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

[marplots]

Marplots, what is your opinion of Scientology?

I think it's a grand experiment in human behavior. I think the system itself is the driving force, beyond any specific "tech" on offer. In this light, it has the strengths and weaknesses of any collective, including the tendency to go all wacky without a mechanism that checks against other ideas.

If you mean the doctrine, I haven't seen anything other than bizarre ways of looking at the world. I don't see how they are very informative. But none of that means they have to be. Beyond the parallels with the Elks or the Boy Scouts (who, I gather, have just as nebulous goals), the organization preys on the better nature of those who buy into it and David Miscavage is riding the horse hard.

The thing that I don't yet know is how much choice is actually involved by the membership. Are they free beings choosing (as much as anyone chooses) to follow a strange hobby or are they puppets -- or some combination?

I also think they are vulnerable in one particular way. The rise of easily generated media, both books and visual media, steals away their power to impress with authority based on these items. Every YouTube video that shows some embarrassing element, every document and website that lays out the criticisms -- well, those taint what might otherwise seem pristine and worthwhile. I don't think the church can prevent this poisoning of the well (from their perspective). Society, at least in the US, is getting inoculated.

 

[dafydd]

I think it's a grand experiment in human behavior.

Warped scam are the words that I would use.

 

[marplots]

It is often harder to defend a position that you claim to hold. Being a devils advocate can be much easier since you never really have to commit yourself to anything and nobody can get a handle on your core position, since you deny having one.

Yep. Especially when there isn't any real need to adopt a clear core position. I don't know anyone in Scientology, it's all third hand and abstract.

 

[shuttlt]

In a sense, they do. They might rationally claim that you are not constituted in the manner required to enjoy Surströmming. (What the heck is that?)

It's putrid fish, but that's not the point. You are equivocating your way out of the issue. Generally people who like a particular food don't claim that it is simply the case that the food they like is tasty and people who don't like it are wrong. Tastiness is something that occurs as a subjective experience. You and I may think that religion is just a subjective experience, but that isn't what religious people believe. They believe that their religion is True (unless they are CofE of course). Believing in Allah isn't just about a subjective experience, it is also about having an objective belief which is incompatible with the objective beliefs of Hindus - "There is no God but Allah and Muhammad is the Messenger of Allah.", after all.

Liking a particular food, generally isn't about objective claims to tastiness.

 

[marplots]

A scam always involves conning someone out of their money. If $cientology was free it would still be dangerous. It is not free so it is a scam. Can we stop now with the ''what if, let's pretend'' questions? Let's stick to the reality of $cientology please. Like the claims about engrams causing leukemia that Justinian is avoiding like the plague. What does that tell you about $cientologists?

It tells me that such questions aren't important to them. Their faith doesn't rest on those claims being true or false. I do this myself quite a bit. I put varying degrees of importance on factual matters and discount those "inconvenient truths." I assumed everyone did this.

I see it in action here on the forum a great deal. There will be some fact offered and the fact itself isn't challenged, the importance and the meaning of that fact is. Significance appears to be in the mind of the beholder.

 

[shuttlt]

Yep. Especially when there isn't any real need to adopt a clear core position. I don't know anyone in Scientology, it's all third hand and abstract.

This does make the debate go kind of Legend of the Drunken Master though. There needs to be somebody owning the position being defended. I don't think debate really works without that.

 

[dafydd]

It tells me that such questions aren't important to them. Their faith doesn't rest on those claims being true or false. I do this myself quite a bit. I put varying degrees of importance on factual matters and discount those "inconvenient truths." I assumed everyone did this.

I see it in action here on the forum a great deal. There will be some fact offered and the fact itself isn't challenged, the importance and the meaning of that fact is. Significance appears to be in the mind of the beholder.

And if the significance is based on a fantasy instead of reality?

 

[marplots]

It's putrid fish, but that's not the point. You are equivocating your way out of the issue. Generally people who like a particular food don't claim that it is simply the case that the food they like is tasty and people who don't like it are wrong. Tastiness is something that occurs as a subjective experience. You and I may think that religion is just a subjective experience, but that isn't what religious people believe. They believe that their religion is True (unless they are CofE of course). Believing in Allah isn't just about a subjective experience, it is also about having an objective belief which is incompatible with the objective beliefs of Hindus - "There is no God but Allah and Muhammad is the Messenger of Allah.", after all.

Liking a particular food, generally isn't about objective claims to tastiness.

However, it may be part of my belief that you are flawed, even destined to be so. In matters of taste, should you not respond to saltiness, I would be making a truth claim, "this is salty" and also saying you were defective. And I think you'll find that such claims are often objective, with, for example, oenophiles claiming a particular wine actually has some properties based on their tasting it.

I have heard this is part of Islam, that some are destined not to believe. I know it is part of strong Calvinism, where there are the elect and those doomed never to "get it."

Doesn't Scientology even state this under the "true for you" rider?

I think it's all subjective, so I can't make a case about right or wrong here.

 

[marplots]

This does make the debate go kind of Legend of the Drunken Master though. There needs to be somebody owning the position being defended. I don't think debate really works without that.

I think there's value in exploring it. But I'm not an authentic proponent. What I can do is object where I think poor arguments are being offered up.

 

[dafydd]

I think there's value in exploring it. But I'm not an authentic proponent. What I can do is object where I think poor arguments are being offered up.

The links that I have provided are very good arguments.

 

[shuttlt]

However, it may be part of my belief that you are flawed, even destined to be so. In matters of taste, should you not respond to saltiness, I would be making a truth claim, "this is salty" and also saying you were defective. And I think you'll find that such claims are often objective, with, for example, oenophiles claiming a particular wine actually has some properties based on their tasting it.

I have heard this is part of Islam, that some are destined not to believe. I know it is part of strong Calvinism, where there are the elect and those doomed never to "get it."

Doesn't Scientology even state this under the "true for you" rider?

I think it's all subjective, so I can't make a case about right or wrong here.

Why are you trying to alter the discussion of tastiness into something objective? Saying "I like this and you like that" isn't the same thing as saying "this sugar tastes of salt".

Scientology may say a lot of things. However I struggle to see how one can reasonably say "if it is true for you that [objective claim] then it is true for you". The point of objective claims is they are true, or they are not. They are not true for you and false for me. Xenu exists, or Xenu does not exists. Auditing causes people to lose mass, or it does not. Allah is the only God, or he isn't. These are not "true for you" things.

 

[marplots]

And if the significance is based on a fantasy instead of reality?

Then, insofar as the fantasy doesn't intersect meaningfully with reality, the myth is immune. If believing in Faries or not doesn't change what happens, Faries can live in my head without problems.

 

[dafydd]

Then, insofar as the fantasy doesn't intersect meaningfully with reality, the myth is immune. If believing in Faries or not doesn't change what happens, Faries can live in my head without problems.

At least that is free.

 

[dafydd]

Scientology may say a lot of things. However I struggle to see how one can reasonably say "if it is true for you that [objective claim] then it is true for you". The point of objective claims is they are true, or they are not. They are not true for you and false for me. Xenu exists, or Xenu does not exists. Auditing causes people to lose mass, or it does not. Allah is the only God, or he isn't. These are not "true for you" things.

Hence my point about reality.

 

[marplots]

Why are you trying to alter the discussion of tastiness into something objective? Saying "I like this and you like that" isn't the same thing as saying "this sugar tastes of salt".

You caught me out. I should have connected the two by saying something like, "this tastes crappy, there is too much salt in it."

Scientology may say a lot of things. However I struggle to see how one can reasonably say "if it is true for you that [objective claim] then it is true for you". The point of objective claims is they are true, or they are not. They are not true for you and false for me. Xenu exists, or Xenu does not exists. Auditing causes people to lose mass, or it does not. Allah is the only God, or he isn't. These are not "true for you" things.

As long as the objective claim is held at enough of a distance to be essentially uncheckable (not uncheckable in all spheres, but just uncheckable by the believer) it is immune from such attacks.

But it is no different from any objective claim you may make where you have a special perspective. If, for example, you say you saw David Miscavage playing polo in your back yard last night, and I claim I saw him several thousand miles away beating someone up in his office, one of us is mistaken. Logically, either you or I (or both) are incorrect. We are both making objective claims based on our experiences. But we both know it's the other guy who is mistaken.

I don't need to figure out why you are wrong to know I'm right. This is the position of any believer. It's relativity in action. So long as none of use has a universal reference frame, it will always be that way.

If, on the other hand, I can draw you into my local frame, I can add you to my list of followers.

 

[marplots]

At least that is free.

Up until I manage to monetize it.

 

[marplots]

It occurs to me I should mention I have some small experience in shaping the immediate experiences of people to obtain a dramatic effect. I do a bit of magic -- the trickery kind, not the other kind. I set out to misinform and misdirect. I try to tap into assumptions about the world and lead people down a trail that ends with some impossible outcome or other.

If I do it right, it's fun for everyone. I think Garrett does this as well.

In this endeavor, I have a special perspective. I am the con man who knows the secret that makes the whole thing work. What fascinates me is that there might not be anyone at all in Scientology who knows Scientology is bogus. Even David Miscavage. That's an amazing thing. It is a trick I do not have in my repertoire.

Except I probably do it myself when I believe things that aren't so.

 

[Krikkiter]

It occurs to me I should mention I have some small experience in shaping the immediate experiences of people to obtain a dramatic effect. I do a bit of magic -- the trickery kind, not the other kind. I set out to misinform and misdirect. I try to tap into assumptions about the world and lead people down a trail that ends with some impossible outcome or other.

If I do it right, it's fun for everyone. I think Garrett does this as well.

In this endeavor, I have a special perspective. I am the con man who knows the secret that makes the whole thing work. What fascinates me is that there might not be anyone at all in Scientology who knows Scientology is bogus. Even David Miscavage. That's an amazing thing. It is a trick I do not have in my repertoire.

Except I probably do it myself when I believe things that aren't so.

You have no way of knowing this.

 

[shuttlt]

I don't need to figure out why you are wrong to know I'm right. This is the position of any believer. It's relativity in action. So long as none of use has a universal reference frame, it will always be that way.

Which is all well and good, but I don't think it accounts for "believers" who come here, or not completely anyway. The absolute refusal to deal with danger questions strikes me as indicative of something. The fact that they feel drawn to argue with/at sceptic as well...

 

[shuttlt]

If they don't know it's bogus, have all these PR problems and yet have a technique that could cure most of the worlds diseases, you'd have thought they would be blundering about under the mistaken belief that they could solve their PR problems/make even more money by proving (in a way that would matter to non-believers) they could cure most of the worlds diseases. Odd that they don't, given that they believe and therefore presumably think they could.