Current Page: 8 of 19
David R. Hawkins
Posted by: PhoenixPotter ()
Date: December 02, 2006 03:18AM

Much has happened since I last wrote. I will fill everyone in soon. The first web site to have Lifton's criteria applied to Hawkins should be online within a week or two I am told. I will post the link.

I also wanted to bring to attention Marilyn Gang's criticism of the "DH cult." It is wonderful. [www.dowsers.info]
Quote

I'm far from the only one disenchanted with this cult. It is difficult to uncover disagreement with the DH cult as the group de groupies work hard to suppress any dissent or any seeming criticism of their guru. The guru is also self deluded. Why does everyone accept David Hawkins' calibrations as cast iron truth? Quite often, he is wrong… Don't you realize this is a cult? If you want to talk with them, you have to converse in their vocabulary, their jargon. This group seems to think it is the only group on the planet with the right to make decisions and to have opinions. Judgmentalism runs rampant, however their own mirror is broken.
The beginning of his first book is hilarious because it starts out asking something like: What if you were to find a simple technique where you could tell truth from falsehood... and he goes on and on, just like an adolescent who thinks he is the first one to discover sex. Guess what David, this technique has been around for thousands of years. Hundreds of people in Arizona practice it, too, as well as thousands across North America and more around the planet. It's called DOWSING! …
Unfortunately I have lost interest in David's work. I have been unable to separate the man from his work. I can't see myself buying Truth vs. Falsehood because the man has demonstrated to me that he is not capable of discerning one from the other…From what I hear, he is creating many enemies with his heavy handed tactics that threaten and use force -- and demonstrate no knowledge of power.

Dr. Hawkins has a new section on his web site titled "Critics." [davidhawkins.info] I would like to respond to it.

Firstly, Hawkins claims that his books are published in "all the world's languages." Hay House publishes his book in only English and Spanish. Where are the other languages?

I will quote from Hawkins' web site:
Quote

Skepticism is a form of a (rather grandiose) negative approach and calibrates at 160, as does The Skeptic’s Dictionary. It is also associated with thinly disguised animosity towards God, religion, and spirituality. Its main defect is that it is unable to comprehend nonlinear reality, which is the consequence of context as well as essence. Perception is a projection of bias, as noted by Descartes (res interna vs. res externa) as well as Socrates. All the skeptic’s arguments (disproved by Plato, Socrates, et al. centuries ago), as well as criticism and correspondence, calibrate from 160 to 190. Alas, skeptics are unable to perform consciousness calibrations because it requires that both of the participants as well as the intention of the question calibrate over 200. (None have done so thus far.) The subject is addressed in an entire chapter of a forthcoming book (Spiritual Reality and Modern Man).
The inability of skepticism to discern the nonlinear reality of essence and its intrinsic truth is a consequence of the brain physiology that is concordant with consciousness levels below 200 (as per lectures and book diagram). Thus, it scorns faith and the Reality of Divinity and ignores, for instance, that millions of people have recovered from hopeless, incurable illnesses via the Spiritual Reality of the twelve-step programs (AA). Skepticism itself has been roundly criticized and exposed as fallacious by recent studies reported in the Journal of Consciousness Studies and the Journal of Scientific Exploration (Eisenstein, “Skepticism As a State of Being.” 19:3, 2005). It was proven to be fallacious by the greatest minds over the centuries as explained by the authors of The Great Books of the Western World.
Skepticism is a part of science itself, which Hawkins calibrates in the 400’s. It is erroneous to separate the two. The best representation of skepticism in my opinion is that great scientist Dr. Carl Sagan. Calibrating skeptics and [u:d2b8b0ce3d]The Skeptic’s Dictionary[/u:d2b8b0ce3d] at 160 is simply [i:d2b8b0ce3d]ad hominem[/i:d2b8b0ce3d] and does not address their information. It is like saying to a Catholic, “Of course you oppose abortion, you are a Catholic,” rather than addressing the reasons that the person is opposed to abortion. Why this is not considered judgment by sincere spiritual seekers is beyond me.

It is no secret that Dr. Carroll is not a religious person. It might be well to remember that Hawkins was also an atheist before he called out to God one night, without much expectation, while he was an alcoholic. Helen Schucman who wrote the [u:d2b8b0ce3d]Course[/u:d2b8b0ce3d] was also an atheist. Many people involved in the Unitarian Universalist movement are also atheists or agnostics. Many scientists still maintain a sense of spirituality, though technically are atheists. Einstein is a famous example, as is Stephen Hawking. The popular authors and scientists Sam Harris and Richard Dawkins are openly atheistic, yet Harris supports meditation and Buddhist concepts, and Dawkins has a definite love for the truth of the universe that can only be considered spiritual; as does Neil deGrasse Tyson, the famous skeptic Michael Shermer, and the archetype for the love of science and skepticism, the great Carl Sagan, among many others. Atheism is not actually counter to spirituality in many regards, as even Hawkins has admitted. Most importantly, the Buddha, who Hawkins calibrates at 1000, was a non-theist. It is a bad argument to say that because one has skeptical sense in them and does not accept every hypothesis served up due to lack of evidence, one is therefore anti-spiritual. Please associate criticism of applied kinesiology as representing science, the scientific method, and common sense, rather than an anti-spiritual position.

Hawkins believes that skepticism represents a grandiose approach. Why he does not consider his approach to be even more grandiose I do not think I will ever understand. Skeptics look at the evidence and draw conclusions. Yes, some are grumpy when they do so. But you will never find as much humility in Hawkins’ claims as you will find in the work of a person such as Carl Sagan. Humility is part-and-parcel of the scientific method and skepticism. Science makes claims devoid of human bias and frailty; Hawkins’ work supports all of his own conclusions about everything in the universe, by pressing on his wife’s arm.

Why Hawkins uses Descartes and Socrates in his arguments is also difficult to understand. Socrates was put to death for not worshipping the gods of the state. Descartes, according to Hawkins’ work, should also not be able to tell the “linear” from the “nonlinear” as he is in the 400’s per Hawkins. Hawkins perhaps should take up a serious study of these philosophers rather than a hobby. All the skeptic’s arguments were not “disproved by Plato, Socrates et al. centuries ago.” It would be most interesting if for once Hawkins actually backed up his claims with evidence rather than grandiose and bold statements. Socrates was a skeptic, and was considered the wisest in ancient Greece because he knew that he did not know, while everyone else had opinions that were unsubstantiated when subjected to his dialectical process, the “Socratic Method.” Hawkins on the other hand seeks to squelch questioning with his argument from authority. Hawkins knows that he knows, which is not a spiritual or intelligent position, especially when it comes to applied kinesiology, a technique routinely falsified by scientific testing. I contend that it is spiritual and wise to drop most opinions; for example, the [u:d2b8b0ce3d]Tao Te Ching[/u:d2b8b0ce3d] states, “The master teaches without a teaching so the people will have nothing to learn.” Hawkins gets half way there, by teaching that one should give up one’s opinions. Yet he then fills all of his followers with utter gibberish and claims it is science. This is not spiritual, and it is not science; it is pseudoscience and grandiosity, and nothing more. When the absolute science of pressing on your wife’s arm reveals that you are the new Jesus Christ essentially, and that your books are more truthful than all the geniuses of history and the Bible, you might ([i:d2b8b0ce3d]might[/i:d2b8b0ce3d]) be having a bit of a confirmation bias; it could be a serious case of Garrison Keillor’s “Lake Wobegon effect” ( [en.wikipedia.org] )!

If Hawkins believes that the National Library of Medicine and the National Institutes of Health calibrate between 160 to190, then his arrogance knows no bounds.

Hawkins makes a number of claims with no supporting evidence. For example, if Hawkins is truly enlightened, imagine what good it would do for real science if we could study his and others’ brains such that this phenomenon can be known and explained scientifically. That would actually contribute to human knowledge; yet it also opens his bold claims up to falsification, his biggest fear apparently (ergo, the endless [i:d2b8b0ce3d]ad hoc[/i:d2b8b0ce3d] hypotheses to rescue his pseudoscience from refutation).

I am a skeptic, and I do not “scorn faith and the Reality of Divinity;” this is a false dilemma. I would contend that the Buddha, Descartes, and Socrates were all skeptics, among many others. To me skepticism is a spiritual process because, as with the Socratic Method, it questions and peels back the layers of false “understanding” (opinions) and reaches that place of emptiness, [i:d2b8b0ce3d]sunyata[/i:d2b8b0ce3d] – What Is. One needs to be able to not cling to their opinions, such as Hawkins does with regard to applied kinesiology, to reach enlightenment.

I am sure if Hawkins were being honest about this, he would agree with Dr. Carroll’s rejection of the concepts of god that are the idols that stand in the way of the Truth. It is quite erroneous to discount Carroll’s criticism due to his atheism, as I am positive that Hawkins would agree with all of his conclusions regarding the “god of religion” rather than the God of Reality. True, Carroll has not apparently come to recognize the true God; but this is not important in regard to his criticism of applied kinesiology, Columbia Pacific University, and Dr. Hawkins. Even Freud, who Hawkins calibrates at 499, was an atheist. Why Freud is 499 and Carroll is 160, I can only attribute to the fact that the latter criticized Hawkins’ work. Were Freud alive, does anyone really think this great mind would accept Hawkins’ applied kinesiology method? I highly doubt it. For that matter, would Einstein, Socrates, Newton, etc., accept his methods? Would Christ, the Buddha, Huang Po? I leave this question to whoever reads this.
Quote

Personal Bias

This is the primary reason for disagreement. Criticisms come from (1) atheists, (2) political bias, (3) people who calibrate below 200, (4) people who are upset by findings, and (5) relativists who reject the confirmable Reality of Absolutism. Note that skepticism, relativism, and cynicism all calibrate far below the critical level of 200. In contrast, Absolutism calibrates at 650, and the reality of the Absolute itself calibrates at 1,000.
1) I am not an atheist. 2) I do not have a political bias, save the fact that I believe it is wrong to claim that a person who opposes war, such as the Buddha did, will have negative karma. I believe Bill O’Reilly is a good person, but I disagree with his politics because I think for myself. This is not a bias. Along with most sincere observers, I believe it is Hawkins who has a political bias. The recent U.S. election put Democrats back in control of the House and Senate; if because I also voted for Democrats this means I have a “bias,” I suppose the rest of the country has the same bias. 3). I do not calibrate below 200 because a) AK is a pseudoscience and so this statement is meaningless, and b) I have been calibrated by Hawkins’ followers, and while they (of course) contradicted each other’s calibrations, I was well above the 200 line. 4) I am not upset by findings; I care about the truth. If his system actually represented the truth, there would be no complaint on my part, regardless of the “findings.” In fact, I reject the entire system, not his findings, as being pseudoscience; the entire basis for his “findings” is fallacious. It is the fundamental attribution error to state that anyone who disagrees with the “findings” of his wife’s arm has a “bias.” If this were the case, then science is also biased, as is reality. Why is it not a bias to believe AK works at all, when it has been shown not to work repeatedly? All of Hawkins’ work, in sincerity, is a bias; a bias for himself, his opinions, and for pseudoscience over reason, logic, evidence, and the scientific method. Hawkins’ work is the epitome of a personal bias. 5) I am not a relativist, as I believe in Absolute Reality. I do not believe that Hawkins’ technique demonstrates this Reality at all. Hawkins’ work changes, contradicts, and has so far produced “250,000” calibrations with his wife’s arm; Absolute Reality is eternal, unchanging, not contradictory, and is One. If Hawkins believes that God really is revealed through his pseudoscientific judgment, he has no clue what he is talking about.

Additionally, I am not a “cynic” because I do not believe people are motivated solely by self-interest and my attitude is not habitually negative; to regard my particular support of evidence in this case as being habitually negative is the fundamental attribution error, as well as a misrepresentation of my intentions and character.

Isn’t it just amazing how any and all criticism of Hawkins’ work is somehow the error of the critic rather than anything Hawkins could have ever done. See Dr. Robert Lifton’s eight criteria again, particularly, but not limited to, “Doctrine over person.”

The test example given by Hawkins regarding Dr. Moon is quite far from a controlled experiment. If he wishes to be taken seriously, he will need to open his methods up to real testing. Thus far he has not done so. All he has is a PhD from a diploma mill, and adoring followers.

The single most hilarious comment by Hawkins is related to Wikipedia. Hawkins states that the article regarding him “rambles on” about dowsing and the unconscious. In fact, the word “unconscious” is not used once, and the word “dowsing” shows up only once in the context of an external link (i.e., not part of the article on Hawkins), Andrew Paterson’s “Dowsing for God” article from EnergyGrid Alternative Media in London.

Further, that Hawkins has been doing his work for “thirty years” is irrelevant. Astrology, for example, went on for millennia and was never true.

Hawkins states that his work is “peer reviewed.” This is not actually true in any meaningful way (i.e., “large audiences,” associates, or something similar does not count for a science). The criticism is that he has published in no peer-reviewed journals, a criterion to be taken seriously if a person’s work is actually scientific. Hawkins’ work is not actually science, and will never be published in a respected peer-reviewed journal. I will bet on it (literally, lol).

He frequently appeals to such things as “thousands of people,” “large audiences,” and his “worldwide” following (his grandiosity really shines through here). All of this is irrelevant. Many different masses of people have believed many erroneous claims for many millennia. Hawkins’ claims remind me of L. Ron Hubbard, for example, the founder of Scientology. Hubbard apparently is the most translated author in the entire world; but this still does not make his work true. It simply confirms, as Vicarion pointed out, the P.T. Barnum effect (i.e., “There is a sucker born every minute” and “we have something for everybody”), or that there is, as Hawkins often refers to us mortals, a “naïve public.” If nothing else, Hawkins’ work has indeed confirmed that there are a lot of naïve people.
Quote

Purpose of the work

As denoted in all writings, the purpose is to discern truth (essence) from falsehood (appearance, opinion) and thereby advance the level of consciousness to bring about greater happiness, success, spiritual advancement, and the relief of human suffering.
I believe that Hawkins’ work has increased human suffering in many people, and that his narcissism will not allow him to see this. And like victims of the Stockholm syndrome, many followers cling to their “savior.”
Quote

It is amusing that not a single critic thus far has actually read and comprehended any of the published works (most never even read one book)…
I have read most of his books (even including some of [u:d2b8b0ce3d]Orthomolecular Psychiatry[/u:d2b8b0ce3d] and that scorpion book he wrote), have seen him live, listened to all of his internet radio interviews, heard him on many audio recordings, and have seen him on many videos. If Hawkins or any of his supporters believe that I have not “comprehended any” of Hawkins’ work, it would be nice to see this bold and inaccurate claim backed up with evidence, and then I might be able to respond.
Quote

The primary animosity arises from the fact that Dr. Hawkins is an Absolutist and is critical of the rhetoric and sophistry of Relativism.
Hawkins is not an absolutist as I have heard him in an interview argue in favor of “situational ethics.” An absolutist like Kant, for example, taken to [i:d2b8b0ce3d]reductio ad absurdum[/i:d2b8b0ce3d] would prefer to not lie than to potentially save a person from being murdered. I doubt Hawkins supports this. Hawkins is meaning the same thing as Bill O’Reilly, I assume. To the extent that he is referring to the Absolute, every “critic” (how about “rational observer”) I know, with the exception of Carroll, is spiritual (Marilyn Gang, Shawn Nevins, Andrew Paterson, etc., including myself).
It is interesting that Hawkins thinks he is a Deist; this does not seem to be the case (see [etext.lib.virginia.edu] ).
Quote

As noted in the article “Cosmic Conundrum” (Lemonick and Nash, 2004, Time, 29 November), “Dealing with cranks is an occupational hazard for most scientists. . . . Those who study the cosmos . . . tend to be bombarded with letters, calls and e-mails from would-be geniuses who insist they have refuted Einstein or devised a new theory of gravity or disproved the Big Bang. The telltale signs of crankdom are . . . consistent—a grandiose theory, minimal credentials, a messianic zeal [and] scientists can usually spot them a mile off.”
This quotation is perfect as it applies directly to Hawkins himself.
Quote

It is obvious that the critics are unable to discern truth (essence, nonlinear) from falsehood (appearance).
I am a critic, and this is not true.
Quote

The Relativist positionality [sic] is based on the premise that all viewpoints are equally valid (“One man’s terrorist is another man’s liberator,” etc.). Thus, if a relativist is integrous or honest, then they must therefore admit that Absolutism is an equally valid alternative to relativism itself.
Hawkins must be referring to Andrew Paterson’s critique. I think Paterson would agree with Hawkins on this point. However, I still feel that Paterson’s position is more spiritual, in the sense that it offers respect to others, and demonstrates humility rather than narcissism. Every spiritual teacher I am aware of I believe would be considered a relativist in this context, while still, of course, believing in the Absolute. I believe the confusion here is that Hawkins is making the relative absolute, which is quite a fallacy. For example, according to Hawkins it is [i:d2b8b0ce3d]absolute[/i:d2b8b0ce3d] that [u:d2b8b0ce3d]The Matrix[/u:d2b8b0ce3d] or some other film is negative. This is a [i:d2b8b0ce3d]relative[/i:d2b8b0ce3d] statement, and is rather silly. It is [i:d2b8b0ce3d]Absolute[/i:d2b8b0ce3d] that God is all that is. These are different claims, and he is taking them out of context. [i:d2b8b0ce3d]Hawkins is confusing the relative with the Absolute, the hallmark of cults and fundamentalists[/i:d2b8b0ce3d] (as Paterson and others correctly pointed out). I am always struck by Hawkins’ inability to hear criticism, and how he therefore is never able to accurately respond to his critics (a straw man fallacy; not to mention his other frequent fallacies, such as argument from authority, [i:d2b8b0ce3d]ad hominem[/i:d2b8b0ce3d], etc.).
Quote

Objectivity

Consciousness calibration is impersonal; it just denotes a number. Dr. Hawkins is not a proselytizer and is not interested in persuading people. He has no personal involvement in the calibration numbers. Thus, the criticisms that start with “You say,” or “How come Dr. Hawkins believes,” etc., are all projections of the questioner’s own narcissism.
The best response to this is still what Vicarion wrote:

[i:d2b8b0ce3d]So basically, this "calibration" nonsense is Hawkins' way of trying to lend some objective credibility to his own personal opinions?

Reading about his so-called "work" reveals that he passes personal judgment on everything from movies to churches to philosophies, disclaiming all responsibility for his choices and judgments, using a clearly disproven pseudoscience as his measuring tool. If he were a person of any credibility, he'd own up to his opinions. But he does the same thing that "chanellers" do, that is they make pronouncements and attribute them to "the Universe", "Ramtha", or whatever "higher" source will not be questioned by the readers or seekers.

Whoo-eeee! P.T. Barnum was right! [/i:d2b8b0ce3d] :roll:

If Hawkins believes in personal responsibility, his statement is rather odd. In lieu of believing it is Hawkins’ own bias and ideomotor effect that produces his results, we are meant to believe it is God’s pronouncements?

Hawkins’ narcissism knows no limits; his ego may indeed be the only thing “infinite” his work has discovered.

Gloria in Excelsis David!

Straight and Narrow is the Quack, Waste no Dime, :lol:

Phoenix

Quote

[i:d2b8b0ce3d]Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions… I have sworn upon the altar of God, eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man.[/i:d2b8b0ce3d] – Thomas Jefferson

Options: ReplyQuote
David R. Hawkins
Posted by: PhoenixPotter ()
Date: December 03, 2006 11:02PM

[b:95c547ae0b]The New England Institute of Religious Research[/b:95c547ae0b] has published Dr. Lifton's criteria applied to David R. Hawkins.

Here is the Web link: [www.neirr.org]

As many of you know, the executive director of NEIRR is the Reverend Robert T. Pardon, who is a cult expert, a good friend of Steven Hassan, and holds a degree from Princeton. NEIRR, the Rev. Pardon and is wife Judy, and the halfway house for former members of high control, destructive groups that they operate, Meadow Haven ( [www.meadowhaven.org] ), are all referenced in Hassan's book, [i:95c547ae0b]Releasing the Bonds: Empowering People to Think for Themselves[/i:95c547ae0b] ( [www.freedomofmind.com] ).

I have contacted several members of the International College of Applied Kinesiology, and all of them believe that Hawkins' work is inaccurate, and should not even be considered "applied kinesiology." Hawkins' work does not meet the ICAK standards according to the members. This information will be published soon.

The one university professor who formerly supported Hawkins' work, Dr. Jonathan Reams of Gonzaga University, has now stated publicly:

[i:95c547ae0b]I have not been as interested in following Dr. Hawkins work over the past three years or so, since my experience and view of where he has gone with it and how he is operating do not carry the same quality as before. This may simply be due to the evolution of his presentation to a broader audience, and the more personality oriented following he seems to have developed.[/i:95c547ae0b] - Dr. Reams

Columbia University has confirmed, in contradiction to Hawkins' claims, that they have no record of Hawkins studying there.

The San Francisco Theological Seminary contacted Hawkins and got reference to their seminary removed from his Web site as SFTS did not endorse the event when their facilities were rented out for his claimed knighthood. Hawkins has also removed the claim that he was "knighted by the Danish crown," and Bjarne E. Pedersen, the Deputy Private Secretary to Her Majesty the Queen of Denmark, continues to state, "The Sovereign Order of the Hospitaliers of St. John of Jerusalem is not a Danish Order." Hawkins is now claiming that Prince Waldemar of Schaumburg-Lippe (rather than the dead prince he referenced before) is the person who knighted him. I have contacted a man knowledgeable about this, and he wrote that Waldemar is a "princling" who does not have the ability to confer knighthood. It appears that the order referenced by Hawkins is a "false order."
Quote

Self-styled Orders which illegitimately claim to be an offspring of the genuine Order of St. John...The "False Orders Committee"...has issued this list of the most important of the unrecognised "Orders" of St. John of Jerusalem...The Sovereign Order of the Hospital of St. John of Jerusalem of Denmark [www.christusrex.org]
My contact told me that this order appears to be fake, and that it is possible to get it confused with the respectable order, "the Most Venerable Order of the Hospital of St. John of Jerusalem." Note now that Hawkins is stating that Fernando Flores ( [www.culteducation.com] ) sponsored his knighthood. Many of you know I am sure about Flores' connection to Werner Erhard and Landmark, yet another cult ( [www.culteducation.com] ).

Hawkins also states that he was:
Quote

Appointed consultant to the Unity School of Religious Studies and post-graduate curriculum, including establishment of the Unity School of Consciousness Studies, 2003
I contacted the now renamed Unity Institute, and they stated that currently no formal agreement exists between Hawkins and Unity. The establishment of the "Unity School of Consciousness Studies" was an idea that was never undertaken, and the association between Hawkins and Unity ended. Note also that Unity Institute is not accredited.

I understand that the NEIRR page will include even more information as time goes on, and that several other organizations and cult experts have expressed interest in publishing regarding Hawkins as well. Much more to come in the future...

Regards,

Phoenix

Options: ReplyQuote
David R. Hawkins
Posted by: PhoenixPotter ()
Date: March 30, 2007 03:23AM

Quote

[i:a0cbd90ab0]It is unfortunate that Hawkins repeatedly uses the term applied kinesiology to describe his methodology because this could not be further from the truth. He uses a single muscle test which in itself, forms the fundamental basis of AK but is but one of very many aspects of AK procedure, practice and training. His assertion that what he does is AK is akin to suggesting that lancing boils is total medical practice. This type of testing is not part of any "approved AK material" which can only be taught by our certified teaching diplomats to aspiring applied kinesiologist who must hold licensure to diagnose before embarking on a rigorous 100 hour postgraduate course. Certainly the use of the muscle test has gained greater acceptance and is widely used by people from all walks of life from laypeople to specialist medical doctors in determining functional problems, but in strict adherence to the rules and guidelines of the limitations of the test itself.[/i:a0cbd90ab0]

[b:a0cbd90ab0]Eric Pierotti, D.C.
President, International College of Applied Kinesiology[/b:a0cbd90ab0]
Quote

[i:a0cbd90ab0]David Hawkins attended one seminar of my husband's way back in the mid 1970's and that is it. He has never studied with Dr. Diamond, nor asked approval to use pictures or his name in his book. Nothing has been paid or even a book sent. There has been no contact whatsoever from Dr. Hawkins. We only know of the book because someone showed it to us. [/i:a0cbd90ab0]

[i:a0cbd90ab0]In the very early days, Dr. Diamond, with the Founder of Applied Kinesiology, Dr. George Goodheart's approval, started Behavioral Kinesiology which looked more at the mental side which Dr. Goodheart said Dr. Diamond should add as he was a psychiatrist and trained in AK. At that time, no one even really knew what AK was let alone BK. As time progressed, Dr. Diamond stopped using the term BK and has put in his newer editions a warning that one should be properly trained by the International College of Applied Kinesiology of which Dr. Diamond is a Diplomate. [/i:a0cbd90ab0]
[i:a0cbd90ab0]As far as we know, Hawkins has had no training in Applied Kinesiology which is a very intensive course of about 360 hours or so. If that is the case, then he should not be using muscle testing which he calls Applied Kinesiology. [/i:a0cbd90ab0]

[i:a0cbd90ab0]Also, Dr. Diamond is a serious researcher. He does not use AK or BK as a truth detector. The wonderful tool of AK can be a fabulous diagnostic tool for many things as long as it is respected and learned properly.[/i:a0cbd90ab0]

[b:a0cbd90ab0]Susan Diamond
Wife of John Diamond, M.D.[/b:a0cbd90ab0]
Quote

[i:a0cbd90ab0]I’m trying to get over 200. It isn’t easy….!...[/i:a0cbd90ab0]

[i:a0cbd90ab0]Hawkins should certainly be able to use his arm-pressing technique to win our million-dollar prize! 30 minutes of easy work will get him the prize, easily…! But will he apply? No, of course not. Why? The answer is obvious.[/i:a0cbd90ab0]

[b:a0cbd90ab0]James Randi
James Randi Educational Foundation
One Million Dollar Paranormal Challenge[/b:a0cbd90ab0]: [www.randi.org]
Quote

[i:a0cbd90ab0]David Hawkins has attracted a great deal of attention in spiritual circles in the last few years... Unfortunately, he has leaned rather too heavily on what turns out to be a thin stick, and it cannot support all the weight he wants it to… He purports, via his truth-dowsing AK, to assign a numerical value from 1 to 1000, or "calibration," to people, concepts, ideologies, corporations, countries, states of (no-)mind and more…Worse, there is said to be a cult-like element to Hawkins' scale whereby it is impervious to challenge: anyone who questions his results, or whose own results differ significantly, is by definition coming in below 200, the level of integrity, and therefore not worth listening to. This is a classic cult invalidation tactic, a circular logic catch-22 that skewers all deviation from the Official Line.[/i:a0cbd90ab0]

[b:a0cbd90ab0]Sarlo
Editor, Sarlo’s Guru Rating Service[/b:a0cbd90ab0] “More on David Hawkins” [www.globalserve.net]
“Fringe/Suspect/1 out of 3” rating: [www.globalserve.net]
Quote

[i:a0cbd90ab0]I do not have any record of a David Ramon Hawkins studying at our Institute.[/i:a0cbd90ab0]

[b:a0cbd90ab0]Joan Jackson
Columbia University
Center for Psychoanalytic Training and Research[/b:a0cbd90ab0]

(Note: Hawkins' Web site states: [i:a0cbd90ab0]Training Psychoanalysis by Prof. Lionel Oversey, M.D., at Columbia University Psychoanalytic Institute[/i:a0cbd90ab0] [davidhawkins.info] )
Quote

[i:a0cbd90ab0]…Dr. Hawkins has apparently taken a grandiose road less traveled, and it sounds like a sad direction indeed. Hawkins may have morphed into a malignant pied piper. Physicians, psychiatrists and psychoanalysts are as I am sure you know, not immune from mental illness and perturbations of character in all its forms and varieties. When a physician wanders from a healthy sense of humility and the safe-guards of rigorous collegial scientific dialogue, ethical violations, unprofessional conduct, and sad events can occur. If patients, their families, and the guru's followers get hurt, an unfortunate unintended consequence of a free society can be seen.[/i:a0cbd90ab0]

[b:a0cbd90ab0]Peter Olsson, M.D.
author of Malignant Pied Pipers of Our Time: A Psychological Study of Destructive Cult Leaders from Rev. Jim Jones to Osama bin Laden [/b:a0cbd90ab0]

--From [b:a0cbd90ab0][i:a0cbd90ab0]Quotes of Experts Regarding Hawkins and 'AK'[/i:a0cbd90ab0][/b:a0cbd90ab0] at the New England Institute of Religious Research:

[neirr.org]

See also:

Biography and Detailed References on David Hawkins at NEIRR
[neirr.org]

Reviews of Hawkins' [i:a0cbd90ab0]Power vs Force[/i:a0cbd90ab0] and [i:a0cbd90ab0]Truth vs Falsehood[/i:a0cbd90ab0] by Mary-Sue Haliburton, Chief Editor for PES Network, Inc.
[peswiki.com]
[peswiki.com]

Some Other News:

Two articles by Robert Carroll regarding Hawkins and applied kinesiology have been added to the International Cultic Studies Association electronic library.
[www.icsahome.com]
[www.icsahome.com]

Mother Teresa Cause ( [www.motherteresacause.info] ) is looking into Hawkins' claim that Mother Teresa endorsed his book and have already written to Hawkins to request a copy of Mother Teresa's letter for their review.

NOTE: If you have any information regarding David Hawkins, please report it at Steven Hassan's Freedom of Mind site:

Submit Information About a Group
[www.freedomofmind.com]

Submit Testimonial
[www.freedomofmind.com]




Quote

"Perhaps as one of the older generation, I should preach a little sermon to you, but I do not propose to do so. I shall, instead, give you a word of advice about how to behave toward your elders. When an old and distinguished person speaks to you, listen to him carefully and with respect – but do not believe him. Never put your trust in anything but your own intellect. Your elder, no matter whether he has gray hair or lost his hair, no matter whether he is a Nobel Laureate, may be wrong... So you must always be skeptical – always think for yourself." --Linus Pauling

Options: ReplyQuote
David R. Hawkins
Posted by: PhoenixPotter ()
Date: April 24, 2007 09:44AM

[i:af1c940893][b:af1c940893]Guruphiliac[/b:af1c940893][/i:af1c940893] has posted some funny stuff regarding Hawkins under the title "Calibrate [i:af1c940893]This![/i:af1c940893]"

Quote

We immediately rejected the idea that applied kinesiology can measure "levels" of enlightenment the instant we heard it. Talk about a room full of ducks doing what only ducks do!

It's all in the joke work known as [i:af1c940893]Power Vs. Force[/i:af1c940893] by David Hawkins...Apparently, Hawkins has recently made moves to promote himself as a spiritual leader...a new wackadoo trying to emerge into the mainstream.

Here's our take: get ready for another insufferable, grandiose narcissist brimming over with pathological self-regard, offering nothing more than his own personal delusions as your objective spiritual truth.
[guruphiliac.blogspot.com]

Options: ReplyQuote
David R. Hawkins
Posted by: PhoenixPotter ()
Date: April 25, 2007 04:41AM

The brilliant [b:56d7043839]Cosmic Connie[/b:56d7043839] has added her two cents to the Hawkins jar on her blog [i:56d7043839][b:56d7043839]Whirled Musings[/b:56d7043839][/i:56d7043839] with "Hawkins squawkin’."

Quote

I was particularly interested to read about the source of Dr. Hawkins’ Ph.D., which seems to be the foundation of his work...Columbia Pacific University happens to be the same diploma mill where Dr. John Gray, "Ph.D." got [i:56d7043839]his[/i:56d7043839] doctorate. Alas, CPU was shut down by the California Department of Consumer Affairs...however, you’re probably not going to see much about that on Dr. Hawkins’ promo material.

But y’know, these days, it really doesn’t matter if your degree is real or not. You put those letters after your name, and [i:56d7043839]voila![/i:56d7043839] Instant credibility. I really gotta buy me a fake Ph.D.
[cosmicconnie.blogspot.com]

Options: ReplyQuote
David R. Hawkins
Posted by: PhoenixPotter ()
Date: April 29, 2007 04:27AM

This is rather amusing. Hawkins has been criticized by fellow Dr. Wayne Dyer-endorsed Hay House author Gary Renard in his book [i:adb78177f1]Your Immortal Reality: How to Break the Cycle of Birth and Death[/i:adb78177f1]. Renard purports to have had conversations with two "ascended masters" who come from the future named Arten and Pursah...(Yes, Hay House [i:adb78177f1]will[/i:adb78177f1] publish anything, provided it is [i:adb78177f1]just[/i:adb78177f1] crazy enough.)

Quote

PURSAH: We are here to instruct you on how to break the cycle of birth and death, once and for all.

GARY: Is that all? I was hoping I could learn how to measure my consciousness.

ARTEN: You're being facetious. But what you just said is one of the reasons we're here. People are being distracted by things that may seem fascinating to them but are really only there to take their attention away from what's important, and instead put it on things that will keep them stuck here. (9)

ARTEN: We have nothing but respect for the person we're about to discuss. He's an early student of the Course in Miracles who's a doctor, and because of that he has a tendency to put things in scientific terms. This can be very impressive to the uninitiated. One of the things he does is to use kinesiology, which is muscle testing, to test the truthfulness of statements. Because of this doctor's research, some people mistakenly believe that he has perfected this method. However, because all he's really doing is using illusion to measure illusions, his tests are flawed be definition. He's using the body to test for the truth! As the Course clearly teaches, anything that can change or be changed is not real. How, then can students of the Course put their faith in it?

GARY: Yeah, I know the doctor you're talking about. But my chiropractor was using kinesiology on me in the form of muscle testing 22 years ago. He was great, and most of the time he was right about his conclusions, but not always. Nothing's perfect. And besides, some people are better than others at doing that kind of thing, just like with any art.

ARTEN: Yes, and the doctor we're discussing now developed it into a method of testing the truthfulness of statements, making kind of a lie-detector test out of it. There's a bigger problem with that than just the fact that nothing on the level of form can ever be completely reliable, and things that are true can be mistakenly called untrue. The hidden ego hook is that now the student's attention is being put on the wrong place, focused on an illusory test of an illusory thing in an illusory world, instead of where the attention should be, which is the decision in the mind to forgive the world and leave the entire system behind. That's the focus of A Course in Miracles.

GARY: I know this guy calibrates different teachings at various levels, from 1 to 1,000. People love it. But if he were an early student of the Course, it makes me wonder why he didn't pay more attention to what the Course was saying.

ARTEN: I think you mean teachings like the quotation we've used before: Perception did not exist until the separation introduced degrees, aspects and intervals. Spirit has no levels, and all conflict arises from the concept of levels.

GARY: Yeah. And the Course is trying to focus the student's attention on the fact that there are really only two things to choose from. And only one of them is real, which is Spirit and to make the choice for wholeness.

ARTEN: That's correct. Enlightenment has no levels; you're either whole or you're not. So not only do things like tests and calibrations distract the student from bringing illusions to the truth instead of giving truth to their illusions, but on top of it, testing in that manner can possibly steer a student away from something that may be helpful if the student tests something and comes up with the wrong result.

GARY: Yeah. Like this doctor always seems to calibrate Republicans as having integrity. He also calibrated Wal-Mart as being an enlightened company. I'm sorry, but this is a company that was just convicted in California of cheating their employees out of their lunch times. If that's the kind of conclusions that the doctor himself comes up with, what the hell are his students going to come up with when you'd have to assume they're not as good at it as he is? And if he's letting his personal bias show, then how's anyone else going to avoid that?

ARTEN: Just remember that the illusion wants to keep you stuck here. And in some cases, because of encouraging comparisons, categorizing teachings into numbers, and making it all real, the focus is now on the illusion, which is an effect, instead of on the mind, which is cause. Then before you know it, some people are testing other people's statements, calling the people liars […] in a nice, polite, enlightened way, of course, and all it really leads to is a lot of wasted time that could have been spent undoing the ego instead of unwittingly glorifying it. (196-198)

Renard further notes in a monthly message:
Quote

My visit to Arizona last week was very interesting. I...got to visit Sedona for the first time. It’s a pretty place. One thing, though. The Indians won’t live in Sedona because they know that all that magnetism isn’t good for your mind. In fact it can drive you a little crazy after a while. So the question is, what are all those teachers like David Hawkins...doing there? (LOL) Anyway, I’ve been told it won’t affect you to visit there for a week or so...

Hawkins recommends [i:adb78177f1]A Course in Miracles[/i:adb78177f1] to his Hawkinuts. I recently wrote with a prominent teacher of [i:adb78177f1]A Course in Miracles[/i:adb78177f1] (not Renard...or Pursah or Arten, for that matter) who has written books on the subject and also believes Hawkins' work is complete nonsense. At this time the author doesn't wish to publicly criticize Hawkins, though does so privately with anyone who asks.

Ilchi Lee ( [www.culteducation.com] ) has recently added a customer review endorsement of Hawkins' book at Amazon.com. Even Lee wrote, "I would caution against book [sic] as a tool of judgement to 'measure' the consciousness level of other people..." Hawkins in turn also endorses Lee, though unfortunately without the added caution.

Options: ReplyQuote
David R. Hawkins
Posted by: PhoenixPotter ()
Date: May 15, 2007 09:13PM

Andrew Paterson wrote to me in December of 2006 a rather prophetic statement which at the time I asked if I could quote here.

Quote

The bottom line is that Hawkins' weakness is his method of determining absolute certainty. By linking his philosophical worldview to AK he lays himself open to testing and contradiction. This works for a short time until those tests are done. Most other cult leaders don't even pretend to be scientific and so they cannot be falsified by science. It won't be long, however, before Hawkins' use of AK will be shown to be misappropriated. What he will do then, which I understand he is now starting to do, is downplay the AK part and hope that the body of his work stands on its own without the AK element. He probably has enough supporters now that this would happen, but it would mean that his organisation ostensibly becomes a cult (as you know it always was, but in many people's minds there is a lot of doubt because it misrepresents itself as scientific). And regarding science, Hawkins wants it both ways: he wants to appear scientific to gain credibility, but when that scientific association is questioned he dismisses science by dismissing skepticism.

(As you know, without skepticism there is no science.) This is a cynical exploitation of science…

Keep up the good work! It will certainly be interesting to see how Hawkins modifies his approach as the science element of his work disintegrates.

A student of Hawkins' work recently wrote that Hawkins is now dropping the term "applied kinesiology" altogether, and is now referring to his AK work as simply "physiologic testing" or "muscle testing."

Quote

Hawkins has since refined his statements regarding AK as a mistake and a misnomer and clarified that his method is simply muscle testing...Hawkins merely referenced kinesiology to give credit to its originators and does not claim to be a kinesiologist. His use is restricted to consciousness research (non-linear) rather than physical (linear), which represents a paradigm...Hawkins use of muscle testing is restricted to only specifics which he has detailed and demonstrated profusely as he does not claim to be a kinesiologist, but merely a researcher in the realm of consciousness only. Hawkins references to Dr. Diamond was merely complementary, giving him credit for inspiration...

Hawkins says the degree [Ph.D.] is just "window dressing" and irrelevant to the pragmatic usefulness of the methodology, which is actually meta-science. Recent scientific research is in agreement that Newtonian Physics is inapplicable to biologic phenomenon. ref: Journal of Scientific Exploration, April 2007...

Hawkins, however, has already studied cults in detail and had listed 39 definitive criteria for identification of teachers and teachings with integrity (ref: [i:48f4d88bfa]Discovery of the Presence of God [/i:48f4d88bfa](2006), pp. 179-183) and his teachings fulfill all of them. He is in fact the direct opposite of a cult leader and is popular because of it...

Hawkins apologizes for having given credit to applied kinesiology for being the original stimulus of what is better termed a “physiologic response.” The body goes weak in response to falsehood (calibration levels below 200) and strong in response to truth (calibration levels above 200).

Critics are unaware of paradigm blindness and confuse linear, Newtonian science with non-linear levels of consciousness. The Newtonian paradigm is inappropriate to biologic phenomenon, which is a separate class of phenomenon (e.g. intention, life energy, Quantum Zeno Effect, Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle).

The intention of his overall work is clarification of spiritual realities and the progressive levels of consciousness, which are non-linear and not definable in terms of academic, Newtonian science (i.e. limited to the range of the 400s). Thus, all criticism that are based on the presumption of linear causality are irrelevant. Also, the use of the muscle testing techniques he describes is.

According to consciousness research, skeptics are themselves personally unable to use the method described because this method is limited to people whose own consciousness levels are 200 or above (and the skeptic generally calibrates at 160). Inasmuch as atheism itself calibrates below 200, it would be expected that they would refute or be unable to confirm results that are obtained by tens of thousands of people worldwide on an everyday basis.

The intended use of consciousness research is the evolution of spiritual consciousness. Note importantly the critical statement on the first page of all of Hawkins’s books: “Gloria in Excelsis Deo.” The materialistic skeptic was thus forewarned that it is not their realm of expertise (ALL professional skeptics calibrate below level 200).

Based on 50 years of clinical expertise as a psychiatrist/psychoanalyst, Hawkins notes that one motivation and goal of the atheistic skeptic is limited by egoistic negative intent. The sudden conversion of famous skeptics of history have, however, changed the course of history from Saul of Tarsus (St. Paul) to Augustine in 412 AD who changed Rome from Paganism to the faith that launched all of Western civilization. In many cases, however, skepticism seems to be a permanent limitation as illustrated by a famous skeptic in Phoenix, Arizona who has now written five books purportedly “proving” that Einstein is a fake (ignoring Nagasaki and Hiroshima). Thus, the die-hard skeptic is not devoted to truth, but to personal egocentric goals.
Hawkins references controversial publications such as the [i:48f4d88bfa]Journal of Scientific Exploration[/i:48f4d88bfa] ( [en.wikipedia.org] ) which studies ufology, cryptozoology, and parapsychology. Hawkins of course is not a cult expert, so finding himself to not be a cult leader while actual cult experts do is a bit self-supporting. Hawkins continues to use [i:48f4d88bfa]ad hominem[/i:48f4d88bfa] attacks on observers and to beg the question ( [en.wikipedia.org] ), i.e., he engages in personal attacks (e.g., "160") and circular reasoning.

No professional skeptics are trying to disprove Einstein, they engage themselves in countering pseudoscientific claims (such as Hawkins' claims), not actual science. See [www.skeptic.com] and [www.csicop.org] .

Also note that apparently the only scientist comparing Hawkins to "Einstein" is himself.

I will also repeat that Hawkins' appeal to the Kuhnian scientific paradigm shift is inappropriate, as it would require a literally impossible ontological shift in reality itself (rather than a shift in our [i:48f4d88bfa]understanding[/i:48f4d88bfa] of the universe and practice of scientific problem-solving). Paradigm shifts are extremely rare, and the vast majority of fringe hypotheses remain fringe for a simple reason: they are not true. Because paradigms shift, this does not mean that every crack theory is true (a false assumption promulgated by many New Age teachers and cult leaders). If Hawkins' work were true, I have a feeling he would not need to criticize skepticism so strongly. Skepticism is part of science itself; Hawkins is really criticizing science.

It is important to keep in mind that Hawkins is not addressing the scientific community or even attempting to have a rigorous scientific dialogue, but is rather teaching to people who are on the whole scientifically illiterate in comparison to professionals.

To followers of his work, please do yourselves a favor and read Carl Sagan's "Baloney Detection Kit" [www.xenu.net] . Consider also reading Sagan's [i:48f4d88bfa]The Demon Haunted World: Science as a Candle in the Dark[/i:48f4d88bfa] and Michael Shermer's [i:48f4d88bfa]Why People Believe Weird Things: Pseudoscience, Superstition, and Other Confusions of Our Time[/i:48f4d88bfa]. Science is open to questioning at all times. If your guru wants you to give up your critical thinking abilities, you may want to ask yourself why this is; true teachers empower you. Several key points to remember: Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof; Scientific language does not make science; Bold statements do not make claims true; and anecdotal evidence ( [en.wikipedia.org] ) is not science.

Quote

[i:48f4d88bfa]Nice hypothesis, you may say, but is it true? The heart of the scientific method lies in that skeptic's simple question. A merely plausible explanation of what we observe will not suffice, nor will a hypothesis bolstered only by some expert's endorsement. Modern science is wonderfully egalitarian, and it demands proof that all can see: measurements, objects or evidence of some kind. Scientific hypotheses must be both well-defined and firmly supported, preferably by several different types of data…my experience suggests that scientists do not gleefully bury hypotheses in which they have invested many years of research.[/i:48f4d88bfa]

Pat Shipman, Pennsylvania State University, [i:48f4d88bfa]American Scientist[/i:48f4d88bfa]
[www.americanscientist.org]
By the way, I contacted yet another respected teacher of [i:48f4d88bfa]A Course in Miracles[/i:48f4d88bfa] who also recognizes Hawkins' work is nonsense and willingly discusses this with anyone who asks. Hawkins would like to have people believe that his critics are only “materialistic skeptics” and “atheists” (this is [i:48f4d88bfa]ad hominem[/i:48f4d88bfa]), however the vast majority are spiritual or religious.

Options: ReplyQuote
David R. Hawkins
Posted by: PhoenixPotter ()
Date: May 16, 2007 09:33PM

Here is the latest on Hawkins' knighthood:

Quote

Hawkins states that he has been knighted by a "Danish Order" called "The Sovereign Order of the Hospitaliers of St. John of Jerusalem,"[ [davidhawkins.info] ] however, the current Deputy Private Secretary to Her Majesty the Queen of Denmark [Margrethe II of Denmark], Bjarne E. Pedersen, states to the contrary that the order referenced by Hawkins is not of Danish origin.[ [neirr.org] ] The statement that Hawkins has been "knighted by the Danish crown" has been removed from his website.

According to another website run by students of Hawkins' work, Hawkins was made a Knight Brother of the Sovereign Order of the Hospital of St. John of Jerusalem in the Americas, at "San Anselmo Theological Seminary" in 1995, officiated by H.H. Prince Waldemar of Schaumburg-Lippe [ [en.wikipedia.org] ] under the sponsorship of Ambassador Fernando E. Flores.[ [www.consciousnessproject.org] ] However, this Order is referenced by Guy Stair Sainty [ [en.wikipedia.org] ] as being "self-styled,"[ [www.chivalricorders.org] ] it is not recognized by the Mutually Recognised Orders of St. John [ [en.wikipedia.org] ], and along with its Grand Master F. Flores-Banuet of San José, Costa Rica it is noted to "illegitimately claim to be an offspring" of a "genuine Order of St. John."[ [www.christusrex.org] ] Further, the San Francisco Theological Seminary in San Anselmo, California did not endorse and was in no way affiliated with the event, but rented out their facilities.[ [neirr.org] ]

[en.wikipedia.org]

Prince Waldemar of Schaumburg-Lippe, according to Hein Bruins in Amsterdam who maintains "Hein's Royal Genealogy Page" [www.angelfire.com] :

Quote

Waldemar is an obscure German/Danish princling who is not in the position to confer knighthoods ..............[...]

The Sovereign Order of the Hospitaliers of St. John of Jerusalem does exist and actually has a great reputation. Nowhere have I found any evidence that Prince Waldemar is linked to this order. I will ask a Danish friend if he knows more about this.

Prince Waldemar of Schaumburg-Lippe is a bit of a tragic figure. As the son of a German prince and a Danish princess he lived most of his life in Denmark. He is a second cousin of the Queen Margrethe II of Denmark, the present Danish head of state. He was once married to an official photographer of the Danish royal court and became a royal photographer himself, thus often taking pictures of his royal cousins, with whom he was very close. But he became a bit of the laughing-stock of the Danish nation, when his wife got involved in a rather scandalous love-affair, which led to their divorce. Since then Waldemar, who once was a celebrity in Denmark, chooses to stay out of the lime-light. [...]

The order that I was thinking of is actually called "the Most Venerable Order of the Hospital of St. John of Jerusalem". It is a protestant order for people belonging to the old nobility and it does a lot of important charity-work. It is not Danish, but global.

Waldemar's "order" must be a fake one. My Danish connection, who is quite an expert in these matters, told me he had never heard of any link of Waldemar with any order. [...]

It all smells pretty fishy to me. But there is notghing new under the sun. There are several fake "orders" active, that, usually for a nice sum of money, confere "knighthoods" on people. And they always find impoverished princlings to do the job for them ...........

Options: ReplyQuote
David R. Hawkins
Posted by: PhoenixPotter ()
Date: June 02, 2007 05:16AM

A Note on Skepticism

We need to be clear on what we mean when we use the word “skeptic,” as it has several meanings. Generally, when I use the word I am referring to “scientific skepticism,” which questions claims in light of nature, investigation, observation, experimentation, and the scientific method. That is, it is part of the practice of science.

The term “skeptic” is especially tricky with Hawkins as there is also the “religious skepticism” meaning. I draw a distinction between his muscle testing, which has been disproved, and his mystical statements.

Hawkins appears to consider “skeptic” and “atheist” to have the same meaning or to go hand in hand (i.e., if one is a skeptic one is therefore an atheist), so I assume that when he uses the term “skeptic” he is generally referring to its religious, rather than scientific, meaning. He places the “materialistic skeptic” at odds with God, which is again a religious usage, as well as referring to “the atheistic skeptic.” [www.consciousnessproject.org]

I know many people who are scientific skeptics who are also still religious. A perfect example is Rev. Robert Pardon of the New England Institute of Religious Research. He is a very devout man, yet still believes Hawkins’ muscle testing is nonsense. I also know a Catholic man who tries to keep Scientology pseudoscience out of school systems. Two friends of mine in England are passionate Christians, yet devote their lives to helping others get out of pseudoscientific cults. There are many religious parents who try to keep “Intelligent Design” out of schools as an alternative to biological evolution because ID is not science (even though the parents believe in God). (See Jimmy Carter’s [i:42920d6f79]Our Endangered Values: America's Moral Crisis[/i:42920d6f79])

As a matter of fact, Christians in particular are skeptical of applied kinesiology. See: “Testing Muscle Testing: Applied Kinesiology” from the Watchman Fellowship [www.watchman.org] ; “Applied kinesiology” from Let Us Reason Ministries [www.letusreason.org] ; “Muscle Testing” [www.inplainsite.org] and “Applied Kinesiology and Nutritional Muscle Response Testing: A Christian Perspective” [www.inplainsite.org] from InPlainSite.org.

Rick Ross, Steven Hassan, Rev. Pardon, and other cult experts have indicated that it is not the particular beliefs of a group that make it a cult, but rather its behavior.

Andrew Paterson stated it very well:

Quote

We are not seeking to personally attack individuals or their beliefs — if so and so believes that pink space rhinos inhabit Mars, we respect that person's or group's right to state this, and even teach it. But if that person or group tries to then justify this belief with false science, misquotes from holy books, out and out lies, or psychological manipulation, or if exaggerated claims are made for space rhinos and how they are essential to the process of enlightenment, or that space rhinos are the ONLY way to realization, or if false claims of spiritual authority are made by the teacher or the group to bolster up this theory, then we have a duty to highlight these shortcomings.
[www.energygrid.com]
I have to assume that Hawkins is not really familiar with scientific skepticism when he believes that “ALL professional skeptics” lack integrity. This is rather amusing, since scientific skeptics to my mind have nothing but integrity, while hucksters and flapdoodle artists get away with making false claims, taking advantage people, and enriching themselves. At the very least, isn’t it strange that if a person questions something being purported to be science (which demands proof and evidence that all can see), they are considered to not have integrity in Hawkins’ mind?

Hawkins refers to “the sudden conversion of famous skeptics of history” such as St. Paul and St. Augustine; however, again this is skepticism in the religious sense. Hawkins compares his teachings not only to the science of Einstein, but also to the religion of Jesus Christ.

(As a side note, I think Constantine had more to do than Augustine with changing ancient Rome from Paganism to Christianity. Also, let’s not forget ancient Greece and the Roman Empire’s contribution to “all of Western civilization.”)

In fact, Hawkins’ followers argue for an extreme form of skepticism when confronted with evidence that is contrary to Hawkins’ pseudoscience: they deny objective reality wholesale. This is because Hawkins teaches that Truth is “radically subjective;” but of course this is still a false duality (See Huang Po, for example: “Mind” is “nothing subjective or objective.” [www.bu.edu] ) for a person who is teaching “Devotional Nonduality” (which in itself is a contradictory phrase). Also see Buddha’s “Fourteen unanswerable questions” [en.wikipedia.org] .

Hawkins’ critics also include Eric Pierotti of ICAK and John Diamond, who Hawkins references in [i:42920d6f79]Power vs. Force[/i:42920d6f79]. Is he insinuating that these men are also “atheistic skeptics”?

I always found it silly that Hawkins appeals to actual science (e.g., quantum physics) to claim that science is incorrect.

Hawkins refers to “a famous skeptic in Phoenix, Arizona who has now written five books purportedly ‘proving’ that Einstein is a fake (ignoring Nagasaki and Hiroshima).” The “famous skeptic” is a retired electrical engineer named Bob Henderson who has written three quack books against Einstein. Henderson actually lives in Sun City, Arizona, a retirement community, and he is about Hawkins’ age at 80. ( [www.azcentral.com] ).

This is exactly the sort of nonsense that skeptics try to publicly debunk for the benefit of society. In fact, they did.

[i:42920d6f79]Strange Fruit[/i:42920d6f79], which is a Science Blog maintained by Prof. John Lynch, an evolutionary biologist and a historian of biology at Arizona State University, published a critique of Henderson titled “Einstein was a dunce”: [scienceblogs.com] See also: “Einstein a dunce? Merely theory”
[www.azcentral.com]

Aspects of Prof. Lynch’s article on Henderson’s quackery could also apply to Hawkins:

Quote

ecause Henderson's ‘work was science,’ Henderson can comment on [u:42920d6f79]all[/u:42920d6f79] scientific ideas. This is obviously not the case.”

“The fact is, Einstein's theories have been vindicated by experiment and observation.”

“Evolutionary theory has been suffering the same idiotic attacks for a long time now.”
There are also several insightful comments from others on Lynch’s blog, such as:

Quote

“Henderson is not wrong [i:42920d6f79]because[/i:42920d6f79] he is unqualified. He is wrong [i:42920d6f79]and[/i:42920d6f79] he is unqualified. He'd be just as wrong if he held that opinion and a Ph.D in physics. That qualification might induce some people to spend more time listening to his opinion and whatever evidence he musters to support it, but other qualified listeners would still dismiss that opinion upon realizing that his evidence is hooey.”
Thus, Hawkins’ argument fails as a false analogy. A more appropriate analog would be that Hawkins is actually like this “famous skeptic” Henderson, as Hawkins’ work is just as crazy and no professional scientists that I am aware of endorse his work, but Hawkins still thinks he is the supreme genius of humanity, as well as the new Avatar. Einstein calibrates at 499 per Hawkins, whereas Hawkins calibrates one of his own books at 999.8.

Quote

“Thus, the die-hard skeptic is not devoted to truth, but to personal egocentric goals.” - Hawkins
Based on the above proper analogy of Henderson being more similar to Hawkins than to a “die-hard skeptic,” I must conclude that Hawkins is “not devoted to truth, but to personal egocentric goals.”

Sarlo ( [www.globalserve.net] ) wondered if Hawkins is a New Age Lyndon LaRouche ( [www.culteducation.com] ). I wonder if Hawkins isn’t also a New Age Gene Ray ( [en.wikipedia.org] ), the crank who is the self-proclaimed “Greatest Thinker" and "Wisest Human” behind the Time Cube pseudoscience?
Quote

“I bestow upon myself the ‘Doctorate of Cubicism’, for educators are ignorant of Nature's Harmonic Time Cube Principle and cannot bestow the prestigious honor of wisdom upon the wisest human ever… Dumb academicians cannot comprehend their slavery to counterfeit word and its evil… YOU don't know the Truth. YOU pitiful mindless fools, YOU are educated stupid… I think Cubic, I am wisest. You think self, you are evil. Your Professors are stupid evil Liars, and fear the Time Cube Truth… There is ‘absolute proof’ that You are personified pyramid... Minds must see a Time Cube, that eyes cannot comprehend… I am wiser than any god or scientist…See for yourself the absolute proof. " -Gene Ray [en.wikiquote.org]
Quote

“The [Ph.D. from CPU] degree is just 'window dressing'...I am not an academic person at all...I am all that is Nature, I am that which is life.” -David Hawkins
Oprah gave Hawkins a thirty minute interview on Oprah & Friends XM radio recently, by the way. First [i:42920d6f79]The Secret [/i:42920d6f79]( [board.culteducation.com] ), then Allison DuBois and John Edward, and now Hawkins………………

Options: ReplyQuote
David R. Hawkins
Posted by: PhoenixPotter ()
Date: June 03, 2007 04:32PM

I was just browsing through Amazon.com and came across the most recent customer review of [i:422e0e5362]Power vs. Force[/i:422e0e5362]. It appears another person literally went insane following Hawkins and ended up in a mental hospital per the review:

Quote

[b:422e0e5362]Dangerous Stuff[/b:422e0e5362], June 3, 2007
By Anonymous

After personally having experienced using his technique for myself, I have an obligation before God and to warn people of the evils of Dr. Hawkin's material, particularly his use of applied kinesiology for determining truth for which it is not intended. I understand we all have a desire to know the truth and get closer to God, and his technique sounds tempting because of it's simplistic nature, but as I know from first-hand experience, this is NOT the way.

I initially tested his technique using foods and unfortunately for me it had appeared to work which is what caused me to get sucked into his whole system of consciousness research without really looking into the authenticity of the technique. I started calibrating people and objects and it appeared to work for me, giving the appearance that the calibrated level generally matched the person's behavior. It wasn't until later I realized that I was actually channeling spirits that eventually tried to manipulate and fool me into thinking I had past lives, that I was one with God, that I was becoming enlightened, and that I was even being tempted by Satan. I even felt the so-called kundalini energy he talks about. I eventually ended up in a psych ward for a number of weeks because of the supernatural events I was experiencing. It wasn't until I prayed in the name of Jesus Christ that the spirits left my body. Even now I'm still dealing with residual effects of some entity haunting me. Now I know Dr. Hawkin's claim of everything happening "spontaneously" is due to total possession, not due to the effect of the"field of consciousness".

I strongly urge people to stay away from this material, paricularly using the technique he describes. Kinesiology is not a proven science as shown by double-blind studies referenced in Wikipedia (which is what I should have looked into before I got so deeply involved) and in my opinion, the technique amounts to using a ouija board. Things may appear benevolent at first but will only get worse with time. God's Word strictly forbids using techniques like this to "access" unknown information. 1 John 4:1-4 says to test the spirits if they are from God or not. I strongly recommend that anyone getting caught in his belief system confess Jesus Christ as their Lord and Saviour and ask God in his name to save them of these evil entities.

Dr. Hawkins may understand human behaviour on a deep level which makes it appear he has some validity to his claims, but his technique to determine a persons' level of consciousness and determine truth is spiritually unsound and unsafe. I strongly recommend against this book and his other works.

[i:422e0e5362]How much longer will this go on?[/i:422e0e5362]

The other two most recent reviews state:

Quote

[b:422e0e5362]Here is the worst kind of charlatan[/b:422e0e5362]. , April 10, 2007
By Elena Ray (Joshua Tree, CA)


Taking bits and peices from legitimate spiritual and consciousness raising traditions Hawkins spins himself as some kind of chosen one and spiritual authority and develops a bizarre scale for measuring consciousness.

Quote

[b:422e0e5362]He is over the edge[/b:422e0e5362], March 30, 2007
By John Davis

There is some truth in the book. Enough truth to make you want to believe it. However it is full of nonsense and when you Google Hawkins you find out he has somewhat of a cult following. He has been drinking too much of his own Kool Aid.

I have heard it said that man worships his maker. This is true for "self made men" like Hawkins too.

This book can be misleading to people and I think it is unfortunate that he ruined the good in his book by going too far into believing his own, unproven theories. I do not recommend this book.

The most glowing review that is an uncritical examination of the book received a comment from another person:

Quote

Stephen P. Bryant
This is the kind of uncritical review that is quite shameful. The book is written on a foundation of sand with absolutely no subsantiation beyond it's own self-referential form. This kind of writing could create a new dark age for us all, with the supposedly englightened leading the way. Utter nonsense.

Ilchi Lee's review has apparently been removed or deleted by him.

Mother Teresa Cause has contacted Hawkins twice now requesting a copy of Mother Teresa's supposed letter of endorsement of Hawkins' book. Apparently he is not cooperating. There is something fishy about even his endorsements.

Hawkins' official site lists his endorsements:

Quote

Dr. Wayne W. Dyer
“Perhaps the most important and significant book I’ve read in the past ten years."

Lee Iacocca
"...particularly timely ....a significant contribution to understanding and dealing with the problems we face today."

Mother Teresa
"A beautiful gift of writing. You spread joy, love and compassion through what you write. The fruit of these three is peace, as you know."

Sam Walton
"I especially appreciate the research and presentation on the attractor patterns of business."

Brain/Mind Bulletin
"The reader will almost certainly be impressed by Hawkins' clear, articulate style and the philosophical strength of his insight and observations....he has indeed helped arm us for the internal struggle."

Sheldon Deal, then President, International College of Applied Kinesiology
"Overwhelming! A masterpiece! A lifetime work!"

Dr. Dyer we know is accurate; he lavished praise on Hawkins on PBS (see complaints PBS received regarding Dyer being on public television: [www.pbs.org] ). In fact, Dyer is responsible for "bringing the book [[i:422e0e5362]Power vs. Force[/i:422e0e5362]] and its author [Hawkins] out of relative obscurity" according to NEIRR [neirr.org] . Dyer has a talent for endorsing nonsense, as he also endorses the likes of Sathya Sai Baba, Gary Renard, Deepak Chopra, Gregg Braden, and many others -- just a veritable hodgepodge of gibberish masquerading as science and spirituality, especially if published by Hay House. ( [www.hayhouse.com] )

Lee Iacocca also probably did endorse his book. I heard Hawkins say in an interview that when he was a successful psychiatrist in New York City, where he was busy treating schizophrenics with vitamins ( [en.wikipedia.org] & [www.quackwatch.org] ), he was friends with a lot of "captains of industry."

This may explain Sam Walton also, however an obvious point to keep in mind is that Walton died in 1992, and Hawkins' book was not self-published until 1995. I don't doubt that he endorsed Hawkins, but he certainly was unable to see the completed product. Further, Hawkins references Wal-Mart and Walton positively in the book as well.

Sheldon Deal was not “then President, International College of Applied Kinesiology” in 1995, but rather from 1978 to 1983 ( [www.icak.com] ). Deal was also Hawkins' mentor for the diploma mill Columbia Pacific University. And we know that the current president of ICAK since 1999, Pierotti, has criticized Hawkins quite strongly.

[i:422e0e5362]Brain/Mind Bulletin[/i:422e0e5362] is laughable. It is published by New Age author Marilyn Ferguson of [i:422e0e5362]The Aquarian Conspiracy[/i:422e0e5362] "fame."

Options: ReplyQuote
Current Page: 8 of 19


Sorry, you can't reply to this topic. It has been closed.
This forum powered by Phorum.