I have lived in Utah Valley for most of my life in the midst of a particular religious majority: a successful sect of Mormonism (which, of course, is a sect of Christianity which is a sect of Judaism; Christopher Hitchens expands this idea with the fabulous quote: "monotheistic religion is a plagiarism of a plagiarism of a hearsay of a hearsay, of an illusion of an illusion, extending all the way back to a fabrication of a few nonevents".) People without need for the religious products that churches peddle usually find themselves in a variety of emotional states in relation to its omnipresence. Because a religious body is largely a set of social relations, it can be tempting - being social animals - to be drawn into it. I, naturally, have felt the pull of the social body but I soon found that any benefits were attached to far too many strings and quickly distanced myself from it. I remember one of my first experiences with a mormon friend. He had invited me to church. I think I hesitantly agreed but then thought better about it and decided I wasn't interested. I was later told how if I had gone I would have received, for free, my own copy of the religious book as well as a beautiful - and expensive - leather case. I found myself a little unimpressed then and today... my eyebrows simply can't go high enough.

Anyway, I made it through that and by now I've found enough people with alternative perspectives that only for a few years in junior high school I have ever felt oppressed or that I might be "missing something" The social groups that I have found have made the offerings of the church seem pathetic, flaccid, and unstimulating. Recently, however, I have within certain counter-cultures new competition to the tedious, yawny, and irksome. This foul beast is the hopeful feel-good "spirituality" that has found itself termed "new-age."

It is both infuriating and depressing to find the prehistoric tendencies to explain mystery with "magic!" operating so strongly within Utah's subculture. My revulsion comes from not understanding how people who readily see (and reject) the ugliness, stupidity, and cruelty of the larger system bounce so quickly into embracing another equally stupid - but less omnipresent - set of beliefs. I've had conversations which have quickly become steamed arguments over whether or not people can make bugs spontaneously generate from crystals. When I, flabbergasted, explain that the scientists everywhere would be roaring with excitement and trying to reproduce this phenomenon, I was met with disdain for the scientific community - who of course was actively suppressing information like this because it would be seen as a challenge to their authority. Luckily, in this case I actuallyfollowed up on the sources for this information. The speaker showed me a video that had been put together to prove this stuff which was immediately recognized as being footage from the X-files. It was a rare occasion in dogma retreating.

But even more powerful is quantum mechanics appropriation, which has been taken up as some sort of scientific legitimization of spirituality. One of the reasons why it is so difficult to combat q-mechanical spirituality is that reasonable people are often aware that they simply do not understand the mathematics behind to a degree that they can explain away the confusion. People on both sides stumble through rudimentary explanations of the Heisenburg uncertainty principle or the double-slit experiments as if they explain anything or support anything. One party understands that a good knowledge and criticism can only be had from years and years of mathematical study; the other party simply has heard a few of the popular conclusions which seem to support a slightly mystical worldview and so they seize it.

One main problem is that there is such a large gap between an introductory, glossed-over primer on quantum mechanics and a firm comprehension. There's basically nowhere to go for better information. I may not be scouring the web as I could, but I've made several dedicated efforts to try and broaden my understanding of these beyond the few popular examples that seem to fill just about every book on the subject. It's either beginner or professional, and it seems that there is nothing that adequately builds on beginning understandings of the subject.

So, how can more developed arguments be built to engage the new-agey? It seems that there is little that unites followers. Things like astrology underlie the mindset, but it seems like attacks at astrology simply shift into less easily criticized subjects like the golden ratio and other examples of pattern-searching coincidence.