Could an evidence-based "scientific religion" work?
- Thread starter suspiciousperson
- Start date
guanoloco
As-Wased
Here it is from the Admin Dictionary...however, most definitions have an attendant PL or bulletin or lecture, etc. Some don't have that and this one doesn't have it.
EQUILIBRIUM, a balancing point where
outflow is equal to inflow such as where a
nation's total expenditure equals its total
income.
That's not in the spirit of the datum but the following in regards to promotion is closer to the idea...the "outflow=inflow" doesn't exist here, though.
PROMOTION, 1. means, to make something
known and thought well of. In our
activities it means to send something out
that will cause people to respond either in
person or by their written order or reply to
the end of applying Scn service to or
through the person or selling Scn commodities,
all to the benefit of the person and the
solvency of the org. (HCO PL 20 Nov 65R)
2. promotion is making things known. It's
getting things out. It's getting one's self
known. It's getting one's products out. (SH
Spec 62, 6505C25) 3. promotion consists of
getting names and addresses and contacting
them and offering service to get them in.
The more names, the more contacts, the more
people. (HCO PL 15 Mar 65 I) 4. accumulation
of the identities of persons. This is
done by getting lists of names, by personal
contact, etc., and offering those identities
something they will buy, a book or a service.
Dissemination and salesmanship are really
promotion. (HCO PL 21 Jan 65) 5. when
routing arrangements are made or communication
invited from org to public and public
to org, we call it promotion. (HCO PL 17
Nov 64) 6. promotion is the art of offering
what will be responded to. (HCO PL 7 Mar
64) 7. promotion consists only of what to
offer and how to offer it, that will be
responded to. That's the extent of it. (HCO
PL 7 Mar 64) 8. by promotion in a Scn organization,
we mean reach the public. (HCO
PL 26 Aug 59) 9. poor promotion gives you
a ratio of maybe 98% outflow and 2%
inflow, i.e. 98 pieces of mail (of all kinds)
mailed and 2 pieces of mail (of all kinds)
received. Fair promotion would perhaps
consist of 90% outflow and 10% inflow,
meaning that for 90 pieces of material (of all
kinds) mailed by the org, 10 pieces of mail
(of all kinds) were received. Fantastically
wonderful promotion would consist of 50%
outflow, 50% inflow. A miracle would be
10% outflow and 90% inflow. No exact index
or chart of this has ever been made. But
the above is an educated guestimate. The
figures are given to make the following
point: the better the promotion, the higher
the inflow rises in proportion to the outflow.
(HCO PL 7 Mar 64)
freethinker
Sponsor
Gadfly
Crusader
On outflow, Hubbard did say to promote until the floors caved in with people responding for service. Sure, it was another metaphor, but along with many other ideas, the idea is to constantly and consistently send out PROMO in great abundance. Always, and never let up.
That is why if you have ever been a Scientologist you were constantly bombarded with endless promotion in the form of letters, magazines and brochures. When I was in college I went to ONE evening seminar, and my roommates were dumbfounded with how much CRAP cam in the mail almost EVERY DAY!
In HCOPL 17 Nov 1965, Hubbard says:
'The motto of promotion could be "we shall overcome - by numbers"'.
"Finally, promote until the floors cave in because of the number of people - and don't even take notice of that, just keep promoting".
Hubbard says in other policies:
"If you want activity and income you must have a high volume of outflow."
"The function of the Public Divisions is outflow."
"The income of an organization depends on its outflow."
"Outflow is holier, more moral, more remunerative and more effective than inflow."
That is why if you have ever been a Scientologist you were constantly bombarded with endless promotion in the form of letters, magazines and brochures. When I was in college I went to ONE evening seminar, and my roommates were dumbfounded with how much CRAP cam in the mail almost EVERY DAY!
In HCOPL 17 Nov 1965, Hubbard says:
'The motto of promotion could be "we shall overcome - by numbers"'.
"Finally, promote until the floors cave in because of the number of people - and don't even take notice of that, just keep promoting".
Hubbard says in other policies:
"If you want activity and income you must have a high volume of outflow."
"The function of the Public Divisions is outflow."
"The income of an organization depends on its outflow."
"Outflow is holier, more moral, more remunerative and more effective than inflow."
uniquemand
Unbeliever
that explains why he never stopped writing reams of trash novels.
kate8024
-deleted-
"dictionary definitions of religion almost always fail." --pretty much every religious scholar ever
While you may draw a line between spirituality and religion, this is not as common as you might think and for many people they are the exact same thing. Christian Gnosticism very much emphasizes subjective religious experiences over dogma, but I think most people will still consider it a religion and not just spirituality.
Not directly related to your or my point, but related to the concept of faith I read a good quote yesterday:
As Graham Greene indicated in his novels of those struggling with faith, doubt is the heart of the matter; it is what keeps religion human. In a way, it is the annealing fire of faith. Without it, there is only a terrifying certainty, a blind and blinding refuge from both thought and humanity. Certainty requires no leap of faith such as Kierkegaard talked of. To walk out on the limb of a tall tree believing it won't break requires only a certain foolhardy credulity; to walk out on that same limb fully aware that it might indeed break requires placing one's faith or one's trust in God or fate or the law of averages. Where certainty is often the refusal to think, to question, to reason - a refusal to engage in the kind of Socratic dialogue with unbelief... - faith requires an awareness of the possibility of being wrong, which is why it is perhaps best defined in Hebrews 11:1 as "the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen." In the lack of doubt, then, faith is moot. The certainty that you are right devolves into righteousness and dogmatism, and worse, an overwhelming pride in being so very right.
-- Lesley Hazleton, The First Muslim - The Story of Muhammad, page 90
Anonycat
Crusader
Thats a good idea for a new photo caption
If I did, I would at least use a spell checker.
Rmack
Van Allen Belt Sunbather
The reply to not everything Laffy wrote was a scam is Hitler loved puppies?
Nicely put! And belated welcome to the board.
The answer to your question, though, is there already is that sort of religion, if you're not too picky on the evidence-based science part. It's called 'Evolution'
Gadfly
Crusader
The reply to not everything Laffy wrote was a scam is Hitler loved puppies?
Nicely put! And belated welcome to the board.
The answer to your question, though, is there already is that sort of religion, if you're not too picky on the evidence-based science part. It's called 'Evolution'
Love the sarcasm and quip at the Religion of Evolution.
uniquemand
Unbeliever
I am obliged to mention metapsychology, here. http://www.tir.org (this is the organization's website) http://www.nrepp.samhsa.gov/ViewIntervention.aspx?id=245 (this is the method's scientific credentialing)
No. And going back to the original question (Could an evidence-based "scientific religion" work?): That'd also be a "No" from me.
Why do I think so?
Because religion is strictly about belief. Of course one can believe that one ended up in an ugly thunderstorm because the god Thor wasn't too pleased with something one had or hadn't done and that'd be it.
Science has nothing to do with belief, it's just a good method to gain knowledge using the "tools" one has available. The "tools" usually being the knowledge gathered by previous "(re)searchers".
Science asks "why?" and religion replies "Because your deity of choice planned it that way."
So, since I don't think science and religion can ever find a way to work successfully together, my overall answer is "No".
It all depends on what evidence could be worked up.
You mean evidence for a belief? If you really want to jump though that loophole, i'll respond with the words of Jason Beghe: "Show me ONE motherfuckin' Clear."
Study the current belief system about the "Big Bang" and all will become clear. (if you are well grounded in physics that is)
Study the current belief system about the "Big Bang" and all will become clear. (if you are well grounded in physics that is)
No. The "Big Bang" is just a theory based on what is currently know about this universe. This theory may or may not change anytime in the future, based on new facts and/or theories which will probably come up sometime.
Physics, for example, is the teaching of what is currently known. Science is about finding what is not yet known. It's a concept, a process and/or a methodology.
Something new to me was this video, which claims that C (the speed of light) is, contrary to popular belief, not a constant. So, since I'm not a scientist, I'll wait with bated breath what the next agreed-upon theory on this will be.
No. First, it doesn't qualify as a scientific theory . Second, it flies in the face of tested scientific theories of what we currently know to be true about the universe. Like I said, you need to have a good grounding in physics to see my point..
So, instead of blabbing on about my lack of "good grounding in physics", why not just tell me what your "point" is?
Anyway, I guess I'm wasting my time here.
So, instead of blabbing on about my lack of "good grounding in physics", why not just tell me what your "point" is?
Anyway, I guess I'm wasting my time here.
Giving scientific definitions is now "babbling"? Hmm, why do I deduce that you lack even a rudimentary science edu?
Reread what I wrote and deduce based on scientific belief/faith systems. One of which I just detailed. That's as simple an explanation as can be made.
Where did I say that?
Because you don't know any better?
Nope.
Where did you "detail" anything?
<snip>
Anyway, I guess I'm wasting my time here.
Thanks for proving my point.
