“There are higher states of existence”: Scientology Super Bowl ad

February 6, 2014 • 3:10 pm

“Imagine science and religion connecting! Imagine technology and spirituality combining!”

Yes, that’s the explicit message of the one-minute ad run by, of all groups, the Church of Scientology during this year’s Super Bowl.

The “higher states of existence” attainable through joining this cult presumably refer to the plush lives led by David Miscavage and other Scientology higher-ups.  That, and the cost of running this ad during the Big Game (30-second spots were going for $4 million!) are likely funded by the dosh raked in by Scientology’s phony technology, including “E-meters.”

As Slate reports:

For the second year in a row, Scientology staked out local airtime during the Super Bowl for an ad that quickly became fodder for confused observers on Twitter. The ad’s tranquil sights and aggressive lens flare culminated in a promise of “higher states of existence,” and “creepy” was the general reception. As with last year, the ad appeared limited to some regional urban markets, including New York, and aired later in Washington, D.C. The spot itself has been on Scientology’s YouTube channel since at least Jan. 8.

In 2009, Seth Stevenson wrote in Slate on Scientology and the strange business of making commercials for a religion.

74 thoughts on ““There are higher states of existence”: Scientology Super Bowl ad”

  1. I bust out laughing shortly after the start of the commercial on Sunday, as soon as I realized what it was for.

    Not at all the reaction they were hoping for, I’m sure.

    b&

    2. I burst out laughing, too, but only when the ad showed it was for Scientology. With the Super Bowl ads you never know — it could have been a bait and switch.

      1. Yeah you never know when someone carrying a can of light beer will pop out and ask “Wazzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzup?”.

  3. The “higher states of existence” attainable through joining this cult presumably refer to the plush lives led by David Miscavage and other Scientology higher-ups.

    I believe those are called “higher estates of existence.”

          2. Ah, I wondered if it was opposite of “super” in super bowl. I wasn’t too far off then.

      1. I used to regularly take on a persistent Scientology troll at the old iidb (Secular web) bulletin board. I could have used that site!

        Using common sense got me far enough along I suppose. It’s not like they have real facts behind them.

  8. There’s nothing strange about ads for a religion, just as there is nothing strange about an ad for any other money-making enterprise.

    1. The Latter Day Saints used to run ads all the time on kids programming in the US. Not terribly religious just sort of “sappy and feelgood”. But they also ran other adult ads (presumably) where the bit about “another testament of Jesus Christ” was the big deal.

      I do find it interesting that the Scientologists are moving into TV and such *now*, given their Hollywood members …

      1. I remember those ads. One that stuck with me was actually clever. It showed a guy being a douche on the road and cutting people off then he ends up in the ditch and the nice LDS person helps him out instead of doing what we all would like to do. 😀

        It was actually a good message and rather clever to put it in the context they did.

        1. The message was “Don’t bother joining AAA/CAA because the LDS will serve your automotive needs”?

  9. I could have sworn that was an Avalon M5 microphone preamp. God prefers sealed silver signal routing and large VU meters for all recording projects.

  10. Imagine science … and religion … connecting.

    It might look a lot like Scientology.

    If it worked.

    And wasn’t total bullsh*t.

    So much for the claim that there is in principle no way to merge science with spirituality. We have a model. It fails.

    1. Apparently attaining a “higher state” in Scientology just means imagining a bunch of things. “Imagine you had energy beams in your eyes which could set targets on fire from 100 yards. Higher states [i]do[/i] exist.”

        1. “That will be $1000 for today because that will just max out your latest credit card. It will have to do until you can get that third mortgage approved. Also can your dad not help a little more?”

          Fixed it for you?

  11. Science and religion connected! Biologos finally did succeed!! 😉

    Seriously though, isn’t this the logical result/conclusion of acommodationism?

    1. Acommodationism is based on the idea that the only way to ‘connect’ science and religion is through making them compatible in the same sense that poetry is compatible with playing sports. The connection isn’t a real connection: it has to be spurious. If God is “working through” evolution you can’t ever try to say HOW it does this. Be forever vague. Show that it doesn’t contradict sacred scripture; show that it bears a half-assed resemblance to something in sacred scripture; never say that scripture predicted it.

      The Scientology agenda here would give accomodationists fits. They would not approve. It gives us fits, too — but only because it doesn’t work. Accomodationists would be mad that they’re trying to make it work.

      1. But I still enjoy countering “science and religion can mix” claims with a response of “yeah, like Scientology” just to make heads explode. Christian Science also works but with a lesser effect.

  12. The advert didn’t cost as much as you think. As detailed here
    http://tonyortega.org/2014/01/19/sunday-funnies-for-the-second-year-in-a-row-scientology-will-have-an-ad-in-the-super-bowl/ local advert spots were purchased which are much cheaper (the adverts most probably aren’t for attracting new recruits but are a facade to show wealthy donors how quickly their so-called religion is expanding.)

    Tony Ortega’s site is the place to keep informed about the current goings-on in the bizarre world of Scientology (including the multiple current court cases for fraud, forced abortions and harassment.)

    2. “That, and the cost of running this ad during the Big Game (30-second spots were going for $4 million!)”

      That figure is for a nation-wide ad. Scientology only aired their ad in specific local markets.

  13. In the scientology critic community, these ads are considered as appeasement measures to mollify the whales (the big buck donors) to give the impression scientology is using their money for legitimate dissemination efforts.

    Quite the contrary. Scientology is putting out a lot more of its financial reserves to battle an accumulating list of lawsuits that only emphasizes this cult’s long history of malfeasance.

    Current plaintiffs with very interesting cases: Monique Rathbun, Luis and Rocio Garcia, Laura DeCrescenzo, various Narconon victims in Georgia, Oklahoma and Nevada.

    tonyortega.org if the subject is of any interest. Don’t underestimate the subject, Ortega makes it a very interesting place. It is very active in user visits and poster comments.

  14. “Now imagine that everything you ever imagined is possible.”

    “Imagine there’s no religion…”

  17. Scientology is a fascinating historical example of a major religion imploding in real time.

    The best way to follow the whole sordid spectacle is through the daily updates on Tony Ortega’s blog, linked by Stuart above.

    1. Was it ever a major religion? Most religions’ membership claims are dubious but Scientology’s more than most I suspect.

      It’s often been in the news due to having one or two celebrity adherents, it’s bizarre beliefs, it’s use of litigation to harass and punish and major incidents such as Operation Snow White, the Lisa McPherson death, the destruction of the Cult Awareness Network and the attempt to destroy Paulette Cooper.

      However, if you look beyond all that ‘noise’ there’s very little of substance beyond the vast wealth bequeathed by Hubbard and added to by milking members for every cent they own and encouraging them to get seriously into debt in order to help “clear the planet”.

      A financial scam masquerading as a cult masquerading as a religion.

    1. If you look carefully at that cross it’s actually a double cross. Are they trying to tell us something?

    2. Indirectly it does have something to do with the Christian cross. It’s a kind of Batesian mimicry.

      From your wiki link, LRH had it prominently displayed in Scientology centres back in 1969 when they were first trying to get in on the perks of mainstream religions. It is intended to deceive people in the same way having Scientology auditors wear black clothes and dog collars was intended to do.

    3. This is known in France as the proverbial Canada Dry effect.

      So named after a series of groundbreaking TV ads in the 1970s, mocking iconic film or TV scenes involving alcohol, like in this The Untouchables spoof.
      Then the catchphrase: “Canada Dry had the color of alcohol, its name sounded like alcohol, its bottle looked like a bottle of alcohol, but it wasn’t alcohol. It was the same Canada Dry you’re drinking today.”

      The impact was such that Canada Dry has come to mean second-degree pseudo faux, even decades after the ads ran.

      It even went meta: when the company tried to soften its slogan in the mid ’80s (the insipid version is quoted in the French Wikipedia), people would say: “They’re pulling a Canada Dry on Canada Dry.”

  20. Passing Scientology publicity stalls in town, it is so tempting to me to go up to them and pretend I was interested, just to find out how they deal with a new customer and what things they would say. Ever since I saw that hilarious picture of Hubbard consulting the tomato… But I doubt my ability to maintain a straight face, so then I just move along.

  21. I grew up in Seattle so I was glued to the set and don’t remember that commercial. Maybe it only played in certain markets, and Washington State was deemed too rational to waste money on. To be truthful though, the only ad I remember was the very suggestive Oikos yogurt one.

  22. Years ago, I actually wandered into a scientology center out of morbid curiosity. The lady there interviewed me, and tested my emotional responses with her e-meter. The ‘electrodes’ were just tin cans that I held onto, and the meter was an ordinary ammeter you can buy from Radio Shack. t’was very funny.

    1. I’d be too afraid to enter a scientology building. I’d be scared it would be like that scene in Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep when Deckard wanders into a doppelgänger of a police station staffed by replicants.

  23. Utter nutters.

    Robert Wright’s splendid book “Going Clear” was a terrific read, along these lines. A great documentation of the total craziness within that organization.

  25. I love the e-meter has a single needle like a gas tank.

    Everything about a person’s spirituality can be summed up on a mechanical dial!!

    I wonder if they will ever release an iphone app? Maybe an adapter like Square has for credit cards?

  27. “Imagine science and religion connecting! Imagine technology and spirituality combining!”

    Someone has already imagined that – it is called Neon Genesis Evangelion.

  28. I don’t like this term “cult” used to describe groups like the scientologists. Its a term that implies some difference between the nonsense spouting by such groups and the nonsense spouted by “respectable religions” This is why religions often use the term. It is used to distinguish their silliness from the silliness of potential rivals.

    “Cults” are really just small and new religions. Religions that have not yet become established and so they are religions we are “allowed” to disrespect. As opposed to the suppsed respectability of established or insitutionalised religions which we are meant to respect.

    I am sure the scientologists do harm to their members but then so does the Catholic church and no one calls them a cult.

    So instead of accepting this distinction between religion and cult we should condemn all faith groups regardless of their size or age

    1. I consider them a cult. (The Catholics.)

      So we agree except I think we still get to use the word.

      1. Well yeah if we call all religions “cults” instead of religions. But my point is that the term “cult” is used to distinguish certain, usually smallish, newish and a bit bonkersish, religious groups from bigger, older and supposedly more respectable religion.

        Ok yeah we can use the word cult to describe the Catholics. Do we use the word to describe Islam? Protestantism? The Church of England? If we do then the term “cult” and the term religion become indistinguishable don’t they? In that case the term “cult” becomes meaningless as a descriptive term., It becomes simply a term of abuse that we can apply to all religion.

        My point is that when we use words like “cult” as opposed to the word “religion” most people do thingk there is a sociological distinction.

        Moreover, I would argue that the term “cult” is actually one that the religious like. It is used as a kind of insult by the religious against new upstarts that might invade their turf. A lot of the so called “anti cult” groups for example have bishops and the like sitting on their boards. Now they certainly would bristle at the term “cult being used to describe the Church of England.

        So my point is that the word cult is actually a term that favours religions because it adds to this idea that there is a distinction to be made between the “dangerous cult” that “brainwashes people etc and which people need to be warned about and saved from and the respectable religions which we are supposed to see as healthy.

        When in reality they are all barmy. Scientology is certainly completely mad and bizarre religion but then, as you agree, so is Catholicsm or any other religion.

        So instead of this distinction between cult and religion, which only serves to legitimise religion, a better term to use to describe all of them is religions. And to fight against all religions and religious influence whatever the content of their particular brand of nuttiness.

        1. Do we use the word to describe Islam? Protestantism? The Church of England?

          Yes. No reason to give up a perfectly good English word.

          And religious people only like it when applied to other people. All the more reason to use on them, too.

          And, yes, they are all barmy.

        2. I think it’s a tactical mistake to lump all religions into the “cult” category because the term has more than just a pejorative meaning. It’s a description of beliefs and behaviors which apply more to some religions and not so much to others. Refusing to distinguish between those that fit the criteria and those that don’t makes the atheist sound churlish — and opens us up to accusations of being unable to understand nuances. Black and white fallacy.

          Saying that some forms of religion are more harmful than others doesn’t legitimize the milder ones, any more than skeptics pointing out that psychic con artists are more dangerous than newspaper astrology columns suggests there’s something to the latter.

          There are lots of lists on the defining characteristics of ‘cults.’ The Catholic Church does not forbid its members from interacting with nonbelievers, it does not control every detail of its members’ lives, it does not lie about its beliefs in order to recruit people, and so forth.

          There may be Catholic cults (Opus Dei is suspect), but don’t look at the forest and say there is only one kind of tree.

          1. But is say Scientology or the moonies really any more harmful than Catholicism? Given the appalling child abuse scandal that has ripped through the Catholic Church I am not so sure we can say it is.

            And as for not associating with non members etc, something you mark out as an example of a cult, well, this is a mark of Islam in many countries. Death for leaving too. For many years strict segregation was a mark of Protestant and Catholic communities in Northern Ireland too.

            So, apart from being smaller and newer and as a consequence, more zealous, I am not so sure if such a distinction between cult and religion can really be made.

            So we have three options being discussed here. The first is my proposition that the term “cult ” is of little sociological value and is, in fact a term that assists religions by perpetuating the myth that there is some distinction between “wholesome” or respectable” religions and “dangerous cults”

            Then there is the second suggestion that we should simply refer to all religions as cults which, I agree is a bit churlish and really reduces the term to meaningless abuse

            Then there is the third suggestion that the distinction between “cult and religion has sociological value because it distinguishes between various types of harmful religions.

            Of these I still think my initial objection holds true. If we think all religions are harmful and are all equally barmy then, why should we distinguish between them., i have no problems refering the Scientology as a religion and see no real difference between their particular brand of barmy fiction and the barmy fiction of other more respectable relgiions. I don’t really see it as any more harmful either.

          2. The larger and more popular the religion the more variation within it. A cult exaggerates the problems with religion; you could also say that it highlights them.

            This is Robert Lifton’s list of what defines a cult.

            1)Totalism – This is an us against them philosophy, which is used to achieve complete separation from the past, which is portrayed as filled with the satanic or unenlightened.
            2) Environmental Control – Everything that perspective recruits see, eat, and do every waking minute is carefully manipulated.
            3) Loading the Language – This is the jargon of the cult, which take the form of quick easy phrases and statements that only have meaning to the cultists. Such jargon encourages isolationism and cloning.
            4) Demand for Purity – All actions are judged by the cult’s definition of purity, which is crafted by the leadership to suit their needs. Such definitions are applied in an absolute, black and white, manner. Anything is acceptable in the pursuit of this purity.
            5) Mystical Leadership – The cult leader endows himself with a mystical mantle, often an agent of divine powers on Earth. Confession and denunciation to the leader are ingrained. The victim acquires a pawn-like attitude, wherein devotion and obedience to the leader supersede standards of morality or self-preservation, even unto choices of life and death.

            Of these I still think my initial objection holds true. If we think all religions are harmful and are all equally barmy then, why should we distinguish between them?

            Because it is more accurate, and thus more useful to a science-based approach towards studying and understanding a phenomenon.

          3. “The Catholic Church does not forbid its members from interacting with nonbelievers, it does not control every detail of its members’ lives, it does not lie about its beliefs in order to recruit people, and so forth.”

            This may just be a matter of degree. The amount of control in peoples lives likely varies by what order you get snarled up with. To my mind, Christians all lie to themselves to some extent, never, for example, confronting the basis for their particular form of cherry-picking the metaphorical from the literal. And the RCC systematically lies when telling people in Africa that condoms promote the spread of HIV.

          4. Yes, exactly. It’s a matter of degree.

            Degree counts. Evolution itself could be looked at as a matter of degrees. That doesn’t turn everything into an undifferentiated mess.

          5. Nor does it mean that phenomena that exist as gradients on multiple scales have nice, crisp, discriminating boundaries and that the word “cult” has a natural and obvious utility.

          6. Agree. “Cult” is a fairly useful word, but only if it’s used in its more specific academic sense — rather than just hurled at either religion in general, or any religion someone doesn’t like.

          7. The academy doesn’t own the word. The rest of us get to use it, too. In more flexible ways than you approve of, even!

Comments are closed.