The New Thought movement is a spiritual philosophy that emerged in the United States in the 19th century, offering a unique perspective on the relationship between mind, spirit, and material reality. Its founding and development represent a significant departure from traditional religious doctrines, emphasizing personal power and the inner divine.
Historical Context and Origins
The New Thought movement originated in the 1830s with Phineas Parkhurst Quimby (1802–1866), an American mesmerist and healer. Quimby developed a belief system centered on the idea that illness originated in the mind due to erroneous beliefs, and that a mind open to God’s wisdom could overcome any ailment. His basic premise was that “the trouble is in the mind, for the body is only the house for the mind to dwell in”. This initial focus on “mind-cure” laid the groundwork for the later emphasis on mental manifestation.
In the late 19th century, Quimby’s metaphysical healing practices blended with Warren Felt Evans’s “Mental Science.” The movement was further propelled by thinkers like Prentice Mulford, whose essays “Your Forces and How to Use Them” (1886–1892) were pivotal in shaping New Thought thinking, including the “Law of Attraction.” William Walker Atkinson further popularized this concept with his 1906 publication “Thought Vibration or the Law of Attraction in the Thought World”. This indicates an early integration of concepts that would later become central to figures like Neville Goddard and Esther Hicks (Abraham-Hicks).
New Thought emerged as a reaction to traditional Christian doctrines that emphasized sin and punishment, advocating instead for the idea that individuals could create their own happiness and health. This positions the movement as a theological departure, seeking a more empowering and less punitive view of the human-divine relationship. It is important to note that many early teachers and students were women, including Emma Curtis Hopkins, Myrtle Fillmore, Malinda Cramer, and Nona L. Brooks, who often led churches and community centers from the 1880s onward. This highlights a significant social aspect of the movement, offering leadership roles to women at a time when traditional religious institutions often did not. Key organizations that developed from New Thought include the Unity Church, the Church of Divine Science, and Religious Science, all sharing core beliefs in the infinite nature of God and the power of right thinking. These institutions provided structure and a platform for the dissemination of New Thought principles.
Core Tenets
The New Thought movement is built upon several key principles that define its philosophy:
- Infinite Mind/God is Omnipotent and Omnipresent: New Thought asserts that Infinite Intelligence, or God, is everywhere, and spirit constitutes the totality of all real things. God is understood as a universal divine mind residing both everywhere and within each person. This immanent view of God is a cornerstone, contrasting with a purely transcendent deity.
- Mind Over Matter / Thoughts Shape Reality: A central principle is that ideas and thoughts shape reality, with the spiritual realm influencing the material world. Illness, unhappiness, and misfortune are attributed to “incorrect thinking,” while “right thinking” (founded on faith in a universal divine mind) can lead to healing and transformation. “Our mental states are carried forward into manifestation and become our experience in daily living”. This principle establishes the human mind as an active participant in shaping reality.
- True Human Selfhood is Divine: Adherents believe that true human selfhood is divine, and that opening the mind to God’s wisdom is the key to right thinking, which can cure or change anything. This concept significantly elevates human potential and agency.
- Efficacy of Positive Thinking: The movement emphasizes “healthy-minded attitudes,” courage, hope, and trust, with a corresponding disdain for doubt, fear, and worry. This belief in the “all-saving power of healthy-minded attitudes” has been corroborated by the practical experience of followers. This highlights the pragmatic and optimistic orientation of the movement.
- Evolutionary Nature: New Thought adherents generally believe that as humankind gains a deeper understanding of the world, the movement itself will evolve, assimilating new knowledge, described as a “process” where each individual and the movement itself are “new every moment”. This allows for flexibility and adaptation, distinguishing it from more dogmatic religious systems.
The New Thought movement is a self-contained spiritual philosophy rooted in 19th-century American metaphysics that emphasizes the mental causation of physical reality and an immanent, benevolent divine presence. It distinctly positions itself as an alternative to traditional Christian doctrines of sin and punishment, offering an empowering and self-focused path to well-being.
Shift from External Deity to Inner Divinity
The New Thought movement emerged as a reaction to traditional Christian doctrines that emphasized sin and punishment, advocating instead for the idea that individuals could create their own happiness and health. This shift is underpinned by the belief that “true human selfhood is divine” and God resides “in each person”. This sharply contrasts with traditional Christianity’s emphasis on a transcendent God and humanity’s inherent sinfulness. The historical context of its emergence as a “mind-cure movement” further solidifies this inner focus, suggesting that the divine is not an external force to be appeased, but an internal power to be harnessed.
This fundamental shift from an external, judging God to an internal, immanent divine self has profound implications for concepts of sin, salvation, and human agency. If divinity resides within, then human suffering is not a result of divine punishment for sin, but rather a consequence of “incorrect thinking” . This redefines the entire relationship between humanity and the divine and the path to well-being, placing ultimate responsibility and power on the individual. This radical empowerment is both its greatest appeal and a major point of theological contention.
Practicality and Appeal of “Mind-Cure” in a Modernizing Society
Quimby’s initial premise was that “illness originated in the mind as a consequence of erroneous beliefs,” and “right thinking has a healing effect” . This “mind-cure” aspect is a recurring theme, with sources noting the “all-saving power of healthy-minded attitudes”. The movement’s emphasis on practical application for health and happiness, as opposed to abstract theological debates or a focus on the afterlife, would have strongly resonated in a society increasingly valuing individual agency and tangible results, moving away from fatalism.
The enduring appeal of New Thought lies in its promise of direct influence over one’s life, particularly in health and happiness, through mental discipline. This offers a compelling alternative to traditional religious frameworks that might emphasize suffering, divine will, or external intervention. It aligns with a growing desire for self-sufficiency and personal transformation, explaining its continued popularity and influence on contemporary self-help movements like the Law of Attraction. Its focus on the “now” and tangible improvements contrasts with traditional religious promises of future salvation.
Blurring the Lines Between “Religion” and “Science” (Pseudoscience as a Marketing Strategy)
Sources refer to New Thought as a “religion couched in scientific language” or “mental science”. While New Thought emerged from spiritual roots, it adopted language implying scientific validity, particularly with concepts like “Thought Vibration” and the “Law of Attraction”. This linguistic choice, especially in the late 19th and early 20th centuries, would have given the movement a modern veneer and credibility in an increasingly scientific era.
This tendency to blend spiritual concepts with scientific-sounding terminology, often without empirical basis, is a persistent criticism of New Thought and its derivatives. It can lead to misinterpretations where spiritual beliefs are presented as demonstrable scientific laws, potentially misleading individuals seeking scientifically validated solutions. This “scientific” veneer likely contributed to its popularity by offering a seemingly rational explanation for spiritual phenomena, but it also sets the stage for further criticism of the Law of Attraction as pseudoscience.
Neville Goddard: Biography and Core Teachings
Neville Goddard was one of the most influential figures in the New Thought movement, whose teachings radicalized the concept of human imagination as a divine creative force. His unique approach to spirituality and manifestation continues to influence contemporary self-help movements.
Biography and Philosophical Development
Neville Lancelot Goddard (1905–1972) was a Barbadian writer, speaker, and mystic who emigrated to New York in 1922 to study dramatic art . His early life in Barbados, heavily influenced by British culture, fostered a sense of curiosity that later informed his metaphysical teachings.
His interest in metaphysics began in the UK after meeting Arthur Begbie, who introduced him to the world of psychical research. Upon returning to New York, he became associated with a Rosicrucian society . Between 1929 and 1936, Goddard received mentorship from an Ethiopian Jew named Abdullah in New York. Abdullah introduced him to Kabbalah and taught him Hebrew, profoundly influencing his spiritual journey and understanding of creation . This mentorship is a crucial biographical detail explaining the unique blend of biblical and Kabbalistic themes in his work.
Goddard began lecturing in 1938, eventually settling in Los Angeles in 1952 . He gained popularity by reinterpreting the Bible and the poetry of William Blake, and his television appearances in the 1950s reached large audiences, averaging over 300,000 viewers weekly . This indicates his significant public reach and ability to convey complex ideas to a broad audience. His works, though not widely known during his lifetime, gained popularity posthumously and influenced figures like Rhonda Byrne (author of “The Secret”), Joseph Murphy, Carlos Castaneda, and Wayne Dyer . This highlights his lasting impact on self-help and New Age movements.
Core Teachings
Neville Goddard’s core teachings center on the inner power of human consciousness and imagination as the key tools for manifestation:
- Imagination as God (“I AM”): This is the fundamental principle of Goddard’s work. He taught that the human imagination is omnipotent and, in essence, is God . “God is in your wonderful human imagination”. He challenged the traditional view of a separate deity, emphasizing that the sacred presence is inherent within each person, and our innate consciousness, recognized as “I AM,” is equivalent to the divine. This radical assertion positions the individual as the ultimate creative force.
- Consciousness is the Only Reality: Goddard asserted that consciousness is both the cause and the substance of the entire world. Everything we encounter, from thoughts to external events, originates from our consciousness. To change one’s life, one must change consciousness, letting go of the current consciousness and becoming conscious of the desired outcome. This concept implies that external reality is a direct reflection of the inner state.
- Feeling is the Secret / Living in the Wish Fulfilled: This is a crucial practical aspect. Goddard emphasized that the difference between a thought that manifests and one that doesn’t lies in the feeling. He urged people to visualize and embrace the
feeling of their desires already being fulfilled (“living in the end” or “the wish fulfilled”). By inhabiting this mental and emotional state, one draws the desire into physical reality. This involves engaging emotions, senses, and intuition to create a compelling, believable experience. This technique is central to his manifestation methods.
- Assumptions Harden into Facts: Goddard taught that an assumption, even if initially false, will harden into fact if persisted in until it becomes the dominant thought and feeling. This relates to the idea that our thoughts and beliefs shape our experience , emphasizing the power of sustained mental focus.
- You Are the Operant Power / There is No One to Change but Self: There is no power outside one’s own consciousness; therefore, one cannot turn to anyone outside oneself. The concept of “everyone is you pushed out” suggests that everyone we encounter is a reflection of our consciousness, implying that changes in relationships or external conditions are preceded by inner changes. “Rebirth depends on inner work of one’s self”. This places ultimate responsibility for one’s life directly on the individual.
- Time is an Illusion: Goddard posited that once a vivid scene is created in the imagination, it already exists in the universe and will eventually manifest in 3D reality. This implies a non-linear view of time, where future realities can be accessed and experienced in the present through imagination, challenging traditional notions of causality.
Neville Goddard’s teachings represent a radical form of New Thought, placing human imagination at the center of creation, effectively deifying the individual’s consciousness. His methods are highly experiential, focusing on inner states and feelings as the primary mechanism for manifestation, and his biography reveals a strong influence from esoteric traditions like Kabbalah.
Radical Internalization of Divinity and Agency as a Source of Empowerment and Burden
Goddard’s core teaching that “Imagination is God” and “I AM” is the divine essence , presents a profound internalization of divine power that goes beyond the general New Thought assertion of “God within” to “You
are God.” This sharply contrasts with traditional theological views of a transcendent God. If an individual’s imagination is God, then the individual is the sole creator of their reality.
This radical deification of the individual’s consciousness implies ultimate responsibility for one’s reality, including both positive and negative experiences. If “everyone is you pushed out” , then there is no external force, fate, or “other” to blame for any circumstance. This can be profoundly empowering for those who successfully manifest desires, fostering a sense of limitless potential. However, it can become an immense psychological burden for individuals facing hardship, illness, or trauma, as it implies they are solely responsible for attracting their suffering. This dual nature of empowerment and potential blame is a critical aspect of Goddard’s philosophy.
Primacy of Feeling and Its Detachment from Ordinary Action
Goddard emphasizes that “feeling is the secret” and that “imagination plus faith” are paramount, rather than external actions or rituals. This is a subtle but significant distinction from some interpretations of the Law of Attraction that might still emphasize “inspired action” as a necessary component. The idea is that the inner state
is the cause, and external action is merely a byproduct .
This emphasis on inner emotional states as the primary driver of manifestation positions Goddard’s teachings as a deeply psychological and introspective path. It implies that external reality is merely a reflection of internal states, potentially diminishing the perceived need for ordinary effort, strategic planning, or external validation. This can lead to a detachment from practical problem-solving or active engagement with the material world, which can be seen as either a strength (less struggle, effortless manifestation) or a weakness (passivity, inaction, avoidance of real-world problems).
The Principle of “No One to Change but Self” and Its Solipsistic Tendencies
The principle of “everyone is you pushed out” and “there is no one to change but self” implies that all external interactions and perceived “others” are reflections or projections of one’s own consciousness. This extends the radical internalization of divinity to all perceived reality.
While this can foster profound personal responsibility and diminish external blame, it can also lead to solipsistic tendencies, where the reality and independent agency of others are diminished or denied. For example, some critics argue that this can lead to “mad loneliness,” where “everyone else is just another manifestation and extension of you”. This principle, if taken to its extreme, can undermine empathy, compassion, and social responsibility, as the suffering or actions of others might be perceived solely as reflections of one’s own “inner state” rather than independent realities requiring external interaction or intervention.
Neville Goddard’s Biblical Interpretations and Kabbalistic Influence
Neville Goddard is renowned for his unique approach to scripture, which departs from literal interpretation in favor of a symbolic and psychological understanding. This approach was profoundly shaped by his study of Kabbalah.
Biblical Interpretation as Allegory and Psychology
Goddard gained popularity by reinterpreting the Bible . He invited readers to view the Bible as a guide for personal transformation rather than merely a historical or religious text. This fundamental approach distinguishes him from traditional biblical scholarship.
He “decoded the Bible in such a light that the truth can finally be known,” asserting that its characters are “personifications of the laws and functions of mind,” and the Bible is “psychology rather than history”. This reinterpretation allows him to extract universal psychological principles from ancient narratives. His interpretations reveal “symbolic meanings hidden within biblical passages,” offering insights into the power of imagination, faith, and self-awareness. This approach transforms the Bible from a historical record or theological dogma into a personal self-help manual for spiritual growth.
For Goddard, the Bible contains “timeless truths about manifesting desires, achieving spiritual awakening, and aligning oneself with divine purpose”. He believed that “Scripture is not history, but a vast, divine metaphor for our internal states and struggles”. This perspective allows for a highly personalized and subjective engagement with the text. He aimed to inspire people to “find Christ from within,” interpreting Christ not as an external savior but as an inner principle of imagination . He explicitly stated, “Jesus Christ is the human imagination”. This radical reinterpretation is a central point of contention with Christian theology.
The Role of Abdullah and Kabbalistic Influence
Between 1929 and 1936, Goddard was mentored by an Ethiopian Jew named Abdullah in New York . This period was formative for Goddard’s philosophical development. Abdullah introduced Neville to the “mysteries of Kabbalah” and taught him Hebrew . This direct instruction in the esoteric Jewish mystical tradition provided Goddard with a unique lens through which to view reality and scripture, distinguishing his work from other New Thought teachers.
This influence is evident in Goddard’s focus on consciousness, imagination, and manifestation, which aligns with Kabbalistic themes of divine emanation (Sefirot), the power of thought and language (Hebrew letters as creative forces), and the inner path to spiritual realization (Tikkun Olam, spiritual ascent). The Kabbalistic emphasis on the divine within and the power of inner states directly parallels Goddard’s core tenets. While sources mention “Kabbalah” as a book written by Neville , there is also a book titled “Paths of Consciousness: Neville Goddard and the Kabbalah Unveiled” that explores the connections, indicating a recognized link between his work and Kabbalah.
Specific Examples of Reinterpretation
- “I AM”: Goddard’s central concept of “I AM” as the divine essence directly references the biblical name of God revealed to Moses (Exodus 3:14), reinterpreting it as the individual’s own consciousness. This is a profound shift from a transcendent God to an immanent, personal divine identity.
- Prayer: For Goddard, the essence of effective prayer is to “fully accept the feeling that the petition has already been granted,” releasing doubt and embracing the conviction that the aspiration has already materialized. This is not a petition to an external God, but rather a psychological technique for aligning the inner state with the desired outcome, a form of self-persuasion.
- Sin: Sin, according to Goddard, is a “psychological metaphor for us not being fully aware of our true nature”. It is “incorrect thinking” or a failure to align oneself with desires, rather than a moral transgression against an external God. This redefines moral responsibility and the path to rectification.
- Christ: Christ is interpreted as an inner, indwelling presence, a principle of imagination and spiritual awakening within each individual, rather than an external historical figure or savior . “Jesus Christ is the human imagination”. This demystifies and internalizes the figure of Christ, making Him a symbol of human potential rather than a unique divine being.
Goddard’s biblical interpretations are highly allegorical and psychological, viewing scripture as a symbolic guide for inner transformation rather than a literal history. This approach is deeply informed by Kabbalistic principles, particularly the emphasis on the power of inner states, consciousness, and the “I AM” as divine, fundamentally altering traditional religious concepts.
Hermeneutical Shift from Esoteric to Exoteric and Its Implications for Authority
Goddard explicitly states that the Bible is “psychology rather than history” and written in “symbolism”. This is a deliberate departure from a literal, historical understanding of scripture, which is common in traditional Christianity. His mentor Abdullah introduced him to Kabbalah, an esoteric tradition focused on mystical interpretations of Jewish texts . This shift from exoteric (literal, public) to esoteric (symbolic, inner) interpretation means that understanding is no longer dependent on external authority (church, clergy, historical scholarship) but on individual “imaginal awakening”.
This hermeneutical shift positions Goddard’s teachings as an esoteric path, accessible through inner understanding rather than external adherence to dogma or historical events. This can be appealing to those disillusioned with literal interpretations or seeking personal spiritual authority. However, it creates a fundamental incompatibility with religious traditions that rely on historical facticity for their theological claims (e.g., the resurrection of Christ as a literal event). It also means that criticism from traditional perspectives will inevitably arise due to this interpretational divergence, viewing his approach as a distortion or even heresy.
“I AM” as a Point of Radical Theological Departure and Its Ethical Implications
Goddard’s identification of the human “I AM” with the divine is a direct reinterpretation of God’s self-disclosure in Exodus. This is a powerful assertion that grants the individual ultimate creative power, effectively equating human consciousness with the Creator.
This reinterpretation is arguably the most significant theological point of conflict with traditional Christianity. While Christianity teaches that humans are created in God’s image (Genesis 1:27) , it explicitly denies that humans
are God or co-creators on par with God. This divergence fundamentally alters the nature of worship (who is worshipped?), humility (is humility needed if you are God?), and the relationship between Creator and creation. It also opens the door to accusations of blasphemy or idolatry from a Christian perspective, as it elevates the self to divine status, potentially fostering spiritual pride.
Synthesis of Ancient Wisdom and Modern Self-Help: A Double-Edged Sword
Goddard’s teachings blend ancient Kabbalistic wisdom and biblical interpretations with principles that resonate with modern self-help and manifestation movements. His methods, such as “feeling the wish fulfilled,” are presented as practical techniques for “consciously creating one’s own reality”. This combination makes ancient spiritual concepts accessible and actionable for a contemporary audience.
This synthesis contributes to the enduring appeal of Goddard’s work, as it provides a spiritual framework for personal empowerment and goal achievement, often sought in modern society. However, it also raises questions about whether the depth, nuance, and ethical considerations of ancient spiritual traditions are fully preserved, or if they are potentially diluted and instrumentalized when integrated into a self-help paradigm primarily focused on individual desires and material manifestation. The risk is that profound spiritual truths become mere “techniques” for personal gain.
Table 1: Key Concepts in Neville Goddard’s Teachings and Their Biblical/Kabbalistic Interpretations
Christian Theological Criticism of New Thought and Neville Goddard
The teachings of New Thought and Neville Goddard face profound theological criticism from traditional Christianity, pointing to fundamental disagreements in the understanding of God, humanity, sin, salvation, and the role of Christ.
Discrepancies with Traditional Christian Doctrine
- Nature of God and Humanity:
- The core New Thought belief that humans are “divine” and “co-creators on par with God” is a central point of contention. While Christianity teaches that humans are created “in the image of God” (Genesis 1:27), this does not imply equality with God; rather, it signifies attributes that enable humans to relate to their Creator. Critics argue that identifying “I AM” (God’s self-revealed name) with human consciousness, as Goddard does, is a form of self-deification, considered blasphemous or idolatrous. The idea that “you are God asleep” is seen as a dangerous theological error that blurs the distinction between Creator and creation.
- Traditional Christianity emphasizes one transcendent, sovereign Creator and the distinctness of the created being, with Jesus Christ as the unique Son of God. The Christian view is that “Creation can NEVER be greater than the Creator, nor can be equal”.
- Concept of Sin and Salvation:
- New Thought and Goddard redefine sin as “incorrect thinking” or a “psychological metaphor for us not being fully aware of our true nature,” rather than a moral transgression against God. This fundamentally contradicts Christian doctrine of original sin, humanity’s inherent sinful nature, and the need for divine grace and redemption. The Christian perspective emphasizes that there was a “fall of man” and original sin.
- Salvation, in New Thought, is achieved through “inner work of one’s self” and alignment of consciousness, a process of “self-liberation” . This sharply contrasts with Christian teaching of salvation through faith in the atoning sacrifice of Jesus Christ, emphasizing grace, submission to God’s will, and spiritual rebirth as a gift. Critics argue this promotes a “self-centered” focus over a “Christ-centered” one.
- The Christian concept of Jesus as “the way, the TRUTH, and the life” (John 14:6) is contrasted with New Thought’s view of Jesus as merely an “enlightened man” who understood spiritual laws.
- Purpose of Life and Suffering:
- New Thought emphasizes seeking “joy” and “happiness” as the ultimate goal . Critics argue that while joy is not bad in itself, the ultimate Christian purpose is to “love God and love others well” , and to seek first the Kingdom of God (Matthew 6:33).
- New Thought’s advocacy for continuous good health and happiness conflicts with biblical teaching that suffering can bring growth in Christ, and that the Lord allows Christians to suffer, finding strength in weakness.
- Prayer:
- New Thought views prayer as “affirming what we want” or a “technique” for manifestation, rather than petitioning God and submitting to His will. This is seen as turning “one’s desires into a god: this is idolatry, pure and simple”. Christian prayer is about aligning one’s will with God’s, not manipulating reality.
Concerns Regarding Subjective Experience vs. Verifiable Accounts
A significant criticism against Abraham-Hicks (a prominent Law of Attraction teaching within New Thought) is that its teachings are based on “personal, subjective experience” and are therefore “not verifiable”. Esther Hicks claims to translate thoughts from “non-physical entities called Abraham” , which relies entirely on her subjective experience. Critics contrast this with Christianity, which they claim can be verified through “hundreds of eye-witness accounts” and the historical events of Jesus’ resurrection. This concern, while primarily directed at Abraham-Hicks, reflects a broader Christian theological skepticism towards spiritual claims based solely on individual, unverified subjective experiences prevalent in New Thought, which they view as lacking objective historical or empirical grounding.
Accusations of Occult Influence / “Demonic Entities”
Regarding teachings similar to Abraham-Hicks, the claim of channeling “supernatural spirits collectively calling themselves ‘Abraham'” faces severe criticism from some Christian perspectives. These practices are identified as “channeling—an abnormal or alternate state of mind by which some communicate with evil spirits”. The Bible is cited as condemning such practices in the “strongest terms” (Deuteronomy 18:10-12, Leviticus 20:27) , labeling them as forbidden acts. These “familiar spirits” are explicitly called “demons—fallen spirits who lie”. The “twisted logic” of the Law of Attraction is seen as “contrary to actual human experience and directly contradicts the statements of God, Jesus Christ, the prophets and the apostles in the Bible”. While Neville Goddard is not directly accused of channeling “demonic entities” in the provided sources, his mentor Abdullah introduced him to Kabbalah , and some Christian critics view Kabbalah itself as containing occult elements or being incompatible with Christian theology. The broader New Thought movement is sometimes linked to “esoteric occultism” by Christian critics who see its “secret” or hidden laws as indicative of such practices.
Christian theological criticism fundamentally rejects the teachings of New Thought and Goddard due to their radical reinterpretation of God, humanity, sin, salvation, and the role of Christ. The emphasis on subjective experience and channeling, particularly in Abraham-Hicks, also draws strong condemnation as occult or demonic, highlighting perceived spiritual danger.
The “Jesus as Mascot” Phenomenon: A Strategy of Deception for Christian Audiences
Melissa Dougherty, a Christian apologist, identifies New Thought as “the positive thinking movement in America with Jesus as its mascot”. This implies that while New Thought uses Christian terminology and references Jesus, it fundamentally reinterprets Him to fit its own pantheistic and self-deifying framework, stripping Him of His traditional theological significance as the unique Son of God and Savior. The use of biblical verses out of context supports this claim.
This “rebranding” makes New Thought particularly “deceptive” to Christians, as it “looks and sounds Christian” but contains “dangerous doctrines”. This phenomenon highlights a broader trend of syncretism in modern spirituality, where elements from various traditions are selectively adopted and reinterpreted. For Christian critics, this is not merely a different interpretation but a deliberate obfuscation of core truths, leading to theological confusion and spiritual harm for believers who might unknowingly embrace these ideas.
The Blurring of “Co-Creator” with “Creator”: A Challenge to Divine Sovereignty
While New Thought adherents may claim that humans are “co-creators,” Christian critics emphasize that this is not “on par with God”. The fear is that this concept, especially as articulated by Goddard with the assertion “Imagination is God” , leads to a belief that humans
are God, which is seen as Satan’s original temptation in the Garden of Eden. This directly challenges the biblical narrative of creation and humanity’s place within it.
This blurring highlights a critical theological boundary. For Christians, the distinction between Creator and creation is absolute, and blurring this line leads to pride, idolatry, and a distorted understanding of divine sovereignty. The “I AM” teaching, in particular, is seen as a direct usurpation of God’s unique identity and authority. This theological tension explains why the criticism is so strong and often framed as a warning against a “deadly deception” , as it fundamentally undermines the Christian understanding of God and human dependence on Him.
Psychological Vulnerability Caused by Absolute Self-Responsibility
The concept of “everyone is you pushed out,” coupled with the idea that one’s own consciousness is the only reality, can lead to “mad loneliness” and a sense of “objective loneliness in the universe”. This can result in a “profound disconnect with reality” and “abnormal and obsessive thinking”. Christian critics often highlight these psychological pitfalls, arguing that such teachings fail to account for objective evil, suffering, and the need for external help.
Beyond theological objections, this reveals a significant psychological concern. If individuals truly believe they are solely responsible for all their experiences, including trauma, illness, or systemic injustice, and that others are merely projections of their own mind, it can lead to extreme self-blame, a lack of empathy, and the breakdown of social connections and support systems. This is a serious potential negative consequence that extends beyond abstract theological debates into the realm of mental health and social well-being, suggesting that a purely self-centered philosophy can be deeply isolating and harmful.
Table 2: Core Principles of New Thought vs. Traditional Christian Doctrine
Broader Criticism and Controversies (Beyond Religious Perspectives)
Beyond theological objections, New Thought and the Law of Attraction, including Neville Goddard’s influence, face significant criticism that extends beyond religious or theological arguments, focusing on scientific, ethical, and psychological issues.
Lack of Empirical Scientific Evidence / Pseudoscience
The Law of Attraction (LOA), heavily influenced by Abraham-Hicks and Goddard, is widely considered pseudoscience or a religion “couched in scientific language” . This highlights a fundamental issue of intellectual integrity and claims of scientific backing without empirical support. Critics assert that there is “no empirical scientific evidence” to support it . Academics specifically criticize the misuse of scientific concepts, such as misrepresenting the electrical activity of brainwaves or attempting to use “quantum mysticism” to explain implausible effects. This points to a deliberate misapplication of scientific terminology to lend credibility.
The claims lack falsifiability and testability, meaning they cannot be disproven or subjected to rigorous scientific testing. This is a critical criterion for scientific theories, indicating that LOA operates outside the realm of verifiable science. Evidence provided for LOA is typically anecdotal, susceptible to confirmation bias and selection bias. This means that positive reports are often self-selecting and subjective, lacking the controlled conditions necessary for scientific validation. Psychologists describe LOA as “magical thinking” or “thought-action fusion”—the idea that simply having thoughts means certain events will occur. This is considered a “thinking error” by cognitive-behavioral therapists , suggesting a cognitive distortion rather than a universal law. While some concepts (e.g., positive thinking, visualization, self-esteem correlation) align with scientifically validated psychological techniques, the direct assertion that thoughts
determine outcomes or create reality lacks scientific evidence. This distinguishes general psychological well-being practices from the metaphysical claims of LOA.
Ethical Concerns
- Victim Blaming: A significant “ugly flipside” of the Law of Attraction is that if someone experiences misfortune (an accident, illness, crime, poverty), it implies it is their own fault for “attracting” it through negative thoughts . This can lead to extreme and harmful conclusions, such as suggesting Holocaust victims “brought extermination on themselves” or a four-year-old rape victim “attracted lifelong trauma” . Such interpretations are morally reprehensible and deeply insensitive. This perspective “turns social justice into an absurdity” and “ignores the fact that life is unfair” and the existence of systemic inequalities and privileges. It shifts responsibility from societal structures or external perpetrators to the victim.
- Toxic Positivity: “Lucky girl syndrome” (a modern incarnation of the Law of Attraction) has been linked to toxic positivity. If the Law of Attraction doesn’t work for an individual, it can lead to self-blame and make them “feel bad,” especially if they are already feeling vulnerable. This rigid focus solely on positive emotions can be problematic, as sometimes acknowledging negative emotions is necessary for personal growth.
- Diminishing Hard Work and Agency: The belief that positive thinking alone will manifest positive outcomes can diminish the value of hard work, perseverance, and taking meaningful action. This can distract individuals from taking “more meaningful and effective action to address their problems” , fostering passivity.
- Moral Relativism/Lack of Accountability: Some interpretations, particularly within Abraham-Hicks, suggest there is “no ‘punishing God’ taking inventory” and that “subconscious moral judgment is negative”. This can raise questions about where morality comes into play, with some users asking if there are “wrongs and rights when it comes to stealing”. The idea that “vibration is the ultimate level playing field” and one can “bifurcate away from undesirable people and behavior” by “vibrating high” can potentially minimize accountability for actions or detach individuals from social responsibility.
Psychological Consequences and Disconnect from Reality
The teachings can foster “abnormal and obsessive thinking” and “generate destructive emotional responses” when life inevitably presents trials. This suggests a potential for maladaptive coping mechanisms. It can lead to a “profound disconnect with reality” where individuals develop “enormously neurotic and abnormal perceptions about their own thinking”. This is particularly concerning when facing objective external challenges. The promise of power that the Law of Attraction offers but “cannot deliver on” may distract people from taking “more meaningful and effective action to address their problems”. This can lead to stagnation or worsening of real-world issues. For some, the “I AM God” philosophy or “everyone is you pushed out” can lead to profound psychological distress, including “mad loneliness” and a feeling of being “trapped” within one’s own consciousness, unable to distinguish self from others. This highlights the extreme isolation that radical solipsism can induce.
Cult Allegations (Primarily Abraham-Hicks, but Relevant to Broader Context)
While not directly linked to Goddard, Abraham-Hicks, a highly influential New Thought/Law of Attraction teaching, faces cult allegations. Criticisms include reliance on unverified subjective experiences (channeling “Abraham”) , a perceived “cult-like phenomenon” due to “great devotion to a person, idea, object, movement” , and the potential for “unsubstantiated way of thinking” to be used to “defraud others or enroll them in cults or multilevel marketing schemes”. However, it is noted that some “cult hunters” have been accused of “maliciously targeting” spiritual teachers, including Abraham-Hicks, with “false accusations” and “toxic journalism”. This introduces a counter-narrative regarding the validity and ethical practices of some accusers, suggesting not all criticisms are equally well-founded.
Beyond religious objections, New Thought and the Law of Attraction face significant criticism due to their lack of scientific basis, the potential for victim-blaming and toxic positivity, and the risk of fostering a disconnect from reality. Cult allegations, while controversial and sometimes ethically questionable themselves, highlight concerns about authority, verification, and potential exploitation within these movements.
The Paradox of Empowerment and Blame: A Deep Ethical Dilemma
The core promise of New Thought/Law of Attraction is radical empowerment through conscious creation (“you attract it—all of it”). However, the logical extension of this premise is that negative experiences are also self-created. This establishes a direct causal link between inner thoughts and external suffering.
This creates a profound ethical paradox: while offering agency, it simultaneously imposes absolute blame, potentially leading to severe psychological distress for individuals facing hardship, illness, or trauma. The very mechanism intended to liberate can become a source of immense guilt and self-condemnation, especially when external circumstances are genuinely beyond individual control (e.g., systemic injustice, natural disasters, or the actions of others). This is a critical ethical flaw that undermines the purported benefits of the teachings and can inflict secondary harm on victims.
The Appeal of Simplified Causality in a Complex World: Exploiting Cognitive Bias?
The Law of Attraction offers a seemingly simple, universal law: “thoughts are things,” and “like attracts like”. This provides a clear, easily digestible causal framework for life outcomes, implying a direct correlation between inner state and external reality.
In a complex, often chaotic world, such a straightforward explanation for success and failure can be highly appealing, offering a sense of control and predictability where there is little. This simplicity can lead to a reductionist view of reality, ignoring systemic factors, external influences, and the inherent randomness of life. It can foster a false sense of control, potentially leading to disillusionment or further self-blame when desired outcomes do not materialize despite “right thinking.” This is a manifestation of cognitive bias—the human tendency to seek simple explanations for complex phenomena, which these teachings readily provide.
Conclusion
The exploration of New Thought teachings, particularly the philosophy of Neville Goddard, reveals a complex belief system that radically redefines the relationship between human consciousness and the divine. The New Thought movement, emerging in the 19th century, departed from traditional Christian doctrines, focusing on inner divinity, mental causation, and the individual’s ability to shape their reality through thoughts and feelings.
Neville Goddard, deeply influenced by Kabbalah, developed these ideas to their logical conclusion, asserting that human imagination is God and consciousness is the sole reality. His “I AM” teachings and “feeling the wish fulfilled” are central, emphasizing that the inner state is the primary driver of manifestation. He interpreted the Bible as an allegorical and psychological text, where biblical figures and events are metaphors for inner states of consciousness rather than literal historical facts. This approach, while empowering for personal transformation, also creates profound theological and ethical contradictions.
From a Christian theological perspective, Goddard’s and New Thought’s teachings are viewed as incompatible with core Christian doctrines. Criticism centers on the radical redefinition of the nature of God (from transcendent to immanent, with human consciousness equated to God), the nature of humanity (as inherently divine rather than sinful), the concept of sin (as “incorrect thinking” rather than moral transgression), and the role of Jesus Christ (as a metaphor for imagination rather than the unique Son of God and Savior). For many Christians, this constitutes a “deception” that uses Christian terminology to promote non-Christian ideas, potentially leading to idolatry and spiritual concern. Accusations of occult influence, particularly regarding Abraham-Hicks, are also part of this criticism.
Broader criticism, extending beyond religious aspects, addresses the lack of empirical scientific evidence supporting the Law of Attraction, leading to its classification as pseudoscience. Ethical concerns include the potential for victim-blaming, where suffering is attributed to one’s own negative thoughts, ignoring systemic inequalities and external circumstances. Risks of toxic positivity, diminishing the value of hard work, and the possibility of moral relativism are also noted. Psychological consequences can include a disconnect from reality, obsessive thinking, and “mad loneliness” arising from solipsistic interpretations.
In conclusion, Neville Goddard’s teachings and the New Thought movement offer a powerful paradigm of personal power and manifestation that resonates with the desire for self-sufficiency. However, their radical theological reinterpretations and lack of empirical grounding raise significant concerns from traditional Christian perspectives and the scientific community, highlighting the complex interplay between spirituality, psychology, and ethics.
This post is also available in:
Українська (Ukrainian)