Hubbard was forced to classify Scientology as a religion

AussieCase

Patron
I was listening to a youtube talk by Steve Wiseman. I came across this talk on Caroline Letkeman's site. Wiseman is a UBC psychiatrist who has studied the early relationship between Hubbard and psychiatry.

One thing that Wisemen mentions but doesn't go into is the idea that Hubbard was forced to classify Scientology as a religion two years after its inception. I suspect the inception of Scientology was tied to the publication of Science of Survival.

I am interested in this reclassification. We have all heard the phrase, "applied religious philosophy," but what does it mean? How did we go from the science of the mind to an applied religious philosophy? Why two years after Scientology was formed?

I am asking a question, and I wondering if anyone can point me in an interesting direction or share some insights into this.

I am aware of some an early published critique, and a published study indicating the ineffectiveness of Dianetics. These are mentioned in a blog post.

Wiseman goes on to say that he suspects this reclassification must have been a blow to the ego of Hubbard, a self-styled scientist--who had trouble with high school calculus.

From http://www.forum.exscn.net/entry.php?224-Dianetics-was-known-to-be-bogus :

This is a book review published Dec 1, 1950 in the American Journal of Psychiatry volume 107 pages 477-478, by Robert E. Peck.

A few **fun** highlights:

1) The book was released in May along with a corresponding article in Astounding Science Fiction.
2) The project is considered unacceptable by scientific standards.
3) Testimonials are not proof.
4) The authors claims for exhaustive tests for his own findings seem to reside in his own fantasy.
5) The author did not explain that a preliminary report had been submitted to the American Journal of Psychiatry and it had been rejected.
6) The text provides evidence which may indicate author's own systematized paranoid delusions.

...

In 1953 a PhD thesis, by Harvey Jay Fischer was published at NYU which presented the results of a study of Dianetic auditing (therapy). The study used auditors trained and certified by one of the existing Hubbard Research Foundations and found no evidence of systematic influence either favourably or adversely upon intellectual functioning, mathematical ability, or the degree of interpersonal conflicts.
 

HoraciotheOT8

Patron with Honors
I was listening to a youtube talk by Steve Wiseman. I came across this talk on Caroline Letkeman's site. Wiseman is a UBC psychiatrist who has studied the early relationship between Hubbard and psychiatry.

One thing that Wisemen mentions but doesn't go into is the idea that Hubbard was forced to classify Scientology as a religion two years after its inception. I suspect the inception of Scientology was tied to the publication of Science of Survival.

I am interested in this reclassification. We have all heard the phrase, "applied religious philosophy," but what does it mean? How did we go from the science of the mind to an applied religious philosophy? Why two years after Scientology was formed?

I am asking a question, and I wondering if anyone can point me in an interesting direction or share some insights into this.

I am aware of some an early published critique, and a published study indicating the ineffectiveness of Dianetics. These are mentioned in a blog post.

Wiseman goes on to say that he suspects this reclassification must have been a blow to the ego of Hubbard, a self-styled scientist--who had trouble with high school calculus.

From http://www.forum.exscn.net/entry.php?224-Dianetics-was-known-to-be-bogus :

Cancel youtube. It is entheta. Pick up the cans. Tell the truth. The truth will set you free. Entheta will only fuel the fire you have (and enjoy) for your righteous indignation (and outrage) at the obnoxious behavior of others.

Others are merely a mirror of that part of yourself you are not yet spiritually big enough to own. So knock it off. And grow up, spiritually. Ideal orgs are near.

much love,
Horacio
 

SchwimmelPuckel

Genuine Meatball
Dianetics, and Scientology, has claimed from the start to cure diseases and ailments. This was really dumb, as there's laws against that sort of thing. It's called quackery, if it's not true, working, and/or you're not a certified doctor.

Claiming it to be a religion gets around that law. Ie. You're not held responsible for your shit to be working.

(Seems like the law makes allowances for religious people to be nuttier then the rest of us.)

:yes:
 

HoraciotheOT8

Patron with Honors
(Seems like the law makes allowances for religious people to be nuttier then the rest of us.)

:yes:

Religious people are not nuttier than the rest of us. Which is your first error (believing 'they' are nuttier, than you/I). Religious people are merely dramatizing their human condition of being afraid, of death. That's all.

Where no fear of death exists, no religion is.

much love,
Horacio
 

onthepes

Patron with Honors
Religious people are not nuttier than the rest of us. Which is your first error (believing 'they' are nuttier, than you/I). Religious people are merely dramatizing their human condition of being afraid, of death. That's all.

Where no fear of death exists, no religion is.

much love,
Horacio


Since leaving Scientology (after 7 years of deep involvement) I am now studying Buddhism. I understand it has been labelled a religion by some. However, if you do some research on our friend the Internet, those who are on the Buddhist path generally believe this (from "The Buddhist Blog"). "Siddhartha (Buddha) was a truth seeker, nothing more. He wasn't looking for religion, as such -- he wasn't particularly interested in religion. He was searching for the truth. He was looking for a genuine path to freedom from suffering" .


As I don't fear death and I don't feel like a nut, and I would like to know a bit more about myself , Buddhism seems to fit nicely into my future plans. Plus I won't get regged or go to sleep at events.

 

Div6

Crusader
I was listening to a youtube talk by Steve Wiseman. I came across this talk on Caroline Letkeman's site. Wiseman is a UBC psychiatrist who has studied the early relationship between Hubbard and psychiatry.

One thing that Wisemen mentions but doesn't go into is the idea that Hubbard was forced to classify Scientology as a religion two years after its inception. I suspect the inception of Scientology was tied to the publication of Science of Survival.

I am interested in this reclassification. We have all heard the phrase, "applied religious philosophy," but what does it mean? How did we go from the science of the mind to an applied religious philosophy? Why two years after Scientology was formed?

I am asking a question, and I wondering if anyone can point me in an interesting direction or share some insights into this.

I am aware of some an early published critique, and a published study indicating the ineffectiveness of Dianetics. These are mentioned in a blog post.

Wiseman goes on to say that he suspects this reclassification must have been a blow to the ego of Hubbard, a self-styled scientist--who had trouble with high school calculus.

From http://www.forum.exscn.net/entry.php?224-Dianetics-was-known-to-be-bogus :

You can get a pretty good time line from "A Piece of Blue Sky", if I remember correctly. After the early Dianetics Foundations went tits up (Hubbard claimed they were over run with Communists, others claimed Hubbard had no fiscal restraint, much drama with Hubbard's divorce and kidnapping of his own daughter) an oil tycoon from Wichita (Purcell) came to the "rescue." As part of that deal, Hubbard gave up all rights to "Dianetics". When Hubbard left Wichita, so the story goes, all the tapes were bulk erased, and he left with the mailing list. Next stop Phoenix, Az, where Scientology made its world debut. Hubbard had been discussing "the tax angle" for a while with Helen Lane (google "Dianetics in Limbo") amongst others.
 
Last edited:
Top