Scientology and the Bible

Scientology and the BibleScientology and the Bible | 1967 | View Online | Download as .pdf (click on ‘Download through your browser”)

When L Ron Hubbard created Dianetics, it was presented as a rigorously scientific subject whose results were as reliable as mechanical engineering.

For a time,  Scientology was presented in the same way – then Hubbard came under official pressure for the pseudo-medical practices mandated by his creation, and his incredible claims to cure disease.

In 1954 Hubbard decided to sidestep these difficulties (and avoid tax) by incorporating the Church of Scientology in California.  Religious practice is protected in the US by the first amendment, which provides considerable protection for religious organisations (the legislature can “make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof”). Also, religious organisations can apply for tax exemption.

Scientology’s exploitation of this provision has proved controversial. The problem is that there is no legal way of defining what is, or is not, a religion and US politicians and judges tend to steer clear of the question for fear of offending powerful religious lobbies.

While established religions may not approve of Scientology, they are also liable to see any attempt to deny it religious status as ‘the thin end of the wedge’, and support Scientology for fear of losing their own privileges at a future date.

In 1967 (the year in which this booklet was published) the US tax authorities withdrew tax exemption from the Church of Scientology and it took until  years for them to recover that status. This text was likely a propaganda exercise designed to present Scientology as a bona fide religion by trying to associate it with the most widespread religious tradition practised in the US – Christianity. It prints extracts from Hubbard’s writings alongside extracts from the Bible, and attempts to argue that they are equivalent.

Did Even L Ron Hubbard Really Believe that Scientology Was a Religion?

Hubbard had consistently presented Scientology as a religion as a Science until 1954, when he abruptly decided that it was actually a religion all along (alienating many followers in the process). In private, however, he acknowledged that this was just a legal manoeuvre. For example, this internal letter seized by the FBI in a raid on Scientology headquarters in 1953 – less than a year before the Church of Scientology was created

Note: HAS is “The Hubbard Association of Scientologists, the precursor organisation to the Church of Scientology.

DEAR HELEN

10 APRIL

RE CLINIC, HAS

The arrangements that have been made seem a good temporary measure. On a longer look, however, something more equitable will have to be organized. I am not quite sure what we would call the place – probably not a clinic – but I am sure that it ought to be a company, independent of the HAS but fed by the HAS. We don’t want a clinic. We want one in operation but not in name. Perhaps we could call it a Spiritual Guidance Center. Think up its name, will you. And we could put in nice desks and our boys in neat blue with diplomas on the walls and 1. knock psychotherapy into history and 2. make enough money to shine up my operating scope and 3. keep the HAS solvent. It is a problem of practical business. I await your reaction on the religion angle. In my opinion, we couldn’t get worse public opinion than we have had or have less customers with what we’ve got to sell. A religious charter would be necessary in Pennsylvania or NJ to make it stick. But I sure could make it stick. We’re treating the present time beingness, psychotherapy treats the past and the brain. And brother, that’s religion, not mental science.

Best Regards, Ron

This document suggests Hubbard’s claim that Scientology was a religion was false and cynical – a question examined in depth by Professor Benjamin Beit-Hallahmi, whose arguments can be examined here.

The Text

Non-denominational – or Not?

On page three, we are assured by Mary Sue Hubbard in a preface that “Scientology is a Religion”.

Scientology-and-the-Bible image.pdf

Page 3

Mary Sue was L Ron Hubbard’s wife at the time,and wielded considerable power in Scientology for until he abandoned her  in the wake of the Snow White scandal. SheMary Sue Hubbard was one of the few people other than Ron who was allowed to publish (now suppressed) Scientology pamphlets – for example “Marriage Hats“, an hilarious guide to a ‘successful’ Scientology marriage.

When  you are recruited to Scientology you are still told that there is no reason you cannot be an observant Jew, Christian, Muslim or a member of another faith. However, gradually ‘other practices’ (that it the practice of traditional religions) will be strongly discouraged – but only after you have completed a number of courses, are committed, and have something to lose.

In practice, you cannot progress in Scientology unless you are fully and exclusively committed to it.

Theology Style

old bookOn page four, we come to the title page, which has a long subtitle, aping the style of serious Christian theological texts of the time.

Scientology and the Bible: A MANIFEST PARALLELING THE DISCOVERIES OF SCIENTOLOGY by L RON HUBBARD WITH THE HOLY SCRIPTURES

This is followed by a list of seven compilers  – presumably Scientologists  with an extensive knowledge of both  Hubbard’s writings and the bible.

The subtitle gets its attempt at archaic grammar wrong. They seem to have meant to have meant to have said something like: “The manifest [i.e. obvious] parallels between the discoveries of  L Ron Hubbard, known as Scientology, and the holy scriptures” but completely missed the mark.

A Back-Handed Tribute

An L Ron Hubbard publication for this vintage would not be complete without a number of features. The first to appear here is Hubbard’s traditional dig at scientific medicine (which he perceived as a threat). It exploits a recent death to elicit sympathy:

IN MEMORIAM*

To Katie Steele, who on August 8, 1966, left her body for life elsewhere, our love and gratitude for having concluded and piloted the completion of this pamphlet.

Before you think this is an example of the tender feelings of a sincerely religious person, follow the asterisk. At the bottom of the same page, in small print, is the following:

*Killed by medical doctors administering an incorrect drub in Melbourne, Australia, 1966.

The Dreaded “Misunderstood Word”

Now we come to the second inevitable feature of a Hubbard text – the notion that the only reason you can’t understand him is that you have misunderstood a single work of his and this (like a falling row of dominoes) has prevented you understanding anything that follows.

study tech disclaimerThis, of course, makes the text infallible. If you think is author is wrong, he will tell you that you must have misunderstood a word or you would understand him. If you accept this, Hubbard can never be wrong.

Unsurprisingly this manipulative concept is part of a fundamental teaching of Scientology called “Study Tech”. It reinforces Hubbard’s claim that Scientology always works and, if it appears to fail, that is your fault for not practising it correctly.

Some “Manifest Parallels” – Or Not

This publication apes a biblical concordance. However, instead of showing a number of different translations of the same biblical passages side by side, it randomly presents excerpts from Hubbard’s writing and juxtaposes them with biblical quotations which are implied to be equivalent.

This is supposed to present Hubbard as a man who has had great insights which harmonise with Christianity. Unfortunately for Scientology:

  • There is no meaningful connection between the quotes. At best, they sound vaguely similar -if you trawled through enough political manifestos in this uncritical way, you could probably come up with quotes from communists and fascists which share more common ground. At worst, the Hubbard quotes are simply incoherent.
  • Since those biblical passages were around for a long time before Hubbard, he hardly deserves credit for coming up with similar concepts (in fact, that sounds more like admitting plagiarism)

I’ll give just two examples,  in which Hubbard can at least be understood:

concordance

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

In the first, it’s difficult to understand what Hubbard is saying, not because it’s  profound but because it’s obscure. To understand it, you have to know that Scientologists are taught that they are naturally immortal, incorporeal, beings (Thetans) who take on new bodies after death. They believe that Scientology training will allow to ‘operate’ and act upon the world without their bodies. This is the goal of the OT or ‘Operating Thetan’ levels.

The biblical passage promises bodily resurrection. Although this includes the vitalist concept of the soul, Christians do not expect to become semi-divine after death, but to live as embodied entities in the presence of their God. That’s a completely different thing to Hubbard’s proposition – that they become God-like themselves – which is blasphemous from a Christian perspective.

As for the second comparison, Hubbard is saying that we know time is passing because things change. That’s hardly a profound spiritual insight. This is juxtaposed with a biblical passage which tells us that we don’t live for ever, and must adapt to changing circumstances as we age, if we are to fulfil ourselves and our purpose in life. It’s also expressed in enduring poetry that still speaks to the human condition. here is simply no connection between Hubbard and the biblical passage.

When there is some correspondence, the ideas are quite banal because they are both taken completely out of context. Placing them in context show how utterly different Christianity and Scientology actually are (I speak as an atheist, so that is no judgement on their relative doctrinal merits) .

Scientology – Salvation for Sale

The pamphlet starts to wind up on page 51 with a “glossary of Scientology terms” and  an injunction to “buy Scientology books” and the 1967 Scientology price list, before a a closing statement by L Ron Hubbard. These are all common features of other publications.

If there was ever a demonstration that Christianity and Scientology were quite different, it’s surely the presence of a price list in the Scientology text. Christ did not include a price list among his teachings.

Advertisements

3 thoughts on “Scientology and the Bible

  1. I appreciate (very much) how factual and respectful you are, as an atheist, when speaking of others’ religions. I’ve enjoyed your posts for some time – visiting from The Bunker – but hadn’t commented before. Your writing is informative & interesting. But it’s also powerful as you present information as just that – information! It speaks for itself and as someone who is a faithful believer, I totally respect and appreciate your viewpoint because you don’t slam those who come from a different perspective! So ALL of that to say you’ve become a part of my morning reading ritual & I’m really enjoying it! Thank you!

    • Thank you. If helps when you have friends who are both religious and good people, as I do.

      I strive to be as objective as possible. However, it’s just not possible to examine anything without some kind of world-view being implicit. The trick is to make sure that you perspective is understood and out in the open, so that readers know everything they need to make their own judgement on what you have to say. This is what I strive for here.

      I do think that the approach of some campaigners can be counter-productive, leading the public to look from critic to Scientologist and think “they’re as bad as each other”. Also, confrontational opposition is often only going to cause Scientologists to dig their heels in, and confirm them in the notion that the wog world is evil.

      By the way, I describe myself as an atheist because everyone knows what that means. However, It’s less than ideal to have to define myself with reference to what I don’t believe. One day, I will describe my own world-view here.

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s