Tom is likable (I even like him) but I think his remarks about Brooke Shields and psychiatry are evidence that the Church of Scientology is a bit off. I agree that the history of psychiatry and even some common practices today might be problematic. I do not think that even a perfect understanding of the brain (apart from the mind) and the right chemical balances will make life great. However, if you want to throw the “history as a measure” card, do you honestly think that the history of scientology is really better? Maybe so, but I think this is unwarranted. At the very least the prescription of vitamins and exercise for post-partum depression is ignorance.
I do not support any particular anti-scientology site, and I even agree on a surface level with some of what they say that one has access to free on the scientology site. I can clearly see some of the appeal to scientology. I agree that the mental life, and the soul are far more powerful than given credit, and that people are spiritual beings that are capable of deeper awareness than most people can imagine. In fact, the scientology handbook online with its very limited information seems to be generally sound (even with the awkward pseudo-technical vocabulary). If it did not seem this way would anyone join the “Church” of scientology? Further, the “what can it do for me?” pragmatism is very American and certainly appeals to human nature. The most interesting thing to me was how various assertions were made, but very little was done in the way of supporting truth claims which are often assumed.
The nearest thing to support I found was in the “MISCONCEPTIONS ABOUT SCIENTOLOGY” section of the site. But I found these claims to generally be obviously false or straw-man type arguments. For example, they claim that the people who are opposed are against self-betterment programs in general. This seems false. Compare the anti-betterment argument with this interesting story (if you don’t have time for the book just read the last 3-4 chapters) of a former member and “escapee” of the CoS here . OR compare this to the latest problems and fresh updates on scientology opponents here or here. OR compare it to the list of claims from a Christian watch dog. I have not heard any anti-betterment talk.
Although I need more information (and time to study scientology) my preliminary search has not given me any faith in Tom “church” even though I have some initial points of agreement. Further, as my family as been touched by post-partum depression I can say that the medical treatment that I have seen changed lives for the better.
Scientology
Current Affairs
Religion
Wednesday, July 06, 2005
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
As a former member, I know that an anti-scientology site is vital. People need to be able to make an informed decision about what they are getting themselves into.
L. Ron Hubbard was a bald faced liar, and people need to know that.
Thanks for affirming that Jeff. I am glad to hear that you got out.
Post a Comment