Storming the Gates of the Temple of Science: Religion and Science in Three New Religious Movements Benjamin E. Zeller A dissertation submitted to the faculty of the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctorate of Philosophy in the Department of Religious Studies. Chapel Hill 2007 Approved by: Prof. Yaakov Ariel Prof. Laurie Maffly-Kipp Prof. Thomas A. Tweed Prof. Seymour Mauskopf Prof. Grant Wacker © 2007 Benjamin E. Zeller ALL RIGHTS RESERVED ii ABSTRACT Benjamin E. Zeller: Storming the Gates of the Temple of Science: Religion and Science in Three New Religious Movements (Under the direction of Prof. Yaakov Ariel) This dissertation considers how three new religious movements—the Hare Krishnas, Unification Church, and Heaven’s Gate—treated the concept of science and the relation of science to religion and the wider society. Each of the three religions offered a distinct position on the nature of science and how religion and science ought to interact. All of the three new religions understood their views of science as crucial to their wider theological views and social stances. And, in each of these new religious movements, the nature and meaning of science served a central role in the group’s self-understanding and conceptualization. Because the roles and boundaries of science so concerned each of the groups, their founders, leaders, and ordinary members offered both implicit and explicit re-envisionings of science. These views developed out of each group’s historical circumstances and theological positions, but also evolved in concert with concurrent social developments and cultural influences. Such varying factors resulted in three different perspectives on science. The Unification Church aimed to guide science and the American scientific establishment. It positioned science as a sphere separate from religion, yet at the same time attempted to direct science’s ethical boundaries, methods, and even research goals. The Hare Krishnas sought to replace Western science with an alternative scientific-religious system rooted iii in their own Hindu religious tradition. The science of ancient Indian religious texts, they insisted, offered a more accurate and socially healthy paradigm than that of the contemporary American scientific establishment. Heaven’s Gate attempted to absorb or incorporate science and scientific elements into their religious system. It looked to methodological materialism and naturalism as the ideal epistemology, and declared itself the truest form of science. Taken together, the manner in which the three new religious movements responded to the power, prestige, and place of science in America demonstrates the multiple ways that religious groups can incorporate creative tension with science into their broader intellectual positions. The three groups emerged from different cultural and historical circumstances, yet they each insisted that religion could respond to science with neither warfare nor surrender. iv To my parents, who have always represented the best of science and religion “Over the entrance to the gates of the temple of science are written the words: Ye must have faith.” -- Max Planck, Where is Science Going? v ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS This dissertation did not begin with an epiphany, but grew from years of reading primary sources produced by new religious movements. Slowly I recognized that my highlighting and marginalia proliferated whenever sources mentioned science. Thus I began an exploration of how the leaders and members of new religions wrote and spoke about science. My past experience with science—in college I originally majored in computer science—no doubt contributed to my interest in the subject. Yet it was in conversations with my mentors and colleagues that this dissertation really took form, and to them that I owe a debt of gratitude. My advisor Yaakov Ariel has read the entire manuscript and offered helpful criticisms and suggestions, and my work is much stronger because of his help. I am extremely fortunate to have had the chance to work with him. Thomas A. Tweed, Grant Wacker, Laurie Maffly-Kipp, and Seymour Mauskopf have each read the entire manuscript and offered valuable critiques. They have all been extremely supportive in the writing process. Emily Mace has also carefully read and evaluated this dissertation, and has helped me to better articulate my thesis. I would have liked the chance to share this dissertation with the late William Hutchison, under whom I first explored the historiography and religion and science, and even eight years later I recall his suggestion that my interests in new religions and in science needn’t remain separate. My fellow graduate students at the University of North Carolina and Duke vi University have been wonderful friends and conversation partners, especially my cadre of Brantley Gasaway, Reid Neilson, and Jeffrey Wilson. I couldn’t ask for better comrades. Other have also traveled alongside me as I researched and wrote this dissertation, notably Stephen Berry, Annie Blakeney-Glazer, Maryellen Davis, Seth Dowland, Rabia Gregory, Shannon Hickey, Sarah Johnson, Abdallah Lipton, Kathryn Lofton, Shanny Luft, Mary Ellen O’Donnell, Nora Rubel, Chad Seales, Angela Tarango, and Isaac Weiner. Each helped in their own way. Conversations with several of my colleagues at Temple University have also assisted me in articulating my project, namely those with Rebecca Alpert, Lucy Bregman, Marie Dallam, Aron Dunlap, Laura Levitt, Randall Prebish, and Terry Rey. At Princeton University, Eduard Iricinschi has answered my questions on early Christian theology, and Laura Bennett has made me feel welcome as a fellow American religious historian. Emily Mace has helped more than anyone else: in addition to reading drafts, she has given me perspective and encouragement. I couldn’t have written this dissertation without her. The Perry Summer Travel Fellowship and Smith Graduate Research Grants, both administered by the University of North Carolina, provided generous financial assistance for my research. Archivists at the special collections departments of the Graduate Theological Union and the University of California, Santa Barbara, provided invaluable aid during my visits to those institutions. Michael Mickler of the Unification Theological Seminary kindly opened the seminary’s archives to me, as well as shared his own experiences. Reference, microfiche, and interlibrary loan librarians at least a half dozen universities also provided aid, especially those of the University of North Carolina, Temple University, and Princeton University. vii Chapters 5 and 6 include material drawn from my previously published article, “Scaling Heaven’s Gate: Individualism and Salvation in a New Religious Movement,” Nova Religio: The Journal of Alternative and Emergent Religions, vol. 10, no. 2, November 2006. (© The University of California Press) I am grateful to the University of California Press for permission to republish that material here. viii TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................ 1 The Temple of Science ........................................................................................ 2 Science and the Study of New Religious Movements........................................... 6 Three New Religions: Chapter Overview........................................................... 12 Notes................................................................................................................. 23 SECTION I. SCIENCE AND THE UNIFICATION CHURCH IN AMERICA ................................... 25 INTRODUCTION TO SECTION I.............................................................................. 26 Notes ..................................................................................................... 31 CHAPTER 1: SCIENCE IN EARLY UNIFICATIONISM, 1959-1969.............................. 33 Reverend Sun Myung Moon and the Genesis of Unificationism............. 33 Divine Principles and Unification’s Arrival in America ......................... 39 Science in Reverend Moon’s Korean Unification Church....................... 49 Religion and Science in David S. C. Kim’s American Unificationist Movement ............................................................ 57 Religion and Science in Sang Ik Choi’s American Unificationist Movement ............................................................ 64 Notes ..................................................................................................... 76 CHAPTER 2: SCIENCE AND THE AMERICAN UNIFICATION CHURCH ....................... 84 From Unificationist Movements to the Unification Church .................... 84 Religion and Science in the 1973 Divine Principle................................. 86 ix Reaching Out: Science and World Transformation............................... 101 Turning In: Science and Institutionalization ......................................... 107 The International Conferences on the Unity of the Sciences ................. 113 Guiding Science................................................................................... 129 Notes ................................................................................................... 131 SECTION II. SCIENCE AND THE HARE KRISHNA MOVEMENT IN AMERICA ....................... 140 INTRODUCTION TO SECTION II........................................................................... 141 Notes