I can be good without God... not.

The Freedom From Religion Foundation (FFRF) recently posted billboards that look like this,

I know... Dylan is such an ass-wipe.

Or he's religious.

At least, that seems to be the opinion of a nearby church in Columbus Ohio. The billboard is on their property (I suppose under lease), and they asked the advertising company to take the ad down.

But let's think about this. Can Dylan be good without God?

Since the church asked to have the billboard removed, then they must disagree with it. Technically speaking, the logical negative of the statement is

Either Dylans is not good, OR he believes in God.

And that's an inclusive OR, so it includes the case where Dylan is a jerk AND he believes in God. Maybe that's what they had in mind.

Do they know something about Dylan that we don't? Perhaps they have insider information that shows Dylan is actually a real butt-head. Or maybe they found out that he's a closet Christian.

In any case, it goes to show that being an atheist is not seen as an asset in today's society. But that's prejudice.

More likely, the church is hoping to keep its members from being enlightened.

Poor Gideons lose their unfair advantage

According to the KW Record, the Waterloo Region District School Board (WRDSB) voted 8-3 in favour of a motion to discontinue the tradition of allowing the Gideons to distribute the Bible to grade 5 students. It's about friggin' time.

Here's the interesting thing. It seems that it took the threat of a Muslim group distributing the Qu'ran to put the brakes on the entire practice. Because once the school board allows the Muslims, then they'll have to grant the same courtesy to the Anglicans, Jews, Hindus, Bhuddists, Baha'i, and the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster.

So, I'm glad that the school board put an end to all this nonsense. Don't worry about board trustee Cindy Watson's comment that the vote "sends a negative message that we are anti-Christian". Rather, the fact that they've allowed it for so many years suggest the exact opposite; the school board has historically been far too pro-Christian. This vote was a corrective adjustment to make it equal for all religions.

But Watson said something that I liked, "Banning the Bible is not the answer." Apart from the fact that the Bible is not being banned, I quite agree with her. I'd like to see ALL religions taught in grade school. Perhaps the grade 5 kids could spend a week learning about each of the major religions. Once these belief systems are compared head-to-head, it becomes patently clear how ridiculous they all are. Think of it as part of the childhood vaccination schedule.

I sure hope the Muslims are pressuring the government for a publicly-funded separate school board.

(Thanks to Chris Burke for pointing this out to me.)

Popoff makes me sick (that's irony)

Peter Popoff appeared in Toronto a couple weeks back. Some of my skeptical friends attended.



(The exposé letter they showed at the end... that was written by me.)

My first sermon

On Sunday morning, I gave a 20-minute talk during the service of the First Unitarian Congregation of Waterloo. My talk was entitled "Beliefs on Trial". My main point was that we cannot trust our own subjective impressions. There are many cognitive traps that we fall into, and they can lead us to believe in things that just aren't true. I gave a number of examples, including optical illusions, confirmation bias, and change blindness. Here is a video I showed, courtesy of Prof. Richard Wiseman.



The people there were very nice, and I really enjoyed myself. If I were a church person, THIS is the congregation I would belong to.

It's kind of a strange thing... many of the members are atheists and agnostics. And yet the service starts out with "Call to Worship". Begging the question, worship who?!

My sense is that this kind of church is meant for those who have rejected the other supernatural forms of religion (ie. ones that explicitly worship a supernatural God). But not going to church left a hole, so the Unitarian church is a way to have the community of a church, but without the guilt, hell and blind faith of most religions.

I thought my talk went well, and many nice folks approached me afterward saying that they enjoyed it. I appreciate that.

I had some interesting discussions after the service. In particular, I ended up talking to a woman who said she was a physician and a therapist. We talked about beliefs and how science does not know everything. True enough. But when the conversation turned to homeopathy, it came out that she is a believer. I said that there is no known mechanism for water memory. She retorted that "water memory" was just a place-holder description for an as-of-yet undiscovered phenomenon. That may be true. But there's still no evidence that it does anything. She seemed convinced that homeopathy works. But I reminded her of the main point of my talk, that it's easy for us to fall into the psychological traps and believe in the untrue. I was happy that someone else in the conversation saw things from my perspective.

Mohammed vs Jesus

I'm taking part in a little online convo over at Extraordinary Claims. The entry on Allah has quite a few comments. In the latest round, I couldn't help noticing the Quran talking smack about Jesus. In one comment, commenter "atom" includes a litany of quotes from the Quran. Allah drones on about those who reject his revelations, "We will make his punishment long and terrible." [19:79] Blah blah blah.

But this seems a little unfair...

Those who deny Our Revelations are deaf and dumb, living in many layers of darkness. Allah confounds whom He wills, and guides to the Right Way whom He pleases. [6:39] ... Those who deny Our revelations, We draw them step by step closer to destruction in ways that they do not realize,[7:182] and even though I grant them respite; My plan is surely effective.[7:183] ... None can guide those whom Allah confounds and leaves them blundering about in their rebellious transgression.[7:186]

Oh great! So, not only am I going to hell, but no one can stop me, not even myself. That's not fair.

I managed to stay awake long enough to come across the text,

Those who say: “The Compassionate (God) has begotten a son,” certainly preach such a monstrous falsehood,that the very Heavens might crack, the earth might cleave asunder and the mountains might crumble to pieces – at their ascribing a son to the Compassionate (God), It is not befitting to the Compassionate (God) that He should beget a son.[19:88-92]

Soooo... I guess Jesus is out of the question. Couldn't help wondering what the Christians might have to say about that. And it seems that the New Testament is not an "enlightening Book",

Yet there are others among people who wrangle about Allah, though they neither have knowledge nor guidance, nor an enlightening Book, twisting things around in order to lead others astray from the Path of Allah – for such persons there is disgrace in this life, and on the Day of Judgment we shall make them taste the punishment of burning fire,[22:8-9]

Oh good, so it's not just me, but all Christians too.

Hmmm... which religion is right? Which one should I choose?

NEITHER!

How NOT to be gay

I watched this documentary called "Cure for Love" about how an evangelical Christian program tries to convert homosexuals, and help them to follow a righteous lifestyle. I'm relieved to hear that it fails more often than it succeeds. I feel sorry for the married guy and his wife; they both know they're gay, but force themselves to live in a heterosexual relationship so that they can be whole in the eyes of God. Bleh.

8: The Mormon Proposition

My wife and I watched "8: The Mormon Proposition" over the weekend. It's a documentary about the involvement of the Mormon Church with Proposition 8 in California's election in 2008.

The California Supreme Court had determined that denying marriage to gay couples was against the constitution, so ruled to allow same-sex marriages. Proposition 8, also called the California Marriage Protection Act, was a constitutional amendment to reverse the Supreme Court's decision.

The Mormon Church (a.k.a. the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, or simply L.D.S.) is a highly controlling religion, bordering on a cult by many metrics. They believe that homosexuality is an unnatural and pathological condition; so-called gays are simply mistaken, and need therapy. The documentary points out that this approach leads to a lot of teenage suicide.

Their rationale for this wisdom is even worse than citation from the Bible. No, their doctrine also come from the writings of a guy named Joseph Smith in 1820. That's right... some guy wrote down what he thought, said it was the word of God, and now it's a religion. That puts it in the same category of loony as Scientology.

The LDS church prohibits the use of alcohol, tobacco, coffee and tea, does not allow women leaders in the church, and insists that its members donate 10% of their income to the church. That's what paid for this


One thing I'll say for them, they have great commercials.

OK, back to proposition 8. According to the documentary, this is the first time in American history that a constitutional amendment has taken rights away. Nice work.

It's only a matter of time before that silly amendment is removed.

Gad Dang immigrants

In this month's Good News trashazine is an article entitled "Immigration: How a Foreign Invasion is Reshaping the West".

Here's the executive summary: Let's barricade our borders so that Muslim immigrants don't overtake Christianity!

The article obsesses over Islamic terrorists, and how accepting such people as citizens is a big mistake. Of course, God saw this coming a long time ago, and even warned us in Deuteronomy 32:25 of the "terror within".

Here's a quote I actually agree with.

Mixing cultures, and especially religions, can be volatile!

Not so much the cultures part. But religions typically do not play nicely together. Especially if one religion has an opportunity to bully the other out of existence.

Nuthin' like good'ol hate propaganda to keep your religion alive and well.

Motivational posters for atheists

There's a whole gallery of them. These are my favourites

Bulletin board fail

Well, this bulletin board is a little awkward, given the recent scandals alleged against the Catholic Church.

The God Virus: A book review

Just finished reading The God Virus: How Religion Infects Our Lives and Culture by Dr. Darrel W. Ray. In addition to my review, I interviewed Dr. Ray (see below).

In case you didn't receive the memo, I'm atheist. So this book, describing the ways in which religion behaves like a virus of the mind, was "preaching to the choir".

Indeed, I have often thought about how religions have built-in features that promote their own propagation. The metaphor is deep. In fact, it's not just a metaphor at all. If a virus is something that evolves by mutating and multiplying within a population of hosts, then religion IS A VIRUS. And that's Dr. Ray's thesis.

One continuing theme in the book is that religions deactivate the critical-thinking capacities of the infected. Religions frown upon objective questioning of the dogma, and instead insist that faith is a moral virtue.

He also points out the guilt cycle. Religion places unrealistic expectations on us, which makes us feel guilty. Naturally, those same religions also offer a way to relive that guilt. It's one-stop shopping for the gullible.

As I stated in a previous post, Dr. Ray uses the term "genetic suicide" to describe priests that take an oath of celibacy; it's the end of the line for those genes. And why would they do that? The same reason people commit suicide by flying planes into buildings... religion. The point that Dr. Ray makes is that religions hijack the rational brain and cause the infected to behave in a way that is good for the virus, even if it's bad for the host. A great biological example:

The lancet fluke (Dicrocoelium) infects the brain of ants by taking control and driving them to climb to the top of a blade of grass where they can be eaten by a cow. The ingested fluke then lays eggs in the cow gut. Eventually, the eggs exit the cow, and hungry snails eat the dung (and fluke eggs). The fluke enters the snail's digestive gland and gets excreted in stidky slime full of a seething mass of flukes to be drunk by ants as a source of moisture. [p. 22]

Religion does the same thing. It is not designed for the best interests of the organism. It's designed to look after its own interests, to create as many copies as possible (how the hosts fare is of no direct consequence).

One of the most striking examples of religion's selfish promotion:

By actively attacking condom use and birth control [in Africa], the god virus facilitates the HIV virus. The result is a conversion to Catholic sexual practices or death from HIV. [p. 55]

Dr. Ray also discusses crime and religion. As an atheist, I feel good about the fact that atheists comprise about 0.5% of prison inmates, even though we are between 6 and 10% of the population. [p. 121]

There is a chapter on science, and how religions simultaneously use it and contradict it. Dr. Ray points out that many religious proponents "rail against science even as they use the tools that science gave them" [p. 228]. And that "religion uses the fruits of science to make the world far more dangerous". "Those who are waiting for heaven don't focus well on the problems of today." [p. 226, his italics]

My only ciriticism of the book is that I didn't really get a feel for its organization. The chapter headings divvy up the topics, but I didn't get the sense that each section belonged only in its chapter. But this could be more to do with me than the book.

Final analysis, I really liked the book. Every biologist, evolution enthusiast, and theologian should read it. "Religion is a virus" is not just a metaphor, it's reality.

---

Here is my interview of Dr. Darrel Ray.


Download MP3. Music by DASJAMBO.

Link: Recovering Religionists

God's time machine

Woo-hoo!! I just received the next issue of "The Good News" from the United Church of God. Let's see... what should I tear apart this month.

Oh, this looks interesting. An article entitled "God's Time Machine". It describes how the Bible is actually a time machine that can take you back in time -- all the way to the beginning of the universe -- as well as into the future. Here is their proof.

The Bible described the big bang theory before science arrived at the same conclusion. That is, if you interpret the text "In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth" (Genesis 1:1) to mean "The universe started at a single point, out from which all the matter and energy in the universe emanated." Funny how Genesis leaves out that bit about the universe expanding from a focal point. The article quotes from God and the Astronomers (1978, p. 116),

For the scientist who has lived by his faith in the power of reason, the story ends like a bad dream. He has scaled the mountains of ignorance; he is about to conquer the highest peak; as he pulls himself over the final rock, he is greeted by a band of theologians who have been sitting there for centuries.

Let me offer a more realistic, albeit less congratulatory, variation on that metaphor.

For the scientist who has lived by his faith in the power of reason, the story ends like a bad dream. He has scaled the mountains of ignorance; he is about to conquer the highest peak; as he pulls himself over the final rock, he looks down from the peak and sees a group of theologians pointing up the mountain at him, nodding approvingly.

The article then gets off-topic for a bit. It quotes Paul Johnson,

Years later, I began my book Modern Times, a detailed study of the era from World War I to the early 1980s. This is the first epoch in nearly 2,000 years in which most governments have been guided by what might be called post-Christian ethics. And I find it to be unique in its cruelty, destructiveness and depravity."
("Why I Must Believe in God", Reader's Digest, June 1985, pp. 126-127).

Umm... have you ever heard of the witch hunts, or the black plague, or genocide (see Leviticus 34:11-14). This quote from Johnson is only a self-serving opinion. If anything, it seems that getting rid of religion gives people one less thing to fight about. The least religious countries are consistently the most peaceful.

OK, back on track with Biblical prophecies. The article quotes Daniel 12:4.

But you, Daniel, shut up the words, and seal the book until the time of the end; many shall run to and fro, and knowledge shall increase"

The article points out that people travel a lot more these days, by planes, trains, cars, etc. According to the article, the text "many shall run to and fro" predicted all that (of course, the word "run" must be interpreted rather loosely). Also, computers and the Internet were predicted by "knowledge shall increase".

Jesus Christ himself apparently predicted the nuclear arms race, "if that time of troubles were not cut short, no living thing could survive" (Matthew 24:22, Revised English Bible). First of all, the Bible was REVISED?! The article points out that gunpowder and nuclear weapons had not yet been discovered, then asks "But how could the Bible predict such a remarkably accurate scenario 2,000 years in advance?" It didn't. I would NOT call "no living thing will survive" remarkably accurate. Nor do I think that "time of troubles" accurately predicts nuclear arms races.

The article makes no serious effort to predict anything at all. Its only focus is on trying to convince you that the Bible predicted past events. But it's all just classic post hoc rationalization, and data-mining for any shred of Biblical text that could be used to support their current agenda. It's very much like astrology; a horoscope makes vague statements (eg. "jump on the next opportunity that comes your way"), and the reader later on fills in ALL the meaningful interpretation and accompanying details.

The Bible is only good at predicting the future retrospectively. And it leaves out all the details. Utterly useless.

Of course, the article finishes off with a qualifier. Let me paraphrase it for you: "You can only know how to use the Bible as a time machine if you join our church and surrender to God." Convenient.

[From intelligent-falling.blogspot.com]

Priest commits genetic suicide

I'm listening to an episode of the Point of Inquiry podcast in which they interview Dr. Darrel Ray, the author of The God Virus: How religion infects our lives and culture. Yet another book to add to my wish list.

I have not read the book, but from the interview I gather that the book explains the metaphor of religion as a virus. An example is that you tend to get "infected" with the same virus as your parents.

Dr. Ray made a statement that I found particularly interesting. We think of terrorist bombers when we talk about suicide in the context of religion. However, Dr. Ray used the term "genetic suicide" to describe the effect that religion has on Catholic priests and nuns. That is, they voluntarily exclude their genes from the next generation, and every generation thereafter.

[From intelligent-falling.blogspot.com]

Intelligent design's only skill is evasion

Whenever someone criticizes intelligent design, ID proponents whine that the criticism was unfairly based on a false definition of ID. For example, Chris Mooney's book The Republican War on Science was critical of ID, so the Discovery Institute quickly drummed up a response, stating

Mr. Mooney's attack upon the scientific theory of ID has a common theme of mischaracterizing the theory and tearing down only a straw-man version of intelligent design.

This is one of the chief advantages of an ill-conceived pseudo-science... the ability to ooze out of the way of any criticisms. I've seen this same complaint lofted by IDers over an over.

So, just what is the proper definition of intelligent design, anyway? According to the Discovery Institute's web page,

The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection.

OK, so we have a definition. Hmmm... let's try to figure out what it means. First of all, what is meant by "best explained"? According to what objective measure? None... it's purely subjective, making the definition useless.

The definition also implies that intelligence is not directed by natural processes. Guess what. Science only deals with natural causes, defined as the "systematic knowledge of the physical or material world gained through observation and experimentation". That is, claims made about things outside of nature and the physical universe are not science.

And how about this elaboration on the "science" of ID;

ID theorists argue that design can be inferred by studying the informational properties of natural objects to determine if they bear the type of information that in our experience arise from an intelligent cause.

Does that say "in our experience"? Whose experience? Yours? Mine? Theirs? Science is NOT subjective... if it were, it would be called religion. The whole scientific enterprise is an attempt to find out objective truths about our universe.

Contrast that foggy definition to Wikipedia's first two sentences on evolution:

Evolution is change in the genetic material of a population of organisms from one generation to the next. Though changes produced in any one generation are normally small, differences accumulate with each generation and can, over time, cause substantial changes in the population, a process that can result in the emergence of new species.

Notice how it's stated in specific terms. We can measure the frequency of genetic alleles. We can make measurements of an organism's phenotype. How can you refute any of that... it's really more of an observation than a scientific claim. We already know that populations of organisms can change substantially. The step to "speciation" is just semantics.

Take-home message: While intelligent design proponents huff and puff about being treated unfairly by the scientific community, there is a reason for it. Their claims are not scientific. The ID movement is a sociological phenomenon, designed to allow society to hang onto antiquated irrational beliefs for one generation longer.

[From intelligent-falling.blogspot.com]

Flimflam inoculation 3: Argument from ignorance

From the pamphlet entitled "Creation or Evolution" published by the United Church of God,

These discoveries reveal that the simplest living cell is so intricate and complex in its design that even the possibility of this coming into existence accidentally is unthinkable.

Unthinkable? Maybe to you.

What the author is saying is that if they can't figure it out, then no one can. That's a pretty bold statement, don't you think? Are they the world expert on everything? Nope.

The fact that you don't understand something does not give you permission to conclude that it is false. This irrational flatulence is common, and often called "argument from ignorance".

[From intelligent-falling.blogspot.com]

Good News

"Good News" is the title of the free magazine subscription I'm receiving from the United Church of God. The good news is that every couple months I'll receive a magazine with lots of anti-scientific propaganda for me to debunk. For example, the one I got yesterday is subtitled "Creation or Evolution: Which Is More Believable?" That depends, of course, on how you view the world.

Here are some juicy nuggets from the latest installment.

In an article entitled "The Evolution vs. Intelligent Design Debate" (an interview with Dr. Jonathan Wells, one of the senior "scientists" at the creationist propaganda machine The Discovery Institute), Dr. Wells claims that "no one has ever observed the origin of a new species... by variation and selection". That's a bit like saying that no one ever observed continents crashing into each other because of plate tectonics. It tends to happen too slowly for a single person to notice.

Another article, "How Darwin's Theory Changed the World", tries to paint the picture that the theory of evolution has eroded society into anarchy and unbridled self-indulgence. On the topic of sex... "In the minds of many, sex is solely for pleasure, and children are an inconvenience." Actually, the theory of evolution is the first and only natural explanation for sex. Saying that we have sex because God told us to is like saying that we have speed limits because the government imposed them. There is a deeper purpose behind speed limits, and there is a deeper reality behind the phenomenon of sex. But religion won't find it. Science and the theory of evolution are needed to fully understand it.

One more... in the same article they state "Anything and everything can be justified once you take God out of the picture." Sorry, but you've got it backwards. First of all, "anything and everything" HAS been happening since the dawn of time, so clearly God wasn't able to stop it. Furthermore, science is not in the business of offering justification for things. Science is a way to learn about how the world works, and cannot be used to make right-versus-wrong judgements. That's more of religion's territory. For example, the Bible contains a number of references to genocide. And what do we make of religions that contradict each other? They might justify YOUR extermination. Doncha kinda wish we were all on the same page in the book of reality?

[From intelligent-falling.blogspot.com]

One-sided rubbish

That's the subject line I used in the comment e-mail I sent in response to this ridiculous article. It's part of the "Darwin was wrong" propaganda that the United Church is trying to bolster. Here is the rest of the e-mail.

I noticed that Darwin doesn't really say anything in this faux conversation. He simply sits there and takes the beating.

If you want someone to fill in the stuff that Darwin would say in response, I be happy to oblige.

Cheers,
Jeff

I doubt they'll take me up on my offer.

[From intelligent-falling.blogspot.com]

Paid in full. Thanks Jesus!

We went to the Oktoberfest pancake breakfast today, and as we waited in line an older gentleman handed me a piece of paper. Of course, it's a religious pamphlet (maybe some day I'll walk around handing out atheistic pamphlets... that would be different). The front of it says "Paid in full", to look like a banker's stamp. Here is a sampling of the wisdom from within it's folds.

• Did you know that you are in debt because of your sin?
• Do you realize what the cost of your sin debt will bring in eternity?
• Have you heard that your sin debt has been paid in full?
• Will you believe the Bible, the record of what God has done for you?
• Will you trust the eternity of your soul completely to Jesus Christ?
• Remember, you must trust Jesus and NOTHING ELSE? (their emphasis)

Among the myriad of Bible quotes, we are treated to 2-Thessalonians 1:8-9,

In flaming fire taking vengeance on them that know not God, and that obey not the gospel of Lord Jesus Christ: Who shall be punished with everlasting destruction from the presence of the Lord, and from the glory of his power.

Doesn't this sound like extorsion? "Hey bub, we'll take care of your sins, see, but you better keep those prayments comin'. We'd hate to see you end up in hell, get it?"

Finally, on the back it gives two check-boxes. You can check either A or B.

A. I choose to trust Jesus Christ and His finished payment for my sin debt.
B. I choose to reject the payment of Jesus Christ and trust my payment.

I'd like to suggest a 3rd option?

C. I take full responsibility for my actions, sinful or not, and don't believe for a second that anyone should - or could - take the fall for me. Thanks anyway, big J.

Difference between worldviews of scientists and believers

Religious people see the world differently than those of us who prefer a scientific or naturalistic interpretation of the world. I thought this might be an interesting and visual way to encapsulate the differences.

The world


How scientists see the world


How the religious see the world



Creationists tend to jump around from topic to topic, poking their little fingers through holes in our scientific knowledge. A creationist (and by "creationist", of course I mean "intelligent design proponent") might challenge you with "What came before the big bang?", or "Radio-carbon dating is based on false assumptions", or (my favourite) "Show me the transitional fossils between species X and species Y."

If you're willing to give up if you can't answer every one of their questions, then you should choose a religion and just be happy. However, if you can accept that we don't (and probably won't) know everything, then the best we can do is our best. And our best is to try to piece together all the thousands of experiments and bits of knowledge that we've acquired over the ages and try to come up with some coherent theory to explain it all. Hence, the scientist's view of the world, though somewhat cluttered and confused, shows a consilience of information.

consilience (noun)

1. (logic) the concurrence of multiple inductions drawn from different data sets
   
2. Agreement, co-operation or sharing of methods between or convergence or overlap of academic disciplines
   

Every tidbit of data adds something to our understanding of reality. Take the theory of evolution as an example. It's one of the most successful theories ever. Genetics, molecular biology, anthropology, geology, developmental biology, mathematics, and physics (to name a few) all tend to point toward the same general conclusion, that life on earth evolved over a long period of time by natural selection acting on genetic variation. It would be difficult to be so confident of that conclusion if you drew from only one of the academic fields. But the fact that they all converge on the same conclusion... that's consilience!

If instead you pick'n-choose a small number of facts, you can arrive at any of a number of conclusions that are inconsistent with the vast majority of other facts. Religions tend to fit in that category.

Anonymous Scientology Recruiting

We attended a multi-cultural festival at Victoria Park in Kitchener yesterday (June 21, 2009). It was refreshing to see so many people with different ethnic backgrounds together. Festivals like this go a long way to helping groups respect each other.

There was one booth that did not seem to fit... an unlabeled tent that simply advertised "Free Stress Test". Under the canopy were two "stress-test" stations. Each station had one person operating the test, and the other held two shiny hollow cylinders, one in each hand. Each cylinder had a wire that connected to a gadget that looked like this:

It's the infamous e-meter, and the booth was recruiting suckers to join Scientology. I could tell because one of the operators wore a shirt that said "Dianetics" in large letters. Oh, how I wanted to take the test and experience the lunacy first-hand. But I didn't think it would be fair to my wife to leave her with 3 young kids while I indulged my skeptical nerd hobby.

But next year, I'll jump into the line if I see that tent again.

The Scientologists tried to recruit me years ago. In the early 90's, I was walking down a street in Ottawa and someone asked me (and my friend) if I'd like to have a personality test. We both agreed to take the test, and followed into an adjacent building. The test was multiple-choice; unfortunately, I can't remember the substance of the questions. It was graded by a guy with a template (I noted that he was a heavy smoker). After the grading, my friend and I were ushered separately into back rooms to talk to the person who could interpret the results. And -- wouldn't you know it -- we were both low on the happiness scale. The counsellor-person suggested that I would benefit greatly from their program. That was enough for my friend, but I agreed to come back for a trial session.

In the follow-up session, I was in a small room with a person (I don't know what to call them). They asked me to tilt my head back and describe a traumatic event. We went over a few such traumas. The person told me that we all have the potential to remember our own conception. Yes, our OWN CONCEPTION!! I'm happy to say that I rejected that notion immediately. But the person insisted that our life traumas are what stop us from recalling that far back ("That, and the fact that a one-celled organism has no brain", I thought to myself). All I had to do, according to this counselor, is address one trauma at a time, each one allowing me to remember further back than before.

Eventually, the person asked me if I had any questions. I asked them what education they had. I can't remember the answer, probably because it wasn't a clear answer. If they'd said, "I have a Ph.D. in clinical psychology", I would have remembered that. Or at least a bachelor's degree of any kind. I expect they spouted some internal Scientology qualifications... meaningless in my world.

We left the small room and the person emphatically urged me to sign up for their "counselling sessions". They showed me the fee schedule, and I noticed that the fees increased over time. The further advanced you were, the more expensive the sessions. I said "no", and the small group of people in the office draped sad looks on their faces, and said, "Well, at least you can buy this book." They showed me what must have been the book Dianetics; it's basically the bible for Scientologists. I declined, and they issued their good-byes with a somber tone.

I feel good knowing that I was targetted, but not captured by the Scientology movement. As far as I'm concerned, Scientology is a religion that has gone over the line into cult territory. Their policies on collecting money is a big hint. But even bigger is how they treat insiders that dissent and leave the faith. They unabashedly try to intimidate those who criticize them. They denounce scientific evidence in favour of their own ideas of mental health. These are all indications that they are -- ultimately -- selling promises of happiness that they cannot fulfill.

This blog post is from

intelligent-falling.blogspot.com