Two words: read it.
If you want to know what's wrong with spiritual-mystical-religious dogmas that spout lies about science in order to selfishly promote their own false teachings, read it.
If you want proof that one such organization, Radha Soami Satsang Beas (RSSB), is devoid of intellectual honesty, respect for truth, and humility before the largely unexplained mystery of the cosmos, read it.
If you want to feel better about choosing science over religion, truthfulness over falsehoods, openness over closedmindedness, read it.
What I'm strongly urging you to read is a marvelous essay by David Christopher Lane and Andrea Diem-Lane, "Mysticism's Version of Intelligent Design: A Critique of John Davidson's Projective Creationism." Dadrea (every couple needs a twin-name these days) rip to shreds a book recently published by RSSB, which supposedly espouses a "science of the soul."
I found very little to criticize in this critique of Davidson's One Being One, aside from noting a few minor typos. I could have written it myself, if I was as knowledgeable about evolution and the scientific method as David and his wife are.
David and I both were involved with RSSB for a long time. We've come to similar conclusions about the emptiness of the religious claims RSSB and the organization's current guru, Gurinder Singh Dhillon, make about God, soul travel, reincarnation, salvation via a "perfect living guru," and such.
However, perusing reactions to a Yahoo Groups posting about Lane's critique, I can see that David remains more enthusiastic than I am about some aspects of the meditation approach taught by Radha Soami Satsang Beas.
I've migrated to a quasi-Buddhist, quasi-Zen, quasi-mindfulness meditating.
But this reflects the beauty of a truly scientific view of reality. Whatever works trumps whatever a holy book or person says. David and I each have our opinions about what sort of meditation technique is the best. Yet if we want to elevate those opinions to be facts, we'd need to back them up with evidence.
After reading David and Andrea's critique, I feel like I may have been too soft toward Radha Soami Satsang Beas, and guru-worship in general. They tell it like it is: the organization lies; the RSSB guru lies; John Davidson lies.
It [is at] this point that any reasonable reader may reflect on why Davidson is being so dishonest and disingenuous about the vast array of evidence that the varying sciences have marshaled in support of evolution by natural selection. The answer, sadly enough, is too obvious: Davidson is a religious devotee who believes (apparently absolutely and apparently quite dogmatically) in the metaphysical theology of Radhasoami Beas and anything which upends his cherished belief system is open game, even if it means being duplicitous in his presentations of the “other” side.
...In assailing Darwinian evolution (but without mustering convincing evidence), Davidson on page 164 juxtaposes molecular biology with his own mystical theology, one where “behind all the physical processes lie the patterning processes of the formative mind, projecting subtle inner mental patterns into physical reality. This is all part of what some folk call the law of karma.”
Does Davidson give us even a scant of evidence for this theory? No. So how does he know that his subtle mind theory is correct, especially in contradistinction to the plethora of evidences provided by the hard sciences? The answer again is a revealing one: because his religion says so and because he believes in the veridicality of meditational experiences.
Yet, what is so alarming, particularly in a book that wants to be taken seriously, is that Davidson doesn’t once find even the tiniest fault or crack in his own theological superstructure. In this sense, he is no different than fundamentalist Christians or Muslims who take their respective holy books as inerrant.
I'll add myself to the list: I've lied.
I wrote a book published by RSSB, "Life is Fair." Much of what I said in that book, I still stand behind. But I promulgated some falsehoods about evolution being guided by a cosmic intelligence, just as Davidson and RSSB have in One Being One.
The difference with me, though, is that I came to see through my own duplicity.
The contradiction between my love for science, and the hatred Radha Soami Satsang Beas has for certain scientific truths such as evolution, and it's disdain for the scientific method, eventually became too great. No longer could I profess a devotion for knowing ultimate reality, while ignoring evident facts that lay along the never-ending path of cosmic knowledge.
David and Andrea have done a tremendous service in describing so clearly why truth-seekers must embrace scientific openness, willingness to admit errors, and reliance on demonstrable evidence -- while shunning religious closed-mindedness, rigid dogmatism, and faith-based belief systems.
Like I said at the start: read it.