Shocker! In other news, the sky is blue, and water is wet. This from the St. Petersburg Times, c/o the Daily Beast, for a two-minute summary. While you shake your head in disgust at this flagrant abuse of the gullibility of thousands, revisit a topic from last year, on Scientology and how, if at all, we can define “religion” so as to credit its successes but limit those who seek to abuse the label.
Advertisement
> how, if at all, we can define “religion” so as to credit its successes but limit those who seek to abuse the label
This is actually quite revealing. Instead of recognizing the obvious – that all religion is a scam, although admittedly in many cases a scam people pull on themselves, a.k.a. wishful thinking -, we must (must!) desperately say nice things about it. Why?
Why is it all right to say somebody is deluded and irrational if they believe patently ridiculous things like gnomes stealing their socks, but wrong to say the same about somebody who believes patently ridiculous things put pastes the “religion” sticker on that belief?
Best thing is, you even mention the Mormons in that post, a religion that shares with Scientology the embarrassing characteristic that their founder lived such a short and well-documented time ago that it is blindingly obvious that he was just a con man (not that it helps those untrained in critical thinking skills).
Now what those who still have unearned respect for religions need to understand is that, in all probability, Jesus, Muhammad, Buddha etc. were just their days’ Ron Hubbards. Well, maybe one or two of them actually believed their teachings – we know too little about Jesus and Buddha at least to rule that completely out; okay, then Jesus was their days’ crackpot doomsday cultist who, as stated explicitly in scripture, was sincerely convinced that the end of the world would occur within the lifetime of his contemporaries. Nothing to respect here, nor anything to differentiate it from today’s movements that you would, in all likelihood, instinctively recognize as dangerous, silly and/or a con scheme.
Posted by Mintman | June 23, 2009, 3:01 amOh, but you’re overlooking all the GOOD Christianity has done, and surely that… outweighs…
*choke*
Sorry, couldn’t finish that sentence without my intestines attempting to kill me.
Anyhoo, I personally do have quite a bit of respect for the morals, if not the supernatural worldviews, espoused by Jesus and the Buddha. It’s not a certain pharisee’s fault if he’s been misinterpreted upside down and backwards for the past, oh, two thousand years. The buddha, however, wins, because as far as I know, the score for inquisitions, pogroms, and crusades is: Christians, LOTS. Buddhists, few if any.
But in any case, you made a false distinction: the difference between a con man and a true believer in this case may simply be that the believer lies to one extra person: themself. If the Church of Scientology actually, y’know, was a good organization (i am tempted to mention the Universalist Unitarians here, as a ‘good’ religious institution, as they are effectively humanist agnostics with a (semi)organized structure.) it wouldn’t matter that l ron was a conman.
And, in the case of the Christian church, it doesn’t matter that Jesus believed entirely.
Posted by wanderedin | June 23, 2009, 5:43 am> But in any case, you made a false distinction: the difference between a con man and a true believer in this case may simply be that the believer lies to one extra person: themself.
Oh, I agree completely.
Of course I do not doubt that there are religious people or even institutions doing good (even though I would say they would be doing even more good if they disconnected this from proselytizing). I take issue with the mental motivation shining through a sentence like “we need a better definition of ‘religion’ in America, with the goal being to exclude Scientology and similar scam cults, while protecting good-faith faiths”.
On the one hand it sounds awfully like a no true Scotsman, on the other hand I wanted to express my conviction that, regardless of how much later converts and followers act in good faith and do good deeds, new religions (as opposed to reformist breakaway sects, perhaps) always start as the small cult of a charismatic leader with ulterior motives like money, power or prestige. Yes, it may even be possible that Scientology could reform and lose its money scam aspect given enough centuries and a sufficient number of well-intentioned true believers. However you define religion without Scientology, you will define it in a way to exclude an awful lot of religion.
I guess AGC realizes this (“if at all”), so maybe we even agree on the underlying data, but where I then look at the data from another perspective and say, okay, what does this tell me about religion in general?, AGC at least seems to be carefully avoiding this logical next step, preferring to call only that religion which is benevolent.
> It’s not a certain pharisee’s fault if he’s been misinterpreted upside down and backwards for the past, oh, two thousand years.
Well, it is very difficult to know for sure what Jesus actually said and did, as we only have relatively unreliable, biased, and contradictory sources. Some parts of the gospels lend themselves to the interpretation that he was a well-meaning, genuinely believing moral teacher, others give off a creepily doomsday-cultish vibe. Particularly chilling in this regard are phrases like that where he teaches that only those can be his followers who leave behind and emotionally disconnect from their families. That is basically cult indoctrination 101, but again, how sure are we that he personally actually said any of that? How sure are we that he actually gave the sermon on the mount? You can interpret a lot of things into this person.
Posted by Mintman | June 23, 2009, 7:35 am
Posted by Philip H | June 23, 2009, 8:15 amExcuse me, but I did not dismiss anything out of hand. I am merely pointing out that the post very clearly sounded as if it was based on the intention to label violent, repressive or money scamming religion as “not religion”. This is the opposite of reflecting on nuances and intricacies, actually, but rather a blanket pacifier against uncomfortable observations.
Concerning your last comment: If evaluating the credibility of the founder of a, say, 2000 year old religion with the same kind of skeptical, logical and fact-based thinking as I would evaluate a cult founder of the 20th century is “bashing religion”, then sorry, I just do not believe that there is anything that should not be open to critical examination.
I did not even say that all religion was inherently evil and never would – my position is rather that it is inherently anathema to human well-being and intellectual development, but not necessarily purposefully evil, but that is not the point here at all. The point is it can be evil. It is a definitional one, that you cannot simply say that religion is only “true religion” if you do not burn heretics or fleece the gullible of their money or whatever. Neither is this how the word is commonly understood nor, and that is more important, would it be a useful term if its definition were restricted in that way. Some communists would argue that it is only real communism if it is democratic. Maybe this stance even has some merit, but what term would you then apply to Russia 1917-1989? If we are to communicate with each other or categorize real-world processes in a meaningful way, we cannot simply unilaterally change definitions of words in a way that makes us, personally, ideologically or religiously most comfortable. Or we should not, anyway; this is, of course, what a lot of pundits, theologians and politicians are constantly attempting to do.
Posted by Mintman | June 23, 2009, 8:48 amOh well, on further reflection, my “all religion is a scam” comment above IS pretty religion-bashing. Sorry. Try to take it as I would take somebody telling me that my views on economic and social policies are irrational and unrealistic – do not be offended, but marshal arguments against it, even if only for yourself because here is not the place to discuss this. Because I also realize this, I will try to focus on the real points I want to make and refrain from such side remarks in the future.
Posted by Mintman | June 23, 2009, 9:13 amI would categorize Russia 1917-1989 as a totalitarian dictatorship that used the trappings of Marxism to oppress people of a variety of religious and ethnic backgrounds.
Posted by Philip H | June 23, 2009, 9:08 amYes, it is laudable if you can see things in such a differentiated way, but then, it does not really touch you at the moment, does it? But imagine now you are a communist. What is more helpful for an honest assessment of your ideas in relation to the world and your personal development: simply saying “that is not *real* communism” whenever somebody who identifies as one does something bad, or accepting that obviously people at least in theory sharing a great part of your fundamental outlook and ideals have ended up doing bad things in the name of your ideas? Only the latter will help you to find a way to throw out bad parts of your worldview and/or understand how to avoid such a corruption of the idea in the future, or it can even ultimately lead you to the conclusion that the whole worldview, due to its inherent logic, has a tendency to end up in evil. (This is not me suggesting any of these particular conclusions with reference to either a particular political ideology or religion, by the way.) The first approach, in contrast, will give you peace of mind at the cost of repeating the same mistakes over and over again.
Posted by Mintman | June 23, 2009, 10:03 am@Mintman:
“regardless of how much later converts and followers act in good faith and do good deeds, new religions (as opposed to reformist breakaway sects, perhaps) always start as the small cult of a charismatic leader with ulterior motives like money, power or prestige.”
“Always” is a pretty big word. However, if we look at it historically, the best way to get “money, power or prestige” has generally speaking been to work within the establishment, not to break away from it.
Jesus was crucified, and his followers persecuted on and off for 300 years. Muhammad was exiled, and only survived because he could use the political divisions of the region to his advantage. Jan Hus was burnt as a heretic, and Luther almost was as well. Zwingli got killed in battle against Catholic opponents. Even though many such movements have done quite well in the long run, their founders have often paid a very high price for it, so I don’t think it’s too far-fetched to assume that most of them did what they did because they actually believed in it.
As far as Scientology goes, I don’t think the problem is whether they’re a religion or not – that’s only an issue if one wants to make generalizing statements about “religion” as such, which I find intellectually indefensible. Looking at what the organization actually does and promotes on a systemic level should be quite sufficient.
Posted by lanfranc | June 24, 2009, 4:47 am