Source
r/scientology•
JimW

Serious question: Did LRH ever mention Big Bang?

From wikipedia "Big Bang":

A wide range of empirical evidence strongly favors the Big Bang event, which is now essentially universally accepted. Detailed measurements of the expansion rate of the universe place the Big Bang singularity at an estimated 13.787 ± 0.020 billion years ago, which is considered the age of the universe.

Big Bang is about science and I am a strong believer in accepted science.

LRH mentions a number of whole track events and dates that is far older than Big Bang a number of times in several of the Basic Books.

I asked my father about it as he is a dedicated scientologist (but has not done any of the OT levels) and he does not remember LRH mentioning it anywhere. My father explanation of why is that the big bang event is probably too insignificant to be worth mentioning and he told me that a thetan has the power to create and destroy his own universes at will.

I am not satisfied with the answer as I do think it is really worth mentioning as a big event and so my question now follow:

Did you ever read or hear LRH mention the Big Bang event? If yes, please provide details so that I can study it. If no, please state a bit about your experience in your answer. I am especially interested in an answer from those that have done the OT levels.

Thanks!

Posted Dec 12, 2023, 7:24 PM UTC

718
Villies•

I don't recall the name of the tape, but it was in one of the Classics they were handing out as single CDs.

LRH subscribed to the idea that the universe and its state are static. Suns are eternal, the universe will continue as-is in a balance of forces until postulated otherwise. He claims the universe's timeline is accounted in trillions, not billions years.

In the same breath he dunked on carbon dating as being a wildly inaccurate tool and that the scientific community has the dating of the universe and this planet quite wrong.

From doing my Basics, you could see the man didn't know much about Astrophysics. He commented offhandedly that Einstein was a bunk because light aberrates through a prism. (Hint, it doesn't)

He validated fiction authors and modern scientists as being "thetans that remembered". Coupled with "passed lives" indoctrination, it pushes the scientologist to be neglectful of fact-based processes and trust their fabulations and feelings.

Then again, he also claimed there was a civilization on Mars and also Venus in the PDCs (I think) and that there were rotund, baby-shaped, round glasses implanters using religious vibration implanting guns in milestone-one. So, grain of salt, heh?

It's actually what got me out of the Scientology fog. Astrophysics. Science communication. I realized people in the world was so damn smart and we strutted about pretending we was the smartest, ethicalest, bestest cookies on the block.

10
JimWOP•

Thank you so much for this additional information.

3
Ok_Blackberry3637Independent•

Young earth creationists also believe carbon dating is wrong. Each belief requires that be wrong in order for it to work. Interesting

1
Villies•

As with many Scn lore elements, Hubbo was cryptic or off-handed at best.

He depended much on his audience being naive and STEM illiterate.

1
That70sClearEx-Staff•

Not that I recall. I wondered about that myself, along with wondering about the things he said were on Mars and Venus, which aren't.

5
freezoneandproudMod, Freezone•

I don't recall it either.

I sometimes wonder whether his storyteller nature got in the way of his reporting (pseudo)scientific observations. Not as a good thing or a bad one, inherently, but rather in an "I can't help embellishing a good story" way.

2
JimWOP•

Yes, interesting. I have also heard in a video that his publisher in the early 50's expected him to write 1 book per month, that sounds crazy for me. I would expect that books about a new science of the mind and spirit would take many years to prepare, test, observe and write. Also I heard that giving lectures in the early 50's was a very important way to get income and that he was poor and in need of money.

2
freezoneandproudMod, Freezone•

I recall hearing somewhere that DMSMH was written in something like 6 weeks. I've always felt that it seemed like it; that book could use an editor. As could so many of his other writings. (Which doesn't speak to the usefulness of the tech, one way or another, simply a question of imparting what you have to say.)

(Aside: Tight deadlines are nothing new. I know people who have written in the Star Trek and Star Wars universes, as other as other media tie-ins. They're given something like 6-8 weeks.)

(If you write romance novels today you are expected to write four per year. While SF book publishers don't really want more than one book per year from any given author. That's why so many authors use pen names.)

(In non-fiction circles, most authors learn that it takes four months to write a book. Oddly, this has nothing to do with the length of the book or how much research they need to do. That assumes, of course, that the author is an expert in the area before they pitch a book.)

1
JimWOP•

Thank you. Do you have a list of references where he speaks about Mars and Venus? I really want to study them, or are they confidential?

2
That70sClearEx-Staff•

The tape Between Lives Implants (27 July 1963) has some good stuff:

Somebody sits up on Venus -- there are probably some other stations around up in the system. This one's on Venus. I notice that we all believe that Venus has a methane atmosphere and is unlivable. I almost got run down by a freight locomotive the other day -- didn't look very uncivilized to me. I'm allergic to freight locomotives, they're always running into you.

Now we notice that Mars doesn't have any atmosphere either and won't support life. In spite of the fact that it turns green and red and purple with the seasons, it doesn't support life. We understand -- there's lots of things we understand about this system -- heh-heh! Isn't it? But this is a carefully maintained station. And a space-opera, meat-body type society maintains it very carefully. They have a hospital, there's space craft hanging around there, dispatcher stations, landing platforms, this type of thing. It's all highly civilized, but they carefully maintain this one. And it's very interesting, they maintain this one. They've maintained it for thousands of years without any change. Why, it's fascinating. Why are they maintaining this thing?

And there were other lectures like that. From The Role of Earth (30 Oct 1952):

The Fifth Invader Force came in to use this area, and the name of this solar system is Space Station 33. They started to use this area without suspecting that the Fourth Invader Force had been there for God knows how many skillion years, had been sitting down, and they have their installations up on Mars, and they have a tremendous, screened operation.

The Martian operation is a fascinating operation, simply because it has gone into 100 percent holding force. And it does everything it does with tremendous coversion. It's sitting behind a defense screen of enormous size, and nobody – it's practically impossible to penetrate that, except as a thetan. And if you penetrate it as a thetan, you go through the Martian screen, and they got you!

...And the Fifth Invader Force, out of its own protection, took over Venus - oh, relatively in modern times - took over Venus and tried to stabilize the Venusian. If you called a Fifth Invader, though, a Venusian, he would probably shoot you out of hand, because it would be a horrible insult. They merely monitor the government of Venus, and they leave Mars strictly alone.

There was another tape where Ron said that the "canals" on Mars were roads linking the (possibly ruined) cities, but I can't remember the name or date of it. Anyhow, that should get you off to a good start.

3
JimWOP•

Thank you! I have noted it down for my research.

1
JapanOfGreenGables•

Great question! Unfortunately, L Ron Hubbard died 21 years prior to The Big Bang Theory's premiere on CBS in 2007. As a result, he did not ever discuss this TV show in his writings or speeches. /s

4
freezoneandproudMod, Freezone•

Ha ha ha! I tip my hat at you!

2
Amir_Khan89SP, Type III Internet Preacher•

a thetan has the power to create and destroy his own universes at will.

This is one of the biggest nonsense Hubbard said. He couldn't clean his own teeth or remove the lump on his forehead. The guy was a delusional fuck. Most OT8s can't install an app on their cell phone or reset their clocks during fall or spring. The farther up the Bridge they go, the more incompetent they become. This is by design. Hubbard wanted a planet full of robots that made money for him nothing else.

As others have said, there is no big bang in Scientology but there are a whole lot of science fiction.

3
ANoisyCrow•

I don’t think he was delusional. I think LRH was a con.

2
Amir_Khan89SP, Type III Internet Preacher•

He started as a con for sure but when Scientology took off he believed his own bullshit, a lot like Jim Jones. Drugs, alcohol and auditing messed up his head so bad he believed invisible aliens (Marcabins) were preventing Scientology from clearing the planet.

2
ANoisyCrow•

Wow. Don’t get high on your own supply.

2
Southendbeach•

Science is not about belief or consensus, or shouldn't be.

From what you've written, it seems you haven't been following the latest from James Webb space telescope.

2
JimWOP•

Yes, thankfully science is open for new observations, evolve and change as it should be.

What you wrote about James Webb Space Telescope puzzled me as I have not heard about it, I had to check it out. And there seem to be some kind of viral falsehood that circled around, please read this article:

"No, the Big Bang theory is not 'broken.' Here's how we know." https://www.space.com/james-webb-space-telescope-didnt-break-big-bang-explained

3
Southendbeach•

The big bang is treated as religious dogma which heretics have committed the sin of questioning. At this point, neither one of us knows how old the universe is.

1
Alternative_Effort•

The big bang is treated as religious dogma which heretics have committed the sin of questioning.

Nonsense! People question it all the time. Nobody expected a non-zero cosmological constant before a satellite measured it and found that the expansion of the universe is actually expanding. That's not a dogma.

1
3119328•

It doesn't matter if LRH mentioned the Big Bang or not, it wouldn't improve any of his nonsense if he did.

Scientologists aren't keen on hearing facts that go against the dogma. If you seek to deconvert your father perhaps you should ask for advice on how to do that, esp before he decides you're an S.P. and "disfellowships."

2
Alternative_Effort•

"Big Bang" didn't really catch on until the 70s. Take a peek at the [e]ngrams:

https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=big+bang&year\_start=1800&year\_end=2019&corpus=en-2019&smoothing=3

1
CipherSage6•

He extensively discussed this subject in numerous lectures during the 1950s. He summarized this topic in 'The Factors.' Within this work, he details the concept of thetans (viewpoints) as the creators of universes. According to his theory, the eventual collapse of these universes or viewpoints led to the formation of the MEST (matter, energy, space, and time) universe. He presented this as his interpretation of the Big Bang theory. I recall there was even a specific incident that was meant to be addressed or 'run' in this context.

Hubbard incorporated ideas from scientific theories, adding his own unique twist and interpretation.

1
jimfonda•

I have looked, and have not found any mention by LRH of the Big Bang.

Yes, I have done various OT levels, including OT III.

My personal theory is that the cause of the Big Bang was a star which got so massive that it produced elements with higher atomic numbers, such as uranium and plutonium. This reached critical mass, and there was a fission explosion.

1