Could an evidence-based "scientific religion" work?

[suspiciousperson]

I keep reading on this forum that not everything LRH wrote is a scam (to which the obvious reply is Hitler loved puppies).

Moving away from scientology tech, there are loads of interesting psychological thingies, often taught by counseullers etc (e.g. CBT, interpreting body language) or even magicians (e.g. cold reading).

Is there much chance that a "nice" religion/movement could be created from scientific research, with no dogma and no founder-beyond-reproach, etc etc? And would anyone join it?

 

[Udarnik]

What do you mean by "scientific"?

And "religion"?

This is a good place to start if you want to understand the attitude of the significant majority (probably over 60%) of practicing scientists towards religion and religious debate.

But as Neil said, a true scientist should be open to accepting new evidence. So far, the scientific evidence for the existence of a God is about as abundant as the evidence for the existence of clears as first defined by LRH.

Let's wind the definition of "religion" down half a notch and accept any belief system that includes a soul.

As a character in one of my favorite science fiction stories put it "Withdraw soul! Inspection, soul!". Show it to me. Not the garden variety drug-induced or meditation-induced or self hypnosis-induced (I'm being redundant) delusions of individuals. Real, reproducible proof. Altered states of consciousness are just an advanced buzz, they are not indicative of any reality except the firing pattern of the neurons in the practitioner's central nervous system.

As a strong agnostic, I don't think there's ever going to be proof of something that doesn't exist, so where does science come into it? But let's say I'm wrong. How is this proof going to come about? Without testable hypotheses, science and religion are once again orthogonal in the mathematical sense.

Finally, I will also say that as a practicing scientist, you don't want us as a group making up a moral code for anything further up the evolutionary ladder than a demented bee. There are some great moral thinkers among us, true, but many are petty and spiteful. It's a feature, not a bug, because attracting people whose major passtime is shooting holes in other people's theories is the only way science self-corrects as fast as it does. But it's not a way to gather a group of the most ethical people on the planet. If you ever read or saw the movie adaptation of Carl Sagan's Contact, or read anything about Sir Isaac Newton's personal life, you get the idea.

 

[oneonewasaracecar]

I keep reading on this forum that not everything LRH wrote is a scam (to which the obvious reply is Hitler loved puppies).

Moving away from scientology tech, there are loads of interesting psychological thingies, often taught by counseullers etc (e.g. CBT, interpreting body language) or even magicians (e.g. cold reading).

Is there much chance that a "nice" religion/movement could be created from scientific research, with no dogma and no founder-beyond-reproach, etc etc? And would anyone join it?

Depends what you mean.

In religion you believe in something on the basis of faith, or personal experience or something else that is subjective.

Scientific truth is independant of our subjective opinions. I might personally believe I am OK to drink and drive, but science can demonstrate I am not. Science tells us that what is true for us isn't necessarily true (Hubbard was wrong about this).

If you mean "can we ever determine what is right or wrong on the basis of reason and evidence?" then I think we might.

A good place to start would be Sam Harris' book The Moral Landscape. Sam argues that morality is like nutrition: There are different answers to the question of what consitutes a good diet, but there are still things about nutrition which are objectively true.

This is not really religion, though, as it does not depend on faith.

 

[Jump]

I keep reading on this forum that not everything LRH wrote is a scam (to which the obvious reply is Hitler loved puppies).

Moving away from scientology tech, there are loads of interesting psychological thingies, often taught by counseullers etc (e.g. CBT, interpreting body language) or even magicians (e.g. cold reading).

Is there much chance that a "nice" religion/movement could be created from scientific research, with no dogma and no founder-beyond-reproach, etc etc? And would anyone join it?

ahh no

 

[La La Lou Lou]

There is a possibility, perhaps, that psychiatry could use scientific measurements to prove the efficacy of certain procedures.

There are people that claim there is proof that people who go regularly to church are less depressed than people who don't. But I have never seen that as proof of anything other than having a regular social life is good for you, it's too general and open for interpretation, it could be that holding your hands together and being quiet helps more than the socialising I have no idea. It also needs to be compared to Mosque, Synagogue, etc attendance to see it in context. It can also be that believing in something, having it all plotted out for you makes a human feel more grounded, less confused, nothing to do with the existence of any gods. Perhaps good god fearing folk spend less time picking up herpes, chain smoking and drinking like fishes, or may be it's more time spent shagging, going out on the piss and on ciggies and it's the satisfaction that makes them feel better.

Certain things can be measured, like how many people in a given group are on antidepressants. But just because scientologists are rarely on them doesn't mean they are happy. Suicides might be a better measure. But though we might be able to work out how many scientologists killed themselves, (and they can be covered up) we will never know how many scientologists there are.

 

[hpm1999]

I keep reading on this forum that not everything LRH wrote is a scam (to which the obvious reply is Hitler loved puppies).

Moving away from scientology tech, there are loads of interesting psychological thingies, often taught by counseullers etc (e.g. CBT, interpreting body language) or even magicians (e.g. cold reading).

Is there much chance that a "nice" religion/movement could be created from scientific research, with no dogma and no founder-beyond-reproach, etc etc? And would anyone join it?

No Not EVERYTHING was a scam. Who would join a group in which the scam was immediately and obviously evident? There HAD to be good upfront in Scio. My favorite quote (which I will continue to use over and over) is from Jeff Hawkins who singlehandedly (almost) through brilliant marketing brought Dianetics back to life in the 90s:
"A great mousetrap requires really good cheese"

Scio is a scam and trap with ever diminishing wins and ever increasing psychic and monetary costs for staff and members... Until finally you are paying them to fuck you up and thanking them for doing so.

Just because Scientology had Science it means nothing. Scio is anti clockwise to everything it purports to be and promises.

 

[Anonycat]

I keep reading on this forum that not everything LRH wrote is a scam (to which the obvious reply is Hitler loved puppies).

Moving away from scientology tech, there are loads of interesting psychological thingies, often taught by counseullers etc (e.g. CBT, interpreting body language) or even magicians (e.g. cold reading).

Is there much chance that a "nice" religion/movement could be created from scientific research, with no dogma and no founder-beyond-reproach, etc etc? And would anyone join it?

Yes, and it is called Science! It's mind-blowing ...


[video=youtube;XGK84Poeynk]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XGK84Poeynk[/video]

[video=youtube;DZGINaRUEkU]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DZGINaRUEkU[/video]

 

[Commander Birdsong]

I keep reading on this forum that not everything LRH wrote is a scam (to which the obvious reply is Hitler loved puppies).

Moving away from scientology tech, there are loads of interesting psychological thingies, often taught by counseullers etc (e.g. CBT, interpreting body language) or even magicians (e.g. cold reading).

Is there much chance that a "nice" religion/movement could be created from scientific research, with no dogma and no founder-beyond-reproach, etc etc? And would anyone join it?

that could be done but it's not the way of it

reason and faith should each have their own seat at your table and be allowed to have food fights now and again

 

[Student of Trinity]

Science is wonderful but I don't think it makes a very good religion all by itself. Science is too patient. In science, the verdict must just stay out, for as long as it takes, until the evidence for one side or another is overwhelming. By the time the verdict is clear, however, the opportunity to improve something in the world may well have passed. Sometimes you need to act before the evidence is overwhelming, because if you don't act soon it will be too late.

Science is also too patient for scientists. Watching pretty videos or reading gee-whiz articles is fun, and the wonder of nature is real, but the work of science is exhausting. Bending over backwards to think of all the ways in which your beloved pet theory might be wrong is agonizing. Collecting data is tedious. Most people need to have something to keep them going, in doing all that. It might be faith in the wisdom of God or it might be greed for fame, but whatever it is won't really be science itself.

In strictly pragmatic terms, science is a bit like a restaurant that only serves vodka. Great stuff for what it is, but it just doesn't offer everything human beings need.

 

[AnonKat]

Science is wonderful but I don't think it makes a very good religion all by itself. Science is too patient. In science, the verdict must just stay out, for as long as it takes, until the evidence for one side or another is overwhelming. By the time the verdict is clear, however, the opportunity to improve something in the world may well have passed. Sometimes you need to act before the evidence is overwhelming, because if you don't act soon it will be too late.

Science is also too patient for scientists. Watching pretty videos or reading gee-whiz articles is fun, and the wonder of nature is real, but the work of science is exhausting. Bending over backwards to think of all the ways in which your beloved pet theory might be wrong is agonizing. Collecting data is tedious. Most people need to have something to keep them going, in doing all that. It might be faith in the wisdom of God or it might be greed for fame, but whatever it is won't really be science itself.

In strictly pragmatic terms, science is a bit like a restaurant that only serves vodka. Great stuff for what it is, but it just doesn't offer everything human beings need.

Free speech is a pretty good religion, basic belief of Anonymous

 

[Anonycat]

Science is wonderful but I don't think it makes a very good religion all by itself. Science is too patient. In science, the verdict must just stay out, for as long as it takes, until the evidence for one side or another is overwhelming. By the time the verdict is clear, however, the opportunity to improve something in the world may well have passed. Sometimes you need to act before the evidence is overwhelming, because if you don't act soon it will be too late.

Science is also too patient for scientists. Watching pretty videos or reading gee-whiz articles is fun, and the wonder of nature is real, but the work of science is exhausting. Bending over backwards to think of all the ways in which your beloved pet theory might be wrong is agonizing. Collecting data is tedious. Most people need to have something to keep them going, in doing all that. It might be faith in the wisdom of God or it might be greed for fame, but whatever it is won't really be science itself.

In strictly pragmatic terms, science is a bit like a restaurant that only serves vodka. Great stuff for what it is, but it just doesn't offer everything human beings need.

That is so funny that you compared to a restaurant that only serves vodka. I went to exactly such a place, it was in Santiago, Chile. I won a challenge, and my workmate offered to take me out for a couple drinks away from the hotel. Somewhere with people, a nightclub. The taxi driver outside said he would take us to a place that fit that request.

When the cab dropped us off, a man in a tuxedo opened our doors and we entered on a red carpet. The place was fairly large, darker in some places than others, but I could see open rooms with tables and so on, just not many people. We approached the bartender, and ordered a drink. Meanwhile, beautiful women dressed in very nice clothing, would casually come up to me, introduce themselves, and would float away if I didn't try to engage them in conversation. I'm not the sharpest tool in the shed so it took 2 or 3 ladies before I realized, that this fancy place that only serves vodka, is something more than we had anticipated. The restaurant that only serves vodka. You have been forewarned!

How exciting science is to me, is fulfilling in a certain way, spiritually.

Using science, we people can move our lives completely. Maybe Star Trek will not be compared to Jules Verne stories, but that is mostly up to people - their ability to use the combined resources we have available, in creative ways that create a paradigm shift in our experiences.

I would look as the entire universe and all that it is, down to the tiniest known particle, and be awestruck. Some of it so amazing, some people actually reject it. I think it kicks ass.

 

[Auditor's Toad]

Does anyone really believe scientology is based on scientific research or science - just beacuse Ron said it was ?

C'mon.

People are pretty much allowed to believe in or follow whatever they want to, but, that doesn't make their pursuit " true " the " truth" or even remotely "sane ".

Some people are going to follow scientology ( where ever - or however - it leads them ). Sometimes what works best is to wave bye-bye.

Have faith in that bunch. After all they been trying for some 60 odd years to make one of them there "clears". Maybe one day they will. I just tenderly suggest that may not be soon !

 

[Anonycat]

Does anyone really believe scientology is based on scientific research or science - just beacuse Ron said it was ?

C'mon.

People are pretty much allowed to believe in or follow whatever they want to, but, that doesn't make their pursuit " true " the " truth" or even remotely "sane ".

Some people are going to follow scientology ( where ever - or however - it leads them ). Sometimes what works best is to wave bye-bye.

Have faith in that bunch. After all they been trying for some 60 odd years to make one of them there "clears". Maybe one day they will. I just tenderly suggest that may not be soon !

Since his first Clear presented was found to be a fraud, it isn't very confidence-building ... even Ron couldn't find a Clear to present to the public.

 

[Udarnik]

Since his first Clear presented was found to be a fraud, it isn't very confidence-building ... even Ron couldn't find a Clear to present to the public.

[video=youtube;iLnNd1_vlbs]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iLnNd1_vlbs[/video]

Yes he could...and did! Just as clear as a clear ever was.

 

[Anonycat]

In August 1950, Hubbard held a demonstration in Los Angeles' Shrine Auditorium where he presented a young woman called Sonya Bianca (a pseudonym) to a large audience including many reporters and photographers as 'the world's first Clear.' However, despite Hubbard's claim that she had "full and perfect recall of every moment of her life", Bianca proved unable to answer questions from the audience testing her memory and analytical abilities, including the question of the color of Hubbard's tie. Hubbard explained Bianca's failure to display her promised powers of recall to the audience by saying that he had used the word "now" in calling her to the stage, and thus inadvertently froze her in "present time," which blocked her abilities.

Later, in the late 1950s, Hubbard would claim that several people had reached the state of Clear by the time he presented Bianca as the world's first; these others, Hubbard said, he had successfully cleared in the late 1940s while working incognito in Hollywood posing as a swami.

 

[guanoloco]

In August 1950, Hubbard held a demonstration in Los Angeles' Shrine Auditorium where he presented a young woman called Sonya Bianca (a pseudonym) to a large audience including many reporters and photographers as 'the world's first Clear.' However, despite Hubbard's claim that she had "full and perfect recall of every moment of her life", Bianca proved unable to answer questions from the audience testing her memory and analytical abilities, including the question of the color of Hubbard's tie. Hubbard explained Bianca's failure to display her promised powers of recall to the audience by saying that he had used the word "now" in calling her to the stage, and thus inadvertently froze her in "present time," which blocked her abilities.

Later, in the late 1950s, Hubbard would claim that several people had reached the state of Clear by the time he presented Bianca as the world's first; these others, Hubbard said, he had successfully cleared in the late 1940s while working incognito in Hollywood posing as a swami.

The stupid part? By Dianetics own theory one must have reactive content for a command phrase to "work" to "stick" someone on the track in a moment...even if it's the present. In order for reactive content there must exist a reactive bank.

The whole point of going Clear was to restore self-determinism...meaning the Clear would no longer react to command phrases/pictures. Yet Ron's Clear reacts...WTF?

To me that was the stupidest excuse to utilize...but then this is from a guy who isn't too quick on his feet, remember him talking about Polly [#1] being dead (smile) and Mary Sue [#2] and then he says, "I never had a second wife."

Huh? What's that, Ron? You're talking about two wives and then state you never had a second? No wonder he flunked math courses in college...Ron doesn't know that one plus one equals two.

Now, thee and me know that he's negating Sara the Soviet Spy but in a real truth the guy would be confused and say something like, "We just spoke about Mary Sue [#2] - weren't you listening, Mr. Reporter?" That's if there wasn't an actual implied second wife between Polly and Mary Sue. Instead, all Ron can think of while he's squirming on the spot is to blurt "I never had a second wife."

 

[kate8024]

In August 1950, Hubbard held a demonstration in Los Angeles' Shrine Auditorium where he presented a young woman called Sonya Bianca (a pseudonym) to a large audience including many reporters and photographers as 'the world's first Clear.' However, despite Hubbard's claim that she had "full and perfect recall of every moment of her life", Bianca proved unable to answer questions from the audience testing her memory and analytical abilities, including the question of the color of Hubbard's tie. Hubbard explained Bianca's failure to display her promised powers of recall to the audience by saying that he had used the word "now" in calling her to the stage, and thus inadvertently froze her in "present time," which blocked her abilities.

Later, in the late 1950s, Hubbard would claim that several people had reached the state of Clear by the time he presented Bianca as the world's first; these others, Hubbard said, he had successfully cleared in the late 1940s while working incognito in Hollywood posing as a swami.

This was my favorite part of the movie "The Profit" and I loved how he (the LRH character) treated her like crap after she failed to remember what color his tie was that she had just seen while she was on stage. Oh and how they had planted people in the audience to ask rehearsed questions lol I'm going to have to watch that movie again tonight I think, its been about a month now since I last saw it.

 

[Gib]

This was my favorite part of the movie "The Profit" and I loved how he (the LRH character) treated her like crap after she failed to remember what color his tie was that she had just seen while she was on stage. Oh and how they had planted people in the audience to ask rehearsed questions lol I'm going to have to watch that movie again tonight I think, its been about a month now since I last saw it.

Shill bidders have been around a long time. Unless you experienced one against you, it's a little hard to believe.

Shill bidding occurs everyday in scientology and elsewhere. It's called success stories in scientology.

But the missing data, from success stories, is how many are there unsuccess stories. Thus one can't compare but only sees one side.

 

[guanoloco]

Shill bidders have been around a long time. Unless you experienced one against you, it's a little hard to believe.

Shill bidding occurs everyday in scientology and elsewhere. It's called success stories in scientology.

But the missing data, from success stories, is how many are there unsuccess stories. Thus one can't compare but only sees one side.

Great point! The same goes for entheta, natter and leaving staff routing forms = zipped lips. This prevents a complete analysis of the scene...how can one notice out-points if they're not viewed, heard or known? Kinda like Ron's factual history as opposed to his past oral history. (Get it? PASToral, as in pastoral? Hahahahahahahahaha!)

 

[kate8024]

Shill bidders have been around a long time. Unless you experienced one against you, it's a little hard to believe.

Shill bidding occurs everyday in scientology and elsewhere. It's called success stories in scientology.

But the missing data, from success stories, is how many are there unsuccess stories. Thus one can't compare but only sees one side.

The Mormons have something similar, once a month after the main church service random people go up and give their testimony about how they know the church is true and how they know Joseph Smith in the prophet and that the book of mormon is true and they know this because of some reason or another. Of course, no one ever gets up says "yeah, i'm not really sure about this whole thing...". Every time I go to Mormon service I keep secretly hoping someone will do that lol.