Conrad Askland

“All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.”

Absolutely chilling words if taken into the context of our constantly evolving social consciousness: Martin Luther and the Reformation, Slavery and the American Civil War, Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. and the Civil Rights Movement, World War II and the Holocaust, etc.

Elements and situations that are accepted by one generation are condemned by later generations in a tipping point change in social consciousness. And in many instances the flames for change are fanned by one person who just happens to fit in at the right time and place; and has the courage to put it all on the line for that higher purpose.

In the background of all these social changes is the element of open discussion and freedom of speech. It is a powerful force. Most misunderstandings I have experienced in my life come down to people not having all the facts, and/or operating behind closed doors without open discussion.

If we sit in our comfortable protected pockets and refuse to interact with those of differing beliefs, then it’s very easy to continue with our current beliefs unchallenged. It can be our nature to create a world view of how and why everything is the way it is, and then to fiercely defend that regardless of the viewpoint’s validity. After all, it’s reality isn’t it? Maybe not.

Most things are perception, and the world view each of us creates is based largely on perception. How painful it is when we find something we thought was true, isn’t anymore. We are confronted with new information, new knowledge, paradigm shifts in our thinking. It’s a rebirth of the new, but a painful death to the old.

I strongly believe that when open discussion is encouraged and all information is available, that good things happen. I also believe that when people deal in half-truths and incomplete information they can make devastatingly bad choices in their lives. You don’t have to look very far to see this in action.

What is the good that happens with open discussion and full disclosure of information? We are better equipped to make better choices. There are many beliefs I have held in the past that only changed when I was bold enough to discuss them publicly. This enabled others to hear what I was saying, and offer me more information or alternative points of view. Some views that change might be very small, simply trivial facts. But every once in a while you get a thunderbolt that rocks the very foundation of a world view. Those are exciting times. Open discussion facilitates that.

What is the bad that happens when discussions are closed? We never get to hear the full feedback and additional information that might have been available. It takes a certain amount of courage to speak out, but that courage holds great gifts within it.

I am not immune from having preconceptions, perhaps incorrect, that affect my world view. We all have these; to pretend we don’t is naive and foolish. I am very thankful for those that have entered my life along my walk, those that have had profoundly moving discussions to share that have enriched my life and subsequently my effectiveness to serve.

For those of you from my Bible and Christian fellowship forums: Be particularly wary of taking individual scriptures out of context as an end-all-be-all without cross referencing your findings. I have seen it so many times in my discussion communities where someone comes forward with a particular interpretation, only to find they may have been misled when more studied members add clarification.

We’re all in this world together. Choose your walk and encourage open discussions when at all possible. We have great gifts to share with each other. Let’s share them.

Dr. Michael Shermer’s response to Deepak Chopra’s attack on skepticism is so great, so powerful, and so civil considering the outlandish topics to be addressed. I wanted to give this response special notice for those not hip to the current writings of Dr. Michael Shermer, and to those that have not had the opportunity to see well written response to Chopra’s careless abuse of science and incorporation of pseudo-science.

READ Shermer’s Response to Deepak Chopra

Currently I only have two references in my blog-roll referrals – Dr. Shermer and James Randi. It is because these two people continue to amaze and inspire me with their focus to the facts, and their determined stamina to continually take on pseudo-science in a style that is well written and well documented.

That Chopra and Shermer would go head to head on the Huffington Post website is impressive to me. I would have thought that Chopra would shy away from this encounter, perhaps he wasn’t ready for what he would get in return.

In my previous attacks on the current state of affairs of the New Thought movement, which in my experience have become irreversibly infested with New Age quackery, I had not addressed Chopra. Deepak Chopra was someone I used to read and try to follow. The latest work of his I read was just about a year ago – a close friend gave me his entire set of tapes on body types, etc. In going through his series it was one of the first times it donned on me, “this seems kind of made-up”. As I looked online I found countless professors and professionals who were bold enough to speak up on how much of the work was made up words, phrases and things that “sounded like they might be science.”

Chopra is above my head to address, but Michael Shermer makes fair game of the material. You can easily Google more rebuttals, but they tend to be VERY dry from academic sources. They have to be to adequately address the material.

Read for yourself, make your own decisions.