Scientology: Why doesn't it work?

[uniquemand]

This is how Scientology works.

 

[HappyGirl]

Scientology doesn't work simply because it was designed to make men slaves. Not only that, but the 'tech' was designed for the 'group', not for the individual. We are all individuals, all different and unique in our own ways, how then can all those lists do anyone any good. Scientology does not 'treat' the individual and his issues, one has to 'run' what the cult wants you to run and that's that. Even the fact that they say you have to 'go' somewhere, as in 'up' the Bridge, that you have a case, that one needs to 'go' somewhere or 'do' something is folly in itself. All that's needed is to be here in the now and focus on the breath.

"The brighter the light, the darker the shadow". Me. "

Well said.

 

[Pixie]

This is how Scientology works.

Good link, thanks, very informative...

 

[Voltaire's Child]

Ceedia, In my (vast) experience, some people resent the idea that anyone could believe that the tech works to any degree or extent. The one thing they cannot do is get into the heads and hearts of others- they can't debate or rebut experiences people have had and this does bother some individuals.

It's the same thing really party line CofS members do when confronted with well documented and very specific accounts of past abuses people have experienced in the cult. Head in the sand.

 

[Leon]

To me, both statements - "Scientology works" and "Scientology doesn't work", are both stupid!

Nothing in this life is so black and white. As I've said before - polarities with everything.

Besides that, anything can be made to work IMO.

I have made scn work, to change conditions for the better for myself and others. I don't need agreement on that - I know it, and I won't have any mother fu'ker convince me otherwise.

By the same token, I have seen scn been made work, to harm, enslave and destroy. I know it can do that too, and that it has been.

In addition to the above - WTF is Scientology? It's a lot of different things to different people. Scientology is one word describing a composite thing made up of numerous different facets.

So the question whether scn works or not, is so damn loaded, it could be debated forever. We could go to Mars and back with still no resolve - a waste of time even looking at such a generality IMHO.

I agree with this. I'd perhaps express it differently, but you're on to it.

 

[uniquemand]

Coca-Cola also works.

 

[Voltaire's Child]

That's not an apt comparison. Coca Cola's goal would be to quench thirst. Not the same thing.

 

[Mark A. Baker]

I was told that auditing could 'get rid of my asthma'.

A. You were lied to.

B. You were "sold" a "false standard" by which to judge the effectiveness of scientology.

C. That is something for which Hubbard bears a direct responsibility.

My asthma never changed. I still have it to this day even though I have attested to being clear.

Obviously asthma is a body condition. Body conditions MAY alter as a result of addressing matters of the spirit, but it is clearly at best a "sometime thing".

I find the real value of scientology has been in helping to clarify matters relating to my existence as a spiritual being. Matters directly relating to the physical organism are not for me directly relevant to matters of a spiritual nature.

I suppose scientologists like Martini will claim that it's due to the auditing I had 30 years ago that my asthma is now almost non-existent and has nothing to do with avoiding the things I know I have to avoid. ...

Careful of erecting a "strawman" and then arguing against that. It doesn't reflect truth and you only wind up convincing yourself of the "veracity" of an opinion equally suspect.

Scientology doesn't work. Face it. Scientology is nothing more than a series of stolen processes which trick people into believing they are better than other people which plays right into the nature of humans, as Hubbard knew it would.

Whether "scientology works" is based wholly on YOUR view of what YOU EXPECT it to do.

I am a freezone scientologist and I think that expectations that scientology will "fix" any and all problems with physical health is completely unrealistic. I've been a scientologist for about 28 years now and I've ALWAYS felt this way. I don't tolerate it from other freezone scientologists either.


Mark A. Baker

 

[uniquemand]

It was Hubbard who represented that a Clear didn't have psychosomatic ills, and who qualified asthma as such.

 

[Voltaire's Child]

A. You were lied to.

B. You were "sold" a "false standard" by which to judge the effectiveness of scientology.

C. That is something for which Hubbard bears a direct responsibility.




Obviously asthma is a body condition. Body conditions MAY alter as a result of addressing matters of the spirit, but it is clearly at best a "sometime thing".

I find the real value of scientology has been in helping to clarify matters relating to my existence as a spiritual being. Matters directly relating to the physical organism are not for me directly relevant to matters of a spiritual nature.





Careful of erecting a "strawman" and then arguing against that. It doesn't reflect truth and you only wind up convincing yourself of the "veracity" of an opinion equally suspect.




Whether "scientology works" is based wholly on YOUR view of what YOU EXPECT it to do.

I am a freezone scientologist and I think that expectations that scientology will "fix" any and all problems with physical health is completely unrealistic. I've been a scientologist for about 28 years now and I've ALWAYS felt this way. I don't tolerate it from other freezone scientologists either.


Mark A. Baker

What he said.

 

[gregarious]

"Scientology Works" is a deliberately vague statement. It doesn't mean anything and so cannot be proven or disproven. I thought it was vague when I was in.

The lovely thing about the phrase being vague is that it can be interpreted in different ways. Scientology has lots of vague phrases. Exactly how LRH intended. For example...

I believe that Scientology does work. In fact, it works really hard: too much work for arguably few positive results. In my book, that's inefficiency. Lots of effort for few results.



Scientology Works...Hard.

 

[Panda Termint]

"Scientology works! What's that mean, Dad"?

"Well son, let me see... that's the place down in the city where they build the scientologists. You know, like the Automobile Works where they build all the cars."

"Are you sure?"

"Of course I'm sure. Down in the city they have all sorts of Works; the Electrical Works, the Building Works, the Plumbing Works, the Auto Works. Why, they even have a place where they can build you a new body, it's called the Body Works!"

"Wow! What do they make at the Scientology Works?"

"They make the scientologists, son."

"Why do they make scientologists?"

"So that there's someone to buy the scientology! You know, all those books and stuff and ways to help people by talking to them about the things that happened to them and the things they did to people."

"Oh, does it work?"

"Of course it does, they're making scientologists all the time, they work really hard at the Scientology Works!"

"No, I mean does it help people?"

"Well, that's not what the Scientology Works is really for... it's for making scientologists, people who think they help people."

"Do they help people?"

"Of course they do, son. Every decent Human Being helps people, the thing about scientologists is that they pay a lot of money to learn how to do it using scientology!"

"Where does all the scientology come from?"

"Oh, that's from a different Scientology Works! I'll tell you all about that one day but not until you're a bit older!"

"Thanks, Dad."

 

[scooter]

^^^^^ ^^^^^

 

[Royal Prince Xenu]

Oh.

You mean...

...it's not an overt?

Having grown up in a very puritanical religion before getting tangled up in $cn, "walking the dog" was definitely a continuing overt in PT.

 

[KnightVision]

Ceedia, In my (vast) experience, some people resent the idea that anyone could believe that the tech works to any degree or extent. The one thing they cannot do is get into the heads and hearts of others- they can't debate or rebut experiences people have had and this does bother some individuals.

It's the same thing really party line CofS members do when confronted with well documented and very specific accounts of past abuses people have experienced in the cult. Head in the sand.

This statement is being made from a naive, preconditioned mindset.

The argument on this thread pertaining to the phrase 'The Tech Works' is being looked at very specifically. It in itself is a generality. As such many intelligent posts have been made examining how this generality is used in an irresponsible way.

This topic in this threads discussion has occurred without any compulsive statements regarding 'The tech Never Works' or 'It's impossible for anyone to believe in the tech since The Tech Doesn't Work'.

So perhaps going back and reading and being willing to observe that both in the intelligent discussions on this thread as in Real Life there are aspects of 'The Tech' that may be of value subjectively to some but which objectively do not hold ground as a highly dependable statement of truth.

Anybody who is posting to this thread injecting that it is about a useless argument of generality... is simply misinformed and coping a generality themselves so as to distract from the specific subject being intelligently debated.

 

[KnightVision]

That's not an apt comparison. Coca Cola's goal would be to quench thirst. Not the same thing.

Oh really? Gosh I should turn off my thinking and stop perceiving so much.

Coke works because:

It is successful.

It once had coke in it.

It gives a caffeine and sugar rush.

It's cool.

It had great PR.

It provides a pleasant drink for those who like it.

None of which mean that it is of any good to the consumer.

 

[degraded being]

This statement is being made from a naive, preconditioned mindset.

The argument on this thread pertaining to the phrase 'The Tech Works' is being looked at very specifically. It in itself is a generality. As such many intelligent posts have been made examining how this generality is used in an irresponsible way.

This topic in this threads discussion has occurred without any compulsive statements regarding 'The tech Never Works' or 'It's impossible for anyone to believe in the tech since The Tech Doesn't Work'.

So perhaps going back and reading and being willing to observe that both in the intelligent discussions on this thread as in Real Life there are aspects of 'The Tech' that may be of value subjectively to some but which objectively do not hold ground as a highly dependable statement of truth.

Anybody who is posting to this thread injecting that it is about a useless argument of generality... is simply misinformed and coping a generality themselves so as to distract from the specific subject being intelligently debated.

A very nicely written comment which, if true, is based on good reading. I only say "if true" because I did not go back and read through the thread again myself. It does point out the irrelvancy-that-seems-to-be-relevant that you often inject, fluffy. It is relevant if it's in the relevant thread. And it is a point that I think many more agree with than you think. It's just that we don't need to be reminded in threads which are not on that point.

 

[olska]

That's not an apt comparison. Coca Cola's goal would be to quench thirst. Not the same thing.

Actually its a wonderfully apt comparison.

Coca Cola the Company's goal is not to "quench thirst" or provide any long-term benefit to anyone, it's to make money, make money, make more money and even more money by insinuating its "product" (Cocal Cola the drink) into the entire world at all levels of society.

It's actually done quite a remarkable job in doing that, and in doing so has contributed to poor health conditions in people all over the world.

As KV pointed out, Coca Cola the drink once contained cocaine (and was therefore highly addictive); now it contains caffeine, sugar and we're not sure what else in its highly secret formula -- it's still addictive.

As to "quenching thirst" it gives one a short-term rush that feels great, then creates a greater thirst. Its harmful and addictive effects, though destructive in the long run, are not very dramatic in the short run, so it's generally socially acceptable and even socially desirable.

Coca Cola the drink is similar in many ways to scientology-the-philosophy.

Coca Cola the Company has done a masterful job of insinuating its product into every corner of the world. It's remarkable growth is a study in marketing and PR, one which Scientology the Company (oh, sorry, Scientology the Church) with Hubbard at the helm has in many ways attempted to emulate.

But (thankfully) the CoS didn't follow that model close enough to achieve Coca Cola's level of success. Instead, Hubbard designed his own unwieldly "business model," preserved forever in the green-on-white, and doomed his followers to use that model only to "grow" their organizations.

 

[Tim Skog]

That's not an apt comparison. Coca Cola's goal would be to quench thirst. Not the same thing.

Actually its a wonderfully apt comparison.

Coca Cola the Company's goal is not to "quench thirst" or provide any long-term benefit to anyone, it's to make money, make money, make more money and even more money by insinuating its "product" (Cocal Cola the drink) into the entire world at all levels of society.

It's actually done quite a remarkable job in doing that, and in doing so has contributed to poor health conditions in people all over the world.

As KV pointed out, Coca Cola the drink once contained cocaine (and was therefore highly addictive); now it contains caffeine, sugar and we're not sure what else in its highly secret formula -- it's still addictive.

As to "quenching thirst" it gives one a short-term rush that feels great, then creates a greater thirst. Its harmful and addictive effects, though destructive in the long run, are not very dramatic in the short run, so it's generally socially acceptable and even socially desirable.

Coca Cola the drink is similar in many ways to scientology-the-philosophy.

Coca Cola the Company has done a masterful job of insinuating its product into every corner of the world. It's remarkable growth is a study in marketing and PR, one which Scientology the Company (oh, sorry, Scientology the Church) with Hubbard at the helm has in many ways attempted to emulate.

But (thankfully) the CoS didn't follow that model close enough to achieve Coca Cola's level of success. Instead, Hubbard designed his own unwieldly "business model," preserved forever in the green-on-white, and doomed his followers to use that model only to "grow" their organizations.

Olska, that is an interesting analogy. "Things go better with Coke." Doesn't sound right when you try that with Scn.

 

[Voltaire's Child]

Not really that apt a comparison. To ascertain whether or not something is effective, the first thing one has to figure out is what is that method or thing trying to do, then, secondly, does it do it.

It's a lot like the stupid "Heroin works, too" analogy that some of the dumber critics sometimes use.

I wouldn't compare a drug or something meant to quench thirst with Scn. Nor, conversely, would I compare Scn with anything like that, either.However, I would compare one organizations' delivery methods with another, depending on what was being dicussed.