Secondly, the shit (Scientology) is addictive. The crack cocaine of spiritual, philosophical and religious pursuits. The ingestion of vitamin C can be beneficial. But taking vitamin C would not be beneficial if it was inexorably combined with crack, meth and heroin. Likewise, any "good" parts of Scientology are inexorably intertwined with the overwhelming, but frequently well-disguised, vile and disgusting parts.
This can be said of any spiritual avocation, religion or pursuit of same or philosophy.
Actually, no it can't. Not unless one ignores the rate or percentage of addiction, and the rate or percentage of adverse consequences.
Yes, you can always find
someone who goes off the deep ends with anything. What exactly does that prove? The fact that the people at the extreme end of different bell shaped curves may wind up the same tells you absolutely nothing about the shape of the curve.
But if you consider the relative numbers, Scientology has proved far more harmful than most other modern spiritual avocations, religions, or philosophies.
I'm sorry,
but particularly relative to the size of the relevant populations, you don't see many Methodists, Catholics, Jews, Buddhists, etc. have mental breakdowns, mortgage their homes, load up their credit cards, or disconnect from their families
because or at the request of their religions or religious leaders. To pretend otherwise is just plain wrong.
So one starts with one supposedly "workable" bit of tech, the bait, and proceeds to get inexorably sucked into the delusional, paranoid,
non-falsifiable quagmire of the rest, the trap.
And eventually talking to the invisible souls of the dead space aliens that infest one's body.
And claim "wins" from doing so.
So what? There are many religions that believe in spiritual infestation, soul fragmentation and possession.
So now the Free Zone and Independent Scientologists are, like the official Church of Scientology, hiding behind the "we're a religion so you can't expect us to actually prove anything, and you can't criticize our beliefs because other religions are equally incredible" defense?
Here is the "so what": The Free Zone and Independent Scientology are marketed and represented as being therapeutic. The problem is that the vast majority of modern, enlightened, well-educated and intelligent people do not think that it is "therapeutic" to seriously address "spiritual infestation, soul fragmentation and possession." On the contrary, if one continually and consistently talks about being "possessed" one winds up in a psych ward. With good reason. I sure as hell don't want someone who believes they are "possessed" hanging around my loved ones.
Anyone who actually understands Scientology knows that it isn't so much the incident content that matters- but the intentions, postulates, considerations, etc, that the person had that are the real core belief of Scientology.
So what? There is no scientific or statistical evidence that "the intentions, postulates, considerations" a PC has about "the incident" have any therapeutic value, or relevance at all.
Secondly, there is absolutely no evidence to support a fundamental aspect of Scientology therapy -- i.e., past lives, and most importantly their supposed effect on one's current life. None.
Which has real consequences and opportunity costs. Instead of dealing with the actual cause of a problem, whether it be physical, chemical, or a past traumatic experience in one's real, present life (e.g., being molested as a child, being ignored, etc.) one instead is lead and encouraged to address imaginary incidents in imaginary past lives. That is not confront, it is non-confront. That is not dealing with the problem, it is avoiding the problem. And there is no good evidence that it works, or that the supposed therapeutic mechanism has any validity at all.
If they think they feel better, then they do. All therapeutic gains are subjective.
As I said, Scientology represents not only the triumph of the placebo effect, but addiction to the placebo effect.
And while therapeutic gains are subjective, the subjective states are also reported, studied, tested and statistically compared. Happens all of the time in a real science. (Control group) vs. (talk therapy only) vs. (talk therapy + drug X) vs. (drug X only). Cognitive talk therapy vs. rational emotive therapy. Etc., etc.
Except in Scientology. Or the Freezone. Or Independent Scientology. There we have unlicensed practitioners who are not reviewed or subject to professional discipline by anyone mucking about in people's lives based on untested theories that were largely made up by a paranoid psychopath.
But just cuz you don't want a particular path does not mean that this is the right decision for others.
I'm not saying it is not the right decision for others simply because I don't like it, or because it is not right for me.
I'm saying it is not the right path for others because, for example and without limitation: (a) there is absolutely no scientific or statistical evidence that it works; and (b) the proposed therapeutic mechanisms are irrational; and (c) it prevents people from addressing their problems, and obtaining help, through methods that are not irrational and do have scientific and statistical evidence backing them up.
As I said before, I once had a friend who saw a very well-qualified Shaman. Person had, as I recall, a Ph.D. in anthropology (if not, at least a master's degree) and had studied with well-recognized Shamans in Tibet. He sucked the evil spirits out of the top of my friend's skull. Guess what? She felt better -- for a day. (Placebo effect.) After a day, she was back in the same crap as always.
I don't object to Shamanic treatment of people by sucking evil spirits from the tops of their skulls simply because I don't like it, or because it is not for me, or because I'm somehow irrationally biased. I object because: (a) the proposed mechanism, sucking evil spirits from the top of a person's skull is not only irrational but, to be honest, stupid; (b) there is absolutely no evidence that it actually helps; and (c) engaging in such activities prevented my friend from getting the qualified help she actually needed.
I'll conclude by saying this. A Scientologist can always say, "It works for me." "I had wins." "It works for my PCs." "My PCs have wins." And they can always cite anectodal incidents of this or that person having some great recovery.
As can anyone who practices or delivers Shamanism. As can anyone who practices or delivers voodoo. As can anyone who practices or delivers "psychic healing." As can anyone who counsel's people by reading tarot cards, or by dong astrology.
But you know what? The fact that someone who practices or delivers Shamanism, or practices or delivers voodoo, or practices or delivers "psychic healing," or counsels people by reading tarot cards, or by doing astrology, tells me that "it works," or they "have wins," or their clients benefit isn't good enough for me. I know these practices have no scientific or statistical validity and are, quire frankly, primitive BS.