Criticism of Neale Donald Walsch's book "Conversations with God"

By Sylvain Poirier (first written in French)
Other criticisms of Walsch written by other authors

I found Neale Donald Walsch's doctrine overall good compared to the Christian doctrine in which I was before: this helped me after my deconversion from Christianity. You can easily find on the Web plenty of praises for him so there is no point to add any. However I have some disagreements with his doctrine, that I will explain here.

Knowledge and responsibility

Here is my summary of Neale Donald Walsch's doctrine as expressed in the Conversations with God book 1:

The goal of your life is to seek what is Truth and Love (according to God's messages of feelings (and I do not remember what)) and to recognize, re-member, find, choose, create, become and make the experience of Who You Are and Who You Want To Be. You do not have to seek knowledge (because you  already have knowledge, as a spirit connected to the Whole), but you have to act to express Who You Are without worrying about the result, because the result is assured: nothing is bad, nothing matters, nothing does oppose the will of God or escapes Him, because God is all, accepts all and will be always there to recover us.

Nothing comes by chance, all is the expression of a will by oneself, others, or the totality of the spirits of the universe. One does not have to want something from outside (as to want it is the assertion of a lack, a negative thought which has the spiritual power to be realized as a lack thus pushing away its satisfaction) but if something that we undergo does not reflect our Highest Idea of the life, one must endorse one's responsibility by recognizing our unity of spiritual nature with those who caused it, and change our choices in order to bring us closer this Idea that we want to reflect.


Thus, in the event of misfortune caused by a human action, the responsibility by no means affects the authors of these actions because it is too far away from their Experience of Who They Really Are, and they do not have to take knowledge of it; it forms only part of the experience of its victims, who have the choice between persuading themselves it does not matter and they are wrong to complain against others for material problems, or to feel responsible for it since the distinction between authors and victims of these acts is a pure optical illusion.

The problem, therefore, is that the search for who One Is but especially of what one wants to do requires knowledge on the implications of our choices. Unless one wants to be satisfied to make spectacle of one's good intentions by illusory actions, the question, when one wants to do something, is to know if our actions will have really useful consequences not only for ourselves and to help us build our best personal opinion of who we are but also for the others; not only to convince oneself of one's good intentions and to illusion oneself on who one is.
Because the trap is that if we only care to look at who we want to be in what we do and not at what we really do for itself, the others can understand Who We Really Are, namely hypocrite and irresponsible people only interested to illusion themselves on who they are and what they want to do, in acts they claim are good but without caring about the reality of their consequences and of their possible utility for the others.
However, the comprehension of the real consequences of what one does requires knowledge, because it means, either to understand the other and who he is really, sufficiently to be able to be useful for him; namely someone different that one does not always easily and fully understand; or to understand the rules of sequences of the events, to know which are the possible consequences of a whole system of many effects which are connected starting from our acts.
Admittedly, according to our goals one can say that that depends on people, everyone not having inevitably vocation to be concerned with the same complicated subjects. Nevertheless, according to the objectives which one chooses, knowledge can be an essential thing which requires a certain research task.
Also, when I discussed with Dr. Jean-Pierre Jourdan (of Iands-France) who collected many NDE testimonies, he told me that the global lesson from these experiments is that there are two significant things in life: love and knowledge. One story which I read on the Web announces explicitly that ignorance would be the principal cause of misfortunes of the world.

To this one can add that the search for knowledge can be a wonderful adventure; knowledge can also be an aim in itself, a form of art. It is the love of knowledge which motivates scientific research, without which the world would not have the prosperity it has. Neale Donald Walsch pretends to glorify science by claiming that scientific knowledge is a fruit of the kind of spiritual inspiration he speaks about. Actually, this declaration is a way for him to deny it as a science, scorning what It Really Is.  (There is much inspiration in science, but this inspiration is the fruit of a human and rational mind guided by methods, knowledge and experience, inside the limits of human condition, not an inspiration from other spiritual realms)

Other arguments that also apply to Christianism : An inspiration, not a theory ! - Meeting with God - Doing the will of God

(Other texts criticizing Christianism are only in French for now...)

Neale Donald Walsch's proselytism

Another disturbing point with Neale Donald Walsch, more especially appearant when reading his Web site, is his nombrilism, as if the theological doctrine that he brings were the only important thing in life: not only as if his own theology were the end of theology, but also as if this theology were the end of what it is wise for man to be interested in, against the many other fields of life to which one can and one should be interested in according to the individual vocations. A kind of personality worship which he lets grow around him, as the guru of a new sect, whereas precisely he claims his doctrine was revealed by God and is not the fruit of his work. So he should not receive any merit nor advantage for that above the right remuneration of his time spent to provide him a correct living. Added to this is the systematically expensive character of his works and his interventions, contrary to the "copyleft" spirit which should be seen as an essential character for the freedom of tomorrow's world. What does Walsch plan to do with all this money ? To support his many projects, but how useful will they be ? But we need not care about the result. Because the success of the goals of those projects is assured. To understand why, neither we nor he, need to seek any more knowledge, for we already have it. We just have to re-member Neale Donald Walsch's spiritual teachings, on the unique deep goal of every life, which should of course also apply to Walsch's own life : to create, become and make the experience of Who He Wants To Be.

Something else is his more or less clear claim to introduce the absolutely best and most brilliant possible new ideas, which is false. In Conversations with God number 2, I was wearied by Walsch's manner of playing the imbeciles to give the impression by contrast that the ideas presented as being of God would be formidable. Certainly much more formidable than what he says when he plays the imbeciles, but not original in the absolute. Broadly I do not find anything really revolutionary in Walsch's Conversation with God 2, even if that is a good concentrate of a certain number of often good ideas which one may not be used to, and which I did not have the occasion to see gathered elsewhere. Not a concentrate of a very great number of ideas in any case, but of some good ideas spread out wrongly or rightly over many examples.
However Walsch (or more precisely his god) says himself (in volume 2 in particular) that this message is not to be believed on word and it is up to us to build, to criticize and try to do better than what is presented at a given moment. So why does he give us the mission of spreading his fine words exactly as if it were about a perfect thought, and that to spread it would be The Means sufficient to bring peace on the Earth with no need to think more seriously on the details (as we don't need any more knowledge since we already have it) ? But that is not true at all, these ideas alone cannot bring peace on the Earth.
Walsch tells us to be the change, but he does not indicate true and practical ways which can usefully direct us towards the causes of the problems and the possible changing plans that we need, which is anyway the only problem which is and has always been (or should have always been) in the center of our concern. He says it is up to us to seek the truth, but nothing useful in his words teaches us on the means of finding it.
Walsch's teachings only consists in pointing out some of our old problems that we already knew, without helping us to solve them.

Geopolitics and evangelization

My reading of Conversations with God volume 2 which deals with worldwide problems, was motivated by the fact that I am particularly interested in this field as I independently developed a project of global solution, that I wanted to compare with his proposals.
Under a certain aspect one could say that the proposals meet as we both speak about transparency (even if at least during one some transitional period the transparency of the operations in my project will be quite relative, with its foundation on pseudonyms and a possible decentralization of information). However the proposed means are quite different. Walsch claims to reach that point by a form of evangelization towards a spirit of transparency, while my method is technological. Indeed, it is useless to proclaim that one wishes to be transparent on one's own information, as long as one does not have adequate technologies to share and organize this information so that this wish is made useful.
There is also the problem to define a monetary system that be fair, effective, stable and coherent, which is not a small problem : the good wishes of spiritual generosity will certainly not suffice, it is a whole mathematical theory which it is necessary to work out to arrive to a satisfactory result.

Pretending to reduce any effort to improve the world to a spiritual matter, can also have the following defects:
- A revolution of mentalities cannot be done in a few years, but requires a long ripening. It is difficult, hard and "stupid" in the sense that the effort of each one would be always the same one, namely that it would be reduced to transmit as such fine words to the neighbours;  that can require a passage of generations, through new kinds of schools. 
- This revolution will anyway not affect everyone.  There will surely remain as many atheists as now.  The same for all those not interested in spiritual matters.  To reduce the impact one can have on the world to the set of people likely to be interested by and believe in the books of Neale Donald Walsch, is a strong restriction (especially if its wrongness prevents it from convincing people), which, insofar as the impact of this project on the world remains proportional to the number of people who adopt it, the effects of a spiritual revolution carried out by such a minority would be well limited.
- More remarks on the will of God also concerning the Christian mission.

Unlike that, the solution I propose can be spread with speed and facility of the Internet, as soon as the first step (namely a software of a new type of webmail protected from spam by a trust system...), will be carried out. Such a technical revolution will be able to facilitate the "spiritual revolution" towards sincerity and transparency by the simple need to adapt to a new economic environment which requires it, and this independently of the metaphysical or religious beliefs of the people (beliefs which are in fact but poor theories in the mind of the people, without much importance vis-a-vis the many enthralling stakes of the coming human adventure).

An official summary of the Conversations with God

In a short summary of these books in the Conversations with god site itself (now no more diplayed but that I copy here)

The messages in the books can be reduced to four sentences:

1. We are all one.

2. There's enough.

3. There's nothing we have to do.

4. Ours is not a better way, ours is merely another way.

The living of these four sentences could change the world.

it explained what the universal importance of the Conversations with God consists in: that it "could change the world". This claim is so central that it is written in bold. This so fundamental claim consist in telling about what "could" happen. So it is a claim about what is not sure. This so fundamental claim in bold is a claim about what the author does not know, and that he invites us to not know either. If it does not work, this claim stays true: the author's certitude to not know why it does not work will still be valid. Of course, since he does not need any more knowledge than he already has. Else, so, the wonderful result is to "change the world". That is, the world of tomorrow will have a difference with the world of today. This explains, neither the kind of difference, nor its extent, nor whether this change will be for the good or for the bad. Anyway, we don't need any knowledge in this domain; moreover, this last question makes no sense, since according to the Conversations there is no such thing as good or bad. Well, not a big news, since anyway the world has always been changing along history, and it would be something extraordinary indeed if it suddenly stopped changing.
But, what is even more extraordinary with the method given by these Conversations with God that "could change the world", according to the same summary page, is that it can be summed up in four sentences, that are given on that page, so that after reading that page you don't need any more to read the Conversations with God themselves to get the same result. For example, consider the third of these sentences : "There's nothing we have to do". Don't forget what gives this sentence its purpose, importance and thus all its meaning : it is one of the four key sentences by which the world could be changed. So, if (and only if) you feel the duty and importance to help changing the world, you are invited to live this sentence, so that there is nothing more you will have to do. In particular, you won't have to read his books, and neither help changing the world anymore. Then, since your help in changing the world is no more needed, and since the main interest of these sentences or these books is for you to help changing the world, you don't need to read the books, neither to apply these sentences. And the idea of having to do nothing is indeed a good way that could change the world. Of course, since the world will probably go on changing without your help. Unless it suddenly stopped changing, which would be an amazing change indeed.
We can also admire the fourth of these sentences: "Ours is not a better way, ours is merely another way". So in particular, the way in which Neale Donald Walsch invites us to live that could change the world is not a better way than the ways anyway followed by all other people in the world that could also contribute to affect the world (or not). It is merely another way. Thank you very much Mr Walsch for these wise thoughts.

"Nothing matters"

Whatever we choose to do, think or teach, our choice means we consider what we choose or teach as better than what we do not choose, so in this sense "it matters" for us to do this instead of something else, and what we teach are things we consider to matter more than what we do not teach. In particular, teaching that nothing matters means we consider that the choice between mattering and not mattering matters more than any other matter. Whatever can happen - natural disasters, wars, murders, irreversible destructions of the environment and of natural resources, suffering, pain, starvation, mourning, depression - we should not matter. Because mattering would be even a bigger problem than all this. It would be a bigger evil than all evils in the world. A bigger source of suffering than all other kinds of destructions. Nothing matters as compared to mattering.

Or, maybe, because mattering is not helpful for problems ? That's not what Walsch says. He says that even if we are not helpful it does not matter. It matters not whether we are helpful or not. We should just not matter. Even if this decision of not mattering much badly affects others, it does not matter, because the fact of not mattering oneself matters more anyway than any effects our decisions could have upon others. Our personal spiritual self-comfort of not mattering about anything matters much more than anything that could happen to others.
Even if its effect is to force them to matter hundred times harder than the little matter we could avoid this way. Because it does not really force them even if it has this effect. It is their problem, not ours. It is their choice of who they are, not ours. It is their fault if they matter. They just should not matter. So we should teach them that they are stupid and wrong to matter. If they still refuse to stop mattering, then does it matter ? Yes because mattering is what matters. No because nothing matters. Anyway, it does not matter. We should not even matter about the mattering of others. Our only concern should just be to persuade ourself that nothing matters, and stop mattering ourselves, whatever happens to others.

Discussion with a defender of Walsch

I received the following:

Hey there,

I was just reading your criticism of the books of Neale D. Walsch, and I just felt like you misinterpreted some of his 'teachings'. I would like to comment.

You state that "You do not have to seek knowledge (because you already have knowledge, as a spirit connected to the Whole), but you have to act to express Who You Are without worrying about the result, because the result is assured: nothing is bad, nothing matters, nothing does oppose the will of God or escapes Him, because God is all, accepts all and will be always there to recover us."
'God' has never said that knowledge is not important in your life. You can seek knowledge all you want. God only said that you've come here not to gain knowledge but to remember. Remembering presents you with knowledge. You will still need to find out how to get to the grocery store, or how to write HTML. And you will need to observe how things happen: what causes what. It is just that this kind of knowledge is not the purpose of life. The purpose of life is to remember and recreate Who You Are. So, seek knowledge all you want, and use it to your benefit. But just remember that if you're looking at the key process of life (and probably /only/ if you're looking at the key process of life), it is about remembering and not about acquiring. For all other purposes: acquire all the knowledge you need. God has never said anything to oppose that.

God has never said that you shouldn't care about the results of your actions. It is the results you are after. It is the results that form a big part of the reason for doing something, together with your understanding of causal relationships. That's also how you discover whether you want to do something in a certain way: by the results. God only said that you had better not fill your activity with expectations, because the expectations ruin the experience. This doctrine is as down to earth as it can be. But it is also elevated. Without disconnecting from the bottom.

Of course, the end result is assured, but you still have to live your life with your own value system, labeling certain things bad and other things good and doing what's right, according to yourself. God has said: "It would be the greatest evil to call nothing evil." It is precisely your vision of Who You Are that you form based on your understanding of how things work and the attainment of the things you value. Often, understanding brings forth remembering.

You claim that the books do not recognize the need for taking responsibility for ones actions, but God has never said anything like that. It is /about/ responsibility, if anything.

You write about Walsch's promotional spirit, as if promotion is a bad thing. I too believe the teachings by Walsch are one of the most important in today's world, vastly surpassing anything I've read from classic Christianity. Can this not be true? And if it were true, would it wrong to say such a thing? Is it wrong to say such a thing, in any case? Apparently, it is wrong to make money and use it for projects you deem useful and worthy. Apparently, you can only do that if the whole world agrees. ("To support his many projects, but how useful will they be?") Apparently, it is wrong to be rich. Or wrong to make money doing something important. All other people can make the money they want, but not a (genuine) teacher, so you say.

You can criticize Walsch all you want, but that doesn't change one thing about the value of the teachings of the books.

You write "why does he give us the mission of spreading his fine words exactly as if it were about a perfect thought, and that to spread it would be The Means sufficient to bring peace on the Earth with no need to think more seriously on the details (as we don't need any more knowledge since we already have it) ? But that is not true at all, these ideas alone cannot bring peace on the Earth."

He does not say his ideas are prefect. But he needs to promote them, doesn't he? Wouldn't you? And I believe these ideas can bring us One Big Step closer to world peace. The ideas won't do it alone, mind you. They will need careful consideration by many many individuals, all considering these ideas to see if they can make use of them. NOWHERE does Walsch state that we need not think about these ideas. You have misinterpreted his teaching on Knowledge and now use it whenever you see fit, and yet serious thinking is at the core of this teaching: find the answers within. Think about it. Explore it. Criticize it. See if you can do better. Have you not read his ideas on the school system?

You state that you have a technological solution of the need to attain transparency. Apparently, you believe that such a system (I have not taken the time to look at it in detail) will be immediately accepted by the world population, while another system of economical transparency will not. In my eyes, a technical system is required but its acceptance is always based on the state of mind of the populance, which is a spiritual factor.

By the way: the world need not become a Walschian every one of us, but only needs to recognize some very sound principles, that do not require any faith at all, only observation, observation and observation.

I have not read any further. I can only say that your interpretation of Walsch's words is way different from mine. Have we read the same books? Apparently so. I think you've misinterpreted many teachings, seeing things that are just not there. Of course, nothing is lost, because you've stayed close to your own understanding of life. That will always serve you better than accepting something without second thought.

btw: about Andries Krugers Dagneaux's remark: "Donald Walsch asserts that children know no fear." This is not entirely true. Walsch only asserts that children are born with two fears: the fear of falling and the fear of loud noises, and that all other fears are learned. These can be learned quickly of course. But I do not know much about children, so I could not judge.

Yours faithfully,

My reply:


Thank you for your remarks that will help me complete my page and avoid misunderstandings.

All right, I admit I made a little exaggerations in my summary of Walsch's doctrine, it was to show its limits.
And well, all right, my disagreement also comes from complementary ideas that I did not explain and I should explain (but I have many projects and my time to correct everything is limited).

> Hey there,
>
> I was just reading your criticism of the books of Neale D. Walsch, and
> I just felt like you misinterpreted some of his 'teachings'. I would
> like to comment.
>
> You state that "You do not have to seek knowledge (because you
> already have knowledge, as a spirit connected to the Whole), but you
> have to act to express Who You Are without worrying about the result,
> because the result is assured: nothing is bad, nothing matters,
> nothing does oppose the will of God or escapes Him, because God is
> all, accepts all and will be always there to recover us."
>
> 'God' has never said that knowledge is not important in your life. You
> can seek knowledge all you want. God only said that you've come here
> not to gain knowledge but to remember. Remembering presents you with
> knowledge. You will still need to find out how to get to the grocery
> store, or how to write HTML. And you will need to observe how things
> happen: what causes what. It is just that this kind of knowledge is
> not the purpose of life. The purpose of life is to remember and
> recreate Who You Are. So, seek knowledge all you want, and use it to
> your benefit. But just remember that if you're looking at the key
> process of life (and probably /only/ if you're looking at the key
> process of life), it is about remembering and not about acquiring. For
> all other purposes: acquire all the knowledge you need. God has never
> said anything to oppose that.

I have a different conception about what is the key process of life.
My conception is a scientific one. Scientifically, the notion of key process is not a matter of what things deeply "are", but the notion of
what is the logic by which they work together.
And : looking for the key process of life : what for ?
I need not care about who I am deeply. Because anyway I know that I cannot access it in this life but I will access it after this life, no matter
what I am trying now.

What I need to care most about in this life is the question of what should I do for the sake of mankind. Because mankind is now in a critical
process, that may lead to a catastrophy or to a golden age. In particular a big problem is to protect the environment.
And in this critical process, with my intelligence I may be very helpful.
My contribution can be equivalent to saving millions of life.
So I consider that my own life and my personal (spiritual...) purpose in life, should be placed in the background of importance in comparison with
the large number of lives that I can save with my projects. And many people could also be this way helpful, if only they were able and decided
to let their rational intelligence work. But only very few are doing so, and I observe that Walsch's teachings does not lead them very specially to do so.
Yeah he does not either tell them to not do so, but this is not enough : he misses the point.
So reading Walsch's teachings, people are believing they accessed very important teaching, but here they forget that it is possible to do better.

>
> God has never said that you shouldn't care about the results of your
> actions. It is the results you are after. It is the results that form
> a big part of the reason for doing something, together with your
> understanding of causal relationships. That's also how you discover
> whether you want to do something in a certain way: by the results. God
> only said that you had better not fill your activity with
> expectations, because the expectations ruin the experience.

By what magic ?
For me, the matter is to manage to be rational.
A rational person does not make irrational expectations, but calculates exactly what should be done to reach the best result. As being rational is
the condition to find this action that reaches the best result, and therefore it is the way we should follow.
In this case, there will be no matter of expectations that will ruin the result.
I agree there is a problem here: very few people are able to practice this level of rationality, even if they want to.
Therefore, things are different from one person to another, and no general teaching can be validly "the best for everybody" though there are
teachings which should be stated for some cases.

> You claim that the books do not recognize the need for taking
> responsibility for ones actions, but God has never said anything like
> that. It is /about/ responsibility, if anything.

The problem is that, by nature, the question of responsibility requires certain methods to be properly handled, that is the rational method.
Walsch misses this point.
Without giving the direction of a proper method, saying that one admits responsibility, is useless.
In fact, I consider that our responsibility in this life is to search for our responsibilities that may be hidden at first. And we need a proper method to find them.
If Walsch pretends to speak about key matters of life and does not consider this point and properly efficient ways to the methods then I consider that he misses all the point.

> You write about Walsch's promotional spirit, as if promotion is a bad
> thing. I too believe the teachings by Walsch are one of the most
> important in today's world, vastly surpassing anything I've read from
> classic Christianity. Can this not be true?

I agree that classic Christianity is a dangerous bullshit and that Walsch's position is a bit better. So well if he manages to point out some errors of Christianity and helps a number of people escape it then it is a good point.
But the fact it is new with respect to classic Christianity does not mean that it is a revelation in itself, nor that it is from God.
Indeed, someone else pointed out that nothing of Walsch's teachings is new, but the sources are outside classic Christianity.
http://www.foundationwebsite.org/OnNealeDonaldWalsch.htm

> will they be?") Apparently, it is wrong to be rich.

I don't mean that.
Money can be okay if it is fair. Here I consider it is not: made out of lies, pretending to receive a revelation from God and that it be new, while it is in fact copied from old sources and inspired by very human intelligence; pretending that it is a universal key to life while it is some incomplete clues that may make you believe you got a much bigger revelation than what you really have, and that makes you miss some other more important points.

> You write "why does he give us the mission of spreading his fine words
> exactly as if it were about a perfect thought, and that to spread it
> would be The Means sufficient to bring peace on the Earth with no need
> to think more seriously on the details (as we don't need any more
> knowledge since we already have it) ? But that is not true at all,
> these ideas alone cannot bring peace on the Earth."
>
> He does not say his ideas are prefect. But he needs to promote them,
> doesn't he? Wouldn't you? And I believe these ideas can bring us One
> Big Step closer to world peace. The ideas won't do it alone, mind you.
> They will need careful consideration by many many individuals, all
> considering these ideas to see if they can make use of them.

Yeah but how much do you think these ideas should be transformed to become  best ?
I consider they should be so much transformed that the best result can be more easily obtained without reading Walsch at the start. So I don't think it brings us any one step closer.
It will be as good to invent solutions independently never mentioning Walsch nor anything of his teachings. I even consider it would be better if done in the right way.
Anyway, whatever you say, Walsch's ideas will only have a very little % of success with the whole population and it will not have any significant impact to the serious things of this world. Because the serious things of this world is not about whether people remember what they are, but it is how they manage to protect the environment, and what technology can change our political order.

> NOWHERE
> does Walsch state that we need not think about these ideas. You have
> misinterpreted his teaching on Knowledge and now use it whenever you
> see fit, and yet serious thinking is at the core of this teaching:
> find the answers within. Think about it. Explore it. Criticize it. See
> if you can do better. Have you not read his ideas on the school system?

Yeah but the question is how to manage to efficiently examine the ideas.
The right answer is by scientific method. Walsch does not lead us to this right method, on the contrary he indicates us methods that have little efficiency.
When he presents us his ideas on what should be taught at school, science and scientific thinking methods are not properly considered.
There is little chance for ideas to be properly examined in this way.

>
> You state that you have a technological solution of the need to attain
> transparency. Apparently, you believe that such a system (I have not

> taken the time to look at it in detail) will be immediately accepted
> by the world population, while another system of economical
> transparency will not.
> In my eyes, a technical system is required but
> its acceptance is always based on the state of mind of the populance,
> which is a spiritual factor.

The point is that transparency is not sufficient it itself to make a
working and best system.
I consider that acceptance of transparency is not a matter of whether
people have a favorable idea or not about transparency (anyway they have
the ideas they have and you can't change them), but whether the
transparent system that you are proposing is working and useful in all its
other aspects. Because people anyway don't care so much about
transparency, but rather about whether they can make good business with
this system. And the question to be efficient and support good business,
is not just a matter of transparency.

>
> By the way: the world need not become a Walschian every one of us, but
> only needs to recognize some very sound principles, that do not
> require any faith at all, only observation, observation and observation.

Yeah so the role of Walsch here is very small.
One of the important principles is to use the scientific method or at least accept the conclusions of those who can do it, in many situations.
This does not appear in Walsch's teachings.

After this I'm having one more look to Walsch's books.
Reading Book 2, chapter 1: the end of this chapter (the claim that God speaks to us and we just don't listen) is very wonderful words... but unfortunately, totally uneffective whatever we may try, so that in my sense, it is worthless, which rigourously means completely false, in the sense that it leaves us practically unconcerned: it is an absolute promise with absolutely no guarantee, by the fact that no matter whether anyone who tries no matter hard ever finds any realisation of this promise or not, it is presented in a way that is almighty to claim that the failure of satisfaction of this absolute promise will always be our own fault. It is the very same logical context as what I found in Christianity. It pretends to be true (truly possible though rare) by giving an example: Walsch himself. To this my answer is that this very example is false too. Anyway I have proven that this Walsch's claim is false. Therefore it is just a damn lie.
We humans have been able to develop communications systems to discuss everything very easily between us between all parts of the planet. If God had anything to tell us about what we should do, and we as very often would like to follow His will but don't how how to listen to Him and what is He saying, then instead of being so coward He should open an email account and write us in clear all the information we need to know. As for me, it is my will that He does this way to address to me. So if it is my will and if my will is God's will, then why does not he do this ?

Apart from this, well I read again Walsch's ideas on education. Well, they are globally good ideas, much better anyway than the present system.
But they are just intelligent ideas, that anyone intelligent could have said as well, if only people had not been brainwashed out of intelligence by the present world, or unable of intelligence from the genetic limitations of the maniest.
The problem is that he is lying about what is the right method to discover some good ideas of this kind. He pretends that it is by shutting up our thoughts for a sort of superhuman ability of "hearing God", which is false.

More remarks

- Walsch never mentioned the central role that the principle of online dating has to play in the search of soulmate; he never mentioned the fact that we should consider our reponsibility and duty of charity in the domain of matchmaking, as regards to the purpose of letting a better chance to the shy, unlucky people and other people for whom finding soulmate is a hard task. This responsibility would consist in ensuring to implement systems that give better chances of finding soulmate for people who would deserve to. For not abandoning girls to the risk of being caught by bad guys before the nice and shy ones have a chance to meet them, with the risk for the latter to remain desperately single. But, this is a kind of responsibility that the computers of online dating, could manage much better than humans themselves if programmed properly. This points out the central role of technology, that is much forgotten in Walsch's ideas. How could a God have forgotten such an important question ?

- Walsch often presents the truth as simple and sexy, and invites us to search it this way. The problem is that to make a progress in mankind, we have to find out and recognise many truths that are neither simple nor sexy in the way he invites us. The world is very complex, and to understand it and build a better society, we have to understand its complexity, and its many very hard paradoxes. In order to manage this, it would be necessary to make a clear separation in our thoughts, between the understanding level which should be purely rational, scientific, abstract and impersonal, and the nature of the objects that are being understood this way, which may be very sentimental and personal questions. In a sense I could say that doing things properly can finally make everything sexy : the understanding can be sexy to the rational intelligence (because it is seriously rigourous and because properly understood rigour is what can be sexy to the intelligence), to find out the best way for the events involved to become more sexy to the feelings. But mixing the level of things, like trying to find out an understanding that should be directly sexy to the involved realities of personal feelings, may be a terrible mistake, for example in the problems of corruption and susceptibility that I mentioned here. This is a very common mistake. The very big mistakes that pretends to provide truth, good and seriousness by addressing rigour to our feelings, and/or addressing vague impressions and dirty approximations to our intelligence, the result of which is neither true, serious, sexy nor good in any respect.

- Moral philosophy. It is very important ideas that, I think, go much further and deeper than Walsch's philosophy in a number of questions that are important for mankind. Not important questions to make those who understand them feel better, but important questions from a political viewpoint, of how to better take one's responsibilities, not spread mistakes, and provide all people a more comfortable environment. These are deep truths that Walsch's "God" desperately missed, and that he somehow opposed by his ignorance of them, so what is He worth ?

Conclusion

Broadly thus, the few mistakes in Neale Donald Walsch's theology seem just a little too significant to me to reflect with dignity the revelation which he claims of God who should at least have the kindness to never be mistaken nor to induce us into error on such simple questions. 

Christianity is no better !!!!

If you think that Christians are more responsible people, you should read about God's undoubtable promises. If you think that Christianism is more true and consistent, you should read some perfectly rigourous and undeniable refutations of Evangelical Christianity. More generally a huge lot of arguments and explanations are available in the present site as well as in other sites by many people, which Christians just should have the decendy of caring to learn instead of their current extremely indecent way of staying like idiots and still go bother many vulnerable people with the pride of their ignorance about how harmful their [faith in] "Jesus" can turn out to be.

An interesting alternative

Finally, while I no more expected that possibility (for reasons I gave there and as I usually see so big bullshit everywhere), I had the surprise to stumble on another source presenting some roughly similar view but much more serious and with technical details globally (except for some small details) compatible with my careful study of the foundations of maths and physics : the Seth Material (I learned about it in 2017 but it really existed much earlier and there is a possibility that Walsch plagiarized some aspects of it). I would not call it perfect, and it denies any claim of infallibility anyway but, I'd say, its amount of bullshit is amazingly low (when I actually read it, but NOT when I see it summed up by some commercial sites), so low that its claimed post-human origin sounds quite plausible.... I still consider myself rationalist anyway.

Quotations

- In this book review, someone commented: " Interesting...  As someone who works for a hotel which has housed the "Conversations With God" seminars, I can safely say that the author of this text is amazingly rude for someone who claims to speak to God. Remember Mr. Walsh, the Divine loves all people, even those underlings who work the front desk and arrange your overpriced 'classes' :)"
- Someone wrote me: "I have met Neale several times of the past 3 years and read all his books. I went for a retreat run by him in Miami and I was not impressed with his organization. It felt more like a business than a teacher of spiritual truth but I have to say, the message itself has been and still is a real eye opener for me. It changed my life and has given me hope."

- Marketing Secrets of Best-Selling Authors:

"Whether you have a corner flower shop or a multinational corporation, whether you do bodywork on a massage table in your home, or consult on global mergers, your success is dependent upon letting people know about your goods and services. You know people who've gone from being unknown to being very well known (Neale Donald Walsch, who wrote the internationally best-selling series Conversations With God, and is today a multi-millionaire and tremendously influential speaker, was homeless and living in a tent at the age of 50). How exactly do they do it? And how can you get the word out about the gift you have to offer the world?
Best-selling authors don't get famous by accident. Sure, one time in a million, a book gets published, the author does nothing, and the book takes off. But most good authors are relentless self-promoters. They have a plan, and they follow certain steps. What is the link between writing articles and books, getting on the media, and workshops? "
- Andries Krugers Dagneaux sent me the following remark: "Donald Walsch asserts that children know no fear. I am not sure whether this is part of the channelled message but it is clear that this is not true. If we can't trust Donald Walsch's message about the objective world then why should we trust his metaphysical messages?"

Criticisms of Walsch by other authors

- Joseph Waligore (both a philosophy professor who has taught courses in logic and critical thinking at many different colleges and universities, and a spiritual person with a long experience of spiritual perceptions)
- Joseph George Caldwell, Independent New Age Candidate for the US House of Representatives, although the "solution" he proposes instead is a total nonsense.
- A discussion, stating a warning vis-a-vis the concept of Revelation
- Christian Answers for the New Age book review : a Christian disagreement against Walsch, sometimes dogmatic, sometimes thoughtful - I would add: why should "the highest choice" be a well-defined, predictable and so unimaginative thing ?
- Other comments on a Christian site
- Here is a proof that Neale Donald Walsch wants to make big money from his "teachings" and not simply let them available on the web, refusing the offer of a fan who never understood this decisions as he follows this holy path of hating knowledge, although he managed to be a famous author of booklets on computers.
- A moderate criticism listing positive and negative points
- A list of links to several criticisms

Contact

If you know other sites cleverly criticizing (or defending !?) Walsch, you can send me the link (trustforum at gmail dot com). Thanks !
But to those who may be tempted to react by dismissing my criticism and defending Walsch, or more generally to all "spiritual people", who reject rational thinking that they see as low, immature or anything like this, whatever may be your denomination or orientation please don't write to me, it would be a waste of time and nerves. To tell why in short: such "spiritual" people look upon rational-thinking people (like me) as sorts of dogs (even though they may pretend to be polite by using names such as "Kind Sir") ; while I have a similar attitude to their thought (with the difference that I don't see them dirty in their deepest person but only low in their thought, DNA or circumstances). There is just no possible dialogue between both sides. For a longer explanation, see my text on science and reason.

Back to main page