Comments on: Starting Religions is Where the Money Is

By: Stuart Koehl

Stuart Koehl — Sun, 13 Feb 2011 14:48:09 +0000

“Mr. Koehl: do you mean that Muhammad and Joseph Smith falsely claimed to have received revelations which they knew that they had not received, and that they did so in order to increase their personal wealth?”

Yup.

“Even if we alter that to read “wealth [and power],” is there really no other explanation?”

Wealth is power, power is wealth, and no, there is no other explanation. If nothing else, the oh-so-convenient timing of revelations that always happen to coincide with the personal interests of these founding fathers (to the point of reversing earlier, no longer convenient revelations) ought to make one extremely skeptical.

By: Art Deco

Art Deco — Wed, 09 Feb 2011 23:11:17 +0000

I think Worlds in Collision was published in 1949.

Dr. Velikovsky had some genuine scholarly interests. The problem was that the knowledge gleaned from his study was an unreliable guide to astronomy and astrophysics. He was pig-headed, not a fraud.

By: Paul

Paul — Wed, 09 Feb 2011 22:20:54 +0000

Mr. Koehl: do you mean that Muhammad and Joseph Smith falsely claimed to have received revelations which they knew that they had not received, and that they did so in order to increase their personal wealth? This is what is alleged of Mr. Hubbard in regard to his Dianetics and Scientology, as explained in “Bare-Faced Messiah,” among other works. Is there no other potential explanation? Even if we alter that to read “wealth [and power],” is there really no other explanation?

By: Stuart Koehl

Stuart Koehl — Wed, 09 Feb 2011 19:53:47 +0000

A very old story, well known within the ranks of SF fandom. After all, the formula is well-tried, and it works–look at Mohammed and Joseph Smith, for instance. Of course, when it doesn’t work, it usually results in mass suicide.

By: JB in CA

JB in CA — Wed, 09 Feb 2011 17:19:32 +0000

I don’t think Americans do pay all that much attention to the NYT best sellers list.

By: Huston

Huston — Wed, 09 Feb 2011 16:10:06 +0000

Quick thought as devil’s advocate: I’m not a Scientologist, nor do I have any allegiance to their “doctrines,” but the pedant in me demands that I point out a logical fallacy here–even if Hubbard made the statement about inventing religions to make money, that doesn’t necessarily prove that Scientology is untrue. Certainly there are plenty of other reasons to doubt and even reject Scientology’s veracity; I’m only saying that this quote is not a definitive slam dunk against it–hypothetically, Hubbard could have said it and the beliefs could still be true. Extremely unlikely, sure, but still…