Back before the net, it was a lot harder to know what was fact and what was fiction.
For instance, if you went to a health food shop and they told you that the herb Echinacea helped your immune system, you would accept that as a fact.
You really didn’t have many ways to verify that it was true and really, if someone who was in the business of knowing such thing told you this, why would you doubt them? That was their job after all.
I did look up such things in herbal books that were in the metaphysical bookshops, however, they give the same information, so it appeared to validate what I was told.
Trouble is, many things are told to us based on vague or apocryphal information.
It took me years to realize that Echinacea did nothing for me, and it was the vitamin C in the complex that was actually helping and the claim that it helped ended up being based on very shaky evidence.
It does seem that once people believe something, they are very reluctant to change that belief, even in the face of new or overwhelming evidence to the contrary.
Long term readers of mine might know that I used to be an avid follower of Tuesday Lobsang Rampa. Many things felt right and made sense to me, and the rest I would just accept on faith. However, it was the rest that, while clearly wrong, seems to be ignored by his followers.
For instance, he made a lot of predictions about world events that should have occurred by now. From my observations, none of them have actually happened, but that doesn’t seem to bother his fan base, who just seems to completely ignore such things and never call them into question.
Any suggestions that he might be wrong are ignored or met with hostility.
This is generally typical of people who choose to believe in something but refuse to look at any inconsistencies critically.
The question is: Why?
When something is so clearly shown to be wrong, why aren’t people calling such thing into question? When something has inherent contradictions in the philosophy (and I’m looking at many cults, faiths and religions here) why do we resist looking at it or dismiss them as not important?
Just because some parts are wrong, it doesn’t mean it’s all wrong. And just because some parts are right, it doesn’t mean it’s all right.
We stymie our own growth and give our power away to others by refusing to think critically about everything.
You might say, I’m a researcher for the truth, and I use the word ‘truth’ very loosely here because the more I look, the more I see that there are no hard and fast rules, but there are come consistent universal laws that seem to apply to everything.
When I write about something, I write about my own observations and experiences. I’ve always done this, though I have been just as guilty of being dogmatic about a particular belief system, even if there were some blatant inconsistencies there.
Now, I know this type of talk might seem weird or even hypocritical coming from me, as I have written about belief systems, astral levels, alternative time-lines and many other unprovable subjects.
However, I do try and come from a place of observation and research and try to find other alternative explanations.
Next: Adapting to new evidence.