Highly recommended: ‘Going Clear: Scientology and the Prison of Belief’

If you’re fascinated by irrational beliefs and the people who hold them, HBO’s new Scientology documentary is a must-see:

It premieres on HBO Sunday, March 29th, at 8 pm. For more airtimes, go here and mouse over “Schedule” in the lower right corner.

(I saw it yesterday in a San Francisco theater. They’re doing a very limited theatrical release so that the film will be eligible for Oscar nominations.)

228 thoughts on “Highly recommended: ‘Going Clear: Scientology and the Prison of Belief’

  1. phoodoo,

    Knock off the ‘morals must be grounded in your chosen, so-called God’ crap. Morals don’t come from an imaginary sky daddy. If you need an imaginary sky daddy to ‘ground’ your morals, you and your morals are just plain fupped duck.

    And yeah, I condemn disconnecting people from their family and friends so as to indoctrinate them into religious cults, including the cult of christianity. The only “basis” I need is that it’s WRONG.

  2. It seems phoodoo thinks being gay is something to be ashamed of. I guess I have my answer.

  3. OMagain: I’ll ask your dad next time I see him.

    It seems phoodoo thinks being gay is something to be ashamed of. I guess I have my answer

    Me too.

  4. How old is the Universe | world | life and how do you know this? Just to see how weird *your* ideas are…

  5. phoodoo,

    Ah, so you do care whether he’s gay or not, because if he’s gay he’s a filthy sinner and deserves to burn in your imagined hell for eternity, eh?

  6. phoodoo: I don’t care what color Omagain is. You guys have some weird ideas.

    Yes, ideas might seem weird to you as you don’t need to have new ones. Everything you know was known before you were born and will never change.

  7. phoodoo:
    Creodont2,

    Try to keep up, would ya. I already told him I don’t care that he is gay.What business is it of mine.

    It’s not about caring. I bet you have black friends too!
    It’s about how society should be and change in the future.
    Presumably you want society to reflect your objective morality, so therefore would you:
    A) Vote for changing the law to allow gay people to marry
    B) Vote against changing the law to allow gay people to marry

    Which option better represents what your objective morality wants you to do?

  8. OMagain,

    Your sexuality is no concern at all to me.

    I was simply curious, do you consider it a choice, or was it simply a result of evolution?

  9. phoodoo: I was simply curious, do you consider it a choice, or was it simply a result of evolution?

    At what age did you choose your sexuality?

    Same answer for me, same answer for everybody.

    I know why you won’t answer the question as asked. You don’t want to lie! Yet you also know by answering truthfully how that’ll make you look.

    This “objective morality” sure is a funny thing, it’s almost as if people are ashamed to talk about it. You sure are!

  10. phoodoo: Your sexuality is no concern at all to me.

    Your reading comprehension is likewise of no concern to me. Yet here you are, thinking you are achieving something while every time you dodge the question you simply solidify your reputation.

  11. phoodoo: Hey, I am perfectly happy to entertain all sorts of theories for how life got to be the way it is. And if you are willing to drop the old Darwin nonsense of mutation and selection all the better. I just hope you won’t be backpedaling on that soon.

    The extended synthesis does not deny that mutations occur or that selection plays a directional role; it adds additional concepts (with varying degrees of empirical support).

    I guess the only problem for those who are willing to finally give up the false hope on Darwinism, is that ALL other possibilities entail some form of direction. Of intent. Of , uh oh, here it comes, a plan!

    I disagree on this point, because I think that Weber and Varela (“Life After Kant”, 2009) are correct to stress that there are two different concepts of teleology.

    The term teleology has remained quite ambiguous in biological science since Kant’s time, and has become even more so after Darwin. Many current problems stem from a mixing up of two main understandings of the term. Broadly, we can discern an external seemingly purposeful design, which was Darwin’s main concern (Lennox 1993), and which he conceptualized as the result of contingency and natural selection (Löw 1980; Zumbach 1984). Intrinsic teleology on the contrary is concerned with the (Aristotelian) internal purposes immanent to the living which was Kant’s main concern (Ayala 1970). It is also that kind of purposefulness and goal-directness that can account for everybody’s naive intuition: we strive to go on, to develop, to keep ourselves in a dynamical balance (Spaemann and Löw 1981).

    [References available upon request.]

    On my view, if autopoeisis theory fleshes out the teleological structure of organismal development and functioning that the extended synthesis presupposes, this revives intrinsic teleology (the Aristotelian-Kantian notion) but not external teleology (the concept that Darwin argued against, and which has deep roots in the tradition of ancient Greek scientific creationism that runs from Anaxagoras through Socrates and Plato to the Stoics, and thence to 18th-century natural theologians like Paley).

    So while I do urge, contrary to certain strains of contemporary neo-Darwinism, that teleology is real and not an illusion or projection, that does not align me with contemporary design theorists, either. There is a vibrant, rich, middle tradition between Plato and Democritus that runs from Aristotle through to Kant, to Schelling and Coleridge, and to the 20th-century philosophers of nature such as Hans Jonas, Merleau-Ponty, Francisco Varela. Two crucially important theoretical and empirical refinements have been made recently by Evan Thompson (Mind in Life: Biology, Phenomenology, and the Sciences of Mind) and Mark Okrent (Rational Animals: The Teleological Roots of Intentionality).

    Neither Thompson nor Okrent are taking aim against neo-Darwinism; they are, however, showing that the Epicureanism interpretation of neo-Darwinism is woefully inadequate. Thompson does lean very much on Oyama’s dynamical systems theory, which Pigliucci briefly mentions in his article. Unfortunately Okrent does not discuss autopoiesis theory or any of the concepts developed in the extended synthesis. I consider that omission to be a minor weakness of his book.

  12. Kantian Naturalist,

    You can use all the jargon you want, as if that is going to disguise the meaning of teleology.

    If a process is teleological, that means it not only is headed intentionally toward a goal, it also means that “something” knows what that path and goal is-a kind of vision towards the future.

    As such, how does one believe in that, and simultaneously deny the existence of an intelligence in the universe.

    If such an intelligence exists, isn’t it sort of juvenile to dismiss the origin of that intelligence, and to dismiss a higher power within. What kind of philosophy can say, well, even if there is intelligence woven into the fabric of the universe, that doesn’t mean there is an immaterial force, A god if you will.

    I think that is just burying the lead.

  13. phoodoo: If a process is teleological, that means it not only is headed intentionally toward a goal, it also means that “something” knows what that path and goal is-a kind of vision towards the future.

    Name such a process in evolution. Then explain why such a process was not observed in Lenski’s work.

  14. OMagain,

    First, KN already acknowledged that he sees a teleology in life-so you point is kind of mute.

    Secondly, Lenskis experiments showed that nothing can evolve, so why are you so proud to reference it. In fact all of the changes in Lenskis bacteria involved losses of existing functional systems.

    I guess that is why they never go anywhere even after trillions of copies.

  15. Nothing can be more easily dismissed than a mute point.

    If an idea can’t speak for itself, what good is it?

  16. phoodoo:
    petrushka,

    “In Britain, “Moot” Can Still Mean “Debatable”

    In the 16th century, “moot” also took on a meaning as an adjective that meant an arguable or debatable point, and it still holds on to that meaning in Britain.”
    http://www.quickanddirtytips.com/education/grammar/moot-versus-mute?page=all

    There is nothing debatable about his point at all, he is utterly deaf.

    In the American legal arena , moot also can still mean “open to debate.”

    Glen Davidson

  17. GlenDavidson,

    Yes, so I didn’t write that his point is debatable, because it certainly is not. KN ALREADY admitted that he believes in a kind of teleology. But that small little fact, doesn’t stop the trap like mind of Omagain.

  18. phoodoo,

    He was mocking your use of ‘mute’ when you clearly meant ‘moot’.

  19. phoodoo: KN ALREADY admitted that he believes in a kind of teleology.

    As do I. But it is not the kind of expansive teleology that you argue. It is part of nature. I see it as an aspect of homeostasis, which we see in biology and also in weather systems.

  20. phoodoo: You can use all the jargon you want, as if that is going to disguise the meaning of teleology.

    If a process is teleological, that means it not only is headed intentionally toward a goal, it also means that “something” knows what that path and goal is-a kind of vision towards the future.

    The whole point of my “jargon,” as you called it, is precisely to show that that is not what teleology just “means”. If meaning is use (which is perhaps debatable, true), then the word “teleology” has as many meanings as it has uses.

    I’ve pointed out that Plato and Aristotle use the word “teleology” in quite different ways. It should be fairly clear that Aristotle’s Unmoved Mover does not intentionally plan anything, in the way that Plato’s Demiurge does. And of course neither do the individual organisms that have teleologically structured development.

  21. Neil Rickert: As do I. But it is not the kind of expansive teleology that you argue. It is part of nature. I see it as an aspect of homeostasis, which we see in biology and also in weather systems.

    Sure — except part of my point is that if you have a self-perpetuating far-from-equilibrium thermodynamic system implemented though an autocatalytic set of molecules contained within a semi-permeable membrane, you’re going to have a very different kind of homeostatis than what we see in weather systems. The idea here is that teleological systems emerge from non-teleological systems under precisely those conditions.

  22. phoodoo: Secondly, Lenskis experiments showed that nothing can evolve, so why are you so proud to reference it. In fact all of the changes in Lenskis bacteria involved losses of existing functional systems.

    yet

    phoodoo: If a process is teleological, that means it not only is headed intentionally toward a goal, it also means that “something” knows what that path and goal is-a kind of vision towards the future.

    So what happens to bacteria is not teleological? Then what specific biological processes *are* teleological?

  23. I’d happily say that bacteria are teleological, and that the goal of being a bacterium is to make more bacteria. Then again, I don’t require that the very fact of teleology — if it is a fact! — requires consciousness or intentionality in order to explain it.

    Last night I was discussing these issues with a friend of mine (also a professional philosopher). She allowed that flies or spiders might have goals (without being aware of themselves as having goals), but she couldn’t see how an oak tree or a mushroom could have goals. That could be right. I do share something of her intuition here, so there could be possibilities:

    (1) she and I are both guilty of implicitly holding a zoocentric picture of life and we need to adopt a more liberal or pluralistic conception of what counts as having a goal;
    (2) there are different degrees or kinds of teleological systems — perhaps there’s a distinction here between goal-having and goal-seeking?;
    (3) animals (or perhaps only metazoans?) are teleological (“goal-having”) and other living things aren’t — perhaps on account of actively exploring their environments in response to sensory impingements, instead of (more-or-less) merely passively responding to their environments (as plants or fungi do).

    And no doubt there are other options as well, even within the general orbit of teleological realism.

  24. Kantian Naturalist: She allowed that flies or spiders might have goals (without being aware of themselves as having goals), but she couldn’t see how an oak tree or a mushroom could have goals.

    The way I’m inclined to put it, is:

    The purpose of life is life.

    We could perhaps say “the purpose of life is more life”, but I don’t think we need to add that “more”. I don’t see that “goals” are needed. Putting it in terms of “goals” seems too anthropocentric.

  25. Neil Rickert,

    Neil,

    You have already admitted that the question of ‘why there exists organized rules in the universe” is one not worth exploring”, so really, how seriously should one take your curiosity to know where the teleology in life comes from.

    To you, saying it just is seems to be perfectly acceptable. So of course one can’t expect any profound insight from you on this topic.

  26. phoodoo, you said:

    “I don’t care what color OMagain is.”

    “I already told him I don’t care that he is gay.”

    Then you won’t hesitate any longer in answering his and my questions, will you?

    And why did you jump to the conclusion “that” OMagain “is gay”?

  27. The logical problem for all those who know that the Darwinian idea of a directionless badly copying replicator is not going to cut it, is that there really can’t be any other explanation, which remains under the tent of no God.

    It was precisely the notion that an accidental replicator could build intelligent designs, that they had to cling to as their savior. If its not an accidental, error ridden process, then the house of cards falls apart.

    So what you see here now is people trying to say, well, its not so accidental maybe, But, but…It’s just nature, and hope no one notices the implication. If nature isn’t accidental, they need to fold their hand. If you want to say, well, that is just nature, its not a God, fine. But that is simply making the denial of Neil.

    All that is saying, is you don’t want to know why nature would have a direction. Why nature could have a plan, a direction. Your God is just nature, but that is still an intelligent God. Neil and KN are not atheists, they are just children of a God that they don’t want to ask questions about.

  28. Creodont2,

    I said I don’t care that he is gay, its enough of an answer. The forum isn’t about my policy making decisions for gay people. That’s probably another website.

    Are you also gay, or is there another reason why this matters to you? Do you feel it is a choice or evolution (that is a question relevant to this forum)?

  29. phoodoo: You have already admitted that the question of ‘why there exists organized rules in the universe” is one not worth exploring”

    I don’t think that’s quite what I said.

    And no, I am not saying that “teleology just is”. If “teleology” refers to the kind of thing that cannot be investigated, then we don’t have any of that.

  30. phoodoo, you said:

    “Secondly, Lenskis experiments showed that nothing can evolve, so why are you so proud to reference it. In fact all of the changes in Lenskis bacteria involved losses of existing functional systems.

    I guess that is why they never go anywhere even after trillions of copies.”

    —————————————-

    “nothing can evolve”

    So, you are obviously ‘anti-evolution’ (including designed-created-guided evolution) even though ID is allegedly not ‘anti-evolution’. And how do you figure that Lenski’s experiments show that nothing can (or did) evolve?

    “In fact all of the changes in Lenskis bacteria involved losses of existing functional systems.”

    Really? And when different or ‘new’ functions come about, that isn’t evolution?

    “I guess that is why they never go anywhere even after trillions of copies.”

    Where do you expect bacteria to “go”? Do you expect them to evolve into wombats in Lenski’s lab? And are you absolutely sure that all bacteria that have ever existed always remained bacteria and always will?

    And speaking of going somewhere or not due to “losses of existing functional systems”, you obviously think that cetaceans gained nothing and didn’t evolve by ‘losing’ the “functional systems” of the walking legs of their land dwelling ancestors. Flippers are no gain of function in an aquatic environment, eh?

  31. Neil Rickert: If “teleology” refers to the kind of thing that cannot be investigated, then we don’t have any of that.

    What does that mean Neil? Do you even know what this sentence means?

    How do you make an a priori decision that teleology exist only if we can investigate it? It either exists or it doesn’t Neil, it has nothing to do with our ability to know where it came from. Your curiosity or lack thereof has nothing to do with the reality outside you.

  32. Neil Rickert: I see no evidence that nature has a direction.

    Well sure, you also don’t think its important to ask where the constants in the universe came from-so no surprise there Neil. How did you put it, “Its not a question worth asking” ?

  33. Questions are asked all the time, but not always answered. What makes you think scientists don’t ask questions?

  34. phoodoo: How do you make an a priori decision that teleology exist only if we can investigate it?

    It is not an a priori decision.

    We use the word “teleology” to describe behaviors that we see in nature. I can not find any evidence that magic is involved. And if there is no magic, then we can investigate it.

    Sure, we can make up stories that seem to entail magical teleology. But they are only made up stories.

Leave a Reply