Well, I've been throwing half-informed contemptuous insults at these fools for several years now without bothering to find out the nuts and bolts of how their... religion... works, and today the buildup of all that hypocrisy became too much to bear (plus I was sitting around bored) and I decided to take action and rectify this shameful ignorance of mine. Since Catholicism is the 'normal' religion in the culture in which I live I will use them as the benchmark. I figure, if they can meet or exceed the Catholics they must be a religion.
Here are the two best stories I have heard of Scientology, prior to this research - first, it was founded by science fiction writer L. Ron Hubbard to win a bet - namely, that people were so dumb about religion that he could start a major church. The second story is of the Fair Game Rule, which supposedly states that anyone who was, and is no longer, a Scientologist, is Fair Game, and all church members are allowed and expected to try to make their lives unpleasant in any way possible. I don't know if either of these are true but they do make entertaining stories - let's see if they can be verified.
Now, multiple sources are always key. I am lazy and can't afford a gopher so I am using all online sources but at least a fair spectrum.(1) So here are my impressions from the official Scientology site.
It seems one of the most basic postulates of Scientology is that "the basic command followed by all life is to survive." I would have to disagree with this; much of the activity engaged in by humans is knowingly, willfully and blatantly self-destructive. These behaviors range from war to suicide to smoking to driving to oppressing people for a living and, well, I'm sure we can all add to this list. Now, given that all humans under consideration are alive (well, except those who committed suicide) and that many if not most humans spend much if not most of their time destroying themselves, it does not take a scientist to realize that there are things humans desire more than survival, ergo, there must be a more basic command followed by humans. This postulate, then, can be no more than a convenient oversimplification that sounds like good preparation for accepting social Darwinism.
OK this is really weird - there is an official of this... organization... called the 'auditor' who seems to fulfill the functions of a priest. I wonder at the psychological significance of naming your spiritual guide after your tax man...
There is a lot of fuzzy logic on this site that falls outside the scope of this as it is supposed to be a blog not an essay. Suffice it to say that in terms of rational appeal I would roughly equate Scientology with Catholicism in that it could be rationally accepted but only in terms of its own internal logic and even then with some... convenient omissions and oversimplifications. Unfortunately, once you have bought into something that way you are no longer able to communicate as well with people who have not bought into it because you will find that you are constantly attributing different causes to effects - a Catholic may well believe their car breaking down is all a part of the mysterious and ineffable Plan that God supposedly has and follows to a Tee... of course, Catholics constantly pray as well, effectively begging for the Plan to be changed, so you have to kind of wonder about that. Regardless, neither church is significantly more illogical or hypocritical than the other in this regard.
Here's a nice little twisty thought found on the site - "A civilization without insanity, without criminals and without war, where the able can prosper and honest beings can have rights, and where man is free to rise to greater heights, are the aims of Scientology." The paragraph after next refers to Scientology as "non-political in nature". This is a bullshit evasion - words like "insanity", "criminals", "honest", "able" and "prosper" are all defined on the political level. What you and I think of as a "criminal" are going to be different things, and there are six billion people. We cannot effectively marshal our common resources to affect these ideas without first finding a common definition of these ideas. You cannot eliminate something without knowing what it is, and you cannot define any of these concepts except by the consensus-building of (successful) politics. Once again, the Bible contains more and worse, so on we go, with Scientology not exactly covering itself in glory but not disqualified as a religion either.
And the very next paragraph starts out "We seek no revolution." Who could really think anyone is going to remove insanity, crime and war using our existing political systems? I feel a new quote coming on... wait for it... "Suspension of disbelief is for the theater, not for church." OK that's disappointing - I thought that would be better. Moving on...
My final and most lasting impression of this site was the 'getting started' link. Now, assuming I had just bought into all their crazy gibberish, this is what I would do to act on my newfound beliefs. EVERYTHING except the church locater costs money! And if you don't have money, no problem, because there are lots of different ways you can give them your time instead (which we all known by now, equals money). Don't get me wrong, just because they are obviously trying to shiester the gullible doesn't mean they can't be considered a church - that is a large part of what church is all about. But it asks what problems you are concerned about, lists them ranging from marriage to drug addiction, and each link takes you to a different book you can buy that will teach you how to make your problem go away. I'm almost surprised there weren't any E-Z Credit links! At least the Catholics give their Bibles away for free... and put everything in one book. Scientologists may in fact, be more blatantly ambitious and unscrupulous, though less successful, shiesterers than Catholics!
So that is the end of my impressions of Scientology's official site. To summarize, the only distinction I have found so far between the Scientologists and the Catholics is that the Scientologists are more obviously focused on seperating you from your money.
So I closed out that site and moved on to Wikipedia(2). It notes that those involved with the church can supply many people to say nice things about them and their church. It continues, "However, outside observers—including journalists, courts, and national governing bodies of several countries—have alleged that Scientology is an unscrupulous commercial enterprise that harasses its critics and brutally exploits its members." Once again, this is unimpressive but doesn't sound so different from the Catholics to me, and they get to be a church. I bet no Scientologist ever threatened to burn an Astronomer at the stake for saying the Earth is not the center of the universe. Moving on...
Wiki has this little blurb about Xenu. Allegedly, those who reach a high enough level within the 'church' of Scientology are given teachings withheld from the great unwashed, and the story of Xenu is supposedly one of them. So get this - 75 million years ago Xenu, an alien ruler of a "Galactic Confederacy", "brought billions of people to Earth in spacecraft resembling Douglas DC-8 airliners, stacked them around volcanoes and blew them up with hydrogen bombs." WHY WOULD ANYONE DO THIS???? "The souls of those dead aliens clustered together and stuck to the bodies of the living. They continue to do this today, causing a variety of health problems in folk just like you and me."
Can you imagine? "I command the undead ghosts of aliens who have given this poor child chicken pox to be gone! The power of Hubbard compels you!" A ha ha ha ha ha ha ha!
In all seriousness though, this is not noticeably less plausible than the mythology of Catholicism either.
Also on this site is the tale of how Hubbard decided women who drink and/or smoke should not breastfeed. What should they do instead? I quote extendedly...
"...what he called the "Barley Formula", made from barley water, homogenized milk, and corn syrup or honey. Hubbard claims that "I picked it up in Roman days." He crafted the barley formula to, in his words, provide "a heavy percentage of protein" and called it "the nearest approach to human milk that can be assembled easily." The formula is still popular with many Scientologists, although health practitioners advise that only pure ingredients should be used."
Very sheisterish but much less so than selling indulgences.
Wiki goes into great detail about the Fair Game policy. Holy crap, Scientologists are dangerous vermin who must be eliminated! I won't repeat it here - go do a little of your own damn research! While they are undeniably crazy assholes, the Catholics have done the same and worse, so I still cannot fairly say Scientology is not a religion.
And now we'll move on to the last site. This is an anti-Sociology site, and it starts with the following assertation: "In the late 1940s, pulp writer L. Ron Hubbard declared:"
"Writing for a penny a word is ridiculous. If a man really wants to make a million dollars, the best way would be to start his own religion".
In a nutshell, this site states Sociology is an evil, vicious cult that is designed to seperate people from their money, and that harasses its opposers unmercifully. Interestingly enough, each allegation made on this site was mentioned on Wiki, and none were mentioned (of course) on the official site. However, Catholocism has mercilessly persecuted many groups of people, not all of whom had even opposed the Church.
In conclusion, the only distinction I have found between Scientology and Catholocism vis-a-vis credibility is a matter of degree. Given that it would take a holy war to get three different major religions to even agree to a definition of the term 'religion' I can only go by the actions of the parties in question. I can find no clear distinction between the two in terms of rational plausability or ethical scrupules, and so I must, reluctantly, decide that Scientology is a religion... albiet one that will have a hard time attracting followers who are not duped, abysmally ignorant, or better yet, retarded cross-eyed half-monkeys raised in bubbles.
(1)scientology.org - bills itself as "The official site of the Church of Scientology"; www.xenu.net - bills itself as "Major anti Scientology site, with extensive news articles, analyses, and criticism of the alleged Scientology cult"; and, of course, we must factor in the wikiality of the situation.
(2)I chose Wiki as the 'neutral' source because it can be modified by anyone with access to an internet connection and shows what the currently agreed upon reality resembles. Given the... democratization of scholarship... implicit in wikipedia, it must be viewed more as a tool to let one see what "most online people" believe. In the words of Steve Colbert, "See, if you go against what the majority of people perceive to be reality, you're the one who's crazy." He's right, you know... it's the story of my life.
Here are the two best stories I have heard of Scientology, prior to this research - first, it was founded by science fiction writer L. Ron Hubbard to win a bet - namely, that people were so dumb about religion that he could start a major church. The second story is of the Fair Game Rule, which supposedly states that anyone who was, and is no longer, a Scientologist, is Fair Game, and all church members are allowed and expected to try to make their lives unpleasant in any way possible. I don't know if either of these are true but they do make entertaining stories - let's see if they can be verified.
Now, multiple sources are always key. I am lazy and can't afford a gopher so I am using all online sources but at least a fair spectrum.(1) So here are my impressions from the official Scientology site.
It seems one of the most basic postulates of Scientology is that "the basic command followed by all life is to survive." I would have to disagree with this; much of the activity engaged in by humans is knowingly, willfully and blatantly self-destructive. These behaviors range from war to suicide to smoking to driving to oppressing people for a living and, well, I'm sure we can all add to this list. Now, given that all humans under consideration are alive (well, except those who committed suicide) and that many if not most humans spend much if not most of their time destroying themselves, it does not take a scientist to realize that there are things humans desire more than survival, ergo, there must be a more basic command followed by humans. This postulate, then, can be no more than a convenient oversimplification that sounds like good preparation for accepting social Darwinism.
OK this is really weird - there is an official of this... organization... called the 'auditor' who seems to fulfill the functions of a priest. I wonder at the psychological significance of naming your spiritual guide after your tax man...
There is a lot of fuzzy logic on this site that falls outside the scope of this as it is supposed to be a blog not an essay. Suffice it to say that in terms of rational appeal I would roughly equate Scientology with Catholicism in that it could be rationally accepted but only in terms of its own internal logic and even then with some... convenient omissions and oversimplifications. Unfortunately, once you have bought into something that way you are no longer able to communicate as well with people who have not bought into it because you will find that you are constantly attributing different causes to effects - a Catholic may well believe their car breaking down is all a part of the mysterious and ineffable Plan that God supposedly has and follows to a Tee... of course, Catholics constantly pray as well, effectively begging for the Plan to be changed, so you have to kind of wonder about that. Regardless, neither church is significantly more illogical or hypocritical than the other in this regard.
Here's a nice little twisty thought found on the site - "A civilization without insanity, without criminals and without war, where the able can prosper and honest beings can have rights, and where man is free to rise to greater heights, are the aims of Scientology." The paragraph after next refers to Scientology as "non-political in nature". This is a bullshit evasion - words like "insanity", "criminals", "honest", "able" and "prosper" are all defined on the political level. What you and I think of as a "criminal" are going to be different things, and there are six billion people. We cannot effectively marshal our common resources to affect these ideas without first finding a common definition of these ideas. You cannot eliminate something without knowing what it is, and you cannot define any of these concepts except by the consensus-building of (successful) politics. Once again, the Bible contains more and worse, so on we go, with Scientology not exactly covering itself in glory but not disqualified as a religion either.
And the very next paragraph starts out "We seek no revolution." Who could really think anyone is going to remove insanity, crime and war using our existing political systems? I feel a new quote coming on... wait for it... "Suspension of disbelief is for the theater, not for church." OK that's disappointing - I thought that would be better. Moving on...
My final and most lasting impression of this site was the 'getting started' link. Now, assuming I had just bought into all their crazy gibberish, this is what I would do to act on my newfound beliefs. EVERYTHING except the church locater costs money! And if you don't have money, no problem, because there are lots of different ways you can give them your time instead (which we all known by now, equals money). Don't get me wrong, just because they are obviously trying to shiester the gullible doesn't mean they can't be considered a church - that is a large part of what church is all about. But it asks what problems you are concerned about, lists them ranging from marriage to drug addiction, and each link takes you to a different book you can buy that will teach you how to make your problem go away. I'm almost surprised there weren't any E-Z Credit links! At least the Catholics give their Bibles away for free... and put everything in one book. Scientologists may in fact, be more blatantly ambitious and unscrupulous, though less successful, shiesterers than Catholics!
So that is the end of my impressions of Scientology's official site. To summarize, the only distinction I have found so far between the Scientologists and the Catholics is that the Scientologists are more obviously focused on seperating you from your money.
So I closed out that site and moved on to Wikipedia(2). It notes that those involved with the church can supply many people to say nice things about them and their church. It continues, "However, outside observers—including journalists, courts, and national governing bodies of several countries—have alleged that Scientology is an unscrupulous commercial enterprise that harasses its critics and brutally exploits its members." Once again, this is unimpressive but doesn't sound so different from the Catholics to me, and they get to be a church. I bet no Scientologist ever threatened to burn an Astronomer at the stake for saying the Earth is not the center of the universe. Moving on...
Wiki has this little blurb about Xenu. Allegedly, those who reach a high enough level within the 'church' of Scientology are given teachings withheld from the great unwashed, and the story of Xenu is supposedly one of them. So get this - 75 million years ago Xenu, an alien ruler of a "Galactic Confederacy", "brought billions of people to Earth in spacecraft resembling Douglas DC-8 airliners, stacked them around volcanoes and blew them up with hydrogen bombs." WHY WOULD ANYONE DO THIS???? "The souls of those dead aliens clustered together and stuck to the bodies of the living. They continue to do this today, causing a variety of health problems in folk just like you and me."
Can you imagine? "I command the undead ghosts of aliens who have given this poor child chicken pox to be gone! The power of Hubbard compels you!" A ha ha ha ha ha ha ha!
In all seriousness though, this is not noticeably less plausible than the mythology of Catholicism either.
Also on this site is the tale of how Hubbard decided women who drink and/or smoke should not breastfeed. What should they do instead? I quote extendedly...
"...what he called the "Barley Formula", made from barley water, homogenized milk, and corn syrup or honey. Hubbard claims that "I picked it up in Roman days." He crafted the barley formula to, in his words, provide "a heavy percentage of protein" and called it "the nearest approach to human milk that can be assembled easily." The formula is still popular with many Scientologists, although health practitioners advise that only pure ingredients should be used."
Very sheisterish but much less so than selling indulgences.
Wiki goes into great detail about the Fair Game policy. Holy crap, Scientologists are dangerous vermin who must be eliminated! I won't repeat it here - go do a little of your own damn research! While they are undeniably crazy assholes, the Catholics have done the same and worse, so I still cannot fairly say Scientology is not a religion.
And now we'll move on to the last site. This is an anti-Sociology site, and it starts with the following assertation: "In the late 1940s, pulp writer L. Ron Hubbard declared:"
"Writing for a penny a word is ridiculous. If a man really wants to make a million dollars, the best way would be to start his own religion".
In a nutshell, this site states Sociology is an evil, vicious cult that is designed to seperate people from their money, and that harasses its opposers unmercifully. Interestingly enough, each allegation made on this site was mentioned on Wiki, and none were mentioned (of course) on the official site. However, Catholocism has mercilessly persecuted many groups of people, not all of whom had even opposed the Church.
In conclusion, the only distinction I have found between Scientology and Catholocism vis-a-vis credibility is a matter of degree. Given that it would take a holy war to get three different major religions to even agree to a definition of the term 'religion' I can only go by the actions of the parties in question. I can find no clear distinction between the two in terms of rational plausability or ethical scrupules, and so I must, reluctantly, decide that Scientology is a religion... albiet one that will have a hard time attracting followers who are not duped, abysmally ignorant, or better yet, retarded cross-eyed half-monkeys raised in bubbles.
(1)scientology.org - bills itself as "The official site of the Church of Scientology"; www.xenu.net - bills itself as "Major anti Scientology site, with extensive news articles, analyses, and criticism of the alleged Scientology cult"; and, of course, we must factor in the wikiality of the situation.
(2)I chose Wiki as the 'neutral' source because it can be modified by anyone with access to an internet connection and shows what the currently agreed upon reality resembles. Given the... democratization of scholarship... implicit in wikipedia, it must be viewed more as a tool to let one see what "most online people" believe. In the words of Steve Colbert, "See, if you go against what the majority of people perceive to be reality, you're the one who's crazy." He's right, you know... it's the story of my life.
No comments:
Post a Comment