Prepare to have your opinion of Jerry Seinfeld diminished. He’s a scientologist, for the dumbest of reasons.
“They have a lot of very good technology. That’s what really appealed to me about it. It’s not faith-based. It’s all technology. And I’m obsessed with technology.”
Scientology and technology? You’ve got to be kidding. The “e-meter” they use is a cheap galvanometer, and their explanation for how it works is biophysical nonsense. If that’s his idea of technology to obsess over, he’s going to really be dazzled when someone shows him a transistor radio.
I actually didn’t like him very much to begin with.
Although, you may be being a little unfair to Seinfeld — he may not be referring to the Hyper Quantum Thetan Interferometric E-Meter at all, but rather to Xenu’s soul collectors and hydrogen bombs, and Xenu’s soul collectors are certainly much more plausible than the E-Meter. Plus, who doesn’t love a hydrogen bomb?
I have been unimpressed with Seinfeld for years. This just gives me more evidence that he’s not just the most overrated comic of all time but a pretty hollow celebrity as well.
Maybe, it was a joke. He is a comedian, after all.
As a joke, I went and talked to one of the Dianetics people who have a booth in a local mall out where I grew up. I figured out their E-meter in about two seconds. Here’s how it went:
The kooky dianetics guy asked me some insanely personal question about my sex life in the middle of the mall, and I tensed up for a second. At the same time, I saw the E-meter jump. In fact, I saw it jump every time I squeezed my hands around the little tube things.
Long story short, I spent the next fifteen minutes tensing my hands at the weirdest things trying to drive the dianetics guy insane.
G:
You have a sex life in the middle of the mall? Shocking! But at least you’re open about it, which is a lot better than being hypocritical.
:-)
Has Jerry seen any of those magic fire machines from Zippo?
When I read this post I just thought, “That figures.”
My opinion of Jerry Seinfeld could be used as the bar in the world limbo championship.
It may be a bit of a stretch to call him a Scientologist. Unless I’m misreading the article you point to, he sounds more like a guy who once dabbled in it out of curiousity…
…and took away from it mostly practical ideas about effective communication, based on what he goes on to say. It’s not surprising that you can learn some useful stuff about rhetoric from a sophisticated scam operation, is it?
I’ve known several very intelligent people who’ve been intrigued by Scientology’s high-tech, quasi-scientific veneer… and typically they drift away (if they don’t run away) once they learn how thin the veneer truly is. Sounds like something similar may have happened with Seinfeld. Nothing in this article, at any rate, seems to suggest Seinfeld is a true believer.
But, pursuant to my comment in another thread, even if he were, it wouldn’t be a reason to suddenly stop liking his work. If you don’t think he’s funny, fine… but don’t start thinking he’s not funny because of this.
(As an aside, from an atheist POV, aren’t all faith-cults pretty much equally nutty? And you wouldn’t suddenly stop laughing at Seinfeld’s jokes if you found out he was a Methodist, would you?)
And speaking of hydrogen bombs, my favorite bit of clam drivel has got to be this (from one of the links):
Dude has just unleashed about 293 megatons worth of mental energy. The Tzar Bomb was a 50 megaton blast. Clams are a force to be reckoned with, indeed.
This makes me feel comfortable saying Seinfeld was just a vehicle for Larry David.
Maybe the technology he likes is the methods they use to manipulate people?
“In my early years of stand-up, it was very helpful. I took a couple of courses. One of them was in communication, and I learned some things about communication that really got my act going.”
At lest that’s what I take from this comment.
Seinfeld’s then-girlfriend Shoshanna Lonstein was one of ~250 UCLA undergrads in my Bio 2 course one semester when I was teaching there…my limited interaction with Ms. Lonstein suggests that Jerry was not thinking with his brain in that case, at least.
I am surprised that the IDers haven’t tried to co-opt Seinfeld, because ID is all about nothing. Of course with Seingfeld being Jewish, and living in Homo-Sin City, I mean New York, (Not that it’s wrong…)might have a little something to do with them not trying to co-opt Seinfeld.
I do think Dembski and Behe would both be able to play the Newman part though.
Looks as though he thought it was interesting until he bumped up against its nothingness, but probably was too bored with it to notice that it was nothing. Got some technique out of it, which seems to be about as good way to use a religion that I can see.
Still, he oughtn’t to be plumping it as being “all technology”. People less narcissistic than he is might believe him.
And yes, I never got how he was supposed to be funny. A bit wry, that’s nearly the extent of it.
Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/2kxyc7
Just a small quibble but after all scientists should aim at accuracy. The E-meter is not a galvanometer which measures electrical current but a Wheatstone bridge which measures electrical resistance. However crap remains crap no matter what you are claiming to measure it with.
So I can whip out my multimeter and start auditing any time I want?
@Blake,
Apparently I do now. It comes without pauses.
Only if you want Koop’s boot up your ass and Tom Cruise suing you in England.
I learned a lot just from watching the movies ‘The Grifters’ and ‘Confidence’.
Seinfeld is a comedian. Sounds like he was making a joke. He’s been fairly open about his Jewishness for quite a long time.
No, if he was making a joke, it would have sounded like, “I just got audited… what DO you call those things on the ends of the E-Meter cables? Tabs?”
Then everyone laughs while I sit stonefaced for a while, look at the people who laughed to give a bewildered expression, and change the channel to find some Greg Proops or Jon Stewart.
That was the first thing I said when I saw the insides of an E-meter, “Um, that’s just a whetstone bridge”. You can easily reproduce the effects of it with a cheap wal-mart multimeter. Just set it to resistance and adjust the scale until you get the reaction you want. Want to know what’s even funnier, the dummies that believe in scientology pay upwards of 3 grand for one of those silly things.
Wouldn’t I have to be laughing at his jokes before I stopped? Because I, frankly, didn’t like his show or find him particularly funny.
I think the clam creation story runs them about $20,000. You get the Xenu story when you reach OT III, and induction to OT III cost $20,000 in the mid-90’s. I have no idea what it runs now.
Then you went over to the food court to make the French fries greasy, and then out to the parking lot to make the asphalt black, right?
C’mon, develop a little ambition!
In Scientologist-talk, Technology (“Tech”) is what they call the methods used in their bizarre brainwashing/personality modification sessions which their members pay through the nose for.
“They have a lot of very good technology. That’s what really appealed to me about it. It’s not faith-based. It’s all technology. And I’m obsessed with technology.”
Umm, don’t people ever read the internet? Jerry my friend, go look it up on google or something. Good lord…
Yes and no. Some have the advantage of having their roots lost in the mists of time.
“aren’t all faith-cults pretty much equally nutty? And you wouldn’t suddenly stop laughing at Seinfeld’s jokes if you found out he was a Methodist, would you?”
Bravo, Bill Dauphin. Why should Scientology be viewed as somehow kookier than any of the various branches and sects of Judaism, Islam, Hinduism, Christianity, et al? Sure, Scientologists make goofy claims, but so do, oh, Baptists. Don’t they believe in a sky daddy and sky dadettes (angels), not to mention a bad daddy and assorted badettes. Toss in strolling across the surface of a lake; shriveling trees with a dirty look; multiplying loaves and fish in the style of Calvin of “Calvin and Hobbes” (remember his Duplicator?); transmogrifying water into wine, also a la Calvin; reanimating corpses–is any of this sounding sane and rational?
Why do we privilege the sects to which we are are accustomed–oh, right, that’s why. Mainstream and all that. Well, it’s all sewage. It’s just that the feeder pipes come in different sizes, is all.
That’s not funny that’s how the good old Ron L. became a mega-zillionaire. That’s really good American business initiative, make something for five cents and sell it for five/fifty/five-hundred/five-thousand… dollar!
Argh! What’s the deal with listening to musicians, reading writers and enjoying performers with whom you agree politically or religiously. I know folk who won’t see a George Clooney movie because of his politics. Much of classical music was religiously inspired, or in the case of Wagner, written by a borderline evil personality. Should I, an atheist not enjoy them. Barbara Streisand probably is my political cousin, but her music makes my ears bleed.
Seinfeld, and a lot of high profile film folk have been seduced to Scientology’s bizarre world view, but is L. Ron’s con-cult any more irrational than say……Catholicism?
Mel Gibson is a fascist dick, but “Road Warrior” is a fun movie. Travolta is a nut job scientologist, but who could be whole without having a DVD of “Pulp Fiction”.
Larry David created one of the best reasons to own a TV. If you are taking a cue for your beliefs from Jerry Seinfeld, then you have serious issues. Not that there’s anything wrong with that.
Because I, frankly, didn’t like his show or find him particularly funny.
Please. If you don’t think the episode about “The Rules” is funny, you’re likely a very uptight prick.
They surely ain’t all gems (and the last few seasons are especially sad) but more than a few are transcendent.
Next you’ll be saying that I LOVE LUCY isn’t funny.
who could be whole without having a DVD of “Pulp Fiction”.
My God, you need to stop licking Quentin’s balls now.
In case anyone is interested in checking out Scientology, here is a link to Clambake.
http://www.xenu.net/
Because we did not come from some damn dirty ape. We come from clams.
Personality test: $0
E-meter: $4650
Full set of E-meter books: $208.75
Total cost of OT8: $380,000
Going completely insane and thinking that you and your cult buddies are the Earth’s only line of defense against the evil galactic overlord Xenu: Priceless
“They have a lot of very good technology. That’s what really appealed to me about it. It’s not faith-based. It’s all technology.” I wonder what brand of technology provided proof of UFO’s bringing space aliens here when dinosaurs walked, then blew them up? Or which technology proves they go to Venus when they die, where evil aliens give them a good talkin’ to before sending them back to infect a new body? Are they smokin’ this “technology?” Oh, right, drug-free. *rolls eyes*
Yes, there’s a difference between a Methodist and a Scientologist. There are more than a few Methodists who are Methodists in name only. They go through the motions, are entirely lukewarm, and keep what they do on Sunday entirely compartmentalized from the rest of their lives. Nor do the Methodists, as a rule, try to cut people off from their families, and they don’t enforce their religion with draconian application of intellectual property rights. The Methodists do not, as a rule, determine advancement through the church based on monetary gifts, and don’t drain the finances and livelihood of their flock.
This has little to do with the doctrines and beliefs, and everything to do with behavior. Scientology runs itself like an extortion racket. Sure, it’s easy to be cynical and say the same thing about the Methodists, but the modern Methodists do not run themselves like an extortion racket, whatever the Christians may have done in the past. For comparison, Methodism isn’t enough to make most of us turn away from a comedian, but if that comedian were to endorse something from Christianity that was every bit as ruthless and insidious and destructive as Scientology, such as the Discovery Institute, then you bet we’d stop showering him with praise. Look, just a few posts back, at what was said about Orson Scott Card.
The cultural acclimation which a few commenters seem to think themselves enormously clever for pointing out is also part of what makes Scientology so much more worthy of loud and immediate rejection. It is that pervasiveness of Christianity that allows people to become Methodists in name only. There are no lukewarm DI adherents. There are no lukewarm OT III’s. That’s the real difference between a cult and a religion — in a cult, there is no lukewarm position. You have to take it hemlock, stock, and castrating barrel.
And suppose I’m wrong. Suppose we should come down on a comedian or scientist or doctor who goes to church on Sunday but forgets about it for the rest of the week as we do the Scientologists with all of their abusive mob tactis. Is that even possible? I’m not one for framing, but there comes a time when blacklisting and ridicule aren’t effective because we no longer have the advantage of numbers. I say we enjoy the clambake while we still can, and even that it may prevent them from gaining the kind of clout the Methodists have.
Maybe he’s converting for the jokes. Like the episode where Watley converts to Judaism for the jokes and it offends Jerry not as a Jew, but as a comedian. Come on, Seinfeld was a great show, very funny. When Michael Richards had his melt down last year it was a little pathetic, but I still laugh at Kramer. Who knows what scary secrets our favorite actors harbor. As long as he doesn’t start jumping on couches and calling Brooke Sheilds ignorant for treating her depression with drugs, then I’ll still watch his reruns.
“And you wouldn’t suddenly stop laughing at Seinfeld’s jokes if you found out he was a Methodist, would you?”
I’d be more shocked at finding out Jackie Mason was a Methodist.
Considering the history of Scientology, and the lengths it will go to prevent criticism of its methods and mythology, I don’t think it’s unreasonable to have an extra-special place in our hearts for it.
Might I suggest that people who didn’t find Seinfeld funny might not have made it a point to see every episode? Or do you have to watch and reject every single episode of a TV show before you’re allowed to decide that it’s a colossal waste of time? Do you watch the Fox News evening lineup every day just in case Hannity or Bill-O says something sane?
Might I also suggest that people who fling about insults like “uptight prick” at the mere thought that someone might not like their pet entertainment should think very carefully about what they’re saying about themselves?
“Might I also suggest that people who fling about insults like “uptight prick” at the mere thought that someone might not like their pet entertainment should think very carefully about what they’re saying about themselves?”
Seinfeld is not “my pet entertainment”, by a long shot.
That’s sort of my point.
I’m still not seeing your point, GWW. Spell it out for us.
Just wait until Jerry “discovers” the stud finder.
That does it, I’m going to start a religion based on a magic box that can find 2 by 4s behind drywall.
Hey, at least my religion will be useful.
I had to do the conversion to convince myself Dustin was right. He is. Fear the clams.
Was he saying he is definately a Scientologist or was he just studying it? You can study Theology without being a theist.
Just in case anyone missed it, this is a prime opportunity to google “Keith Henson”.
I have heard that he’s out of prison now, but can’t seem to confirm it.
A really good question got brought up earlier in this thread.
What is the difference between a cult and a religion?
I think PZ and some of the commentators here are misunderstanding what “technology” means in Scientological contexts, which is of course excusable given the cultic insularness of Scientology.
In Scientology speak, “technology” means any of the teachings of L. Ron Hubbard, not just devices like e-meters. They use terms like “religious technology” to refer to their texts about engrams, thetans, etc. and their methods to be come “clear”. Their use of the word is a bit like a Christian calling prayer, or even the Bible, a technology. So when Seinfeld says “It’s all technology”, that’s what he probably means.
Fair enough, if you don’t know much about religion and you see a church that combines the words ‘science’ and ‘technology’, to think it might be a church for techies. I suppose our Jerry isn’t a Method actor.
An example of Scientologists’ use of “technology”: Here are some reviews of Scientology’s “Study Technology”, which they are using to sneak Scientology into schools. Note that this “technology” consists of teaching methods only (make “clay demos” of things being studied, study incrementally, look words up in a dictionary). Normal people wouldn’t refer to something like this as a “technology”, but Scientologists do. This is part of their cultic shtick to sell their religion as based on science and research.
If you want to stay in Showbiz in Hollywood, you never badmouth Scientology, no matter how imbecilic you think it is, no matter how big a star you think you are. Many celebs who are scientologists have production companies that extend beyond their public image. The only actors who will give someone like Tom Cruise the fisheye are those who’ve already made a fortune and don’t care about working again and those stupid enough to not comprehend how insideous Scientology has become in LA.
In answer to #47, I personally don’t see a difference.
Interesting factoid, scientology is an “official” religion as far as the IRS is concerned and has tax exempt status. They achieved this by filing dozens of lawsuits against various IRS officials until they gave them what they wanted.
I hear tell from the clams that “Scientology” is defined as “knowing how to know”, or some shit. The name conjures up stupidity from fundamentalists too, who have on no less than five different arguments with me blurted out “YOU’RE A SCIENTOLOGIST!” because they think, for some reason, that it’s the religious veneration of science.
Hear, hear! My point exactly… and Clooney represents a good opportunity to put a finer point on the issue: You might well choose not to see Syriana or Good Night and Good Luck if you didn’t agree with Clooney’s politics; those are explicitly political expressions. But if you then also boycott Ocean’s 11 and old ER reruns, that’s just pointless. If you dislike an entertainer because you genuinely aren’t entertained (e.g., Seinfeld just doesn’t make you laugh), good on ya’… but if you choose to avoid entertainers who really do entertain you just because you’ve learned something unpleasant about their personal beliefs, that’s self-defeating.
Look at it from the other side: I’m sure there are plenty of theists who wouldn’t be caught dead attending Julia Sweeney’s Letting Go of God, but does that mean they have to jump up and change the channel every time one of her old SNL sketches comes on? And if they did, wouldn’t we rationalists condemn that as stupid faith-head prejudice?
Oh, I understand that there are practical differences between religions, in terms of their impact on the social environment. Some faiths are more likely to create/encourage dangerous fanatics, either because their doctrine is particularly pernicious or because their organizations are particularly radical. It certainly seems there’s more reason to worry about Scientology than about Methodism. BUT… in a purely philosophical sense, from the atheist POV Scientology’s sci-fi theology is no crazier than Methodist theology, because from the atheist POV they’re both completely crazy.
This whole conversation reminds me of my college calculus class. We used an experimental textbook based on “hyperreal” numbers: Numbers that were infinite (or, at the other end of the numerical spectrum, infinitesimal) and yet could be ordered on a number-line, and on which arithmetic operations could be performed. I had trouble getting my head around the concept: Can one infinite number really be bigger than another, or are they both equally infinite? There’s something of the same ambiguity here: Clearly some religions are more irrational than others, but OTOH, if the very idea of religion is completely irrational, aren’t all religions equally (i.e., completely) irrational?
Not for nothin’, but that calculus text is part of the reason I ended up an English major: It taught me more about poetic ambiguity and irony than it did about derivatives and integrals! ;^)
Religions bombard you with the key elements of their belief system. Cults try to hide the key elements of their belief system from the uninitiated. And in the case of Scientology will try to sue you if you talk about them.
Scientology is not a cult or a sect, it is just a mafia organization. Some will say that you could apply that to religions as well. To some extent that is true, but there is a difference. You don’t join the Cosa Nostra by faith. Scientology is just an organization that will and does use any methods to extract the maximum money from people who fall into its web.
NO. That’s so stupid.
Re: #48: Well, as the bumper sticker says, religions are just cults with more members.
Just wait until Jerry “discovers” the stud finder.
That does it, I’m going to start a religion based on a magic box that can find 2 by 4s behind drywall.
Hey, at least my religion will be useful.
Posted by: MikeM
My old gramps could find drywall studs by knocking on the wall with his knuckle. I demand you all drop down and pray to the miracle worker! His Spirit lives on in all those little machines, and he hadn’t Risen, they wouldn’t work.
There. Prove it’s not true.
Seconding #32, and let me add one more to that list – William S. Burroughs dabbled in Scientology, certainly to a greater degree than Seinfeld lets on here, and never fully repudiated his belief in Scientological techniques, just their cultish behavior as an organization. Yet he’s the guy who wrote one of the most trenchant screeds against organized religion ever penned, among other things.
Also you’re missing out if you’ve never seen Battlefield Earth. Funniest movie ever.
…for the dumbest of reasons.
The smart reasons would be:
-> It proves you are both rich and stupid?
-> You get to name-drop about members of your church?
-> Two, two, two (religion and space aliens) irrational beliefs in one!
Maybe more if you count the foolish use of Ohm-meters.
-> …
Have you ever noticed how some comedians make comments about things they don’t understand and therefore, their comments aren’t funny, they just show ignorance?
“What is the difference between a cult and a religion?”
A hundred years.
In response to comment #32, I don’t think anyone’s denouncing any creative person over their nutty beliefs. Some people do, but I don’t think very many Pharyngulans do. I think what happens in these threads are 1) you get the people who hate those actors/writers/whatevers to begin with taking a chance to slag on their body of work just because they have an in and won’t look too much like a jerk for slagging someone for no reason, and 2) you have the fans who express disappointment because they might not be able to look at the person the same way again, and who may have considered that person a sort of kindred spirit. I was pretty heavily disappointed when I found out that one of my favorite musicians was a Scientologist, and it does sort of force that reaction of re-examining their work and trying to find, I dunno, hidden Scientological slants. But I still listen to his music and have gone to two of his concerts.
#41, couldn’t have said it better.
If it weren’t for Larry David, this guy would still be performing in the Catskills… or something like that.
If it weren’t for Larry David, this guy would still be performing in the Catskills… or something like that.
“Because we did not come from some damn dirty ape. We come from clams.”
Does this mean I had a plate of fried Thetans for lunch yesterday? Oy.
I feel really bad now realizing that all those hours I spent enjoying Seinfeld were wasted.
Much ado about nothing. Seinfeld was referring to checking out Scientology well over 20 years ago, but never joined.
I was looking into Judeism over twenty years ago but I also never joined (converted), nor would I say anything derogatory about it if I was asked now to comment publicly. (not that there is anything wrong with Judeism…)
Yes, I’m afraid that there is. It’s spelled “Judaism”.
Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/2kxyc7
Rey Fox: was it Beck? I had to swear off Beck for six months or so when I learned he was a Scientologist. But dammit, those crazy beats just sucked me back in…
Had a similar experience when I learned the lead singer of 16 Horsepower was a crazy-variety Christian. But shortly after that came out, the band broke up over his politico-religious feelings and it became sort of a moot point anyway.
It was indeed Beck. Like any good Scientologist, he doesn’t talk about Scientology. His lyrics make more sense than Scientology, anyway.
I might be tempted to become a Scientologist if I thought it could make me play the piano like Chick Corea.
This is way off topic, but…
Yes. Consider the set of all even mumbers, E. It’s an infinite set. Consider the set of all integers, I. It is also an infinite set.
E is a subset of I (every element of E is also an element of I), but I also contains all odd numbers, so I is bigger than E.
I’m out of my league, but I don’t think I is bigger than E. Even though E is a subset of I, they’re the same size, because you can assign a unique element of E to every element of I.
But there are larger infinite numbers. You can’t assign a unique rational number to every irrational number, so the set of irrational numbers is larger than the set of rationals.
According to Wikipedia, when it comes to Scientology, Beck appears to be a full-fledged moron:
Then again, he did write the lyric “Get funky with the Cheez Whiz!”
This isn’t really correct, unless infinity is being defined differently. Generally, your basic infinity is defined as a set that is equivalent to the set of natural numbers (1, 2, 3, 4,…). To show equivalence, you must create a bijection from one set onto another. So, if we are talking about natural numbers and even numbers, a bijection can be created: f:N->E is defined by f(x)=2x for all x in N. It is fairly trivial to show that 2x is a bijection, thus, there are just as many positive even numbers as there are positive integers.
There are other infinities — for instance, the cardinality of the set of real numbers.
Now, this does assume the standard mathematical model, as opposed to, say, hyperreals or any other odd thing. Perhaps that is what you were talking about? That is outside my area of knowledge…
xander
It doesn’t sound like he’s a Scientologist now, just that he studied it 30 years ago. Seems like he’s just looking back on it fondly. I don’t think he’s currently a practicing Scientology now.
Re: #38.
you said: “Yes, there’s a difference between a Methodist and a Scientologist. There are more than a few Methodists who are Methodists in name only. They go through the motions, are entirely lukewarm, and keep what they do on Sunday entirely compartmentalized from the rest of their lives. ”
While I do not disagree with your comment, I would like to say that this brand of Sunday Christianity is one of the reasons I left organized religions behind in the 1980s.
People who are wonderful, happy Christians on Sunday,and who revert to their true selves on Monday.
These people forget the teachings of Christ on Monday through Saturday, and become holy and devout on Sunday.
The hypocrisy disgusts me.
Indeed! I didn’t mean to start an impromptu seminar on number theory; it was just an analogy!
This thread is an example of what threatens to drive me off the Nets: unneeded topic about how stupid some (the previous I caught here was the slag Harry Potter thread), followed by 80+ comments exhibiting textbook yahoo behavior.
Why would some offhand idiocy by an entertainer rate this much shit-tossing?
That’s not a rhetorical question.
Chris (#48):
Tax-exempt status. I thought that was already well-known.
And it’ll be a shame if this rumor about Seinfeld turns out to be true; I’ll have to add him to the list of performers I can no longer watch now that I know that they’re demented fuckwits, i.e. Tom Cruise, John Travolta, Mel Gibson…
Dammit, Beck. Why couldn’t you stick to saying things that make sense, like “Heads are hanging from the garbage man trees mouthwash juxebox gasoline”?
Oooh, I can’t believe nobody’s done this yet. “So I’m in the subway station, when this GUY comes up to me with an E-Meter! What is the DEAL with that guy? Who are the AD WIZARDS who came up with that one? Do we really need to METER our E’s? And what happened to the A-Meter?”
Man, that’s just sad. Why’d you have to go and post that, huh? At least, here’s something encouraging from that interview:
As Howard Stern said: “Take Larry David away from Jerry Seinfeld, and you’ve got a less-funny version of Richard Belzer.”
Chris: Some combination of social respectibility (i.e. religions most people “tolerate”) and power.