Scientology abandoned by Hubbard's granddaughter & Miscavige's father

[hgc]

How do we use our beliefs to construct a coherent worldview and what's the outcome when there are mismatches?

I prefer to use evidence to inform what I accept as reality. I try to acquaint myself with the provenance of the incoming information.

For instance, if the information is coming from L. Ron Hubbard, it is suspect. This is not only because he's well known to have lied about his life experience, education and qualifications, or that he is well known to have been a con man and manipulative cult leader, but mainly because his contribution to a supposed description of reality is almost entirely controverted by established scientific fact and has never been validated in any way through the scientific processes of independent replication of results by experimentation and observation.

Every speck of the anecdotal results ever reported by Scientologists has never been achieved under controlled conditions.

Don't start with beliefs, and then try to jump to a worldview. First, examine your beliefs to see if they comport with what else you know about reality. Examine them for their source and provenance. Try to find personal subjectivity in your worldview, and try to reduce its effect.

Do not accept solipsism. "What's true for you is true for you," is a grotesque rejection of objectivity.

 

[shuttlt]

Using Scientology as an example, how does it continue to exist? I don't think the answer will be as simple as claiming the whole thing is a sham and a con. But even if it is, why does it endure? It seems to be at least as robust as belief in psychics. I expect it meets some need, has some value to its members. Will it go the way of Transcendental Meditation or will it blossom, like the Latter Day Saints?

Some things create the need which they then go on to fill. Other things survive through ignorance as much as anything. Blood letting for example is out and out harmful, yet people put there faith in it for a very long time. I guess they had a need to feel that had some control over disease, but had they actually known the truth about the treatment they probably wouldn't have been very happy customers.

 

[marplots]

I prefer to use evidence to inform what I accept as reality. I try to acquaint myself with the provenance of the incoming information.

For instance, if the information is coming from L. Ron Hubbard, it is suspect. This is not only because he's well known to have lied about his life experience, education and qualifications, or that he is well known to have been a con man and manipulative cult leader, but mainly because his contribution to a supposed description of reality is almost entirely controverted by established scientific fact and has never been validated in any way through the scientific processes of independent replication of results by experimentation and observation.

Every speck of the anecdotal results ever reported by Scientologists have never been achieved under controlled conditions.

Don't start with beliefs, and then try to jump to a worldview. First, examine your beliefs to see if they comport with what else you know about reality. Examine them for their source and provenance. Try to find personal subjectivity in your worldview, and try to reduce its effect.

Do not accept solipsism. "What's true for you is true for you," is a grotesque rejection of objectivity.

Are you of the opinion that the method you describe leads necessarily to the conclusions you hold? If not, and disagreements remain, how could we explain that?

If the method does necessarily lead to the conclusions you've reached, then how does the method differ from what others use who find different answers?

 

[marplots]

Some things create the need which they then go on to fill. Other things survive through ignorance as much as anything. Blood letting for example is out and out harmful, yet people put there faith in it for a very long time. I guess they had a need to feel that had some control over disease, but had they actually known the truth about the treatment they probably wouldn't have been very happy customers.

This makes me wonder what I might hold to be true or useful now that my grandchildren will understand to be bunk. It also makes me wonder if it ever works the other way round -- the judged-to-be-worthless turns out to be valuable instead.

 

[hgc]

Are you of the opinion that the method you describe leads necessarily to the conclusions you hold? If not, and disagreements remain, how could we explain that?

If the method does necessarily lead to the conclusions you've reached, then how does the method differ from what others use who find different answers?

Everybody uses this method to examine the world around them, to some extent. But cognitive dissonance is an emergent property of the human brain, and so is a tendency to believe in gods and demons and various wacky things. People will never agree to a level of metaphysical perfection, but I will always recommend you try to trace the path of why you believe what you do back to its origin. It's worth while.

 

[shuttlt]

This makes me wonder what I might hold to be true or useful now that my grandchildren will understand to be bunk. It also makes me wonder if it ever works the other way round -- the judged-to-be-worthless turns out to be valuable instead.

Is this a rhetorical question? You aren't making an argument that if an unknown percentage of the things we believe are true will turn out to be false, and an unknown percentage of things that we believe are false will turn out to be true, then all beliefs are equal, are you? Do we have no basis for saying that aspirin is good for headaches has more claim to truth than a belief that the leaves are green because leprechauns paint them?

 

[marplots]

Everybody uses this method to examine the world around them, to some extent. But cognitive dissonance is an emergent property of the human brain, and so is a tendency to believe in gods and demons and various wacky things. People will never agree to a level of metaphysical perfection, but I will always recommend you try to trace the path of why you believe what you do back to its origin. It's worth while.

"It's worthwhile."

What would you say is the worth of not believing in gods, demons and various wacky things, instead of believing in some, or all of those things? I am curious to know where the value resides.

 

[hgc]

What would you say is the worth of not believing in gods, demons and various wacky things, instead of believing in some, or all of those things? I am curious to know where the value resides.

I care if my beliefs are true. Do you?

 

[steve s]

Using Scientology as an example, how does it continue to exist?

You answer that question with the following question....

Will it go the way of Transcendental Meditation or will it blossom, like the Latter Day Saints?

You've just shown that a religion started by a con man can thrive and grow.

Steve S

 

[DuvalHMFIC]

"It's worthwhile."

What would you say is the worth of not believing in gods, demons and various wacky things, instead of believing in some, or all of those things? I am curious to know where the value resides.

I believe the value resides in intelligence, growth, and progress. If you waste your time on things that aren't real or don't exist, it's taking away time from learning and building upon that which does exist.

How handicapped were our ancestors years ago by the church, for instance? For everything they learned, for the progress they made, how much more could have been made if it wasn't for the threat of excommunication, for example? Having to research in secret for fear of your life?

Just the other day I was listening to an old episode of SGU and they were talking about how Newton spent his life studying alchemy in secret. What a waste of time! He never learned anything from it, and he could have spent that time learning even more about the universe than he did in his accomplished life.

 

[Justinian2]

I believe the value resides in intelligence, growth, and progress. If you waste your time on things that aren't real or don't exist, it's taking away time from learning and building upon that which does exist.How handicapped were our ancestors years ago by the church, for instance? For everything they learned, for the progress they made, how much more could have been made if it wasn't for the threat of excommunication, for example? Having to research in secret for fear of your life?

Just the other day I was listening to an old episode of SGU and they were talking about how Newton spent his life studying alchemy in secret. What a waste of time! He never learned anything from it, and he could have spent that time learning even more about the universe than he did in his accomplished life.

There are some models of the universe that absolutely require reincarnation.

Why is it intelligent to exclude very viable ideas?

Historically it has not been smart to assume one knows everything.

 

[Justinian2]

The Universe started two ways:

1) It powered itself up (the big bang)
2) It continually gets rebooted.

It's hard to see how the universe can spontaneously create time and space after being nothing for an infinite period.

The concept of a continually rebooting universe pushes the real decision over the horizon.

Either way, logic fails.

The only concept that works is one in which the underlying real universe is far different than anything we could perceive.

 

[DuvalHMFIC]

And again you go off in different directions than the question at hand. You do realize people see what you're doing right? I'm sure it was an old trick the church taught you years ago, maybe you didn't even realize it.

Considering I quoted marplots, it's fairly obvious what I was responding to. And that had nothing to do with the friggin' Big Bang or the beginning of the universe.

In no way am I saying that people know everything. That's impossible. It is fairly possible to know SOME things though. Things like God isn't testable, auditing has never been shown in a double blind to work, and there is no evidence of unicorns ever existing.

 

[Justinian2]

And again you go off in different directions than the question at hand. You do realize people see what you're doing right? I'm sure it was an old trick the church taught you years ago, maybe you didn't even realize it.

That's your little trick. Who taught you that?

Considering I quoted marplots, it's fairly obvious what I was responding to. And that had nothing to do with the friggin' Big Bang or the beginning of the universe.
When you say that there is no god, you are talking about how the universe was created and you claim to know how the universe was started.

In no way am I saying that people know everything. That's impossible. It is fairly possible to know SOME things though. Things like God isn't testable, auditing has never been shown in a double blind to work, and there is no evidence of unicorns ever existing.

By your test methods, the non-existance of god or reincarnation isn't yet testable either.

I think that all things considered, the existence of reincarnation and supreme beings are the most plausible concepts.

 

[mikeyx]

Auditing helps one alleviate the emotional impact of various disappointments that give a person the excuse to smoke. Auditing also gives on the knowledge of the symptoms a person has as we withdraws from smoking so that he can better prepare for and eliminate them when they happen. Ethics is necessary to quit the first three days. Vitamins and something to eliminate constipation are necessary and need to be taken ahead of the cessation.

I put together a program to help myself quit twenty years ago and it worked. However, I realize tens of millions have quit without using Scientology. The first stage of clear means that you are cause over MEST (matter, energy, space and time) for the first dynamic which includes your body.

Cessation of smoking in no way indicates whether or not a person is clear, but it could be a symptom of how clear you are. When a person is very high on the tone scale, it is a good sign that the person is clear or approaching clear on the first dynamic. He, however, could still be the effect of his many demons like logical fallacies, stupid rules, stupid habits, inappropriate feelings, etc.

The trouble with stopping the smoking habit for a Scientologist is that he feels impervious to things like cancer, and thus he is not as motivated as he might ordinarily be. I didn't quit because I feared cancer. I quit because I wanted to be cause over my body. I didn't want a chemical to control my body. I wanted to be control over MEST with regard to my body. That's why I quit twenty years ago.

the whole premise was a prank played on many by LRon, and its amazing how long it's continued.

 

[Justinian2]

In no way am I saying that people know everything. That's impossible. It is fairly possible to know SOME things though. Things like God isn't testable, auditing has never been shown in a double blind to work, QUOTE]

I wouldn't be so arrogant to say that the existence of god isn't testable. People are clever.

We already know that auditing works. I'm not even talking about the personality and IQ tests that are taken before and after each intensive. I'm talking about millions of sessions where the PC starts the session depressed, crying or sick and leaves the session happy and well. Like most Scientologists, we've seen the result both as PCs and auditors; on both sides of the cans.

 

[pakeha]

The Universe started two ways:

1) It powered itself up (the big bang)
2) It continually gets rebooted.

It's hard to see how the universe can spontaneously create time and space after being nothing for an infinite period.

The concept of a continually rebooting universe pushes the real decision over the horizon.

Either way, logic fails.

The only concept that works is one in which the underlying real universe is far different than anything we could perceive.

Something like this one?

...But what all universes have in common, according to Hubbard, is Incident I. He describes it in just a few lines and obviously didn't give the matter much thought, or perhaps he didn't dare 'to take the plunge' into this one. Hubbard doesn't say how much time this incident took, nor does he locate it. He's also noteably silent upon what happened in between Incident I and II, if I may say so.

Incident I
Occurs at start of track (4 quadrillion years ago).
LOUD SNAP
WAVES OF LIGHT
CHARIOT COMES OUT, TURNS RIGHT AND LEFT
CHERUB COMES OUT
BLOWS HORN, COMES CLOSE
SHATTERING SERIES OF SNAPS
CHERUB FADES BACK (RETREATS)
BLACKNESS DUMPED ON THETAN

L. Ron Hubbard, OT III, p. 99-100.

Judging by this, I don't think Hubbard supported either the Big Bang or the Expanding Universe-theory in his private cosmology, although both make much more sense than his. Let's label this one the Snap Story. We have here an undecisive cherub, who doesn't know whether to turn left or right and who comes out twice without ever retreating; and we have horns. A bit angelic for somebody who, as we shall see later, believed that Christ was an implant.

Let's turn to Incident II, which allegedly happened 75 million years ago and occurred on earth:

Incident II is over 36 days long. Capture on other planets was weeks or months before the implant. Those on Teegeeack (Earth) were just blown up except for Loyal officers who were (shortly before the explosion on Earth) rounded up.

http://kspaink.home.xs4all.nl/fishman/ot3.html

http://www.cs.cmu.edu/~dst/Fishman/

 

[Beelzebuddy]

Some things create the need which they then go on to fill. Other things survive through ignorance as much as anything. Blood letting for example is out and out harmful, yet people put there faith in it for a very long time. I guess they had a need to feel that had some control over disease, but had they actually known the truth about the treatment they probably wouldn't have been very happy customers.

To emphasize this and sum up: the illusion of control is almost as satisfying as the real thing, and loads easier to acquire.

 

[Justinian2]

The results of auditing aren't transitory either. The results aren't like going to see a movie when depressed and coming out of the theater laughing. The results aren't like being depressed before taking a drug and later being both depressed and hung over or too hung over to remember that you are depressed.

The results of auditing accumulate.

 

[DuvalHMFIC]

When you say that there is no god, you are talking about how the universe was created and you claim to know how the universe was started.

Okay, I'm done trying to talk with you. You are now being blatantly dishonest, and it's impossible to argue with someone who will be dishonest in the debate. Here is my post again, tell me where I mention god anywhere (this is the post that prompted your Big Bang post, I only mentioned god AFTER that, because of your post):

I believe the value resides in intelligence, growth, and progress. If you waste your time on things that aren't real or don't exist, it's taking away time from learning and building upon that which does exist.

How handicapped were our ancestors years ago by the church, for instance? For everything they learned, for the progress they made, how much more could have been made if it wasn't for the threat of excommunication, for example? Having to research in secret for fear of your life?

Just the other day I was listening to an old episode of SGU and they were talking about how Newton spent his life studying alchemy in secret. What a waste of time! He never learned anything from it, and he could have spent that time learning even more about the universe than he did in his accomplished life.

Never do I mention god, the beginning of the universe, or the big bang. I mention the church (yep, a church, not a god) holding back the great thinker's of its day. This is in the history books, it's not really up for a debate, is it? I then mention Newton studying alchemy, which again has NOTHING to do with your post.

You seem more interested in distractions rather than discussions.