I know only a smattering about Scientology, but on it’s face just focusing on the ontological elements it seems to incorporates beliefs that are highly supernatural, or otherwise unverifiable, that need to be taken strictly on faith . In this context, why is Scientology so much more deserving of being mocked than other supernatural belief systems with similar requirements?
How is belief in aliens any more or less ridiculous than believing in a supernatural God or Gods?
Generically, it isn’t. Specifically, it is. For example, the fleet of spaceships shaped like DC-10s? That’s pretty silly, if you ask me.
Scientology is probably no more odd in its tenets than a lot of evolved religions. On the other hand, the fact that its creator is on (the now muddied) record as having invented it expressly to make money and that one needs to keep paying the organization to learn its “truths” might just make it a bit more susceptible to mockery as an organization than some other belief systems.
Don’t the historical origins of a lot of supernatural belief systems grow, in large part, out of the gathering and consolidating of political and social power and influence in one form or another? Is the genesis of Scientology, in part, as a successful commercial enterprise necessarily bad faith in this context?
I think it’s mostly 'cause it’s new.
As long as people are around who shook hands with it’s originator, it’s going to be a “silly story”. Since all the people who wrote, organized and annotated the Torah, the Bible and the Koran are dead and gone, it’s less easy to mock Them. They’ve been around long enough to seem respectable.
tomndebb, I hear what you’re saying, but the various Christian churches throughout history were no less guilty of fleecing their flocks for money. They also liked land, and would accept your life for their Holy Wars. Once upon a time, for a hefty donation to the Church, your son or daughter could be taught some of the deeper Mysteries and become a priest or nun. Isn’t that charging for religious knowledge? I don’t know how much Seminary costs these days, but I’m sure it’s not free. Nor is education, which includes religious education, at Christian or Catholic schools. They also pass around collection plates, in effect “charging” to hear the Truths the minister or priest has to say at services. Sure, it may be less expensive, but isn’t that a matter of degree, not practice?
Lots of other religions require tithes or alms (it’s one of the five pillars of Islam, for example). Granted it’s not quite as egregious, as you don’t need to pay to have access to the Koran or Bible, but a similar requirement nonetheless, IMHO.
As for Hubbard being rather obviously a con-man, I’d say that he isn’t anymore so then Joseph Smith (YMMV, of course). And I suspect that those two simply had the misfortune to live in recent times, if we knew some of the sketchier details about Buddha, Jesus or Mohammed we might suspect they were “in it for the money” as well.
Give it a couple of thousand years and it will make just as much sense as a world-wide flood and an Ark. (And people will be finding “evidence” to support the claim.)
I think tomndebb nails it: It’s not the stuff you can’t probe that’s troubling, it’s the stuff you can. If Scientology radically reforms itself as other fledgeling religions historically have had to do to survive, there would be nothing uniquely odd about it.
I wonder at what point it would become taboo to make fun of it 
Only, I submit, if people have been practicing it all that tinme, and have built their lives around it.
As proof, consider the case of Alexander the Miracle Monger, whom Lucian of Samosota wrote about in the days of the Roman Empire. Alexander was an outright religious fraud, in it for the money (and with strongarm goons behind him to punish the naysayers and critics). Alexander looks like a fraud today as much as he did back then. Lucian reveals exactly how he pulled off his “miracles”. (And corroborating evidence of Alexander has been found - Lucian wasn’t writing fiction)
http://www.tertullian.org/rpearse/lucian/lucian_alexander.htm
The credibility of Religions goes with the credibility of its celebrities, living or dead.
Christianity has a plethora of relatively credible adherents, Newton, Alexander, Jesus.
L.Ron, Travolta and Cruise arent exactly at those levels at present.
I dont think the particular doctrine has anything to do with it. They’re all pretty ridiculous.
Yes, but technology has made near term “history” much more finely grained in modernity, in terms of confirming the specificity of explicit statements regarding the tenets of belief. The amorphous and “lossy” nature of information about origins that allowed prior belief systems substantial wiggle room in their origin myths does not exist to nearly to the same extent for belief systems originating in modernity.
Even in the case of Mormonism which is relatively near term, one of the challenges to the tenets of Mormon faith is the implausible nature of Joseph Smith’s claims, viewed through a modern lens. Whereas we might agree that Jesus was far enough away that ‘stuff" we don’t understand might have happened "back then’, because of the greater level and detail of available near term historical information Joseph Smith Sr. and Joseph Smith Jr. (in the view of some) come across more as Machiavellian hucksters than holy men.
But walking on water and turning water into wine and taking to burning bushes … boy, that makes a LOT of sense!
Well, you could very well be correct about that. However, as one sees in the case of Joseph Smith, perfectly servicible court records, for instance, which for any other individual would likely go unchallenged, or perhaps patently innacurate “translations” of legitimate ancient texts, to provide another example, will, as time passes, gain a veneer of plausible deniability in the eyes of the apologist. Can we prove they are not doctored, or outright forgeries? The slightest flaws become magnified in importance simply by the passage of time and the accumulated “likelihood” it provides the apologist’s arguments, that as it passed through hand-after-hand it was modified or counterfeited to discredit the spiritual leader.
Technology also provides the alleged slanderer the ability to forge with ever-increasing degrees of apparent authenticity. Digital effects can virtually resurrect dead performers and put sounds in their speech, or actions in the representations of their forms, the deceased never made in life. Who can say L. Ron isn’t being framed? Why isn’t it plausible his college transcripts and military records have been maliciously tampered with? Look at how the FBI hounded them in the nascent days of the church, and look at the vast resources available to The Men in Black should they wish to besmirch an innocent prophet. And so forth.
None of the problems of history are insurmountable. Time eases all.
I sometimes wonder if people will one day lump Christ, Buddha and Mohammed with Thor, Apollo and Marduk and wonder how any of us could actually have ever believed in these religions as they go off to their weekly auditing.
I guess the biggest strike against Hubbard is his military record-he continually lied and misrespresented it. Also, $cientology hasn’t produced anybody who has had any of Hubbard’s alleged experiences. Nobody can verify any of his “past lives” crap, and nobody 9who is a geniune “clear” has been shown to have any extraordinary mental powers. In short: total BS.
Oh, so you’re just going to accept that he “lied” without examining that patently prejudicial, and likely subjective, characterization? And whose accounts are you relying upon to render that judgement? Why do you favor the US Govts. account over others who claim to speak in good faith? Who is being irrational here?
(See what I mean?)
I had an interesting experience this weekend. It was my boyfriend’s daughter’s bat mitzvah. I had never attended any jewish services prior to meeting him and it’s all quite foreign to me. The torah readings in hebrew, the standing, turning, bowing etc seemed, well, kooky. His roommate from college came in to town from Los Angeles to celebrate this event and stayed with us for the weekend. His parents were scientologists and when they died and he was orphaned at 9 years old, the CoS took care of him and put him up in a boarding school. Talking to him, he seemed educated, kind, and friendly. A normal guy, if you will. He’s married and has a couple kids, all of whom are scientologists. He had a regular job, owned a house, took aspirin when he had a headache, and did the same day to day things that I did. Sitting in on the Saturday morning services which were literally 3 hours long gave me some time to think about things. I’m an atheist/humanist/free-thinker who has no understanding of what it is that would compel people to cling to a religion, and from the outside, I couldn’t see the difference between believing in the stories in the torah versus the words in Dianetics.
Sure. Someone will dig up the remains of a crashed DC-10.
-Joe
While the various churches have clearly had any number of members who were delighted with the loot, (up to and including the leadership at various times), my point was that I am unaware of any that were explicitly founded for the increase of their founders. There is no record of Peter or Paul establishing a fund to set themselves up with palaces on the Adriatic. Mohammed was already pretty well off before he got Islam off the ground and does not seem to have spent a lot of time accumulating wealth. Martin Luther gave up the austerity of the monastery, but he was not known for his wealth when he died. Siddhartha had more wealth before he started pondering life than after.
There is also a difference between paying schools to support the teachers and administration and keep the building heated while instruction is provided and keeping the “sacred truths” secret from anyone with too small a bank account. There are no revelations in the mainstream religions that cannot be discovered by anyone who can afford the price of a book or two.
I make no claim that the teachings of Scientology are more risible than that of other beliefs. I merely point out that the manner of the creation and furtherance of $¢ientology makes it an easier target for ridicule.