Dogma, Debunking & Certainty
26 Feb 2011
BEEN WATCHING a few different debunking videos today, two by Chris White debunking Gregg Braden and David Icke, and one by Elliot Nesch refuting the claims made in Peter Joseph's Zeitgeist movie. These three debunkers are obviously devout Christians, and their focus is on tearing down the New Age dogma only to erect their own Christian dogmas.
Here is the Chris White's examination of Gregg Braden:
Braden, from what I have seen from his books, lectures, videos and reviews of his material, is someone without the rationality or understanding to pull of his charade as an alternative or fringe scientist. And he makes such a bad job of it that he ends up doing a HUGE disservice to the New Age movement by presenting so much spurious science which can easily be dismissed by even a High School science student. The fact is that Braden does not present leading-edge or alternative science but rather the unintelligible ramblings of someone without any scientific understanding or ability whatsoever. And yet he is one of the leading lights of the New Age movement.
In his critique of Braden, Chris White does a very good job at presenting the multitude of holes in Braden's dogma. And then he does something very strange: towards the end of his documentary, White suddenly presents his own fundamentalist Christian dogma as an alternative perspective to Braden's New Age dogma, as if these are the only two options. And by doing that, he plays right into the hands of the New Age movement which can dismiss his pertinent critique of Braden as the reaction of a Christian.
The fact is that Braden talks BS even from the perspective of those immersed in the New Age; and there are many leading-edge scientists who give out real alternative science without the errors and inconsistencies characteristic of Braden.
And here is the same investigator's critique on David Icke:
The one above is also quite astonishing because, after taking David Icke to task for presenting unfounded New Age philosophy, White then feels perfectly justified towards the end of his critique in presenting his own fundamentalist Christian dogma, again as if this is the only alternative.
So White finds (often legitimate) errors and inconsistencies in the work of Icke and Braden, but then is quite happy to erect his own Christian dogma that is equally full of errors and inconsistencies. This is bizarre! The guy shows he has a brain, before giving it up to promote mindless religious belief!
(In another documentary on the work of Michael Tsarion, he does the same.)
And here is Elliot Nesch refutation of the Peter Joseph's Zeitgeist documentary (a documentary which has become an icon of the New Age movement over the past few years):
Once again, a good job is done in finding the errors and inconsistencies in the Zeitgeist documentary, but what is the point of showing the limitations of dogma when all you do is promote another dogma in its place? The fact is that dogma is dogma, and it is always blind.
Only one thing is certain: anyone and everyone who is sure of the truth they present is full of BS. Gregg Braden, David Icke, Peter Joseph, Michael Tsarion, Chris White and Elliot Nesch are all very sure of their dogmas, so sure in fact that they do not question them (they are only able to question the dogma of others). And so we have this polarized view of particular New Age dogma vs Christian dogma, as if these are the only two possibilities.
What happened to "I don't know"? What happened to that humility? Why is it that when it comes to the fundamental questions of life that so many intelligent (and not so intelligent) people seem so damn sure of themselves — so damn sure of their truth? And to the point whereby they are confident enough to peddle that truth in documentaries online?
Can you imagine someone making a documentary on how uncertain they were of anything? How he or she didn't know what was going to happen or why things are the way they are? Can you imagine that being as big a hit as the Zeitgeist documentaries, or the videos by Icke, Tsarion and Braden? We are just generally uncomfortable with not knowing and most of us flock to those who present a façade of knowing. And when we reject one false certainty, we almost invariably just swap in for another. But that certainty can never really be more than a façade of knowing because, at the end of the day, the only thing we can actually be 100% sure about is the experience of awareness, period. That is it. All the rest is assumption; all the 'facts' that we are so certain about is just conjecture. And conjecture is not truth.