Comments on: Why Dianetics is better than the Bible

By: Kelly Martin

Kelly Martin — Tue, 17 Jun 2008 18:26:32 +0000

Jeff V: any book is dangerous in the hands of the wrong person. Especially if it’s big and thick, like an unabridged dictionary…

By: Kelly Martin

Kelly Martin — Tue, 17 Jun 2008 18:24:24 +0000

Really? Aside from the boring genealogies I think the Bible makes for a pretty good read.

I’m starting to think that your religious beliefs are coloring your perceptions.

By: Cyde Weys

Cyde Weys — Tue, 17 Jun 2008 14:56:44 +0000

Kelly: I wasn’t saying which was better as a religious text, just which was better overall as a cohesive book. I have rather little interest in what makes something a good religious book, because those same values tend to make it a rather bad book in general.

By: Kelly Martin

Kelly Martin — Tue, 17 Jun 2008 04:38:30 +0000

The mistake you are making here, Cyde, is in assuming that a religious text should be concise, clear, and unambiguous. That might be a positive characteristic of a scientific treatise, but it is a highly undesirable quality for a religious text.

No, religious texts are ideally vague, general, and ambiguous, while at the same time uplifting to the spirit. Dianetics fundamentally fails in this regard; it’s not very uplifting and it’s actually quite tedious to read, unlike the Bible, which is a pretty easy read except for the boring genealogical recitations. Having lots of ambiguity and vagueness leaves lots of room for interpretation by the privileged priesthood, which means that the doctrine can easily be crafted to serve the situation without much risk of contradiction or conflict. Dianetics fails in this regard because it’s too rigid.

I must also point out that Dianetics is not free of schism; there are a number of schismatic Scientologist groups (collectively, the Freezone) who allege that the Church has misinterpreted Hubbard’s wisdom in some way or another.

By: drinian

drinian — Mon, 16 Jun 2008 18:44:11 +0000

Not having read Dianetics, does it use didactic storytelling at all, or is it just a pseudo-psych textbook?

As Jeff V says, the Bible, at least, is a remarkable collection of stories that make up a significant chunk of the common Western heritage. I know that my life is better off for knowing of the Good Samaritan, the Prodigal Son, a doubting Thomas…

By: Jeff V

Jeff V — Mon, 16 Jun 2008 13:25:40 +0000

Both books are dangerous when they are used as a tool by the wrong people (see also: Hitler).

However, the Bible includes very entertaining stories; at least in the Old Testament.

Also, the Bible is alluded to in an astounding number of paintings, pieces of literature, sculpture, etc. Therefore a thorough understanding of the Bible would lead to much more interesting thoughts than a thorough understanding of Dianetics…

I vote Bible.

By: William

William — Mon, 16 Jun 2008 12:51:31 +0000

I think they could only be “behind” us in gender equality (and such) if they felt it was a good thing. What makes our views more right than theirs?
The first response I can think of is that ours isn’t based on the half-witted, poorly transcribed rantings of people from a thousand years ago. But what is our viewpoint (presumably, that men and women should have equal rights) based on? Lack of relevant anatomical differences?
Not a convincing argument, for sure, but I think it makes my point clear; we can’t reasonably apply our value system on someone else and expect them to change because they don’t match ours. That doesn’t stop us from trying, but still.

By: Cyde Weys

Cyde Weys — Mon, 16 Jun 2008 00:50:49 +0000

Greg: You’re right, Dianetics doesn’t instruct its readers to kill anyone. That’s one of the nice benefits of modern society: the modern discourse has evolved to the point where that is not at all acceptable. The Bible and other various holy books, on the other hand, were written before this cultural elevation, and as such contain very barbaric ideas and commandments that they get away with because they are “sacred” and thus unalterable.

All of this religion stuff is continually threatening to drag us back into bygone eras. It’s pretty scary. Some of the Islamist countries especially — they’re centuries behind the rest of the world in terms of gender equality, for instance.

By: Gregory Maxwell

Gregory Maxwell — Sun, 15 Jun 2008 22:52:20 +0000

I don’t think Dianetics instructs its readers to kill anyone. … Actually, I dunno that you can call Dianetics any more harmful than most other pop-psychology books. Scientology (like other religious) can be dangerous, but dianetics is merely dangerous in so far as that it is a gateway to Scientology.

(I read part of Dianetics eons ago long before everyone knew about scientology as a cult. It’s was pop-psychology drivel, but I recall it being less awful than most of its contemporaries.. Plus it has a spiffy cover!)

By: tony ramster

tony ramster — Sun, 15 Jun 2008 16:56:17 +0000

i am atheist. and i do agree that Dianetics is easier to believe. because it more trust worthy. here are something, the people that was translating could have been bribed to write something else down. and if i am not mistaken i don’t think any one have the original text of the bible. so how can they make sure taht the translation was right?