January 17, 2008

The day of my microeconomics comprehensive exam is tomorrow, and I'm a little nervous. I think I've done the best I can studying... so I'll just write this little entry on something that's gone a little bit on the vogue side of things.

I'm writing about Scientology.

In short, I think I can do justice to Scientology by summarizing their beliefs as such: "What's Truth for you is what you've observed to be true." So in essence, Scientology is an observational faith. I see right now in front of me a computer screen. Therefore, it is true that it should exist. The problem comes when two people view the same thing in two different lights. For example, suppose there is a bok choy lying on the I-88 highway. I might see that as some naughty prank by some student who should be at school (assume this is a Thursday morning). Someone else, though, might see it as representative of innocence in a world of technological importance. A third person might see that as some potential food! What is Truth? Well, Scientology must claim that all 3 are viable.

So I can boil Scientology down to two words: "observational relativism".

Relativism is such a convenient philosophy. The inconvenient truth is that relativism is not a tenable philosophy because, for one, we live in a non-relativist society! Are we to say that terrorism is fine for others, but not fine for the rest? No! Terrorism is wrong! What about killing people? Are we going to say that killing is okay because for some people, it allows them the opportunity to vent their anger? Of course not! As long as there are laws, the society is not relativist-- it is operating based on some idea of right or wrong.

So I think Americans don't like relativism, but they like "convenient relativism". It's a relativism where you pick what you like and leave the unpleasant parts out. I don't like the killing part because others can get me back; but the unbridled incestuity? Why not? This relativism spills into the Church quite easily. How many of us memorize only John 3:16 and think it's all nice and cozy? John 3:16 is smack-dab in the middle of a wrathful passage! We pick and choose what we like, ignoring the difficult parts. Abortion is a good issue to defend. Why? Takes little effort on our part. Maybe voting and picketing, but aside from that, nothing else. Better than poverty at least. Giving away our money to the poor? Heck no! See what I mean?