ESMB has entered archive mode. All posts and threads that were available to the general public are still readable. The board is still searchable. 

Thank you all for your participation and readership over the last 12 years.

If you want to join in the conversation, please join the new ESMB Redux at

Is Scientology a science?

Discussion in 'Evaluating and Criticising Scientology' started by Tom_Booth, Jun 18, 2014.

View Users: View Users
  1. Tom_Booth

    Tom_Booth Patron with Honors

    One thing in the Creed of a Scientologist bothers me a bit as it seems like a rather blatant contradiction.

    "That the study of the Mind and the healing of mentally caused ills should not be alienated from religion or condoned in nonreligious fields."

    Ummm..... Dianetics is still billed as "The modern SCIENCE of mental health". correct ?

    Scientology is supposed to have been rather rigorously developed through the use of scientific methodology. Or so it has been suggested by Hubbard himself rather consistently.

    At any rate, I don't personally believe that study of the mind should be confined to religion. God forbid.

    Sure, OK, lets not "alienate it from religion" no problem but that it "should not... be condoned in nonreligious fields" ? Somehow that seems to me to be going a little overboard. Last time I checked, Science is a nonreligious field, so wouldn't that make "The modern Science of Mental Health" a nonreligious field? Should Science be prevented from addressing the problem of psychosomatic ills ? Should scientists be excluded from "study of the mind" ?

    To the extent that Scientology and Dianetics are sciences or to the extent that they have been developed through the use of scientific methodology, as claimed, would that not mean that Scientologists should fight to exclude Dianticists and Scientologists from their own practices ?

    Should all the developments in scientology and dianetics be discarded if it is found that they were actually discovered or developed through the use of the scientific method ?

    I attend Sunday services at the church and can petty much agree wholeheartedly with the rest of the creed, but every time that line is read I'm just not able to reconcile it in my mind.

    I certainly agree that things like lobotomies and electroshock and drugging children should be vehemently protested against. But I would dare say that without a long history of scientific study of the mind and psychosomatic illness and so forth as a foundation to build upon, there would be no such thing as Dianetics and Scientology. There wouldn't have even be the terminology in existence to discuss it at the time it was developed.
  2. Purple Rain

    Purple Rain Crusader

    It's so scientific that Hubbard died on the run from the law with psych drugs up his arse. I heartily wish you the same level of OTness and success. Go on, it works! I can't think of anyone more deserving.
  3. Tom_Booth

    Tom_Booth Patron with Honors

    The code of a scientologist is more reasonable:

    5. To expose and help abolish any and all physically damaging practices in the field of mental health.
    6. To help clean up and keep clean the field of mental health.
    7. To bring about an atmosphere of safety and security in the field of mental health by eradicating its abuses and brutality.

    But would such actions to "bring about an atmosphere of safety and security in the field of mental health" in effect "condone" the "healing of mentally caused ills" in a "nonreligious field" ? and therefore the code of a scientologist appears to also contradict the creed of a scientologist on this particular issue.
  4. Purple Rain

    Purple Rain Crusader

    I thought it was "Make money. Make more money. Make even more money". Oh, wrong policy!
  5. Purple Rain

    Purple Rain Crusader

    Go ask Lisa McPherson. Miscavige himself C/Sed her mental health issues. Oh, that's right - she's dead. Locked up in a hotel room and found dead covered in roach bites and shit after being deprived of food and water for two and a half weeks. Why don't you pluck the beam out of your own eye before you go looking for the mote in somebody else's?

    Or go ask Alice Wu.

    I know people who've had electric shock and they're still walking around alive with their wits about them - more than I can say for Lisa and Alice.

    Scientology is the barbarism with their 18th century introspection rundown.

    Isn't there somebody you should be conning out of their retirement fund right about now? Thursday is just round the corner, after all.
  6. It's good that you're looking at these things and thinking about these things, Tom. You are RIGHT. There are a LOT of contradictions in Scientology. And sometimes a vast gulf between the creed and code and what actually goes on in the Cult.

    There always have been...because Ron made most of it up as he went along and used other people's work, taking credit for it himself. There isn't much actual, real "Science" involved in it at all, except that they sell it that way.

    These kinds of contradictions that you have noticed and are questioning cause what is called "Cognitive Dissonance". (Which is actually a healthy thing for us, usually!) It's something we all experience as we are growing up, studying and learning about the world. It's actually a good sign of a healthy mind that you can see these "outpoints" and question them. Keep questioning! :thumbsup: I encourage you to learn everything that you can about the group that you are joining, not just what they "believe" but what they actually practice.

    Here's some info about the concept of Cognitive Dissonance from wikipedia:
  7. Purple Rain

    Purple Rain Crusader

    He knows all about the criminality and abuses and he still chooses to support them. I have no words for the contempt I feel about that.
  8. Tom_Booth

    Tom_Booth Patron with Honors

    I didn't intend for this to be a debate about elecroshock treatments vs. dianetics and scientology, but statistically speaking, you cite two people. A quick parusal of the internet brings back that over 100,000 have died of elctreoshock therapy. At least 200 in the past year alone. How much money is in it ? $3,000,000,000 a year. supposedly.

    But to each his own. Personally I'd take my chances with Dianetics or Scientology over lobotomies and electroshock, but that's just me. If I felt I had any need for either, which I don't.
  9. Purple Rain

    Purple Rain Crusader

    D'uh! Putting an insane person under lock and key in solitary confinement is hardly groundbreaking science. People have been doing that for hundreds of years - since before the dark ages. But riddle me this...

    If Dianetics is the "modern science of mental health" - why is it that those with mental health problems are banned from receiving auditing - yes, even Dianetics?

    Do you know what this great science had to offer me when I was living with a manic depressive acute paranoid schizophrenic? Calmag and locationals. And he almost slit my throat in front of my three children. That was after they convinced us both to take him OFF his medication by the way. The experts on mental health they are NOT.

    Science my fat arse.
  10. Purple Rain

    Purple Rain Crusader

    How many lobotomies were done, by the way?
  11. Purple Rain

    Purple Rain Crusader

    Isn't there some twelve year old girl sitting in your ethics office that needs pressuring to never speak to her father again? It's nearly Thursday, after all.
  12. Tom_Booth

    Tom_Booth Patron with Honors

    I think I'm looking at it objectively. Other religions have not received the intense scrutiny Scientology has received over the years, but if they were, I think the number of abuses in the name of "God" or just bad things in general that have occurred, intended or not to churchgoing people in general would far outweigh the incidents that have occurred in Scientology that are constantly magnified and harped upon endlessly.

    How many Catholics or Protestants or Jehovah Witnesses or Jews or Muslims committed murder or suicide over the history of any one particular faith. Likely no statistics are kept about such matters as its too commonplace. Something like that happens in Scientology and its international news. Just to put matters into perspective.
  13. Purple Rain

    Purple Rain Crusader

    So let me get this straight. You are part of a group that illegally locks people up against their will - and you are okay with that? As long as it only happens to two people you are fine with it. Nothing has changed in the policies or procedures since then, but that is all cool so far as you are concerned. It is okay to lock people up against their will? You would support that?

    If ordered to stand watch outside one of those doors, what would you do?
  14. Purple Rain

    Purple Rain Crusader

    A wrong is a wrong no matter who does it. But then you know that - everybody does. The "they do it too" argument is a logical fallacy. Oh, look over there at that criminal that also murdered someone. Don't look at the knife dripping in my hand.

    And other religions have had heaps of scrutiny - have you not read what is written of the Catholic church - let alone Islam? Nothing anyone else does makes you or your group immune from the consequences of your own greed and immorality. Enjoy the public displeasure you have so heartily earned.
  15. Veda

    Veda Sponsor

    Re: Is Scientology a science? No, and it's not a religion either.


    Both the "Creed of the Church of Scientology" and "the Code of a Scientologist" are mostly PR. There is a small amount that is not PR, and that small amount is slipped in, like the fine print in a deal overseen by a crooked used car salesman.


    Point #16 is serious, and amidst the display PR, states: "insist upon standard and unvaried Scientology as an applied activity in ethics, processing, and administration..." It's not mentioned, however, that "standard and unvaried Scientology" is secretive. Virtually every area of Scientology has a secret component.

    Duplicity is inherent in Scientology. Its manipulative and suggestive aspect is so pervasive that Scientologists become numb to it, while being influenced and shaped by it.

    As for "The Creed of the Church of Scientology," it's mostly a wall decoration, and always has been. It accompanied Hubbard's introduction of what he called the "religion angle."

    Hubbard couldn't resist slipping in the line about mental healing not being condoned in non religious fields, just as he couldn't resist gloating over the assassination of John F. Kennedy in the 1966 PR piece 'What is Greatness?'.

    Hubbard hated psychiatrists and psychologists, since at least 1938. Possibly, he had received an informal diagnosis, as a pathological liar or something equally uncomplimentary, by as doctor or psychiatrist, while a young man. Whatever the reason, it was a genuine dislike on Hubbbard's part, and it seems to have been, as they say, personal.

    Hubbard's rantings about psychiatry and psychology were present throughout the 1950s, and continued throughout his life.

    It had very little to do with any kind of humanitarian impulse, and a lot to do with Hubbard's ego having been dented by things psychiatric years before Scientology came into being.

    Scientology is not a humanitarian movement. It is, and has always been, a personality cult that "uses mental healing to assert and maintain dominion over the thoughts and loyalties" of its members.

    Right now, you're a fringe member at a small fringe Scientology organization. You have the luxury of being naive.
  16. Tom_Booth

    Tom_Booth Patron with Honors

    I don't get it. Anybody can pick up a copy of Dianetics in a used book store or for that matter download a copy from the internet and start auditing whomever they please. I don't think anybody is going to stop anybody from co-auditing Dianetics, mental health problems or not.

    I didn't give the book the title.
  17. Purple Rain

    Purple Rain Crusader

    Oh, that is scientific. Anybody, any untrained amateur anybody, can pick up a book and try and use it to fix the problems of the mentally ill... what could possibly go wrong with that plan??

    But wait! Surely there are trained professionals in any Scientology organisation who can use this science - this modern science of mental health - to cure insanity? After all, as Tom Cruise reminds us, Scientologists are the experts on the mind. Why, then, oh why, do they avoid the mentally troubled like the plague?

    Could it be that it doesn't work??

    Surely not - mental health was the least of the claims made by Hubbard in Dianetics after his extensive scientific research - which was what exactly by the way? Or haven't you read Dianetics?
  18. Terril park

    Terril park Sponsor

    Excellent point. Hubbard mostly outside of tech issues liked to control and direct
    people's thought with PR and other means.

    You might like Mr "Clearbirds" thoughts on related matters:-
  19. Tom_Booth

    Tom_Booth Patron with Honors

    Honestly mr. or miss purple rain, I've floated in and out of dozens of religions and "cults" of various sorts over the years, I got an invitation to go on staff at Scientology and took it, more or less out of curiosity, to see for myself what its like and if all the horror stories are true or not. So far I've been enjoying it. I haven't had much to complain about. When there is a difference of opinion, more often than not I'm told "what's true for you is true".

    I wouldn't criticize a Catholic for being a Catholic because of what took place during the inquisition.

    You'll find good and bad in any religion or any group of people in general for that matter. Personally, I take a scientific approach to spirituality. If there ever was any actual science in Scientology I would have much preferred that they stuck with it. Science is self correcting in the long run. Religion generally is not.

    My own personal estimation is that weighing the good and the bad in all the various groups I've been in, Scientologists seem to be more open minded and free thinking than others. Time will tell I suppose, but I'll probably stick with it as long as they can tolerate my lack of conformity on issues like the one being addressed here. Point of fact is, I've told just about everybody at the church "I'm not a Scientologist".

    For example, what is of interest to me at the moment is Hubbard's claim that he and a group of friends or colleagues of his materialized a chair in the middle of an empty room by agreeing that there was a chair in the room.

    Now is that delusion, group hypnosis, simply a lie, or is there some quantum physics explanation? To find out, I think the experiment should be repeated under more rigorous scientific conditions. But this is the sort of thing Hubbard offers as "proof" of the axioms. "Reality is the agreed upon apparency of existence" etc.

    I've done numerous "experiments" along the same lines myself. I've even run across a few scientologists that are open to the idea. That is, the idea of putting some science back into scientology by subjecting some of this stuff to more rigorous scientific testing or application. Run some more experiments. Not sure where that will lead but that's the sort of thing I've been pushing for rather openly.

    And, BTW, bad things sometimes happen to scientists or are committed by scientists. If Einstein committed murder that would not nullify E=MC squared. I've never been a big fan of David Miscavage but if true, I don't think that nullifies Axiom 26 either.