Yes, I've gone crazy. Defending scientology is not only hugely unpopular, but it is also unimaginably unlike the core 'me'. However, with all the anti-scientology sentiment going around, I thought someone has to say something here. Albeit online.
It seems that being anti-scientologist is fashionable these days. Indeed, I think it fits neatly into the fad of being generally atheistic in today's world, where non-belief is seen as a form of rebellion.
However, anti-scientology sentiment differs; it differs in that it is able to unite believers of traditional religion to get a taste of what it's like to be an atheist. The premise here being that Religious people have an innate underlying level of doubt which sways them towards non-belief from time to time. There are very few truly faithful in this world. That is, most people don't believe in god, but they believe very strongly in 'belief in god'. That's why faith is seen as a most virtous quality in a person, since the large proportion of the religious inherently reject the stories that religions preach.
So attacking Scientology has provided a new outlet for the frustrated religious. In opposition to this cult, they can now freely voice their underlying logical rational cores. All this without the fear of social outcasting. They can feel like aethists and voice for ones, the opinions they truly believe in, not those that they think would be 'nice' to believe in.
But really. How does Scientology differ from any other religion?
a) A really stupid storyline on which the whole faith is based
b) A plan for ultimate happinessc) A prophet
d) Economic Viability (to survive)
Granted that d) has gone way, way out of hand in the case of Scientology, but really....I think Scientologists have the right idea when they say they have a right to exist just like all other religions.
Sure, atheists (like I) are immune from this critiscism of the religous bias towards scientology. But even 'we' (if you're atheist) must not single out Scientology for their poor storyline and a ridiculous prophet, as other religions share these traits without exception.
P.S: I forgot to mention, a defense for anti-Sc. is that they are harming people by taking their money for the promise of ultimate revelation. Come on people! Look at the massive loss of life that occurs to this day due to Christian, Islamist or Hindu etc beliefs. I think taking money falls short on the 'harm-to-society' scale.
In appreciation of your ability to think logically I will ask...don't you wonder how so many conclusions about Scientology bounce from one person to another using hearsay when people interested in an honest look could read the books and see if the information rings true? As far as saying they should visit a Church or Mission--they could also do that--but if their goal is to investigate or find fault then I would not recommend it. If they could go into a Church to see if they could find something to help themselves or others they would be on a more fruitful track.
ReplyDeleteYou're very right. Frankly, I've never thought of that...but I do wonder now as to how much I know about scientology is just plain gossip.
ReplyDelete""....As an early Greek said, "When one has examined the descriptions of God written by Man, he finds in that being, at best, a thirst for self-aggrandizement and adulation which would be disgusting in any man." Man has sought to make his God a "god of mud" because the early Greek, and even more distant peoples, made idols in the form of men by which they thought to entrap the beingness of local divinity who troubled them.
ReplyDeleteMore modern Man has fallen into the error of making God into the body of Home sapiens and posting him somewhere on high with a craving for vengeance and a pettiness in punishment matched only by the degradation of Homo sapiens himself.
There are Gods above all Gods and Gods beyond the Gods of universes. But it were better, far better, to be a raving madman in his cell, than to be the thing with the ego, cruelty and jealous lust that base religions have set up to make men grovel down."" L. Ron Hubbard Scientology 8-8008
I finished reading "Dianetics" recently, and started reading "The Science of Survival"...I have never been to a Scientology center, nor actually met anyone who (as far as I knew) was an admitted scientologist (I live in the midwest LOL)...
ReplyDeleteI will say that the books are certainly an interesting read. L Ron Hubbard was a far-out person for sure. Most people I know who criticize scientology have never even read portions of the books.
I do recommend "Dianetics", if anything to get a perspective on what the whole Mind-Science thing is based on. Even if you approach it from a "this is science-fiction" perspective it will very likely entertain you on various levels.