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

[marplots]

If I am going on a trip across France, am I better of taking a map of France, or a map of Narnia? Sure I might end up following the map of Narnia to some bit of France I'm glad to go to, I might even fluke it and get to where I intended, but that's blind luck, it doesn't mean that the map of Narnia contained any genuinely helpful information.

The problems are two-fold. First, we don't know which map is correct until we find out we are in France. Second, when it comes to spiritual matters, each of us is born fresh to explore the world from our own perspective. This is unlike the way we communicate the "known" although related. The feelings I wish to understand are generated from within me. The explanations for those feelings come from the culture I find myself in. But the knowledge isn't cumulative in the same way that physics or mathematics is. Physics is demonstrated, spirituality is experienced directly. The questions are different. One set is about the world around me, the other is about me, personally.

If there was some stuff connected to belief in false Gods that happened to lead to people making sensible decisions, that is blind luck.

Also, to give a contrary narrative to your divine inspiration one... the version I had heard was that by looking back to a golden age - Eden, by seeing the world as fallen from that Golden age, by relying on ancient religious texts there was a tendency to put too much weight on knowledge from the past, i.e. Aristotle, Paracelsus, etc.. and not actually check anything when in fact they contained errors that any fool could have seen if they'd thought to double check.

Thanks, I like that story too. Religion then gets credit for both the dark ages and the enlightenment.

 

[shuttlt]

Would you say then that your beliefs are ranked by how easily you think they might be contradicted and changed? That's what I think you are saying.

But here's the rub. Until they are contradicted and changed, you cannot know the strength of a belief. So, for example, someone who undergoes a conversion experience (either toward or against religious belief) would have argued beforehand, and will argue afterwards, that their belief was immune from alteration, invincible and unassailable.

That isn't it at all. In the example I gave, I am well aware that the belief isn't well supported, worse, other people have contrary beliefs that have just as much support. Religion is an obvious example of this, many incompatible beliefs, all more or less equally well supported. One would surely be a great fool (or at least lacking in curiosity) to believe in Catholicism, say, and not to wrestle with the fact that, had you been born 1000 miles away, you would almost certainly be just as convinced of Islam. Personally I wouldn't need to wait for Allah to turn up for this problem to make my belief in Catholicism somewhat more provisional than my belief that walking off cliffs is painful.

There are perfectly rational grounds for beliefs to be of different strengths now, we don't need to be omniscient.

 

[Halfcentaur]

Scientology should try hiding pro Scientology plants on the internet, people who can make them seem reasonable as another way of looking at things, people who seem to be unbiased but willing to defend the doctrines of Scientology.

 

[shuttlt]

The problems are two-fold. First, we don't know which map is correct until we find out we are in France.

No. You said that all the wrong things Newton believed might have been helpful to him. I said that any assistance they gave him were due to dump luck, and gave my Narnia example. You are now arguing against that saying that Newton couldn't know that his beliefs were false. The fact that he couldn't know that his false beliefs were false, doesn't mean that they didn't get in the way and, if they helped him, only through dump luck.

Second, when it comes to spiritual matters, each of us is born fresh to explore the world from our own perspective. This is unlike the way we communicate the "known" although related. The feelings I wish to understand are generated from within me. The explanations for those feelings come from the culture I find myself in. But the knowledge isn't cumulative in the same way that physics or mathematics is. Physics is demonstrated, spirituality is experienced directly. The questions are different. One set is about the world around me, the other is about me, personally.

Sure, for stuff that has no external reality, makes no claims about the outside world, etc... Even then, if there are a bunch of subjective spiritualities and everybody has different ideas I would attach any more weight to my own spiritual ideas than I had to. It would be kind of egotistical to believe I had got it right and everybody else had got it wrong.

Thanks, I like that story too. Religion then gets credit for both the dark ages and the enlightenment.

This way Sophistry lies... or possibly a thread about causality and determinism.

 

[shuttlt]

Scientology should try hiding pro Scientology plants on the internet, people who can make them seem reasonable as another way of looking at things, people who seem to be unbiased but willing to defend the doctrines of Scientology.

I think they'd be better served doing that anywhere but here.

 

[marplots]

No. You said that all the wrong things Newton believed might have been helpful to him.

Yes, this is what I said.

I said that any assistance they gave him were due to dump luck, and gave my Narnia example. You are now arguing against that saying that Newton couldn't know that his beliefs were false. The fact that he couldn't know that his false beliefs were false, doesn't mean that they didn't get in the way and, if they helped him, only through dump luck.

Yes. The difference is that he doesn't have two maps going in, one of France and one of Narnia. He is drawing a map. We probably agree there is no method that would avoid all mistakes and false paths. But I'm saying that abstracting out the work we like from that which seems foolish in hindsight does a disservice to the mind behind the name. The same mind explored Alchemy and Gravity. The same mind invented calculus and contemplated God. You can admire the tool while still thinking it was misapplied, but I think it's not a tool at all, it's the flowering of one person's mind.

(about spirituality)
Sure, for stuff that has no external reality, makes no claims about the outside world, etc... Even then, if there are a bunch of subjective spiritualities and everybody has different ideas I would attach any more weight to my own spiritual ideas than I had to. It would be kind of egotistical to believe I had got it right and everybody else had got it wrong.

But how could you do differently and still call it belief? You seem to be saying, "There are things I believe in which I don't really believe."

We probably have different things in mind. (Pun accepted if not intended.)

This way Sophistry lies... or possibly a thread about causality and determinism.

Yeah, I agree. I have been trying to avoid it, but it's sneaky like that.

 

[pakeha]

...For example, I think we could both construct situations where false beliefs have more benefit than true beliefs. Or at least, we could give examples where the consequences of knowing the truth were less than optimal. ... Truth is quite often a poor way to measure value. ...If, for example, someone believes in God's plan, and that belief helps stave off depression about mortality or gives them a sense of participation in a larger good despite personal setbacks, why would I deny them this?

I rather think false beliefs are very common and serve a useful purpose. ...

For manipulating others, yes, undoubtedly.

 

[Orphia Nay]

Yeah, because if it was done to someone else besides you, why should you care? Are you your brother's keeper? Everybody's different; some people get blackmailed and some don't. So if you're one of the lucky ones who don't, shut up and count your blessings!

Don't you get it yet? The police brainwash people so it's okay if Scientologists brainwash people by a perhaps lesser amount. Time-share condo sellers rip people off, so it's okay if Scientologists rip people off by perhaps a lesser amount. Governments are evil, so it's okay if Scientologists are maybe just a bit less evil. Skeptics sometimes bully people, so it's okay if Scientologists harass former members and break up their families. Some people tell made-up stories about Santa so it's perfectly okay to charge tens of thousands of dollars for made-up stories about Thetans. The military uses a lot of acronyms so it's okay for Scientology to use misleading terminology. Girls used to be forced to marry at age 12, so statutory rape is completely acceptable, and the real outrage is that the laws against it exist. If any other wrong besides Scientology exists in the world, it's unfair to call anything Scientology does wrong.

It's a very interesting system of practice. Its fundamental active principle appears to be shifting the blame. One becomes "clear" when all the blame in the world has been shifted away from oneself. Compare and contrast with the Catholic state of grace after confession, atonement, and forgiveness.

Respectfully,
Myriad

One of the very best posts from this thread.

Justinian is committing the Tu Quoque fallacy repeatedly.

Two wrongs don't make a right, Justinian.

To sum up: You think we are brainwashed by society and Scientologists think that most of society is brainwashed.

To sum up like a ten year old: I'm not brainwashed, you're double brainwashed!

Again, two wrongs don't make a right.

Skepticism tries to avoid the pitfalls of society. You're dealing with the un-brainwashed, not society, whereas Scientology brainwashes you into thinking you're brainwashed, then brainwashes you into thinking you're unbrainwashed by their methods.

Skeptics: Unbrainwashed.
Society: Brainwashed.
Scientologists: Triple-brainwashed.

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.

Excellent post. (ETA: Nominated.)

Shame it'll go unheeded.

Justinian, I fear, is also guilty of the Sunk-Cost fallacy.

He's spent so much time and money on Scientology, he thinks that alone makes it worthwhile, despite never achieving its goals (clear), and not being able to prove its worthwhile to others. He's only got anecdotal evidence that it's helped him, but it's not clear he's any better than anyone else.

 

[hgc]

This is a good and a serious question, so I'll try to give a detailed response.

The tl;dr answer is that, with limitations, I do care.

The longer version recognizes some of the constraints. First, I know I am not the best instrument to measure the truth value of my own beliefs. When they have changed (I hope for the better) the change came by way of taking in new information from outside of myself. So I am familiar with making mistakes. I also admit I am biased and need to try to overcome unreasonable bias.

But there is more. For example, I think we could both construct situations where false beliefs have more benefit than true beliefs. Or at least, we could give examples where the consequences of knowing the truth were less than optimal. I'll give just one...

A child is admitted for transplant surgery and the usual tests are done, including antigen testing (to help prevent rejection). The doctors realize that the the child cannot be the offspring of the husband because of the test results.

The context is an otherwise loving and stable marriage and family. The husband and wife both believe (falsely) that the child is theirs, but in truth, the child is the result of a one-time misstep on the wife's part.

Should the wife and husband be told the truth of the matter, knowing the likely consequences would be damage to the marriage?

What we're talking about generally in this thread -- the reality of your worldview, beliefs in gods and demons and wacky things, is not at all the same thing as what you're describing here: the white lie scenario, situational withholding of information.

The deeper problem comes from the landscape we operate in. Truth is quite often a poor way to measure value. When I look at how I spend my day, those things that I find enjoyable and useful, truth rarely enters the mix. For example, before I started with this post, I had watched a television drama. I found it gripping and evocative. Of course, I realize the entire thing was made up and not true -- this has little bearing on the value to me. I also listen to music I like. I eat food I find tasty. None of these things have to do with true beliefs.

Again, I don't see what this scenario has to do with our discussion. I also enjoy fictional things, while knowing full well they're fictional.

I also find a very pragmatic test on offer. Among those with whom I disagree and would say they hold false beliefs, they are able to operate as well or better than I in the world. Arguably, these false beliefs have done them no harm and may have done them some good. If, for example, someone believes in God's plan, and that belief helps stave off depression about mortality or gives them a sense of participation in a larger good despite personal setbacks, why would I deny them this?

Deny them this how? Tell them what you think that is contrary to their own beliefs. You can make the decision on that as needed. There's often no point in trying to disabuse someone of their beliefs, like if you know they're un-receptive to the conversation.

But my question is about how you feel about your own beliefs.

Finally, I'd point out that false beliefs do not appear false to those who hold them. I will stipulate that we cannot willfully believe things that we also know to be false. And this cycles back to being poor measuring instruments.

So, the longer answer to the question of whether I value true beliefs, I will say that I can hold no other beliefs than those which I deem to be true.

... which leads to the question of how you measure the truth value of your beliefs. If you believe that Hubbard's system of "auditing" provides some benefit to its practitioners, how did you measure the truth of that proposition?

 

[ddt]

I ran a search at scientology.org and couldn't find anything about "xenu."

Yeah, they don't tell you that story until you are already thoroughly brainwashed. Xenu is covered in OT-III. If you get that far you've been scammed into the six figures.

How 'bout a court of law?


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xenu#Church_of_Scientology.27s_position

Or even simpler: Scientology has sued several people and companies - notably Karin Spaink and Dutch ISP Xs4all - for copyright infringement for publishing OT-III. That in itself is an affirmation that it is "church scripture".

 

[Justinian2]

Yeah, they don't tell you that story until you are already thoroughly brainwashed. Xenu is covered in OT-III. If you get that far you've been scammed into the six figures.

When you enter Scientology, you buy a five dollar book. Then you take a $25introductory session and a $100 dollar course or two. You enter gradually. You don't go further unless you are happy with what you've done. You've done your own research. In a way, you've done your own double blind study. You've compared your life before Scientology and your life after Scientology courses and auditing. If you choose to continue, you've made an informed decision.

James Holmes had a psychiatrist when he killed 12 people and wounded 58. Almost all the recent mass murderers were treated by psychiatrists. People here keep bringing up only Lisa. Before comparing Scientology to psychiatry, one ought to do a full comparison. Psychiatry leaves you stoned on drugs or sane at best. Scientology leaves you above sane (clear or OT).

 

[hgc]

In a way, you've done your own double blind study. You've compared your life before Scientology and your life after Scientology courses and auditing.

That is the exact opposite of what experimental blinding is. "Double blind" is not like "double negative," where doing it twice cancels the effect.

There has been a Misunderstood in Aisle 3. Please send in a Word Clearing crew.

 

[Justinian2]

I saw two psychiatrists for an hour each. I read a couple of psych books. I took a couple pills. I never paid either psychiatrist - for good reason.

Then I was audited for an hour in the church for $25. Then I read a couple of Scientology books. Then I took a $25 dollar course.

I was informed before entering Scientology. Each step of the way, I was satisfied with the previous step. Now, at OTVII, I've completed my journey through Scientology and am totally satisfied. My journey up the bridge was more than I expected. I'm happy.

Some of the people here try to give opinions as reasons not to believe in Scientology. My advice to these anti-Scientologists: Don't waste your time.

 

[pakeha]

...People here keep bringing up only Lisa. Before comparing Scientology to psychiatry, one ought to do a full comparison. Psychiatry leaves you stoned on drugs or sane at best. Scientology leaves you above sane (clear or OT).

Lisa McPherson?
I'd be interested in knowing the take of an OTVII on that death.
Justinian, did you know her?
Or people who knew her?

 

[Myriad]

There's been some interesting discussion about prayer and other things since a page back, but I'd like to return to these questions:

No OT, as far as I know, can pick up a plane like superman.

Okay, that's an example of something you can't do. I'm asking for some examples of things you can do.

Sometimes what we do with our hands is all that we can do.

What about the times when you can do more than what you can do with your hands, and effect changes by thinking about them, like you mentioned before? Can you give some examples?

What happens to me, more often than not, is that an OT postulate gets converted to inspiration.

This might be an earnest attempt to answer my question, but the meanings of the words aren't clear. What are the OT postulates? What does it mean to convert one into inspiration? Inspiration, as I understand it, occurs in the mind, so are you saying that higher level OTs can be the cause of MEST but only in their own minds?

Once again, providing some examples might be the easiest way to clarify this.

Respectfully,
Myriad

 

[marplots]

What we're talking about generally in this thread -- the reality of your worldview, beliefs in gods and demons and wacky things, is not at all the same thing as what you're describing here: the white lie scenario, situational withholding of information.

That's because I was addressing the universal -- do I value true beliefs. My purpose was to develop the nuances in the question, to show it shouldn't be answered in a knee-jerk fashion.

Again, I don't see what this scenario has to do with our discussion. I also enjoy fictional things, while knowing full well they're fictional.

But even more than mere enjoyment. Fictional things can change us.
"Two roads diverged in a wood, and I—
I took the one less traveled by,
And that has made all the difference."

Does it matter if that ever happened to the author?

But my question is about how you feel about your own beliefs.

About the same as I feel about the lengths of the fingers on my hands. They are what they are, beyond my immediate control. They are the context, the canvas, the ground informing and directing what I do. It seems pointless to evaluate them as if they were something other than what makes me, me.

... which leads to the question of how you measure the truth value of your beliefs. If you believe that Hubbard's system of "auditing" provides some benefit to its practitioners, how did you measure the truth of that proposition?

This is no different than other things you examine and determine worthwhile or not, so or not so. Generally, the method is to compare what's on offer with what I already accept to see how it fits. For example, I have no direct experience with radioactive decay, but I have read about it and listened to sources I trust. Mostly, I trust them because they are familiar and I have trusted them in the past. If you tried to recast the matter as pixies who have the power to render atoms into their component parts, I'd shy away from that explanation, not having any previous truth value for pixies.

There is another way to test beliefs though. Insofar as they result in predictions, you can see if the predictions actually happen. For example, if I believed I was a top tier golfer and actually performed well in professional tournaments, my belief would be justified. This is unfortunately colored by cognitive bias -- the propensity to give more weight to confirming evidence than contrary.

Neither of the two methods of checking I've mentioned are entirely satisfying. What usually happens is a kind of inertia attached to a previous belief. Rather than abandon it wholesale, what happens more often is that it is modified -- as little as possible -- to keep it functional. If I were to start losing tournaments (contrary to my belief of being a top tier golfer), I might cast about for a temporary glitch or alter my idea of what a top tier golfer is.

I hope I'm communicating that belief itself isn't some sort of magical thing, but more like a biological fact. Flawed in the same way that our muscles are limited. In this light, truth and falsehood take a back seat to functional or not.

 

[Twiler]

When you enter Scientology, you buy a five dollar book. Then you take a $25introductory session and a $100 dollar course or two. You enter gradually. You don't go further unless you are happy with what you've done. You've done your own research. In a way, you've done your own double blind study. You've compared your life before Scientology and your life after Scientology courses and auditing. If you choose to continue, you've made an informed decision.

James Holmes had a psychiatrist when he killed 12 people and wounded 58. Almost all the recent mass murderers were treated by psychiatrists. People here keep bringing up only Lisa. Before comparing Scientology to psychiatry, one ought to do a full comparison. Psychiatry leaves you stoned on drugs or sane at best. Scientology leaves you above sane (clear or OT).

It left Lisa dead. Do you deny that?

 

[pakeha]

Actually, to me the most interesting part isn't the economic obligation the deceased felt she had with CoS- after all, how much can mottos and cans and subliminal electrical impulses really cost?

What interests me is the reaction of the people around her during the entire agony.
Obviously these people were 'high toned' and you know, highly trained.
Fit for looking after an OT VIII in her time of need.

Perhaps our resident OTs could shed some light on the subject?

 

[pakeha]

These are some hair-raising links on the subject of the deceased:
http://www.cs.cmu.edu/~dst/Scientology/ReleaseForms/Introspection.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_of_Lisa_McPherson
http://www.lisamcpherson.org/
http://www.lisafiles.com/

And some Scientology links:
http://www.scientologymyths.info/lisa-mcpherson/
http://www.sptimes.com/2004/05/29/Tampabay/Scientologists_settle.shtml

I would very much appreciate reading what other interpretations can be given to this particular death.

 

[Justinian2]

Lisa McPherson?
I'd be interested in knowing the take of an OTVII on that death.
Justinian, did you know her?
Or people who knew her?

I compared the policy used on Lisa written during the LRH era with the policy written during the Miscavige era. The policies were almost totally different.

Furthermore, the policy wasn't applied with any logic or even common sense.

I don't even think the policy should have been applied. Let the psychiatrists handle the nut jobs. If the police, psychiatrists or politicians get blamed, nothing happens and the brainwashed masses forget.