Nelson Jones

Belief, disbelief and beyond belief

Is Scientology just a weird cult?

Unconventional beliefs have always invited ridicule.

By Nelson Jones Published 03 July 2012 10:39

Katie Holmes and Tom Cruise at the Vanity Fair Oscar party earlier this year. Photograph: Getty Images

Has Rupert Murdoch finally said something we can all agree with? Scientology is a "very weird cult" he opined in a tweet at the weekend, "but big, big money involved" He added that there was "something creepy, maybe even evil, about these people". That some of these same criticisms might be levelled at News Corp doesn't negate the fact that the Church of Scientology has a decidedly dodgy public reputation.

Ever since the news broke that Katie Holmes was filing for divorce from Tom Cruise, one of Scientology's most high-profile adherents, commentators have been queueing up to implicate the religion as a source of marital disharmony - or else as a malign influence from which Holmes is trying to escape or to protect her daughter. When it was claimed that Holmes was being followed by men in unidentified cars, the obvious inference was that the Church of Scientology was keeping her under observation or trying to intimidate her. The Church denies this. But the very fact that such a thing could widely be believed points to the organisation's continuing image problem, something that neither its wealth, nor its notorious enthusiasm for litigation, nor its roll-call of Hollywood supporters, have been able to dispel.

In 1985, Mr Justice Latey described Scientology in the High Court as "corrupt, sinister and dangerous", an organisation that "has as its real objective money and power" and called its central technique, known as auditing, a "process of conditioning, brainwashing and indoctrination". The German government in 2008 restricted Tom Cruise's filming in the country on the grounds that Scientology's "totalitarian structure and methods may pose a risk to Germany's democratic society". The organisation has been criticised for secrecy and for financially exploiting adherents. It's regularly claimed that the founder of Scientology, L. Ron Hubbard, created the religion as a money-making scam.

Criticism of the Church's behaviour often goes hand in hand with ridicule of Scientological beliefs and practices. To an outsider, these are bound to seem a trifle eccentric. An important character in Scientology, for example, is said to be a "space lord" named Xenu who brought several billion people to earth 75 million years ago, only to blow them up. The remnants of these immolated souls survived to contaminate the planet. To free people from their negative influence is said to be the main business of Scientology.

It may not help that before he became a prophet Hubbard earned his money writing bad science fiction.

To put this superficially weird mythology in some kind of context, Scientology is the most prominent of a group of new religions that emerged in the second half of the Twentieth century. These creeds blended popular belief in UFOs, speculative science and ideas about the nature of human psychology. Along with Raelianism, the Atherius Society and other, even obscurer, doctrines, Scientology replaced traditional conceptions of God with tales of super-intelligent and technologically superior aliens. As the name "Scientology" itself implies, the intention was to blend science and religion: to make science religious and religion scientific. In Scientology, psychological development is identical to spiritual development. The imagery may derive from sci-fi but behind it is the age-old religious quest for redemption and the secrets of the universe.

To its critics, Scientology looks like both pseudoscience and pseudo-religion. But then most religions require of their adherents belief in concepts or entities that strike outsiders as unlikely or even absurd: Virgin Births, the revelation of scripture by divine dictation, miracles, angels and demons. Is Xenu any more ridiculous an idea than a saviour who could walk on water, or less historical than Abraham? Scientology's credibility problem may partly be a consequence of its youth. It has yet to build up a patina of ancient wisdom, the respectability that comes from age. Nor does it have the ballast provided by a long-standing intellectual tradition.

Otto von Bismarck is reputed to have said that with laws, as with sausages, it is better not to observe them being made. The remark applies, even more strongly, to religion. Unlike in the case of Christianity or even Islam, all too much is known about the founder of Scientology, and much of it is not flattering. This makes it a soft target. Mormonism, too, has to contend with embarrassing details about its founder's biography and doctrines that seem outlandish to outsiders. But it is older than Hubbard's religion by more than a century, even wealthier and much better established. It may soon produce a US president. Although it is not there yet, it is further along the road to "great religion" status and the respectability that comes with that.

New religions can't count on the taboo against criticising other people's deeply-held beliefs that protects older faiths. Beliefs that are unconventional invite mockery rather than respect. That doesn't necessarily mean that Scientology deserves greater respect. It could equally well mean that other religions deserve less. But I find it hard to believe that Scientology is no more than a con-trick. Whatever criticisms may be levelled at the Church of Scientology as an organisation, many people, including highly successful individuals like Tom Cruise, find psychological and spiritual benefit in practising their faith. It obviously works for him. The true test of a religion is not whether its doctrines are plausible but whether it provides a programme for life.

Special Offer: Get 12 issues of New Statesman magazine for just £12

More from Nelson Jones

View the discussion thread.

64 comments

Fri, 2012-08-03 13:39 — Phaedrus

It doesn't matter how insane? how manipulative? how corrupt? as long as it provides a programme for life. Please tell me you're just being provocative and don't really believe this!!

Thu, 2012-08-02 02:47 — best kids scooter (not verified)

Cool, thanks for the information on this matter.

Thu, 2012-07-26 17:40 — consultaeltarot

Pseudoscience, pseudo-religion, etc, etc, etc ...
It is indisputable that we need to believe in something to make our life meaningful and so live as happily as possible. Historically, the greatest people in history have had their own sorcerers, shamans and seers to guide their decisions and their lives.
Here are items to improve the course of your day, all the alternative to your fingertips, religion, mysticism, esotericism, tarot and more ...
www.consultaeltarot.com
Do not say we are the best, show ...

Tue, 2012-07-10 22:12 — peterr (not verified)

A bit late with this, but I recently saw an amusing criterion for 'distinguishing' cult from religion:

A cult always has a person at the top who's well aware that it is all a scam.

A religion is where that person is already dead.

Tue, 2012-07-10 16:59 — Bev Brown (not verified)

'In 1985, Mr Justice Latey described Scientology in the High Court as "corrupt, sinister and dangerous", an organisation that "has as its real objective money and power" and called its central technique, known as auditing, a "process of conditioning, brainwashing and indoctrination". '

Which religions is he not describing here? They are all corrupt, sinister and dangerous. They all have money and power as their objective. They all use processes of conditioning, brainwashing and indoctrination. Take your pick.

Mon, 2012-07-09 11:29 — Rhys (not verified)

"The true test of a religion is not whether its doctrines are plausible but whether it provides a programme for life."- I agreed with this article until the very last line. Would we believe in the Tooth Fairy if it made everybody more happy? Would we still claim the Earth to be flat if that was deemed easier to understand? A religion cannot be accepted on the grounds that it is warm and cuddly. The rejection of science and reason is in itself against a good "programme for life".

Sat, 2012-07-07 00:10 — catsy destiny (not verified)

"But I find it hard to believe that Scientology is no more than a con-trick."

You really should do some research before you express opinions on subjects you're unfamiliar with. The Argument from Incredulity is not convincing.

Read the people who've left Scientology. Read about how they were harassed and cut off from family and friends still within.

And how many religions require their adherents to spend tens of thousands of dollars (or work at what's essentially slave labor,) before they learn the central tenets of the religion?

(Bearing in mind what those tenets are: they involve an intergalactic war lord and spirits called "thetans." I am not making that up. L. Ron Hubbard did.)

Remember too that celebrities like Cruise are not treated the way rank and file members of Scientology are treated.

Run, Katie, run.

Fri, 2012-07-06 23:02 — Zaslav (not verified)

David J. Mudkips (comment above) and Des Demona (also above) have the true measure of Scientology. I can hardly believe Nelson Jones is so taken in. The report that Scientology was founded to make Hubbard rich is pretty well supported by the word of former friends of his and by a superficial look at their price schedule. A glance at the remarkably idiotic "mythology", which is a typical bad (emphasise, "bad") science fiction scenario of the late thirties (yes, years before Scientology was founded, but Hubbard was an old-style writer; updating is limited to shaping his spaceships like 747s), suggests that Hubbard's imagination was rather narrow. But he was a canny operator.

Mon, 2012-07-09 16:55 — Allen from London (not verified)

I don't think Hubbard's intention was to get rich. Years (many decades) ago, I heard that Hubbard and friends were having a dinner party, and in the booze-befuddled aftermath Hubbard boasted that anyone could start a religion - and he would do it, just to prove the point. The rest, regretfully, is history.

Thu, 2012-07-05 11:56 — mittfh

Religions tend to be a product of their time, and reflect the culture and values of both their founder and subsequent leaders.

Perhaps nowhere is this more apparent than Christianity: even from the four biased accounts we have, it appears as though Jesus' intention was to reform his faith (Judaism) rather than create a new one; and perhaps in reflecting on the experiences of living under occupation proposed a return to more altruistic values and inclusivity - he seemed to spend a lot of time hanging around with society's outcasts, criticising the over-zealous interpretation of what he regarded as The Law (idly picking grains of wheat on the Sabbath considered work) and may have railed against capital punishment (which according to Jewish law was pretty much the standard solution to many problems - including persistently rebellious teens!) He also apparently advocated praying in private and only mentioning their leaders name if people questioned why they were being so altruistic.

However, "Everyone's welcome" and "don't evangelise" don't exactly help sell religion to the masses. Just like businesses, they have to not only show themselves as better than the competition but also unique, with customs and practices that differentiate you from the rest. Hence it started to become more exclusive ("If you do X, Y or Z you're not welcome"). As initially founded, it wouldn't have had any unique ceremonies or practices. However, those selling the religion in new territories hit upon a brilliant marketing strategy: see what ceremonies and practices the locals currently do, then tell them they can continue (more or less) with them, as long as they attach a new meaning to them. Perhaps this approach to marketing and the relative sparsity of requirements and preconditions has enabled it to survive and grow, despite splintering into dozens (hundreds?) of different factions, each with their own twist. Couple that with the vernacularisation of the faith (i.e. allowing it to be presented to people in their own language rather than requiring them to learn a new one) - even if the texts are based on rather dodgy translations, and in some cases, bad translations of bad translations of dodgy copies of dodgy copies of texts based on several hundred years worth of oral tradition (ever played "Chinese Whispers"?) - Isaiah said "young woman", Matthew mistranslated that as "virgin", and the rest is history. Conversely, Matthew said "Upper room", that got mistranslated as "inn" (leading to the non-scriptural assumption that as the infant was laid in a manger, they took up residence in a stable) - who knows what other traditions and beliefs are based on bad translations?!

Nevertheless, looking 'behind the scenes' at the texts of the mini-library that makes up the Bible (after all, it is a collection of at least 66 different texts) can give a useful insight into the culture, traditions and practices of people at the time the texts were first written down - as well as the possibility of a peek into folk memory (given the number of religions from disparate parts of the world mentioning a great flood, perhaps there were humans around at the end of the last ice age, when the melting ice would have resulted in sea level rises which did flood numerous plains. And perhaps there were people who spotted the trends, extrapolated to the near future, so took adaptive measures...)

-oOo-

As for the 'new' religions, again they're a product of their time, location and culture. But as the article says, we know all about the founders and the subsequent leaders / activities - and particularly with some, altruism doesn't appear to be near the top of their agenda...

Wed, 2012-07-04 20:05 — Morales Holly (not verified)

just as Paula answered I cant believe that a single mom can get paid $6147 in one month on the computer. have you seen this page LAZYCASH24 DOT COM

Wed, 2012-07-04 18:20 — Bud Yanker (not verified)

Simple equation: All Religions = B.S.

Wed, 2012-07-04 15:35 — freedemocrat (not verified)

Surely all religions are weird cults. You know the sort of thing: a god with the upper body of an elephant and lower body and genitals of a man:-hinduism, a bloke flying in the sky on a horse with wings:-islam, a bloke publically executed and then the body conveniently disappears and his followers claim he became alive again and went up in the sky to a heaven:-christianity and so on. I see nothing in scientology that beats the other weird religious cults for weirdness.

Wed, 2012-07-04 15:35 — freedemocrat (not verified)

Wed, 2012-07-04 15:10 — David J Mudkips (not verified)

Did I just see "it works for him" used as a justification for Tom and Scientology? Well done, Nelson, you've just made your argument sound like homeopathy apologism

At the end of the day, though, there are some very early bits of Scientology that are basic new-age self-help stuff (which Hubbard stole from other sources), and that's the "It works" part used to draw you in.

Scientology is a mafia-like organisation, perpetuating human rights abuses on a massive scale while hiding behind a religious fig leaf (internal CoS documents detail the cult 's plans for "religious cloaking" - Google for Larry Brennan, an ex-member which knows all about it). They get the stick they get not for their esoteric beliefs, but for the outright criminality perpetrated in the name of Planetary Clearing. Last Saturday, Dublin played host to a conference of ex-members and critics, all of whom spoke not about Xenu, but about child abuse, human trafficking and more.

Wed, 2012-07-04 12:13 — Keir

Scientology is another American cult. To actually believe in the creeds of an American cult, you have to be a little bit dim. This one is certainly no exception.

Of course, the inventors and leaders of American cults are not dim at all. Neither are actors who join them, who are ideally suited to carry off pretence at belief. If they are famous, their agents may well encourage them to become cultists.

Wed, 2012-07-04 13:07 — jankaas (not verified)

Christianity is just another cult amongst many. To actually believe in the creeds of a Christian cult, you have to be a little bit dim. Christianity is certainly no exception.

Wed, 2012-07-04 15:46 — John Cheese (not verified)

You can now worship your boson particle monkey boy...

Wed, 2012-07-04 17:47 — jankaas (not verified)

Wed, 2012-07-04 13:09 — jankaas (not verified)

oops part 2 went awol...

Of course, the inventors and leaders of Christian cults are not dim at all. Neither are politicians who join them, who are ideally suited to carry off pretence at belief. Their peers and advisors may well encourage them to become cultists.

Wed, 2012-07-04 10:35 — Xiaowei Ye (not verified)

They both are looking lovely together.

office furniture jacksonville

Wed, 2012-07-04 08:20 — Junior

nice foto
http://kit-electronics.org.ua/

Wed, 2012-07-04 05:40 — linzhands (not verified)

=== http://www.top4biz.com
=== http://www.top4biz.com
=== http://www.top4biz.com
=== http://www.top4biz.com
=== http://www.top4biz.com
=== http://www.top4biz.com
=== http://www.top4biz.com
=== http://www.top4biz.com
=== http://www.top4biz.com
=== http://www.top4biz.com
=== http://www.top4biz.com

Tue, 2012-07-03 21:09 — John Cheese (not verified)

Pulp fiction....have you removed your body thetans today?

Everything you ever want to know is here:

http://www.xenu.net/

Tue, 2012-07-03 20:57 — xenubarb (not verified)

Your first mistake is in mistaking Scientology for a New Religious Movement.

What it actually is, is a MLM system with religious trappings. Biggest nest of scam artists I ever saw!

Wed, 2012-07-04 15:14 — peterr (not verified)

A few billions' first mistake is in mistaking Christianity for a Religious Movement.

What it actually is, is a MLM system with religious trappings. Bigger nest of scam artists than even Scientology.

Tue, 2012-07-03 20:58 — McMac

Beautiful juxtaposition of articles.

In the blue corner we have belief in a load of new nonsense.

In the red corner we belief in a load of old nonsense, plus cutting off the ends of babies dicks.

Be interesting what would happen if I someone a new religion that involved cutting babies genitals.

Tue, 2012-07-03 21:29 — jankaas (not verified)

i'd say that Jehovah's Witnesses, at less than 100 years old, comes pretty close to your notion of a new religion that is a genuine threat to the health of its followers. i find their theological attitude to basic medical interventions far more troubling than male circumcision.
but do you think it surprising that humans will believe any old shite as long as it's dressed up in a manner that impresses them?

Thu, 2012-07-05 08:24 — McMac

I know what you mean, but no. We’re designed to be fooled. Our innate recognition of patterns gives us religion and belief in other nonsense like Tarot Cards and Homeopathy, but also the discovery of the Higgs Boson. I don’t think we could have one without the other.

Thu, 2012-07-05 12:53 — jankaas (not verified)

"We’re designed to be fooled."

could not agree more, which is why i don't bother with ontologies, and feel that only methodological naturalism is worth pursuing.
and i though that the search for the Higgs employed this methodology, but you don't see it that way? i am confused why you lump physics in with superstitions and quackery...

Thu, 2012-07-05 08:30 — McMac

Tue, 2012-07-03 20:39 — Laura Sweet (not verified)

Mr Hubbard was onlya cipher. The true father of all this is Aleister Crowley qv , who ,whilst cruising in the Med gave L Ron the ideas here discussed.
Dispozitive Orgonice

Tue, 2012-07-03 20:30 — New statesmaastromancer (not verified)

In practise, we make the same distinction the Romans did. If a religion is very old and it's origins shrouded in myth and mystery, we treat it as ligit. If a faith is brand new, or new to us, we call it supersition or cult.

Tue, 2012-07-03 20:11 — Roy Barnett (not verified)

All religions are cults they were conceive by one person with an ideology and convince enough people to follow. People went to belong and religion is one way to. So with that said I belong to one cult the cult of gaming. I love to fly so I’m inviting everyone to follow me to the sky with this program here http://www.bestonlineflightsim.com . It’s the future; learn how to fly a plane

Tue, 2012-07-03 17:58 — blanctache (not verified)

Mr Hubbard was onlya cipher. The true father of all this is Aleister Crowley qv , who ,whilst cruising in the Med gave L Ron the ideas here discussed.

Tue, 2012-07-03 18:19 — Aint No (not verified)

Really? That's interesting. First time I've heard about a Crowley-Hubbard connection and I'm prepared to believe it as well. But L. Ron was more than a cypher. He was actually onto something, but he in the end, or maybe even in the beginning, he was sucked down into the maelstrom of his nuttiness. And his fascist tinge, which in retrospect, was obvious even in the early days.

As for Scientology, despite the core of real and actionable ideas at it's center(these people don't join it for no reason at all) has become, or perhaps always was, an abomination.

Tue, 2012-07-03 17:57 — blanctache (not verified)

Mr Hubbard was onlya cipher. The true father of all this is Aleister Crowley qv , who ,whilst cruising in the Med gave L Ron the ideas here discussed.

Tue, 2012-07-03 16:44 — Robert Taggart

As you intimate Nelson (with one eye 'covered' ?!) - all faiths are weird cults - when you consider them.

Tue, 2012-07-03 16:29 — Alastair

Is Scientology just a weird cult?
Yes.

Tue, 2012-07-03 17:14 — Des Demona (not verified)

And is Tom Cruise just a weird cu#t
Yes

Tue, 2012-07-03 16:19 — brook (not verified)

This article is bad enough to take cred away from the NS. The difference between religions and other, more disreputable movements, is that of money. Scientology ranks with the Maharishi in that you must give a sizeable sum to the group before belonging. This does not apply to any Christian or other religion.

Tue, 2012-07-03 16:11 — Anne Gill (not verified)

I have cooked and eaten goat in Afganistan tastes like mutton its fine if well cooked.
Re the article I was at a SciFi Con in the 60's and got in discussion with one of the older authors. He said he was at a Con in the USA where a group of authors including Ron Hubbard were discussing the quickest way to make a million, they all agreed that SciFi would not hack it. Ron said that the quickest way to make a million was to invent a religion and charge people to join. A few others made suggestions and they had a bet as to who would make a million first, guess who won!

Mon, 2012-07-09 17:00 — Allen from London (not verified)

Just posted a similar reply above (2 or 3 messages down from the top) - although in my recollection, Hubbard and friends were at a dinner/drinking party, and he (Hubbard) boasted that he could found a religion. He found one.

Tue, 2012-07-03 23:15 — Earthling,unfortunately (not verified)

Yeuhhh, you've eaten the muscle of a mammal. I hope it was dead when you hacked it limb from limb.

Wed, 2012-07-04 11:24 — Andybbn (not verified)

Is there any point to this?

Tue, 2012-07-03 14:42 — jankaas (not verified)

i am astonished that you've not had this article taken down by an army of lawyers. it's been up for several hours now. maybe Xenu isn't quite the force to be reckoned with any more?

Wed, 2012-07-04 11:34 — Andybbn (not verified)

Be careful now. You don't want to upset the ghosts of all those ancient aliens that are looking over your shoulder right now as we type.

Tue, 2012-07-03 14:49 — Des Demona (not verified)

Too busy spinning the Cruise story to bother with the NS I reckon.

Tue, 2012-07-03 14:14 — unex (not verified)

“It obviously works for him. The true test of a religion is not whether its doctrines are plausible but whether it provides a programme for life.”
You forget about common good or sustainability. When Michael Jackon or the King met their demise, nothing of value was lost - their artistic talents were in the archives forever. Tom Cruise's savior church is supported by an army of slaves - sea org members - who signed a billion year contract into slavery, being paid $50 a week, and working very long hours. Also, the church coherced many believers to use their credit limit or remortgage to donte to the church.