Religion Black and White

[Veda]

-snip-

IMHO Scientology is to religion what child pornography is to art.

How true.

 

[Gadfly]

IMHO Scientology is to religion what child pornography is to art.

I agree, GREAT analogy!

By the way, welcome to ESMB Churchill. Keep posting and when you feel like it, tell us some sordid details of your own experiences with the sick cult.

 

[OhMG]

It's remarkable that you seem to believe that others are not aware of that.

From most of the post, it is obvious not, remarkable...

 

[HelluvaHoax!]

..

Originally Posted by Churchill
IMHO Scientology is to religion what child pornography is to art.

Astonishingly accurate apostate analogy!

Extending the metaphor, Both Scientology & child pornography are alike narrowly focused on achieving a sordid "End Phenomena" best described as the "Money Shot".



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Money_shot

 

[Alle G]

Hi Lost and Gadfly
You read my mind. Ideology (higher purpose) is used for censorship and self-censorship.

Censorship and forbidden books are very familiar to me as I grew up in Soviet Union. (For example books on yoga were forbidden ). Soviet Union collapsed when the whole generation of people (born in the 60-70s) grew up who never believed in communism.


But in my questions I meant to find out when rational thinking stops and belief kicks in. For example, I like (Hubbard’s?) idea that the mind is a collection of pictures and movies with emotions attached to it. The concept of the reactive mind can be used as a working model, why not. The concept of a Clear is stretching my credulity. And when we reach R6 Bank (or whatever it was) I stop in my tracks. At this point I need either proof or faith. I can’t proceed any further.


So my question is: did scientologists detect the moment when they stopped rational thinking and started to rely on faith instead?

(And a lateral question: if they missed this moment is it because they did Objectives before? When the thought process was broken and reassembled again? Like with the study tech? )

 

[lost]

One missed point. Under the US Const. The IRS doesn't get to decide what is or isn't a religion. Not even Congress has that power...

So who does?

 

[lost]

Hi Lost and Gadfly
You read my mind. Ideology (higher purpose) is used for censorship and self-censorship.

Censorship and forbidden books are very familiar to me as I grew up in Soviet Union. (For example books on yoga were forbidden ). Soviet Union collapsed when the whole generation of people (born in the 60-70s) grew up who never believed in communism.


But in my questions I meant to find out when rational thinking stops and belief kicks in. For example, I like (Hubbard’s?) idea that the mind is a collection of pictures and movies with emotions attached to it. The concept of the reactive mind can be used as a working model, why not. The concept of a Clear is stretching my credulity. And when we reach R6 Bank (or whatever it was) I stop in my tracks. At this point I need either proof or faith. I can’t proceed any further.


So my question is: did scientologists detect the moment when they stopped rational thinking and started to rely on faith instead?

(And a lateral question: if they missed this moment is it because they did Objectives before? When the thought process was broken and reassembled again? Like with the study tech? )

Scientology uses tricks so that people feel that they are not taking things on faith. Word clearing, clay demos, the emeter, all suggest to the culties that they have proof that the ideology works in a practical way and faith does not come into it. If they aee not sure about something it is NOT suggested that they just have faith. They have to use the tricks i mentioed which make it seem as though it is practical, ........researched technology.
When people get to OT levels like OT 3 many of them have siad of course that they did not believe It, so they had to either walk away or find a way to rationalize taking part in something quite nutty. The is the 'analogy' gambit. But it is not supposed to be an analogy. The analogy gambit seems to be a convenient way to deal with cognitive dissonance which is not really able to be dealt with at all. so lying to self and others kicks in

I'm guessing some of them must have decided they would put faith in hubbard and go ahead with the processes and see what happens. I suppose that for those people the fine point be was it faith in hubbard! or the tech or both?

Newer people starting auditing might have to put some faith in the staff and hope it does what ut is supposed
to do. But it is very much an expermental faith. Sometimes you have to try something to see if a practical
sounding idea works. That is not religious faith, it is temporarily trusting the saleman.

So i think your questions may be more relevant when people hit the stuff that did not seem to be what they
could find in themselves, their own memories (although that was largely hooey too), and they were now yold what
was on their time track rather than look and see for themselves.

I don't feel that i had to have any faith in the cult. I had to study, drill, and apply it. It would work or not.
If it didn't, it was assumed something was not understood or not applied correctly. If i was having auditing
I had to participate in a very controlled way. There was no religious faith. There were some things i doubted
about whole track stuff HOM etc, but i did not have to accept in on faith. The idea that faith as in religious faith
is a part of scientology is a load of horseshit, but some people might need a bit of faith in hubbard (trust) or tech when they get to the wall of cognitive dissonance at ot3. Some might use faith there. I dont know. For those
that push the religion line though, AFAIK they had always been told they must understand the tech. Not apply faith.



?

 

[Queenmab321]

Regarding the first question, I have commented on some of this before. It is very difficult to ever know the similarity of beliefs with Scientologists, because of the strict rules about "no verbal data". For the most part Scientology members rarely discuss or compare notes because they have been brutally trained within an inch of their lives to ONLY discuss definitions, meanings and understandings in the context of a course room, auditing room or Qual.

I remember standing outside a course room somewhere back in around 1980. I was talking with another student about some finer detail of ARC. The Qual Sec heard us, he ran over, and he SCREAMED with that brutal Tone 40 KSW gleam in his eyes, "Knock Off the Verbal Data NOW"! Scientologists are very much indoctrinated to ONLY discuss such things with word clearers. The notion of freely discussing concepts and ideas of Scientology is alien to Scientology. Hubbard set it up that way. I have a theory about this.

For example, take a phrase such as "clearing the planet" or "salvaging this sector of the universe". These are such vague and actually UNCLEAR phrases. They don't have any specific meanings, not outside of any individual person's IMAGINATION. I am sure that if you could get 100 Scientologists to honestly write down what each of these meant to them, you would find a great difference in responses. In fact, since these phrases don't actually have any real life correspondences, the meaning is self-created by each person who thinks with the nonsensical notions. But, Scientologists never become aware of how differently they actually consider many of the basic ideas because they can NEVER freely talk about such things!

For example, when a person does a clay demo of "making the world safe for Scientology", he or she NEVER discusses it. Somebody just looks at the demo and says "pass". The truth is that there can be and probably are many great differences in understandings amongst Scientologists about all sorts of things related to Scientology. Since so many of the ideas are make-believe, exaggerated or vague, each person must DUB-IN extensive amounts of meaning and significance. I don't doubt that Hubbard set it up this way.

It is a common idea that one is to study the materials, be there alone with Ron, with NO vias, intermediaries or additives, and grasp the material through the exact use of study tech. It is highly frowned upon to discuss Scientology with others as a way to come to understand Scientology. In fact, giving "verbal data" is a suppressive act. The ONLY correct behavior is to open an LRH reference, and have the other person read it - with NO discussion.

Each person is kept isolated in terms of his or her unqiue understanding of it all.

What is common is the emotional hyper-enthusiasm and nutty glee that runs throughout participants.

Scientology depends on SLOGANS. And, just as anybody knows who works with slogans, they are mostly used to elicit emotional reactions in the target audience. Use of slogans does NOT address the rational, thinking conceptual mind. Much of Scientology functions to bypass the rational conceptual mind. Hubbard knew what he was doing.

In corporate Scientology the view is that EVERYTHING is correct as Hubbard wrote it. The view is that if one has any confusion or disagreement then he or she is the problem. He or she has MUs, out-ethics, false data or some other explanation why he or she doesn't enthusiastically embrace the materials. There is no tolerance for differing beliefs about anything written or said by Hubbard. THAT is a key part of KSW.

And, while some might entertain differing beliefs, they learn to NEVER speak about such things out in the open, since they would be KR'ed and sent to ethics fast! All learn to suppress any differing views, and this creates the apparency of high agreement with all things LRH. It is part of the illusion.

Reading this I thought of the little rallies Winston Smith decribes in 1984. The workers gathered around a television broadcast of news and propaganda shouting slogans. I was also reminded of John Stuart Mill's On Liberty in which he argues that the truth can only be revealed through free and open discussion, that when we silence those who possess a point of view with which we disagree or that we find distasteful, we not only cut ourselves off from the possibility of genuine knowledge, but also render our own point of view vacuous. He gives as an example the doctrine of the trinity. Most Christians today, writes Mill, possess only a vague and gross understanding of the trinity, but if one lived the 4th century when Christendom was in turmoil over controversy surrounding the doctrine, his understanding of it would be nuanced. Without confrontation between opposing ideas and arguments, it isn't possible to fully understand and articulate one's own beliefs.

And to top it all off, one is supposed to be on a bridge to total freedom. Hubbard's policies are truly diabolical!

 

[Queenmab321]

One missed point. Under the US Const. The IRS doesn't get to decide what is or isn't a religion. Not even Congress has that power...

Well, yes and no. Ultimately, it's up to the courts, but once the IRS has granted status, it's very difficult for anyone to challenge it since it's my understanding that no one outside the Church has standing to do so. Congress could pass laws specifically aimed at disqualification of groups like Scientology. These would then be challenged by the COS in court, and the courts would determine whether or not the laws were constitional in light of their definition of religion.

 

[Queenmab321]

Scientology uses tricks so that people feel that they are not taking things on faith. Word clearing, clay demos, the emeter, all suggest to the culties that they have proof that the ideology works in a practical way and faith does not come into it. If they aee not sure about something it is NOT suggested that they just have faith. They have to use the tricks i mentioed which make it seem as though it is practical, ........researched technology.
When people get to OT levels like OT 3 many of them have siad of course that they did not believe It, so they had to either walk away or find a way to rationalize taking part in something quite nutty. The is the 'analogy' gambit. But it is not supposed to be an analogy. The analogy gambit seems to be a convenient way to deal with cognitive dissonance which is not really able to be dealt with at all. so lying to self and others kicks in

I'm guessing some of them must have decided they would put faith in hubbard and go ahead with the processes and see what happens. I suppose that for those people the fine point be was it faith in hubbard! or the tech or both?

Newer people starting auditing might have to put some faith in the staff and hope it does what ut is supposed
to do. But it is very much an expermental faith. Sometimes you have to try something to see if a practical
sounding idea works. That is not religious faith, it is temporarily trusting the saleman.

So i think your questions may be more relevant when people hit the stuff that did not seem to be what they
could find in themselves, their own memories (although that was largely hooey too), and they were now yold what
was on their time track rather than look and see for themselves.

I don't feel that i had to have any faith in the cult. I had to study, drill, and apply it. It would work or not.
If it didn't, it was assumed something was not understood or not applied correctly. If i was having auditing
I had to participate in a very controlled way. There was no religious faith. There were some things i doubted
about whole track stuff HOM etc, but i did not have to accept in on faith. The idea that faith as in religious faith
is a part of scientology is a load of horseshit, but some people might need a bit of faith in hubbard (trust) or tech when they get to the wall of cognitive dissonance at ot3. Some might use faith there. I dont know. For those
that push the religion line though, AFAIK they had always been told they must understand the tech. Not apply faith.



?

Does faith have to be self-consciously acknowledged as such by one who has it? If one is fooled into believing certain fantastic propositions, which can have no rational basis, may nevertheless be rationally held, does he unkwowing take these beliefs on faith? Interesting question.

 

[Queenmab321]

This is one of the BEST, HONEST, posts I have been fortunate to read!

IMHO Scientology is to religion what child pornography is to art.

Was Jim Jones' Peoples Temple both a religion and analagous to child pornography?

Yes

 

[Alle G]

Does faith have to be self-consciously acknowledged as such by one who has it? If one is fooled into believing certain fantastic propositions, which can have no rational basis, may nevertheless be rationally held, does he unkwowing take these beliefs on faith? Interesting question.

First question - NO.
Second question - YES.


IMHO

 

[Churchill]

I agree, GREAT analogy!

By the way, welcome to ESMB Churchill. Keep posting and when you feel like it, tell us some sordid details of your own experiences with the sick cult.

Thank you.
Today I visited the Apple store in Pasadena. A few doors down, some Div 6 people had set up some tables with books, and a meter for "stress tests.". As I approached, a zealous acolyte, who could have been me 30 years ago, asked if I wanted to find out more about Scientology. I said something lame, to the effect that "I'm not the kind of public you're looking for", hoping he'd ask why. He didn't . He simply acknowledged me.

Had he simply asked "why?", I would have told hi that I, too, had once believed as he does; that he is doing something noble, in service to a power geater than himself. I, too, had worked 100 hour weeks, signed a billion year contract, and been the truest of believers, all the while ignoring, overlooking, and justifying the out points along the way. I would have told him, that, yes, he IS a spiritual being, but that the organization he has joined and sworn allegiance to is a soulless monster that will, over time, leave him hollow and empty, bereft of love, bereft of feeling. He will be used until he is useless, and then discarded. If he is lucky, he will wake up and escape, only to begin the long,slow process of reclaiming his life and his self.
I would have told him that the BEST trap is one where the prey does not realize that he's trapped, and thus has no need of escape. I would have told him that the real cognitions occur, in time, after one leaves the cult, and, finally, that in this life, there are few things worse than being in the service of evil, yet believing that you are doing good.

But he didn't ask, and I didn't answer, and the pity of it is even if I had, he wouldn't have believed it.

I hope to become worthy of forgiveness from those whom I have wronged, including, finally, myself.

 

[Panda Termint]

My favorite Stress Test Table routine is to gently wave my hand and say, "These aren't the Droids you're looking for!" It makes them laugh.

 

[Alle G]

Thank you.
Today I visited the Apple store in Pasadena. A few doors down, some Div 6 people had set up some tables with books, and a meter for "stress tests.". As I approached, a zealous acolyte, who could have been me 30 years ago, asked if I wanted to find out more about Scientology. I said something lame, to the effect that "I'm not the kind of public you're looking for", hoping he'd ask why. He didn't . He simply acknowledged me.

Had he simply asked "why?", I would have told hi that I, too, had once believed as he does; that he is doing something noble, in service to a power geater than himself. I, too, had worked 100 hour weeks, signed a billion year contract, and been the truest of believers, all the while ignoring, overlooking, and justifying the out points along the way. I would have told him, that, yes, he IS a spiritual being, but that the organization he has joined and sworn allegiance to is a soulless monster that will, over time, leave him hollow and empty, bereft of love, bereft of feeling. He will be used until he is useless, and then discarded. If he is lucky, he will wake up and escape, only to begin the long,slow process of reclaiming his life and his self.
I would have told him that the BEST trap is one where the prey does not realize that he's trapped, and thus has no need of escape. I would have told him that the real cognitions occur, in time, after one leaves the cult, and, finally, that in this life, there are few things worse than being in the service of evil, yet believing that you are doing good.

But he didn't ask, and I didn't answer, and the pity of it is even if I had, he wouldn't have believed it.

I hope to become worthy of forgiveness from those whom I have wronged, including, finally, myself.

This is a good description of narcissistic abuse. Victim often describe it in the same words. The narcissist is a soulless monster, who used them up, then devalued and discarded them and they feel hollow and empty.


I hope you have recovered completely, Churchill.

 

[lost]

:::::::::::: ::::::::::: ::::::::::::::: :::::::::::::: :::::::::::::: ::::::::::::: :::::::::::: ::::::::::: ::::::::::::::::::::::: ::::::::::


Whenever i heard that faith was required in a religious context, it was always understood that proof was not possible or that somehow the object of faith was beyond scientific means of knowledge. This even applies to small childrrn who might not have started thinking much about science but might stll ask question religious teachers, parents etc cannot answer, and they will be told they have to have faith.........as i was. Actually i didnt even ask the questions. The nuns were pre-emptive and just said that we had to h ave faith, and often that was with a specified object. Faith was also peddled to me by relgious types and others within the culture as a positive thing. The point is that it was explicit that the objects of faith were beyond usual means of proof or verification such as observsation etc.

There are other kinds of believing-in where impossibility of proof...observation is not predicated.
Impossibilty of proof or lack of necessity of proof is not part of the social contract of the discourse and dealings taking place. In the case if scientology it is peddled as a workaMble technology, based on research.
Business dealings are done in good faith usually and AFAIK business people can be sued for breaching resonable assumptions of having acted in good faith, if they dont deliver what was promised.
Does that make all business enterprises religious organization?

The connotations and nuances of the word 'faith' are not fuzzy edged IMO.

Faith in the sense that you could not be given real proof, obsetvation, etc is not offered or demanded in sientology,
and the opposite is encouraged, so people do not do it on faith. It is not part of the social contract......the communication, negotiation, and agreement between customers and cult reps. Nor is it part of the very legal contracts with all the " out" clauses for when the customer is not happy. If it was a matter of faith, those legal things would not be needed.

Just to hammer the point home. If scientology is about religious faith, so is McDonalds.

Typos may be present.

 

[Churchill]

This is a good description of narcissistic abuse. Victim often describe it in the same words. The narcissist is a soulless monster, who used them up, then devalued and discarded them and they feel hollow and empty.


I hope you have recovered completely, Churchill.

Thank you. Hope over fear, moving in the right direction, now that my moral compass is true.

 

[I told you I was trouble]

Here's a proper religion that knows how to do a good ceremony, I'm signing up next week.





http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y5dzvE7YMpA​

 

[Gadfly]

Does faith have to be self-consciously acknowledged as such by one who has it? If one is fooled into believing certain fantastic propositions, which can have no rational basis, may nevertheless be rationally held, does he unkwowing take these beliefs on faith? Interesting question.

I was going to reply with a similar comment.

Faith exists when a person accepts some belief without any evidence. Lost said . . .

"I don't feel that I had to have any faith in the cult. I had to study, drill, and apply it. It would work or not. If it didn't, it was assumed something was not understood or not applied correctly."

You may not have felt that you had any faith, but you most certainly DID.

There is a TON of BELIEF in those two sentences - ideas that were accepted on faith.

When a person accepts and believes that Scientology always works, and when it doesn't, it means that it was either applied incorrectly or something is wrong with the person whom it failed to work upon", THAT contains a great acceptance of a key part of the Hubbard scam. Those above statements contain the kernel of a most basic component of faith in Scientology - KSW.

The truth is that often people utilize faith without knowing it. In other words, they appeal to all sorts of explanations and reasons, of which there are actually little, and in the end accept what they believe without evidence.

When the Medieval priests were conducting a trial of some heretic, they resorted to all sorts of lengthy explanations, and even appeared to use logic to determine innocence or guilt. It seemed rational and reasonable, but when it came down to it they accepted and believed a great many ideas with no evidence at all about salvation, demons, the devil, evil, God and so forth.

When people argue and believe in Darwinian evolution, with NO evidence of any "missing links", while pretending to be entirely rational and scientific, they actually make the hurdle to conviction through FAITH. They believe in what has NO EVIDENCE of any sort, yet they act very "scientific". In a similar way, they USE FAITH to arrive at their belief, but are entirely unaware of it.

Being aware that one is using faith is NOT any sort of requirement for actually depending on and utilizing faith to arrive at opinions, views and convictions. THAT was actually a key part of how Hubbard tricked so many. He presented it all as "based on careful research", told you that "you only need try it and see that it works", that it "does not at all depend on belief", and then managed to get the followers to accept and adopt a GREAT MANY ideas on FAITH. I will provide a few:

1. Scientology provides a workable path to spiritual freedom.

2. Scientology can and does make the able more able.

3. An OT is at cause over matter, energy, space and time . . and thought, both subjective and objective.

4. Ron Hubbard managed to rise above the reactive mind and discover the Bridge to Total Freedom.

5. Scientology always works when correctly applied.

The above are each an idea, that has no possible way to confirm with evidence, and which in the end exists wholly on FAITH. Hubbard spews out fiction after fiction after fiction, and he does so with authority and with a pompous arrogance, and that is contagious. The reader or listener often accepts Hubbard's statements and claims . . . at face value . . with little or no proof . . . . with FAITH.

Scientologists often say, "I don't believe . . . . I KNOW"! Just like Morpheus says in The Matrix, "Don't think that you can, KNOW that you can" (about jumping from one building to the other). Scientologists often talk about CERTAINTY. They do not ever see that this is actually FAITH and they surely NEVER talk about it as such (they are incapable of seeing that in themselves).

The Scientology indoctrination system builds a delusional form of certainty. This certainty is in 1) the wonder of Hubbard and 2) the total effectiveness of Scientology. Scientology develops a great faith (aka "certainty") in a great many things while tricking each follower into NEVER seeing or noticing that he or she is building what is actually a deep and abiding FAITH. That is just another of the many inherent contradictions of Scientology. Please realize that certainty, just like faith, is a state of mind. Involvement with Scientology nurtures and builds such a state of mind. It is part of the mind control.

Just about anything a person is certain about in Scientology can be rephrased as "having faith in". In Scientology:

Faith = Certainty

When hundreds of Scientologists stand and clap for 10 minutes to a large portrait of Hubbard, does anyone actually think that this doesn't involve a tremendous degree of BELIEF in IMAGINARY qualities about Hubbard and Scientology? Again, when one believes in things UNSEEN, or in other words, when one believes in things for which there is no possible avenue of evidence or proof, one is practicing FAITH. Scientology is bursting at the seams with such certainty in imaginary things - with FAITH. I can provide many more specific examples.

And, Scientology and Scientologists never uses the word "faith", and never point this fact out to any followers. That would smack directly in the PRETENSE that it is "scientific", a "technology", and based on "careful research". Like so much of Scientology, it pretends to be one thing while actually being something else. The same with this aspect of "faith".

Hubbard says, "knowledge is certainty". But as I have clearly explained earlier, all forms of knowledge, even if a person is certain about it, does not necessarily contain facts or accuracy. A person can be certain that it will rain tomorrow - and it might not. He did have a sort of knowledge - but it was wrong.

Knowledge is often wrong. Certainties are often misplaced.

A person can have the knowledge and certainty that he will fall off the edge of the world if he takes his ship too far. He does have knowledge, and he is certain about it. Yet, the world is NOT fall, and he does NOT fall off the edge. This person could NEVER accept that he held his idea with faith, and without any evidence. That is the nature of "faith" - it often cannot see itself in action.

Scientologists never examine this aspect of how knowledge and certainty can be partially or entirely wrong. That notion (and fact) is not part of Hubbard's indoctrination.

Lastly, to sum it up, Scientology brings about a deep and abiding faith in a great many things, while totally DENYING that anything like "faith" is at work in any way. THAT is part of the incredible cognitive dissonance. Fundamental opposites exists. The person's beliefs involve 1) a tremendous degree of faith, yet at the same time 2) he or she totally denies that any such faith is at work in him or herself.

 

[Alle G]

I was going to reply with a similar comment.

Faith exists when a person accepts some belief without any evidence. Lost said . . .

"I don't feel that I had to have any faith in the cult. I had to study, drill, and apply it. It would work or not. If it didn't, it was assumed something was not understood or not applied correctly."

You may not have felt that you had any faith, but you most certainly DID.

There is a TON of BELIEF in those two sentences - ideas that were accepted on faith.

When a person accepts and believes that Scientology always works, and when it doesn't, it means that it was either applied incorrectly or something is wrong with the person whom it failed to work upon", THAT contains a great acceptance of a key part of the Hubbard scam. Those above statements contain the kernel of a most basic component of faith in Scientology - KSW.

The truth is that often people utilize faith without knowing it. In other words, they appeal to all sorts of explanations and reasons, of which there are actually little, and in the end accept what they believe without evidence.

When the Medieval priests were conducting a trial of some heretic, they resorted to all sorts of lengthy explanations, and even appeared to use logic to determine innocence or guilt. It seemed rational and reasonable, but when it came down to it they accepted and believed a great many ideas with no evidence at all about salvation, demons, the devil, evil, God and so forth.

When people argue and believe in Darwinian evolution, with NO evidence of any "missing links", while pretending to be entirely rational and scientific, they actually make the hurdle to conviction through FAITH. They believe in what has NO EVIDENCE of any sort, yet they act very "scientific". In a similar way, they USE FAITH to arrive at their belief, but are entirely unaware of it.

Being aware that one is using faith is NOT any sort of requirement for actually depending on and utilizing faith to arrive at opinions, views and convictions. THAT was actually a key part of how Hubbard tricked so many. He presented it all as "based on careful research", told you that "you only need try it and see that it works", that it "does not at all depend on belief", and then managed to get the followers to accept and adopt a GREAT MANY ideas on FAITH. I will provide a few:

1. Scientology provides a workable path to spiritual freedom.

2. Scientology can and does make the able more able.

3. An OT is at cause over matter, energy, space and time . . and thought, both subjective and objective.

4. Ron Hubbard managed to rise above the reactive mind and discover the Bridge to Total Freedom.

5. Scientology always works when correctly applied.

The above are each an idea, that has no possible way to confirm with evidence, and which in the end exists wholly on FAITH. Hubbard spews out fiction after fiction after fiction, and he does so with authority and with a pompous arrogance, and that is contagious. The reader or listener often accepts Hubbard's statements and claims . . . at face value . . with little or no proof . . . . with FAITH.

Scientologists often say, "I don't believe . . . . I KNOW"! Just like Morpheus says in The Matrix, "Don't think that you can, KNOW that you can" (about jumping from one building to the other). Scientologists often talk about CERTAINTY. They do not ever see that this is actually FAITH and they surely NEVER talk about it as such (they are incapable of seeing that in themselves).

The Scientology indoctrination system builds a delusional form of certainty. This certainty is in 1) the wonder of Hubbard and 2) the total effectiveness of Scientology. Scientology develops a great faith (aka "certainty") in a great many things while tricking each follower into NEVER seeing or noticing that he or she is building what is actually a deep and abiding FAITH. That is just another of the many inherent contradictions of Scientology. Please realize that certainty, just like faith, is a state of mind. Involvement with Scientology nurtures and builds such a state of mind. It is part of the mind control.

Just about anything a person is certain about in Scientology can be rephrased as "having faith in". In Scientology:

Faith = Certainty

When hundreds of Scientologists stand and clap for 10 minutes to a large portrait of Hubbard, does anyone actually think that this doesn't involve a tremendous degree of BELIEF in IMAGINARY qualities about Hubbard and Scientology? Again, when one believes in things UNSEEN, or in other words, when one believes in things for which there is no possible avenue of evidence or proof, one is practicing FAITH. Scientology is bursting at the seams with such certainty in imaginary things - with FAITH. I can provide many more specific examples.

And, Scientology and Scientologists never uses the word "faith", and never point this fact out to any followers. That would smack directly in the PRETENSE that it is "scientific", a "technology", and based on "careful research". Like so much of Scientology, it pretends to be one thing while actually being something else. The same with this aspect of "faith".

Hubbard says, "knowledge is certainty". But as I have clearly explained earlier, all forms of knowledge, even if a person is certain about it, does not necessarily contain facts or accuracy. A person can be certain that it will rain tomorrow - and it might not. He did have a sort of knowledge - but it was wrong.

Knowledge is often wrong. Certainties are often misplaced.

A person can have the knowledge and certainty that he will fall off the edge of the world if he takes his ship too far. He does have knowledge, and he is certain about it. Yet, the world is NOT fall, and he does NOT fall off the edge. This person could NEVER accept that he held his idea with faith, and without any evidence. That is the nature of "faith" - it often cannot see itself in action.

Scientologists never examine this aspect of how knowledge and certainty can be partially or entirely wrong. That notion (and fact) is not part of Hubbard's indoctrination.

Lastly, to sum it up, Scientology brings about a deep and abiding faith in a great many things, while totally DENYING that anything like "faith" is at work in any way. THAT is part of the incredible cognitive dissonance. Opposites exists. The person's beliefs involve a tremendous degree of faith, yet at the same time he or she totally denies that any such faith is at work in him or herself.

We all carry unconscious, subconscious, semi-conscious beliefs. I like your concept of unconscious faith. I call it unrecognized belief. There is a difference – faith is more or less feeling, may not be expressed in words even if recognized, belief is more verbal and rational (even if absurd).


The question is – did Hubbard consciously instill beliefs into his followers below their awareness level? Or it happened accidentally and naturally like in many cults?


A bit like a house with many windows and doors open, Hubbard walks in and remains there. Yuck.

It is rather ironic. When people were fishing out their own postulates from past lives, Hubbard slipped unrecognized and left his goals and postulates in the freed space.


(Lost, I don’t mean you at all, it is all theoretical and hypothetical and half baked anyway, no disrespect.)