Neil deGrasse Tyson Is Kinda-Sorta Defending Scientology

News & Culture Writer
04.01.15 82 Comments
2015 Winter TCA Tour - Day 1

Getty Image

Between Pi obsessed science aficionados and easily amused stoners, Neil deGrasse Tyson is one of the best people ever. So of course he’s going to turn a few heads when the title of a recent interview suggests he tried to defend Scientology. You know, the same Scientology that the documentary Going Clear set in its crosshairs.

Within the first few questions, The Daily Beast asked Tyson about the film and its subject:

DB: Speaking of aliens, did you see HBO’s Scientology documentary Going Clear?

Tyson: No. I heard about it, though. I’m familiar with it.

Although Tyson hadn’t watched it, the question gave way to a discussion of Scientology’s qualifications (or lack thereof) as a religion — as well as religion in general:

So, you have people who are certain that a man in a robe transforms a cracker into the literal body of Jesus saying that what goes on in Scientology is crazy? Let’s realize this: What matters is not who says who’s crazy, what matters is we live in a free country. You can believe whatever you want, otherwise it’s not a free country—it’s something else. If we start controlling what people think and why they think it, we have case studies where that became the norm. I don’t care what the tenets are of Scientology. They don’t distract me. I don’t judge them, and I don’t criticize them.

Now, where the rubber hits the road is, since we are a free country where belief systems are constitutionally protected—provided they don’t infringe on the rights of others—then how do you have governance over “all” when you have belief systems for the “some”? It seems to me that the way you govern people is you base governance on things that are objectively true; that are true regardless of your belief system, or no matter what the tenets are of your holy documents. And then they should base it on objective truths that apply to everyone. So the issue comes about not that there are religious people in the world that have one view over another, it’s if you have one view or another based on faith and you want to legislate that in a way that affects everyone. That’s no longer a free democracy. That’s a country where the few who have a belief system that’s not based in objective reality want to control the behavior of everyone else.

Oh my flying spaghetti monster, Tyson just defended Scientology against many of the general claims levied against it. And in true Neil deGrasse Tyson fashion, it makes complete sense. Not so much that we should drop everything and take a personality test, mind you. Just in terms of the logic behind his arguments and the comparisons he’s making.

When the subject of Scientology’s tax-exempt status came up — one of Going Clear‘s chief calls to action — Tyson persisted:

But why aren’t they a religion? What is it that makes them a religion and others are religions? If you attend a Seder, there’s an empty chair sitting right there and the door is unlocked because Elijah might walk in. OK. These are educated people who do this. Now, some will say it’s ritual, some will say it could literally happen. But religions, if you analyze them, who is to say that one religion is rational and another isn’t? It looks like the older those thoughts have been around, the likelier it is to be declared a religion. If you’ve been around 1,000 years you’re a religion, and if you’ve been around 100 years, you’re a cult. That’s how people want to divide the kingdom. Religions have edited themselves over the years to fit the times, so I’m not going to sit here and say Scientology is an illegitimate religion and other religions are legitimate religions. They’re all based on belief systems. Look at Mormonism! There are ideas that are as space-exotic within Mormonism as there are within Scientology, and it’s more accepted because it’s a little older than Scientology is, so are we just more accepting of something that’s older?

The line I’m drawing is that there are religions and belief systems, and objective truths. And if we’re going to govern a country, we need to base that governance on objective truths—not your personal belief system.

That sound you hear is me, clapping very, very slowly.

(Via The Daily Beast)

Around The Web