enter the fray: our reader discussion forum
Search in:
Advanced
View:FlatThreaded
Scientology
by Xando

Scientologists sure are kooky. But so is everyone else operating in the same basic field - psychologists, psychiatrists, priests and preachers. There is no 'science of modern mental health' beyond a limited understanding of chemical interactions in the brain. The drugs your psychiatrist prescribes have a scientific basis. The conversation you have with him usually doesn't.

What is worrisome about scientology is not that alien corpses in volcanos is wackier than walking on water or believing women all want penises, but rather the organization's tactics.

However, the same criticisms levied at Scientology - at least in its modern post-Hubbard incarnation - can realistically be levied against the Mormons, the Catholic Church or even the APA. They're all litigious and they're all very concerned with the financial aspects of the organization. Large-scale organizations all function in roughly the same manner.

What should really worry people is not that some movie star has weird views, but that our society has accepted similar nonsense views at a deep level. Every time some judge offers a deal where someone attends AA or a jury listens to the sage intonations of a psychologist discussing the mental health of a defendant, we're buying into something no more 'factual' than making the claim that Top Gun was Tom Cruise's best movie.

Re: Scientology
by srp
I disagree. Psychiatry may be a relatively new science and somewhat problematic. Organized religion certainly has its thorns, today and throughout history, however, I cannot accept lumping Dianetics into the same pool.

There is a continuum at play. All absurdity is not equal. And Dianetics, beyond being absurd, destroys lives. Going to church for most people is not as destructive as the stories of those who have managed to disengage with Dianetics.
And if you stop going to Church they don't try to hunt a person down and destroy them in the same manner that Dianetics does.

Its just creepy. plain old creepy.
Re: Scientology
by Xando

Psychiatry certainly has scientific aspects to it. Cognitive psychology is definitely a biologically-based science, rather than the sort of Jungian/Freudian pseudo-religion that makes up most of psychology. And as I pointed out, we have a pretty good idea what Ritalian does to most people - pharmacology is a medical discipline, not a philosophical one.

But the bulk of secular counseling has absolutely no more scientific basis than visiting your local clergyman or holding onto some tin cans like a Scientologist. Indeed, most everyone who visits a psychologist could save themselves a lot of money by just availing themselves of the free service of the local clergy - you get the same basic deal, but at a sharply reduced rate.

As to Scientology's abuses, my suspicion is that it is a bit overblown by the media in the same manner that the Catholic pedophilia scandal is. You are actually at less risk of being molested by a member of a Catholic clergy than you are a secular teacher at your school - but the conventional wisdom paints schoolteachers as wonderful and Catholic clergy as a bit creepy. The same could be said for Scientology. Anecdotes of abuse do not indicate a widespread pattern of abuse - and it appears that the bulk of Scientologists are perfectly content being Scientologists.

The objection to Scientology over these other forms of mysticism seems to be that Scientology is awfully damn weird, while we've come to terms with transubstantiation and the super-ego as cultural norms. But ask yourself this: is a prohibition against psychiatry better or worse than a prohibition against modern technology (the Amish) or medical care (Jehovah's Witnesses)? All forms of absurdity may not be equal, but if we're examining the consequences of absurdity, the Scientologists really shouldn't be our top concern.

If Madonna can believe in Jewish numerology, then I see no reason why Tom Cruise can't believe 50s pulp science fiction is reality - they're entertainment stars, not intellectuals. I'm more concerned that Lindsey Lohan seems to believe that casual sex and drug abuse is the route to a happy and successful life.

Re: Scientology
by ladymabelgrex
Nice poinr
View as RSS news feed in XML