Scientology: the newest faith

February 13, 2011 • 11:11 am

When I first learned, a while back, about the absurd “theology” of Scientology, I did a lot of reading about it, including biographies of L. Ron Hubbard and testimonies of defectors from that “faith”.  What I learned was horrifying, but also enlightening: people who are rootless, or having life problems, will often turn to anything—no matter how absurd—for solace.  So when I read Lawrence Wright’s new New Yorker article on Scientology, I didn’t learn much new beyond the history of screenwriter and director Paul Haggis.  Haggis, once, like Tom Cruise and John Travolta, an important celebrity Scientologist, defected noisily when the Church (I use that term loosely) refused to support gay marriage in California.  His story is the scaffold on which Wright constructs his exposé.

If you don’t know much about the operations of this nefarious organization, it’s well worth reading Wright’s piece.  There are the well-known revelations of how David Miscavige (the “Chairman of the Board” of Scientology) regularly and savagely beat his minions, how the “Sea Org” (a subgroup of the Church) got young people to sign billion-year contracts and worked them like dogs for virtually no pay, how members who screw up are held in Scientology “prison camps,” and brought back if they escape—all the stuff that has come out in the last decade.

And yet Scientology still enjoys its tax-exempt status as a church.  The US government has gone after them on this issue, but they launched a fusillade of lawsuits that simply wore the government out, and it capitulated.  Most of us probably consider Scientology a cult rather than a religion, but that’s only because it has relatively few followers compared to, say, Mormonism, and because its official dogma is so bizarre.

But is it?  As The Los Angeles Times reported, here’s the “theology” of Scientology, a theology that has been deeply hidden by the Church and emerged only during lawsuits:

“A major cause of mankind’s problems began 75 million years ago,” the Times wrote, when the planet Earth, then called Teegeeack, was part of a confederation of ninety planets under the leadership of a despotic ruler named Xenu. “Then, as now, the materials state, the chief problem was overpopulation.” Xenu decided “to take radical measures.” The documents explained that surplus beings were transported to volcanoes on Earth. “The documents state that H-bombs far more powerful than any in existence today were dropped on these volcanoes, destroying the people but freeing their spirits—called thetans—which attached themselves to one another in clusters.” Those spirits were “trapped in a compound of frozen alcohol and glycol,” then “implanted” with “the seed of aberrant behavior.” The Times account concluded, “When people die, these clusters attach to other humans and keep perpetuating themselves.”

Okay, that sound really crazy, but is it any crazier than the Christian myths (cue Ben Goren: talking snakes, zombies, sin forgiveness, fondled intestines. . )?  As actress Anne Archer (another celebrity Scientologist) points out in the article, one of the reasons Scientology is despised is simply because it’s new.  When we’re around to see how a faith is really formed—L. Ron Hubbard popping pills and writing science fiction, Joseph Smith pretending to find golden plates, Mary Baker Eddy’s recovery from a back injury—we see the chicanery, duplicity, and credulousness that attends the whole enterprise.  But as a faith ages, it gains more and more respectability, so we rarely think of how crazy theological doctrine really is. If Scientology survives another 200 years (and I’m not sure it will), it will be a respectable faith.

You’ve probably seen the YouTube video of Tom Cruise espousing the “theology” of Scientology.  (If you haven’t seen it, watch it immediately.  And note that, according to The New Yorker, this video, including the music, was produced by the Church itself!)  It’s scary, but this doctrine any scarier than if, say, a priest were to matter-of-factly lay out the doctrines of Catholicism?

But I find this 1986 video even scarier: it’s David Miscavige announcing to assembled Scientologists that L. Ron Hubbard had recently died (Miscavige doesn’t use that word; he says that Hubbard discarded a body that was no longer useful to him in his researches).  Miscavige, 25 at the time, is wearing official Scientology duds and is painfully earnest.  The video—only one version is online—has been satirically subcaptioned, which at first I found annoying, but in truth the captions are funny and often accurate.  L. Ron Hubbard’s lawyer makes a brief appearance at the end. (The “OT” mentioned by Miscavige refers to “operating thetan,” the eight highest levels of Scientology’s “spritual awareness.”  And when he says that LRH died in “A.D. 36,” that’s 36 years after his publication of Dianetics.)

If you’ve read the New Yorker piece, you’ll probably want to see photos of Gold Base, the Scientology headquarters near Riverside, California.  Note the razor wire and security cameras, and the track where, it is said, bad Scientologists are forced to run laps for hours:

I would love to see some liberal churches—Episcopalians, Methodists, and the like—denounce this particular religion.

Obama is still an atheist

February 13, 2011 • 7:04 am

Last March I did a short post, “Obama is an atheist,” suggesting that perhaps our President was a nonbeliever, and just took on the trappings of a religious person for political reasons.  I took a lot of flak for that, but I stand by my claim.  Of course, there’s no way to adjudicate the issue—how can you look into his heart? And Obama’s nauseatingly conciliatory remarks about faith and prayer at a February 4 White House prayer breakfast will prove to some that he’s at least a theist.

We all share a recognition—one as old as time—that a willingness to believe–an openness, to grace, a commitment to prayer, can bring sustenance to our lives.

Ann Althouse notes (and don’t discount her opinion just because she’s a semi-conservative):

My source is “Dreams from My Father,” chapter 14. While working as a community organizer, Obama was told that it would “help [his] mission if [he] had a church home” and that Jeremiah Wright “might be worth talking to” because “his message seemed to appeal to young people like [him].” Obama wrote that “not all of what these people [who went to Trinity] sought was strictly religious… it wasn’t just Jesus they were coming home to.” He was told that “if you joined the church you could help us start a community program,” and he didn’t want to “confess that [he] could no longer distinguish between faith and mere folly.” He was, he writes, “a reluctant skeptic.” Thereafter, he attends a church service and hears Wright give a sermon titled “The Audacity of Hope” (which would, of course, be the title of Obama’s second book). He describes how moved he was by the service, but what moves him is the others around him as they respond to a sermon about black culture and history. He never says he felt the presence of God or accepted Jesus as his savior or anything that suggests he let go of his skepticism. Obama’s own book makes him look like an agnostic (or an atheist). He respects religion because he responds to the people who believe, and he seems oriented toward leveraging the religious beliefs of the people for worldly, political ends.

Bill Maher agrees.

Face it: none of us really knows what the man believes. Consider this, though: what if he really was an atheist, as his earlier history suggests, but also had a burning desire to be President? What would he do?  Pretend that he was religious, of course! Nobody who refuses to pander to the faithful could ever be elected President in this era. This fact immediately makes all the evidence for Obama’s “faith” suspect, like Michael Corleone assuring a Congressional committee that he’s just a simple importer of olive oil.

But unless Obama’s undergone a radical White House conversion to Jebus, I still think the evidence points to godlessness.  Would that make him a liar and a hypocrite on this point? Of course.

Snow bestiary

February 13, 2011 • 6:35 am

From the Sauropod Vertebra Picture of the Week site come these amazing (and not Photoshopped) dino sculptures from the yearly Sapporo Snow Festival in Japan.  At this festival, teams from different countries compete to make the most awesome sculpture out of snow (there’s also ice sculpture).  And the sculptures are often huge!  The festival is a week long, and ends today.  These photos are from earlier festivals:

And a snow Triceratops:

Other sculptures include this one, with an owl and an eagle with two chicks (video here).  Is this a harbinger of good for our Virginia eagles?

Many of the sculptures have mythological or fictional themes; you can see some and read about their meanings here.

And this page tells you how the sculptures are made.  It’s complicated and onerous.

Hai, dozo!

Let your freak flag fly!

February 12, 2011 • 2:03 pm

I wasn’t going to post anything special for Darwin Day, simply because everyone else did, but then I got an awesome email and photo combining Darwin, cats and atheism. . .

I’ve been a longtime reader and admirer of your blog*.  Thanks for doing what you do!  Anyway, I thought you might appreciate this.  When my partner and I moved into our house about 4 years ago, we noticed it had one of those flag mounts attached to the porch.  Since we are not into sports or silly seasonal/holiday flags, it has sat empty.  Well we finally got around to making our own flag.  For around $10 in flag cloth, we created this beauty.  Appropriately enough, we finished it today so it could be flown for the first time on Darwin’s 202nd birthday.  Kitty approves.

And if you’re wondering about the kitteh:

As far as our kitteh, he is one of two orange tabbies that we have, and his name is actually Kitty.  He showed up at our house as a stray about 10 years ago, and we never planned to keep him.  While we were searching for his owners, we just called him Kitty.  He was de-clawed and neutered, so we knew he must have a home.  Well we never found his old home so he chose to adopt us, and the name Kitty just stuck.  He’s a wonderfully lazy cat who has no problem sleeping under the covers to help keep you warm in the winter.  He just loves people, and is probably the friendliest cat I’ve ever met.  We couldn’t have found a better cat, so we are extremely glad that he found us!

h/t: Doug

__________________________

*[JAC note:  We call it a “website” here.]

Three easy pieces

February 12, 2011 • 1:31 pm

1.  Brother Blackford has a new post on accommodationism and the anti-New-Atheism of other atheists, particularly Scott Aikin and Robert Talisse:

So I don’t have any reason to call these two authors accommodationists, but I do think that it’s very unfortunate that they have (a) distanced themselves from their natural allies in their post (and, possibly in their book? I don’t know yet), and (b) added to the popular myth of the gnasty gnu atheist who is thoughtless and uncivil when dealing with others.

I do hope they’ll rethink this and change their approach to this issue. You can damage your own cause in many ways: in this case, accommodationism is only one way to throw your allies under the bus. Anti-accommodationists can do that, too.

2.  At the Guardian, Anthony Grayling decries the trend of spoon-feeding students, and opposes new calls for increased professorial “contact hours” in the UK.  It sounds a bit curmudgeonly, but it’s still refreshing to hear someone stand up against the clamors of students for printed lecture notes, Powerpoint presentations, and make-up exams based on flimsy excuses.

Aristotle said: “We educate ourselves so that we can make a noble use of our leisure.” The idea that education is for the mind and soul, for the whole person – the citizen, the parent, the voter, the reader, the lover, the traveller, the human being in the round – is lost to view in trying to make university education a mere continuation of school for the same sausage-machine purpose of churning out employees.

3.  The Sixth Wall has a list of “Twelve movies so bad they’re good.” Two of them star Sylvester Stallone.  Sadly, the only one I’ve seen is “Reefer Madness” (a staple for Sixties stoners), but I very much regret never having seen “Showgirls,” which appears on many worst-movie lists (other perennial dogs are “Gigli”and “Glitter”). If you want a comprehensive list of the worst 100 movies of the last decade, Rotten Tomatoes (my go-to site for movie guidance) has one.

What’s the worst movie you’ve ever seen? Or the best bad movie?  For the first I’d nominate “Popeye” with Robin Williams and Shelley Duvall (although she does look exactly like Olive Oyl), and for the best bad movie I’d go with “Reefer Madness.”

Postmodern science proves eternal life

February 12, 2011 • 7:59 am

One of my friends describes HuffPo as “the Journal of Boobs and Woo,” and it keeps topping itself on both fronts.  Here’s another stupid lucubration designed to delude the casual reader.  Robert Lanza, M.D. (described as “scientist, theoretician, author”), has written a post called “Why you will always exist:  time is ‘on demand,” using quantum mechanics to prove that humans have eternal life.  Imagine the credulous reader who tunes in, only to be conned into thinking that science shows that he’ll go to heaven.

Here’s Lanza’s logic:

There is no reality external to humans.  Postmodern science!

Our entire education and language revolves around a mindset that assumes a separate universe “out there.” It’s further assumed we accurately perceive this external reality and play little or no role in its appearance.

However, starting in the ’20s, experiments have shown the opposite . .

You know where this is going: Quantum Mechanicsville!  Scientific experiments prove that observation affects reality.

The observer critically influences the outcome. The experiments have been performed so many times, with so many variations, it’s conclusively proven that a particle’s behavior depends upon the very act of observation. The results of these experiments have befuddled scientists for decades. Some of the greatest physicists have described them as impossible to intuit.

Yeah, our consciousness certainly created the ability of antibiotics to kill bacteria.  Surely every time we sequence the DNA of a human, we change the human genome.  And who can doubt that the act of watching Saturn with telescopes must surely have created its rings!

Ergo, we live forever because our finitude is simply a mental construct:

Amazingly, if we accept a life-created reality, it all becomes simple to understand, and you can explain some of the biggest puzzles of science. For instance, it becomes clear why space and time — and even the properties of matter itself — depend on the observer. Remember: You can’t see through the bone surrounding your brain. Space and time are simply the mind’s tools for putting everything together.

According to current scientific myth, all your struggles and tears are ultimately in vain. After you die and the human race is long gone, it’ll be as if nothing in your life ever existed.

Not so, says biocentrism [JAC: biocentrism is Lanza’s Big Dumb Idea]: Reality isn’t a thing, it’s a process that involves our consciousness. Life is a melody so vast and eternal that human ears can’t appreciate the tonal range of the symphony.

Indeed, for what is true of electrons must surely be true of life itself.

Lanza’s peroration is a string of deepities:

“There’s no way to remove the observer — us — from our perceptions of the world,” said Stephen Hawking. “The past, like the future, is indefinite and exists only as a spectrum of possibilities.” You, the observer, collapse these possibilities, the cascade of events we call the universe.

Our consciousness animates the universe like an old phonograph. Listening to it doesn’t alter the record, and depending on where the needle is placed, you hear a certain piece of music. This is what we call “now.” The songs before and after are the past and future. In like manner, you, your loved ones and friends (and sadly, the villains too) endure always. The record doesn’t go away. All nows exist simultaneously, although we can only listen to the songs one by one. Time is On Demand.

I have more contempt for this kind of nonsense than I do for creationism, for Lanza uses his stature as a Genuine Scientist to sell complete garbage: the idea that because electrons sometimes seem to behave as waves, and sometimes as particles, we’ll one day be together with Jesus and our dead relatives.  (Granted, Lanza doesn’t mention religion, but of course that’s where this stuff is designed to resonate.)  Lanza is like a medical doctor who puts a homeopathic nostrum—or a Catholic cracker—in a vial labelled “tetracycline.”

Here’s part of his bio, which proves that all these qualifications and encomiums don’t keep someone from writing complete nonsense when they leave their day job.

Robert Lanza is considered one of the leading scientists in the world. He is currently Chief Scientific Officer at Advanced Cell Technology, and a professor at Wake Forest University School of Medicine. He has several hundred publications and inventions, and over two dozen scientific books: among them, Principles of Tissue Engineering, which is recognized as the definitive reference in the field. Others include One World: The Health & Survival of the Human Species in the 21st Century (Foreword by President Jimmy Carter), and the Handbook of Stem Cells and Essentials of Stem Cell Biology, which are considered the definitive references in stem cell research. Dr. Lanza received his BA and MD degrees from the University of Pennsylvania, where he was both a University Scholar and Benjamin Franklin Scholar. He was also a Fulbright Scholar, and was part of the team that cloned the world’s first human embryo, as well as the first to clone an endangered species, to demonstrate that nuclear transfer could reverse the aging process, and to generate stem cells using a method that does not require the destruction of human embryos.

Lanza had a similar post three months ago, “Does death exist? New theory says ‘no’.”  It’s his theory, of course.

Caturday felid: Crazy for You

February 12, 2011 • 5:20 am

Best Coast is an indie rock band from California.  One of their big “hits” (if you can call it that) is a catchy tune called “Crazy for You”.  The music video, below, is awesome.  As far as I know, it’s the only such video that has a LOLcat theme. (I love it when the roadies hit the nip!)  And, as you can see from the band’s site, this is the official music video.

There must be cat lovers in the band, for they also feature a cute kitteh on their site (see below).

Without further ado, “Crazy For You”:

The official band logo:

On Monday we’ll have a special valentine-themed kitteh post, featuring original contributions from alert readers.  Kthxbye.

Why evolution is true (but not many people believe it)

February 11, 2011 • 1:32 pm

by Greg Mayer

Jerry regaled a packed house last night at the University of Wisconsin-Whitewater’s Darwin Day with a talk entitled “Why evolution is true (but not many people believe it)”. Jerry spoke to the crowd of several hundred for just over an hour, and then took questions. Attendees included WEIT readers and Kitteh Kontestants.

JAC at UWW

They had shirts with real Darwin Fish,

and the World’s Largest Edible Phylogenetic Tree, from which Jerry sampled a member of the volant Arthropoda.

He should be deperegrinated soon.