Today's O rings still have a risk of failure but the chances are more like 1/1,000,000. We design them better because the consequences of being wrong about their safety, it turns out, are too dire in our estimation. It is the consequences of being wrong that determine our willingness to act. Imagine, if you will, that the eggs were bombs. Suddenly, our calculations of risk change. Getting punched in the face seems even less severe when compared to anhialation. You cannot know which of your assumptions will turn out to be correct in the future. Fortunately, most of the time we get it right. But since, even when our assumptions turn out to be right, we are still acting without complete information you must weigh the consequences of being wrong in every situation.
[Clipped because not methodologically relevant.]
perm# posted by Dr. Rusty Shackleford : 7:59 AM |------------------------------------------------------
Modified by Juan Carlo Finesseti at Sun, Mar 12, 2006, 02:33:34
|
|
|
|
'But the ID hypothesis is scientific, nonetheless, even if the arguments proposed by its supporters aren't.' The interesting point about Behe is that his argument about the flagellum has some credibility.
Even if, as was demonstrated in the Dover court case, only 60% of the mechanism were necessary for it to be operative, this still leaves the fact that about 15 genes were required for it to happen which in themselves had to date no utility at all, apart from the final one. What Behe was saying is that according to Darwinist principles, these would never have been preserved, as they had no survival utility. The flagellum is a situation in which an advantage is eventually produced through a mathematical and logical extreme improbability. To adduce from this that a divine agency was involved is a scientific nonsense. However, from a strictly Darwnist approach, he is correct. At best, Behe and others are saying that conventional Darwinism does not fit all situations. Any immediate creationist conclusion is to most observers wrong. However, his argument that standard Darwinism doesn't seem to fit all situations is worthy of some consideration. Any immediate answers to this, while being somewhat OT, might be acceptable in the general interest.
|
|
|
|
Any immediate answers to this, while being somewhat OT, might be acceptable in the general interest.
What interests me is that evolutionists, and their defenders, don't seem inclined to put their best arguments into play. It's almost as though they're saving them for a "worthy opponent." But the problem is that the best argument against Behe's hypothesis would tend to give it credibility they aren't prepared to provide. That seems more like the defense of a faith, than a process of scientific argumentation.
I recently saw an excellent piece arguing that Behe's insistence that the conditions producing some of these molecular machines be reproduced was unreasonable, since evolution presumes that the process was random, and by definition you can't reproduce a random event. It's a one-off. But the implications of that argument are fairly dire for science if we assume that settles the issue, because it also means that the evolutionary hypothesis is nonfalsifiable. From a pragmatic standpoint the scientists could probably work out a specification whereby the production of an emergent phenomenon similar to those that Behe talks about, would be sufficient to falsify his hypothesis, and from all I can tell Behe would probably accept that reformulation.
The nexus would come when science directly confronts the philosophical implications of "emergent phenomena" since the mere fact that they aren't "supernatural" doesn't necessarily imply the non-existence of a Creator, nor does it substantiate the mechanistic cause-effect assumptions that underly conventional "science." An alternate interpretation would be that it implies a universe with some embedded intelligence... though I'm not exactly sure who that interpretation would satisfy. It certainly redraws the boundaries of the debate though. My reason for being interested in this is that the sloppy way our media and institutions think about these things actually makes the emergence of cultic thinking more probable, and also invests some of our ideological preferences with cultic tendancies. I can see how Christopher Hitchens has failed to "square the triangle" with his own personal preferences about how society ought to be, but he has made his choice with the integrity that it's not going to help him sleep, or keep him from the sauce. Recognizing the price he has paid makes the unwillingness of some others to pay that price a little more understandable. I don't agree with them, but I do understand them. I also can't see the Maharaji cult becoming the kind to mega-threat represented by some of these violent cults either, unless the social conditions really go to pot. And if it comes down to an "evolution of the fittest" cult, I don't think EV is sufficiently ruthless to survive against some of the other contenders, such as Scientology. But that could change, especially if Sant Mat was politically powerful enough to obtain some state subsidization in India or somewhere else. Subsidizing cults tends to radicalize them.
|
|
|
|
I did talk to him. I just told him that I had asked that his teacher to excuse him to do something else if they were going to meditate. I just said I didn't think that it was good for kid's brains. I think that basically her goal was just to help the children to be calm and focused. I have to say to that end it appeared to work too. But again, that is another amazing thing about the school, the children really do seem to be quite inner directed to work on whatever they are studying and its amazing how quiet and calm that classroom is and it is achieved without the sorts of discipline we all knew when we were kids. For now anyway I think I will stick with him not meditating if they continue to do that. My gut just tells me that is something to me, that doesn't belong in a school where all the parents haven't consented to it.
|
|
|
|
I'm not sure what bio-feedback is, other than a technology-assisted version of meditation. That said, the whole thing is sufficiently exotic that it could probably generate a cult following with some fairly goofy beliefs. Not that anyone would think of castrating themselves, but you never know...
|
|
|
|
If that sort of thing alarms you, wait until he goes to college!
Seriously though, it's difficult to buck "a system" that seems to have made up its mind to mainstream a lot of these concepts. Joanne Jacobs talks about this stuff, from time to time. Tip of the iceberg.
|
|
|
|
Very interesting. I think my goal is to introduce the notion that these New Age ideas might be as offensive to some people as prayer in school. In truth, I would be more upset if like Nigel said, they were praying without all of the parents agreeing to it. This is a private school but not a religous school. What is interesting too, is last year they had a play, and you know that Bette Midler song "From a Distance"? The children sang that, of course a lovely tearjerker! But they did change the words "God is watching us" to "time is watching us" and "Mankind" or"Man" to "everyone" . So there is sensitivity, some would say political correctness, to not being religous. Its just that New Age things don't seem to be religous to many people, and they are to me. Another point of interest is my son also told me that his teacher did not believe in God. He told me that she believes in science! They had been learning about the big bang and evolution, and this is fine with me. But what did bother me is he said his teacher thinks that only ancient people ( they studied Ancient Egypt for example ) should believe in God but people who believe in science shouldn't. I don't know what her beliefs are but this was his perception. I thought it was interesting that he would come up with all this. I do believe in God, and I have taught him that I do, and I think he was seeing some contradiction. It led to some interesting discussions about atheism and people having different beliefs.
|
|
|
|
Susan:
Although they pray in British public schools it's probably important to remember that church attendance in the UK is in single digits, as it is in most countries with a strong historical relationship between church and state. The proper view if this is that the relationship tends to taint beliefs about God with the flaws and faults of the State, which over time tends to diminish rather than enhance belief. The theocracy in Iran may actually turn out to be the worst thing that ever happened for Islam, in the long run. Unintended consequences...
Another point of interest is my son also told me that his teacher did not believe in God. He told me that she believes in science! The real problem here is the Pinocchio Syndrome: that affluent societies become afflicted with the notion that their wishes can effortlessly become reality. That's the common thread. It's kind of wishful thinking that social and psychological ills can be cured with a little denatured meditation, but successful cultures have often been afflicted with this syndrome, from the time of the ancient Minoans. They get addicted to the "easy button." It's also now pretty easy to say that one "believes in science" without actually understanding the revolution in science that took place since Karl Popper. The truth is, most of these folks don't understand science... so they don't make very good defenders of the faith. And the prevailing beliefs within Colleges of Education don't help.
Modified by Juan Carlo Finesseti at Fri, Mar 10, 2006, 14:41:55
|
|
|
|
Hi Susan! I certainly understand your concerns at catching your son's class in the act as it were, without prior notice. It's my guess, along with others here, that it was probably a fairly harmless exercise in relaxation and focussing for the kids, unattached to any particlar belief or path--but it was good that you discussed it with the teacher and especially with your son. My only other thought about this is that it would have been good if the teacher had discussed this with parents ahead of time--but maybe she really didn't think it was a big deal? (OT: I'm currently enjoying Frank McCourt's book about teaching in New York high schools--boy the stuff he tried there--it was probably good the parents didn't know! But nothing dangerous--immensely creative and often quite hilarious! If anyone is ready for a break from the world , pick up one of McCourt's books!) About the UK and religion in schools--yes, it's true what Nigel says. No separation of church and state there. I went all through my high school years with morning assembly that included the Lord's prayer, at least one hymn, and a "sermon" of sorts from our headmistress--usually to do with behaviour, procedures, news, events or whatever. The best part of those assemblies for me was that we always got to listen to a piece of classical music. That's primarily where my education in Bach, Brahms, Liszt, Grieg, Dvorak, Stravinsky, Debussy and many others came from! Everlastingly grateful for that! Best, Shelagh
|
|
|
|
Even the SSB movement tries to get a school founded here in the Netherlands funded by the taxpayers, though I doubt whether they will succeed. I do not oppose freedom of religion, but this goes too far even for me. Andries
|
|
|
|
I'll see if I can find a link to Eli Berman's work. Subsidizing cults radicalizes them. He's Jewish, but opposes the subsidization of the Hassidah precisely because if they weren't already a cult the subsidization would turn them into one. He has a whole chapter on the radicalization of the Hassidah in Israel. The danger in the Netherlands and elsewhere in Europe is that people might decide it's easier to pay extortion than deal with the "immigrant problem" directly, which will push the radicalization of European Islam even further underground, and create an even greater menace.
But this is really a better topic for the Non-Rawat Forum, so I'll repost it there.
|
|
|
|
Hi Susan, But I am really curious about how other ex premies would have felt. How would you have handled it? And where would you draw the line between open minded and new age? I would have been triggered too, but like you, would have pulled back and looked at the situation after I got over the emotional reaction. Sounds like you dealt with the situation very well. She asked about other "centering" type exercises, Tai Chi, creative visualization "Centering" is just another euphemism for meditation. Why are teachers trying to get the kids "centered?" I ask, because I have no kids and don't know what teachers do in schools. Creative visualization is also a form of meditation (and hynosis, self-hypnosis, imo) because you have to close your eyes, focus and visualize, i.e., go someplace else, go away into your mind, usually to a script the leader/teacher says. Psychotherapists use visualization all of the time. I never did any because it was too close to meditation for me. I just didn't like it. For your own peace of mind, you might ask the teacher/school for the script(s) that's used when they do creative visualizations. That way you can judge if it's appropriate for your boy. Tai chi sounds pretty harmless, but what do I know? Cynthia
Modified by Cynthia at Fri, Mar 10, 2006, 16:29:38
|
|
|
|
Tai chi sounds pretty harmless, but what do I know?
I had a truly stunning Tai Chi instructor when I lived in Orange County. She looked like Naomi Watts, and I never missed a class. Unfortunately she was into the Self Realization Fellowship in a big way too, so she was definitely cult-oriented. Oh well.
|
|
|
|
that is very validating. I feel the same way about the visualization. I am not sure I want someone other than a very qualified therapist ( if was ever needed ) doing any visualizations really. I like the idea of asking for the scripts. What I am happy about is I think the teacher is sensitive to my concerns and will respect them. In terms of the centering really only teachers who tend toward new agey thinking IMO would use the word. Most would just say they need to settle down! It was a weird experience. I just got really mad at Julie. Being satsanged makes me feel like someone just dumped a bucket of slime on me.
|
|
|
|
That's exactly what it feels like to me reading Julie's post: Getting slimed. But, hey, Susan, "don't worry, be happy" is the way to go.  I'm not even going to bother to ask Julie what she thinks about Jagdeo. She'd probably think it was innocent fun and "good for the kids, by His Grace. At least they got satsang and it's just Lila." Susan, it sounds like you have the school situation well in hand. Your son is sooo lucky to have you as his Mom! Love, Cynthia
Modified by Cynthia at Sat, Mar 11, 2006, 07:12:05
|
|
|
|
hello Susan in relation to ur Son doing meditation in school and concentrating on a word like hammm or um or donald duck is totally harmless innocent fun and a very good idea to give children a new game to play and it would also relax them! Dont worry about little things like that Susan, when i was a young child ,one of ten children, my Mother would say every night to all of us before we went to bed "dont to forget to say ur prayers" no harm in that at all Susan! Maharaji received Knowledge from his Father Hans ji Maharaji when he was only 4yrs of age.i have met many Children in the years ive been a devotee of Maharaji who received Knowledge and practised it successfully> one of my Sisters got knowledge at the young age of 15 and is very happy practising ever since, she also is Mum to 7 Children and 2 grand children, Children are very clever Susan and they dont get bothered by things that adults find bothersome. my Children went to alternate school, vegetarian upbringing, Mam and Dad with Knowledge so they never found anything stange about Meditation, as a matter of fact they would automaticially respected when i went to practise and would keep very calm and quite, they liked me to practise and their Dad. their Dad passed away 3 weeks ago aged 541 im glad he practised as it was good for him, and now hes gone. nice to talk to u Susan. im open minded to whatever views people have. lots of new age things are ok. my Children are now in their 20es. best wishes. julie x
|
|
|
|
Maharaji received Knowledge from his Father Hans ji Maharaji when he was only 4yrs of age.i have met many Children in the years ive been a devotee of Maharaji who received Knowledge and practised it successfully I'm sure Susan will find that very comforting. LOL!
|
|
|
|
hello Jim im glad ur getting a good laugh and hope Susan gets what i mean in my message to her! Im a gas ticket alright Jim and thats for sure. we might as well have a laugh, sure we"ll be dead long enough! My husband passed away on the 9th of Feb. keep smiling Jim my dear. love Julie
|
|
|
|
Julie, It's sad beyond words for anyone to lose their mate like that. But if you keep posting here and saying the stupidest things (like Rawat started meditating early and it didn't hurt him which, to an ex-premie who clearly doesn't want their kid to ever come close to living the weird, f**ked-up life of your cult leader, is like saying "Posion isn't that bad. Lots of famous people took it. Look at Cleopatra or Socrates!", you're going to be ridiculed. You know that, don't you?
Modified by Jim at Fri, Mar 10, 2006, 18:57:24
|
|
|
|
Hello Jim. Im posting here and saying what I know to be true from my own personal experience and I understand everyone is entitled to that, dont u believe that Jim? I have been practising knowledge since1973 and have brought up 3 very nice Children, who now are young adults. I never told them what to believe in, or educated them with any religious concepts. i simply practised knowledge and went to many places with my children throughout their upbringing to see and hear Maharaji. my comments in relation to Maharaji practising knowledge since he was a very young child is simply indicating how happy he is. i also am very happy and pleased to practise, but am also open minded to hear other peoples views, who ever wants to attempt to ridiculed me can do so Jim! Im open to what anyone has to say and can only answer honestly from my own experience. best Wishes to u Jim, Julie
|
|
|
|
It has no meditative value at all, but it'd be a lot more fun for the rest of us if you interspersed your satsang with the occasional yodel-ay-hee-hoo. Just a thought...
|
|
|
|
how are u Jim, isint it great to have received the knowledge? i can remember the day for me 14th May 73 a memorable day indeed! i was delighted and made a commitment that day that i would give kniwledge a fair chance, and sure Jim isint that the least i could do? Im delighted to practise and sure its the easiest thing to do. its much easier to do it rathe than talk about it. how can anyone learn anything unless they practise. im going to practise forever anyway regardless of what anyone else does, sure its up to each one to do it or not do it for themself. i love the experience and understanding i have got to date from practising, and sure everything to their own thing. love peace harmony is what im into, what about u Jim, best Wishes Julie
|
|
|
|
how are u Jim, isint it great to have received the knowledge? i can remember the day for me 14th May 73 a memorable day indeed! i was delighted and made a commitment that day that i would give kniwledge a fair chance, and sure Jim isint that the least i could do? Im delighted to practise and sure its the easiest thing to do. its much easier to do it rathe than talk about it. how can anyone learn anything unless they practise. im going to practise forever anyway regardless of what anyone else does, sure its up to each one to do it or not do it for themself. i love the experience and understanding i have got to date from practising, and sure everything to their own thing. love peace harmony is what im into, what about u Jim, best Wishes Julie Julie, You know full well that I don't think it's great to have received "the knowledge". So you're just trying to get under my skin, aren't you? You definitely don't sound sincere. You sound like you're coated with layer upon layer of satsang. Maybe if you keep up the blather you don't have to face your real feelings, huh?
|
|
|
|
My thinking here, Jim, is that someone's pulling your leg. My guess is that there's actually no such person as "Julie," and that this might actually be a parody of a premie by some ex having a little fun. Just a guess, but it sounds a bit too much like a caricature to be real. (It's unlikely to be an actual premie doing an impersonation of a really silly premie for obvious reasons.)
|
|
|
|
Scott, that Julie's a spoof would seem almost too obvious for words were it not for the fact that Mike Finch knows her and confirms that this is what she's like. I guess that's what makes some of these guys so spoofable. They live just inside the outer limits of plausibility.
|
|
|
|
Frankly, even if she is dimwitted I think it is rude to just totally ignore that we feel quite differently than she does and that I know a whole lot about kids and the cult. I really found her response annoying.
|
|
|
|
I'm afraid I have a family member in a similar cult, and it's almost an act of superhuman will for her to recognize that sometimes her cult rap is inappropriate. That's the universe she sees, and just assumes everyone else is in it with her, even if they tell her point blank they're not. Yeah, it's pretty annoying sometimes. I guess I should have seen a reflection of this family member in Julie. It's a pretty tough-skinned bubble.
|
|
|
|
Seriously? It's almost too much to comprehend. I feel overwhelmed...
What else you got?
I had a long debate with someone awhile back about snake handling fundamentalists. He didn't think they'd be very interesting to talk to, and I thought the opposite. But when it gets right down to it my interest would probably wain pretty quickly, once it was clear that they only had the one trick. There's also a kind of fishing cult in the south that fishes for catfish with their bare arm, using it as bate for heaven sake: Noodling. They're a little more like a biker club than a religious cult though. And they've only got the one trick.
|
|
|
|
Jim I dont know full well that u are not happy to have received Knowledge, and why on Gods earth would I want to get under ur skin? Im not at all here to be unfriendly with u or anyone else for that matter. I respect what u feel Jim and im sure u have ur own reasons for feeling the way u do. even if i dont seem sincere according to u Jim, that doesnt mean im not! Im used to talking about Maharaji and what i feel from practising for so many years. i face my feelings all the time, i love Love, i love peace, i love harmony and nice friends. love and best wishes Jim. julie
|
|
|
|
Jim I dont know full well that u are not happy to have received Knowledge Obviously, I'm no happy customer of what Rawat's selling. You know that. So why would you assume that I'm happy to have received knowledge? If you are sincere you're either stupid or so lost in your cult that you might as well be. By the way, you didn't answer several things I asked you: 1) What specifically has Rawat taught you about death? 2) Do you think Rawat has ever behaved badly? If so, how and what do you think about that?
|
|
|
|
I guess not, the way you are going on is like me turning up to a classical music night, with a 3k soundsystem and trying to turn them onto dubstep.
Obviously awareness of other peoples feelings comes way after your religion.
Just another fundamentalist in a world already overcrowded with them
|
|
|
|
Maharaji received Knowledge from his Father Hans ji Maharaji when he was only 4yrs of age.i have met many Children in the years ive been a devotee of Maharaji who received Knowledge and practised it successfully> one of my Sisters got knowledge at the young age of 15 and is very happy practising ever since, she also is Mum to 7 Children and 2 grand children, Are you sure she didn't receive Knowledge at the age of 7 and have 15 children? I received Knowledge and it totally screwed me up. My tongue now protrudes out my right ear which most people think is a highly animated banana, I commune with aliens, and I jump six feet in the air every time a Lyle Lovett song comes on the radio (which fortunately isn't often), so you never know. YMMV.
|
|
|
|
hello Juan im sure she was 15 and im sure she has 7 Children and 2 grand children, im also sure the Knowledge works for me as ive practised for 33yrs to date. ur funny though. listen to the beatles instead. love Julie
|
|
|
|
I contend that people get something out of belonging to the cult, but they also give something up... and what that is, is all too obvious to the rest of us. Whether or not that's worth something to you is your decision. You have sovereignty, if not the best judgment.
Modified by Juan Carlo Finesseti at Fri, Mar 10, 2006, 19:22:47
|
|
|
|
Julie, Please leave me alone. Your post makes me angry because I was very sincerely asking for advice. I have been a premie, I was a child myself when I was one, and I know very well that Prem Rawat is running a cult. I hope you get out of the cult. Susan
|
|
|
|
Modified by Jim at Fri, Mar 10, 2006, 19:42:37
|
|
|
|
Dum dee dum dum ....
|
|
|
|
Hello Susan, i sincerly say what i know to be true, my children are young adults and have been brought up with their Dad and I practising knowledge all their young lives> they are very nice people and are well adjusted to doing all the normal things that young people do, and by the way Susan they like Maharaji and so do I, do u mind me asking you how log did u practise knowledge for? Its a great way to bring up children as it keeps the parents in a good state of mind. i come from a very large Family and have tons of experience with childen of all ages. My Mother has 10 Adult children, me being one of them, she also has 83 Grandchildren and great Grandchildren conbined wheather anyone wants to believe it or not, I am aunty and grandaunt to all these children, i also have 1 Daughter and 2 Sons and had 3 miscarriges. im sure u are. a very nice Mum and naturally want the best for ur Son, and all im telling u is meditation that children do in school wont upset them nor do them any harm, im talking from experience love and best wishes to u Susan and ur Family. julie x
|
|
|
|
Julie, You may not have noticed that this is an ex-premie forum. The vast majority of people who ever recieved Knowledge left the practice of it. Some of them, like me, have found a place to talk about it here on the WWW on these forums. From time to time premies come here and post, but most of the people here left Knowledge and Rawat. I was a premie for four years. During that time I believed with all my heart that Rawat was something and someone so special that someday the whole world would be kissing his feet just as I had. I even joined an ashram when I was 16. Julie, I have good reason to be concerned about not wanting anything like what happened to me to happen to my children. I am sorry you and your kids are all premies, I think it is a tragedy and a waste. It is wonderful you have such a huge family. That family is what is good and real in your life, not Prem Rawat. Listen, Rawat and children is a sore spot for me. A friend of mine was raped by Mahatma Jagdeo while she prayed to a picture of Maharaj Ji to rescue her. Where on earth did she get the idea that she should pray to Rawat? I know where. But now he has people like Jossi Fresco get out there and say we were all confused and he never meant us to worship him. I don't remember him ever saying Arti was not to be taken literally. Jagdeo tried to molest me too, and another girl I knew was molested much worse than I was. Way back when, at 15, I tried to tell Maharaj Ji, because Maharaj Ji in satsang after satsang had led me to believe he was the compassionate superior power in person. Maharaj Ji cares more about protecting his own ass than the kids, or adults, that believed in him. Julie, if you have any sense at all you'll see that I don't want to hear about your "experience". I have my own. I believe you have every right to practice any stupid ( and Maharajism is stupid ) religion you want. But I have a right , and responsibility frankly, to tell you I think that Knowledge is a bunch of hogwash and Rawat is a narcissistic fake.
|
|
|
"Get me outta here!"