A Problematic Induction
A Problematic Induction
The Latin word for induction literally means “to lead to.” Inductive reasoning moves from the particular to the general or from the individual to the universal. Induction is simply a process that leads from something or some assertion to an inference for something else. It starts with particular truths. New Age Spirituality runs amok by displacing inductive reasoning and replacing it with a personalized mystical revelation as the sufficient if not sole basis for universal truth: Person A found enlightenment while meditating; person B found enlightenment while meditating; therefore, silence and meditation are the answer for all humanity. No matter how much it is denied, this kind of thinking surfaces in key assumptions. This is an invalid basis for establishing universal truths because it fundamentally ignores the contradictory conclusions that others have come to in the same process. It is not a valid means of truth testing. The correspondence and coherence tests for truth are discussed in the closing chapter.
In a cartoon I saw some time ago, a man dressed in a tuxedo lay apparently dead on the floor, surrounded by a host of other men, also in black tuxedos. One tuxedo-clad man is saying to another, “Where does one begin when something like this happens at a Butlers’ Convention?”
If intuition is the only test for truth, to say “The butler did it” doesn’t help.
No court of law can function in such mystical fog as exists in the New Spirituality. Consider, for example, the famed Sri Sri Ravi Shankar, one of the most influential gurus today. Based in Bangalore, India, his charming smile, flowing locks of hair, and pithy one-liners have made him the person to know and to quote.
By the way, it is fascinating to consider how one even gains such titles. Normally, one would use one titular name, “Sri,” which actually means to diffuse light and implies respect, reverence, or even lordship, as it was used by Bhagwan Sri Rajnesh. He was content with only one Sri in his name because he placed Bhagwan (meaning “God”) before the Sri: How can one exceed that? But for Ravi Shankar, one Sri is not enough. In effect his name means, “the Revered Revered, Ravi Shankar.” But even that is not enough for him, and now his title is Poojya Sri Sri Ravi Shankar (“poojya” connotes the idea of “His Worship”), so what we actually have is “His Worship, the Twice-Revered Ravi Shankar.”
Ravi Shankar’s take on truth is that there are two ways of knowing: through logical understanding, which comes from intellectual analysis and for which there must be empirical proof… even though that proof may not stand for long; and the knowing that comes from intuition or through deep meditation, for which you need offer no proof to support its claim to truth. The latter, he says, is more reliable. If you meditate long enough, he says, you will recognize the connection that has always existed between all religions, even today. And when through meditation and intuition you have recognized that all religions are connected to every other religion, it’s quite reasonable to see, in that light, that Jesus lived in India for twelve years and returned to Israel in a saffron robe… or as a Hindu holy man.
His essay ends with these words:
Jesus is the only way. Jesus is love. Jesus has many names. He is Buddha, he is Krishna, and he is you. Your name also belongs to Jesus. Do you really think that your name is yours? Jesus is the Son of God. He inherits what belongs to God. Do you inherit what belongs to God? Then you belong to Jesus. Isn’t it? What do you say?3
But that is not all. He has to add in a sarcastic footnote that there was a group of people in America who believed that the world would end on a certain day in 1994. They gathered in their churches on that day, but “obviously nothing happened,” he says. “All fears and anxieties are caused by believing wrong things. You need that guru to tell you what is right and what is wrong.”4 His prescription is that meditation, yoga, and a guru will help you distinguish truth from nonsense.
This is amazing stuff! How does one respond to assertions that are so flatly induced with false premises and deductions and then given to the masses as “truth”? There is something extraordinary going on here. When any statement is made concerning the oneness of all religions, either meditation, intuition, or textual extrapolations are used. The differing doctrines of each religion are always left unaddressed. But when the mystics are questioned, they resort to falsifying other systems by switching to induction (e.g., “These misguided people went to a church expecting the end of the world, but obviously it didn’t happen”). According to his own argument, how can he say they were misguided if their “intuitive awareness” guided by a guru—or minister—impelled them in this direction?
Even those who maintain that meditative extrapolation is a sufficient basis for defending their belief system smuggle in an inductive approach when they need it to attack someone else’s system of belief. They use inductive reasoning to assert charges of falsehood against a counterperspective, while a mystical argument is enough to defend their personal belief. Logical consistency is a consideration only when they are uneasy with someone else’s perspective; experiential relevance is all that is needed to justify their own perspective. The same rules are not applied both ways.
This method of reasoning underlies the teachings and writings of all the advocates of the New Spirituality. According to them, truth is discovered in silence or in a sudden burst or gradual arrival of insight. Bringing into question Jesus’ statements about truth, they force you into a “Hobson’s choice”5 dilemma: There is no choice but to accept a pantheistic Jesus. There is no other option.
This is a false way of induction. It leads to beliefs based on falsehoods, such as that Jesus lived in India for twelve years and returned in a saffron robe. Isn’t it interesting that it was not some incarnation of Krishna who went to Jerusalem and came back wearing a crucifix? Imagination and meditation are not secure ways on which to build a worldview that reflects reality. They may make for a beatific smile but not for a philosophical alternative to truth. A worldview tested by truth will inform imagination and meditation, not the other way around. That is why the rigorous way of testing truth has always been through logical consistency, empirical adequacy, and experiential relevance.
Seeing with the eye alone, induction can easily be manipulated. As academic as they seem, the basic laws of logic are few. I shall not go into them now. However, when those laws are applied to any system of thought, it is easy to see whether the statements and/or arguments are true or false or purely speculative. This is especially important with systems of thought that make numerous assertions. Here, let me just suggest that viewing a story that has been staged and scripted does not make the story true and is not the most solid ground for truth. In the business of television, where even the weather report has to be dressed up, to say nothing of the news itself, how can one legitimately engage in inductive reasoning? A false induction is serious and can be tested.
Beginning with a problematic induction, television takes us to the next step.