I have just one question for Mr. Gordon: does he find that condescension and old-fashioned ridicule really works in convincing people to abandon their beliefs? I find it hard to imagine but like so many Promethean debunkers out there, they must, as a group, collectively believe it does, for why else do they rely on it with such regularity? It's not that Channeling Into The New Age isn't a relatively entertaining and highly readable work, it's just that I found Gordon's demeaning personality and arrogance tiresome and juvenile. I know he believes he's only attempting to save the ignorant and superstitious masses from themselves-a commendable goal to be sure-but I can't help but believe he's not into debunking more for the sheer enjoyment it brings him. To refute Gordon's work topic by topic would take some time; suffice is to say he takes the New Age "gurus"-and Miss MacLaine in particular-to task on a number of issues, from channeling and the use of crystals to reincarnation and UFOs, all of which has been done before and since by better writers. There simply was nothing new in any of this. While I found myself agreeing on a few points, most of it was just another litany of insults (he especially enjoys working the words "nonsense" and "gullible" into every other paragraph) with little meat on them. His status as an outsider puts him at a great disadvantage; much like trying to attack Roman Catholicism without once stepping foot inside a church or making any effort to understand it's precepts within the context of its own history, it just can't be done on anything more than a superficial level. The New Age movement cannot be attacked the way one would take on an established religion, for it has no set doctrines or dogmas that one must adhere to. The entire idea behind it is that one is free to explore their own spirituality as they wish and pick and choose those elements that speak for them, while ignoring other ideas that do not. I really don't think Henry understands that, preferring to attack it en masse as one would, say, Mormonism. For example, he castigates reincarnation without, I think, really bothering to try and understand it. In one instance, he rejects more enlightened interpretations of how karma works-that as an "educational" element designed to encourage spiritual growth-by declaring that that isn't how it has been traditionally taught (as though ancient concepts can't be refined and rethought over time.) In this and other areas, Gordon talks at great lengths about things of which he knows little, dismisses entire concepts out of hand as "nonsense," again without taking much time to discuss their merits or weaknesses, and generally dismisses all psychics and parapsychologists as con artists, fruitcakes, or-at best-well-meaning but seriously deluded quacks. Of course, Gordon saves his most voracious attacks for Miss MacLaine, whom he seems to admire even while attempting to humiliate her. Not a huge fan of the actress/New Age guru myself, I still felt his efforts to attack her beliefs to be mean-spirited and juvenile. Instead of confronting her philosophy on rational/logical grounds, he instead devotes whole chapters to listing various remarks she has made and then writing some cute rebuttal designed, I suppose, to enlighten us to the dangers her statements represent. While Gordon makes a few good points and does us some service, I guess, in making us aware of the potential pitfalls and dangers the New Age movement-and Shirley MacLaine in general-represent, the general tone of the book is that of a bratty schoolkid who snickers at others who aren't as smart as he imagines himself to be. Good try, but there are better books out there.

Shirley MacLaine, while talented as an actress, has certainly made a name for herself. She's made some of the most absurd statements in history, especially that we are all God. Comforting, huh? And, because she's a public figure, she's known to have made them. I mean, it's not like "my sister's friend's cousin told my uncle..." i.e., scuttlebutt. And she's written it! People actually buy her books on her communication with the great beyond. And they pay a fortune for her seminars; the book refers to an estimate of $4 million she grosses from one of her tours.

Has Shirley toned down? It's irrelevant to the book which was written in the late 1980s.

Overall I like the structure of the book. The author attempts to define the "New Age" and describe its motives. I think there's more to be said than he does about that "New Age," but he adds a shade or two to it that I hadn't thought off, notably that its tendency to provide quick and easy answers is a sign of our times. He then covers many of Shirley's statements, and those of other gurus, e.g., J.Z. Knight, channeler of Ramtha, whose words of the wisdom of some 35,000 years ago I long for to guide me through these troubled times. He even covers WHY belief in such nonsense is dangerous--and that's something many of the books do little of.

And MacLaine reveals an irony: The author refers to her liberal political action, e.g., her participation in McGovern's campaign (1972) and her opposition to the Vietnam Warm. But I see her New Age pronouncements as the ultimate in conservatism: Your condition you brought to yourself (karma, or a dozen other concepts depending on the country/religion). That must be comforting to her and to the people who pay her thousands for a weekend seminar on how to be no less than God.

Gordon reviews many of MacLaine's statements. And they speak--or don't speak--for themselves. People who complain of the cynical nature of the book need only read those utterly meaningless statements. And one of the final chapters is on the crossover between science and the mystical. Shirley, for example, frequently nonquotes Albert Einstein. She, like that other guru not covered in the book, Deepak Chopra, frequently refers to "quantum" physics--while laughably understanding NOTHING about the subject. However, the sardonic nature of the text makes it more appropriate to those already skeptical of MacLaine and other such gurus. While I'm not confident that a more reasoned, scientific, or even educational text will convince those who believe in MacLaine's absurdities to reject or at least challenge them, it may help us all argue more effectively with those who do subscribe to her flatulence.

The book is fun, but not one I would use for a course, say, in critical thinking.

Let me begin by saying that in Spring, 2000, Scientists, thru an MRI of a fossilized dinosaur, JUST found out that they had four chamber hearts and were WARM blooded creatures, not the cold-blood things they new as an absolute scientific FACT in January 2000. My, my. What a difference a few months makes. One day, our "science and technology" will become advanced enough to record/measure, weigh and repeat excursions into the 90% of the human brain we know nothing about. They will begin to be able to interpret the visible light scale beyond the puny ultraviolet and ultra sound barriers our mostly dormant conscious human brain can today interpret. Science will see and hear ET's and possibly learn our true origin from them. Then characters like this author will be standing alone with egg on their faces and skulking off to a dark room to play their favorite dress up game, "The Spanish Inquisition."

The two reviewers believe that no one should try to criticize or "discredit" another's beliefs- hmmm...So all beliefs are valid, then? How about the nazis' beliefs in Aryan superiority? How about the KKK's beliefs in White supremacy? How about the Theosophists who believe in fairies and wood sprites? It's all valid? No one should try to "discredit" another's views?

There is really no point in arguing with people like the two "reviewers" who have weighed in here; if one wants to believe, as shirley does, that thousands of years-old beings are somehow "channeling" their thoughts and knowledge through living humans, or that ufo's are kidnapping people from their beds at night, or that James Van Praagh really speaks to the dead, there is nothing you can do to convince them otherwise. It's very sad, actually...

It always amuses me to see people get angry about those, like Mr. Gordon, who debunk this kind of nonsense- er- "phenomena;" everywhere else you look it's accepted, in the media, especially; it's totally one-sided. Why begrudge skeptics when they get to say their piece? Why does it make you so uncomfortable...? Thanks Mr. Gordon, for taking the time to write this- you're not alone!

Before I review this book, I must first respond to the below review about dinosaurs being warmblooded. What the reviewer is referring to is a story that appeared in the popular press awhile back. The trouble with getting ones science news out of the daily newspaper is that one only gets a fraction of the story and the newspaper rarely ever gives follow ups or corrections to the original story. In this particular case the scientists warned that their "conclusions" were speculative and premature, however, the newspapers ran the story as if it was a scientific consensus to the fact that dinosaurs were indeed warmblooded. In reality, the scientists never made any such claim, their speculations were sensationalized by the press, and the jury is still out on the subject. The fact that I even had to write this proves the need for more critical thinking.

Now on to the book review. This is a fun, informative, fast paced, engaging and easy to read book. It is one of the best indroductions to critcal, skeptical thinking that I know of. The book teaches one to be skeptical of supernatural, too good to be true type claims. To a reader already familiar with the writings of James Randi, Ray Hyman, Joe Nickell and others, most of the material in this book will be old hat. To others, the material will be quite an eye opener.

This book is not as in depth or advanced as James Randi's Flim Flam Or Carl Sagan's Demon Haunted World, so if one has already read those books, this one is not really needed. If one is new to this type of writing, this book is probably the best place to start. Start with this book, as it is so easy to read, and then as you wish to learn even more read James Randi's Flim Flam, Carl Sagan's Demon Haunted World, or any of the books by Ray Hyman, Kendrick Frazier, Joe Nickell, Martin Gardner, or Phillip Klass.

Another great application for this book is to give it to someone to read that you know who tends to be just a little too gullible. I have found that asking someone to read a book like Flim Flam tends to be a little overwhelming, especially for someone not necessarily interested in having their worldview questioned. For example, one may have a family member who is just a little too open minded and one wishes to give this family member something to read to provide a balanced perspective to this person's thought process hoping that he or she will be just a little more rational when all is said and done. So the family member is given Flim Flam to read, but the family member, who is not really interested anyway, gets bored after a few pages and nothing is ever accomplished. This book, however, with its larger type point size, shorter paragraphs, and quick paced style will draw the reader in and hook them from the very first page. Then hopefully the family member will be be just a little bit smarter for reading this book and then, if interested, can be given something else to read like Flim Flam.