[ Main Scientology page | Chris Owen's page ]
Chris Owen (co@nvg.unit.no) here presents a critical account of the "Answers to Common Questions" chapter of "What Is Scientology?" (chapter 32). Following is his intro.
I've been doing something a little similar to Keith's work, with the "Answers to Common Questions" chapter of WIS. The title speaks for itself. It is, essentially, a FAQ on Scientology by Scientology, giving the "party line" on a number of issues. I have examined it in detail, in blocks of 15 questions at a time. This is the first installment - more will follow later.WIS has been through two editions, the current (1992) edition being more than twice the size of the original (1978) edition. Significant differences exist in the text of the two versions. I have therefore referred to both, where necessary. I have not quoted the entire text of answers, but have instead - where necessary - paraphrased. The relevant chapters are number 32 in the 1992 edition of WIS, and number 15 in the 1978 edition.
As the answers (and some of the questions) differ markedly between the 1978 and 1992 editions of WIS, I have used a "compare and contrast" approach in tracing the development of Scientology's public relations lines and assessing the validity of the answer given in each case. It is my hope that this will be of some use in answering the PR lines from Milne and friends, and will hopefully spur further debate.
(A note to Warren, Helena and all the other lovely people at RTC: this work uses a number of quotes from various Scientology books, all of which are duly credited, for the purpose of "fair use" commentary *only*. All of your trademarks are also recognised - Scientology, Dianetics, even "Happiness" and "L. Ron Hubbard" - sheesh! Any complaints will land in /dev/null, so there.)
I have used a number of abbreviations to refer to books:
AR : Anderson Report - K. V. Anderson; State of Victoria, Australia
BFM : Bare-Faced Messiah - Russell Miller
DMSMH : Dianetics, the Modern Science of Mental Health - L. Ron Hubbard
FR : Foster Report - Sir John Foster; United Kingdom
LRH : The Man Himself!
PBS : A Piece of Blue Sky - Jon Atack
RI : Religion, Inc - Stewart Lamont
RTF : The Road to Total Freedom - Roy Wallis
TMB : The Mind Benders - Cyril Vosper
"about tolerance and love and being free enough to make things better. It is about certainty in life and living. It is about happiness."
Questions have, rightly, been asked about the degree of tolerance shown by Scientology. It is frequently accused of extreme intolerance of criticism, and the large amount of evidence presented to justify this accusation is, in my opinion, convincing. It is worth quoting the words of Sir John Foster on the subject:
"The reaction of individuals and groups to criticism varies from grateful acceptance,or amused tolerance, at one end of the scale to a sense of vindictive counter-attack at the other. Perhaps unfortunately (especially for its adherents) Scientology falls at the hyper-sensitive end of the scale. Judging from the documents, this would seem to have its origins in a personality trait of Mr. Hubbard, whose attitude to critics is one of extreme hostility. One can take the view that anyone whose attitude to criticism is such as Mr. Hubbard displays in his writings cannot be too surprised if the world treats him with suspicion rather than affection." [FR, p.127]
The current leadership of the CoS appears to take a similar stance towards critics.
The 1992 edition goes into much more detail on the nature of Scientology. It emphasises the spiritual and religious aspects of Scientology, claiming at the same time to provide
"exact principles and practical technology for improving self-confidence, intelligence and ability."
It also states:
"Scientology is a route, a way, rather than a dissertation or an assertive body of knowledge."
This statement is not, however, borne out by Hubbard's writings and much of the CoS's own promotional literature. Mention of a "route" or "way" implies that there are other approaches which one can take. This is wholly contradicted on many occasions by the insistence of Hubbard and the CoS that Scientology is a unique, the best - in fact, the only - way of achieving "Total Freedom". Its claims are assertive in the extreme. For instance:
"The world has waited thousands of years for a technology to change conditions for the better. Scientology is the answer."
["Change", no. 55, 1973]"Dianetics is the answer to human suffering."
[Pamphlet of 1969, cited in FR, p. 19]"Dianetics is the most advanced and the most clearly presented method of psychotherapy and self-improvement ever discovered."
[Cover of 1956 edition of "Dianetics"]"In all the broad universe there is no other hope for man than ourselves."
[LRH, "Ron's Journal 1967", cited in RI, p. 161]"No other subject on earth except physics and chemistry has had such gruelling testing (proofs, exact findings) ... It is valid. It has been tested. It is the only thoroughly tested system of improving human relations, intelligence and character, and is the only one which does."
[LRH, "Fundamentals of Thought", p. 14]
This surely cannot be considered as being anything other than assertive.
1992 answer: Hubbard's "studies of the mind" began in 1923, at the age of 12
[sic]. This would be about the time that he moved to Washington state and
apparently met the mysteriously untraceable USN Commander "Snake" Thompson.
Said to be a "student of Freud", Thompson was later credited with sparking
Hubbard's interest in the mind. It became an event to which Hubbard later
ascribed considerable importance, though curiously enough his contemporary
journals make no mention of it. [BFM, p. 29]
1978 answer: No mention is made of this.
1992 answer: An unpublished manuscript on his "discoveries" was circulated
amongst his friends in 1947 and later published as "Dianetics: The Original
Thesis" and then as "The Dynamics of Life".
1978 answer: No mention is made of this in the "Common Questions" chapter.
It is however mentioned in the glossy series of paintings describing L. Ron
Hubbard's career, though the date given for the writing of "Dianetics: The
Original Thesis" is 1948.
In both answers, it should be borne in mind that there is no independent evidence that Hubbard did any philosophical work before 1949; the first public mention of "Dianetics" was in December 1949, by the science-fiction editor John W. Campbell. [BFM, pp. 186-88]
1992 answer: The first published article on the subject was "Terra
Incognita: The Mind", in the Winter / Spring edition of the "Explorers' Club
Journal".
1978 answer: No mention is made of this. The first work alluded to is
"Dianetics: The Modern Science of Mental Health", which is only third on the
list in the 1992 answer.
Both editions are correct in saying that DMSMH has been a continual bestseller (it is now into its 50th edition) - though there has been some doubt about whether the apparent level of public interest is genuine. Both editions distance Hubbard from the establishment of the Hubbard Dianetics Research Foundation (HRDF). The 1978 edition states that he "permitted [its] founding", while the 1992 edition merely says that people were "organising their own groups for the purpose of applying Dianetic techniques."
It is true to say that people organised their own groups following the
success of DMSMH in the wake of its publication in May 1950. However, the
HRDF was founded by Hubbard himself in April 1950, one month before the
publication of DMSMH, to "disseminate knowledge of the new therapy and
stimulate further research". He was the key member of a seven-man Board of
Directors. By 1952, though, the HRDF and its sister organisations elsewhere
in the US were all bankrupt, a fact attributed to Hubbard's own mismanagement
of the Foundation's funds. He subsequently sought to distance himself from
that failure. This probably explains the evasive answers given in WIS.
[BFM, p. 197 and passim]
1992 answer: "In 1954, the first Church of Scientology was formed in Los
Angeles by a group of Scientologists. Within a few years churches had been
formed across the country and around the world."
1978 answer: "By 1952 ... was Scientology born".
Again, Hubbard is distanced in the 1992 edition from the founding of the CoS; he is depicted as playing a passive role, responding to public demand rather than initiating the formation of organisations. The 1978 edition is correct in saying that Hubbard devised Scientology in 1952, but it was actually in December 1953 that the first Church of Scientology was incorporated in Camden, New Jersey, by L. Ron Hubbard himself.
1978 answer: Scientology is based on an amalgam of Eastern and Western
philosophical thought and on the physical sciences, including nuclear physics
and mathematics. [sic]
1992 answer: No mention is made of this.
The 1978 answer is undoubtedly correct to mention Scientology's debt to Eastern and Western thought; its theories on the immortality of the soul and reincarnation are much closer to oriental than Christian philosophy, and the (Indian) Vedic Hymns are credited by Hubbard as being one of his sources of inspiration. Likewise, its emphasis on aggressive personal enrichment and advancement are very much a product of Western capitalism - perhaps a version of Weber's "Protestant Ethic".
It is rather harder to see where nuclear physics and mathematics come in. Much has been made of the fact that Hubbard attended courses in mathematics and atomic physics (as it was then) at George Washington University in the 1930s, even though he got abysmal grades and abandoned them two-thirds of the way through.
However, claims are repeatedly made that Scientology can cure radiation sickness (a very 1950s concern):
"Scientology is the only specific [cure] for radiation burns"
[LRH, "The Fundamentals of Thought"],"L. Ron Hubbard ... can proof a person against radiation"
[PBS, p. 142]"Radiation is more of a mental than a physical problem."
[LRH, "All About Radiation")
His ideas on radiation were described by an eminent radiologist appearing before the Anderson Board in 1965 as showing "complete and utter ignorance of physics, nuclear science and medicine" [AR, p. 53]
Mathematical techniques are claimed for Scientology 8-80, wherein Hubbard
"devises wave lengths for aesthetics, analytical thought, emotion - there are high wave beauty and high wave ugliness - and he gives a 'formula' of the energy of life source". [AR, p. 52]
However, the Anderson Board found that even a Scientologist who was a senior lecturer in mathematics at an Australian university was
"unable to reconcile ... passages in the book with his own scientific knowledge". [AR, p. 52]
To date, no evidence has been presented which confirms the scientific basis of Hubbard's mathematical theories.
1992 edition: "All his writings on the subject are available to anyone who wishes to study Scientology" - but it will cost many thousands of dollars to see them, a fact which is not mentioned!
The answer given in both editions quotes Hubbard's list of those whom he termed "fellows of Scientology" - people including Plato, Roger Bacon, Sigmund Freud and so on. This list is taken from "Science of Survival" (LRH, 1951) and is presented as the current version of Hubbard's acknowledgements. Oddly enough, the list differs markedly from that given on p. 89 of "The Key To Tomorrow" (LRH, 1955). There are eight names which do not appear in WIS, namely: Buddha, Confucius, Michael Farady [sic], Jesus of Nazareth, Mohammed, Lao-Tsu, Isaac Newton and The Vedic Hymns. In other words, all of the religious figures and English natural scientists have been removed from the current list. No explanation has been given for this.
Something else that is not mentioned is the fact that Hubbard did not actually allow anybody else to make any significant changes to his ideas. He is customarily referred to within the CoS as "Source", and any deviation from his ideas is regarded as being a serious offence. Everything he wrote is 100% perfect and can never be revised or developed (not even the references to Piltdown Man). Although Scientology is undoubtedly a large-scale religion (or at least belief system), Hubbard's monopoly on its thought makes it virtually unique. Exegesis - that is, the development of religious philosophy - is a vital element of most religions, permitting their evolution and adaptation to a changing environment. Modern Christianity would be almost completely unrecognisable to a Christian of 100 AD, for instance. Scientology is, however, frozen; with Hubbard gone, no further development can take place. In the long run, this poses an extremely serious threat to its survival. Hubbard's anti-Communism and obsession with psychiatric horrors seems quaint now; how will it seem in 100 years' time?
"Religious practice implies ritual, faith-in [sic], doctrine based upon a catechism, and a creed."
The problem with this is that it effectively defines (for example) the British Army as a religious body. Like all militaries, the Army has lots of rituals; it has a profound personal faith in and loyalty to the Queen; the doctrine it follows is huge and well-defined, from military manuals to the Geneva Conventions; and its creed can be defined as its unique constitutional role (serving the Queen, apolitical, defending the nation, etc.) which is drummed into every soldier from the start. If this is a definition of religious practice, just about every organisation with traditions and a mission would count!
Another assertion in the 1978 edition raises more fundamental problems:
"Scientology is a religious philosophy in its highest meaning as it concerns itself with Man and his relation to the Supreme Being and life"
References to "the Supreme Being" or simply "God" are made on several occasions in WIS. However, Scientological doctrine - thetans, engrams, implants, MEST etc. - makes little, if any, mention of God or any other Supreme Being. It is a firmly gnostic philosophy, and it is for precisely this reason that English and Scottish law do not recognise it as being a religion (as opposed to a philosophy). According to English law, a religion must have a Supreme Being of one sort or another. In 1970, the CoS attempted to gain legal recognition of its religious status. The case went all the way up to the Court of Appeal - at the time, the highest civil court in the land (the European Court is now the final court) - and the CoS lost. In an influential ruling, the Master of the Rolls, Lord Denning, commented:
"There is considerable stress on the spirit of man. The adherents of this philosophy believe that man's spirit [the thetan] is everlasting and moves from one human frame to another; but still, so far as I can see, it is the spirit of man and not of God. When I look through the ceremonies and the affidavits, I am left with the feeling that there is nothing in it of reverence for God or a deity, but simply instruction in a philosophy. There may be belief in a spirit of man, but there is no belief in a spirit of God ... When the creed uses the word 'God' (as it does in two places) it does not use it in any religious sense. There is nothing which carries with it any idea of reverence or veneration of God. The sample sermon [as given in "Ceremonies of the Founding CoS of California"] has no word of God in it at all. It says that man has a body, mind and spirit. It emphasises man, and not God. It seems to me that God does not come into their scheme of things at all." [Registrar General, ex parte Segerdal and another - All England Law Reports [1970] 3, pp. 886-93]
My personal opinion (for what it is worth) is that Denning was wrong to regard Scientology as not being a religion, although in strict legal terms he was correct. The law which he applied in that instance was passed in 1855, a time when the role and definition of a religion was very different to what it is today. However, he was absolutely right to point out the lack of emphasis on God. The initial mentions of God are not maintained at all when one looks at the actual literature - "A History of Man", "Scientology 8-8008", etc.
Indeed, it is stated that Scientology will make *you* a god, which surely breaks the fundamental rule of all three Judeo-Christian religions ("there is no God but God and his name is God", as Mohammed put it). Even in the 872-page "Scientology Handbook", the Supreme Being and God are only mentioned once each in two short sentences in the caption of a two-page picture illustrating the 'Eighth Dynamic' ["The Scientology Handbook, p. 69]. One is entitled to ask why the Creator of the Universe has no more than a walk-on part. It raises the distinct possibility that the initial mentions of God and the Supreme Being are little more than token efforts to find common points between Scientology and deistic religions such as Christianity and Judaism.
It is also worth commenting that Scientology was not initially a religion. The Hubbard Association of Scientologists was an entirely secular body founded in April 1952; it was not until December 1953 that Scientology was incorporated as a religion [BFM, pp. 286-87]. Precisely why Hubbard did this is a matter of some dispute. The Scientologists maintain that he decided that his work was fundamentally religious in nature and the creation of the religion of Scientology was a recognition of this fact. This is contradicted by a letter which Hubbard wrote in April 1953 whilst in England to Helen O'Brien, who was managing Scientology in the US. He declared that it was time to move from a therapeutic to a religious image:
"Being a religion rather than a psychotherapy was a purely commercial matter, Hubbard said. He enthused about the thousands that could be milked out of preclears attracted by this new promotional approach." [PBS, p. 137]
Both editions make two questionable assertions in reply to this question. The first is "there were churches ten thousand years before there were Christians". In 10,000 BC there were not even any towns and few, if any, permanent buildings! The oldest known towns, Jericho in the West Bank and Catalhuyuk in Turkey, were founded around 8000 BC. Needless to say, next to nothing is known about the religious practices of the inhabitants. The first religious philosophies of which we have any significant knowledge did not appear until the invention of writing in Sumeria (now Iraq) several thousand years later.
The second assertion is that "Scientologists in the early '50s voted that a church be formed" [1978 edition]. There is no corroborating evidence of this; it appears that the impetus for the registration of Scientology as a religion came entirely from L. Ron Hubbard, and it was he who incorporated the first Church of Scientology (though without much publicity) in December 1953.
The two differing answers reflect the reorganisation of Scientology since the early 1980s. The Church of Scientology of California is now known, as in the 1992 edition, as the Church of Scientology International, although for some reason the 1978 edition refers to the CSC as "the Mother Church" (with capitalisation) while the 1992 edition calls the CSI "the 'mother church' " (in quotes), making it clear that the title is not now a formal one. In 1978 the headquarters of Scientology was in England; its focus is now California. Amusingly, the 1978 edition refers to Scientology's HQ as "St. Hill Manor" (in East Grinstead, Sussex); it is, of course *Saint* Hill Manor. Not very impressive considering that the authors were supposed to be superliterate!
Black Scientologists do exist - I've seen them myself in London. Although critics of Scientology have claimed that black Scientologists are relatively marginalised and few in number, I have never seen any firm evidence on the number of black people in Scientology. The CoS itself does not seem to publish figures giving the ethnic breakdown of its membership. I suspect, though, that the ratio of black to white Scientologists is considerably worse than the ratio of black to white people in society generally; the greater relative poverty of the black community means that a smaller percentage of blacks than whites could afford the cost of auditing, E-meters, courses etc. Common sense suggests that the usual economic problems of the black community must have an effect on the demographics of an organisation which makes such considerable financial demands on its members.
"The vertical plane of the cross depicts the path towards greater spiritual heights and the horizontal plane represents the need to help others in the world so we can reduce criminality, insanity and war and provide each of us a safer environment where there can be creation not destruction."
Why this was omitted is unclear, and is not explained. I am not sure whether the above is part of the "standard" explanation of the Cross - I have not encountered it elsewhere - so it could conceivably be the work of one of the authors. (And thus "out-tech", presumably.)
The Scientology Cross has been alleged to be a version of Aleister Crowley's demonic cross - the Christian cross 'crossed-out' by an X. Hubbard certainly had links with Crowley, "my very good friend" as he once called him [BFM, p. 145 and passim]. However, I have not been able to verify this claim to my own satisfaction and must, for the moment, simply state that the claim has been made.
"There is a welcoming address from the chaplain. He then reads one or other of the creeds. He delivers a sermon covering some aspect of Scientology. After the sermon there is a moment's silence for contemplation or prayer." [R. v Registrar General, [1970] 3 All ER, p. 889]
The judges were of the opinion that this did not constitute worship, and it is not hard to see why they took that view. It is perhaps significant that this question (and answer) have been omitted from the 1992 edition of WIS.
It is also stated that the Church of Scientology has been an active participant in the "annual interdenominational Human Rights Prayer Meeting" since 1969, and in the international equivalent since 1976. I have never heard of this event; can anyone enlighten me?
The first and third claims are purely subjective. It may provide answers, but are they correct answers? And how do you measure an increase in "wisdom and understanding"? This is not to say that the claims are bogus, of course, merely to say that there is no objective way of verifying them. The second claim, of being "precisely mapped-out" is undeniably correct. Scientology places a high value on "standard tech", deviation from which is held to be a particularly heinous offence. The nature of the "tech" was laid down in sometimes excruciating detail by L. Ron Hubbard and is applied in a more or less uniform way across the world. So yes, it is true to say that it is a carefully-organised doctrine.
The final claim, of a lack of compulsion, is a highly contentious one. Many ex-Scientologists have testified to a strong compulsive element. Cyril Vosper is typical in his comments that
"... at no time is the newcomer to Scientology permitted to question [Hubbard's] assumptions. He accepts these assumptions as TRUTH or he is out on his ear. There is no argument with Hubbard's word." [TMB, p. 21]
Roy Wallis also came to this conclusion in his sociological study of Scientology:
"Since Hubbard's science is a matter of knowledge and certainty, certainty is sanity, and reality is agreement [according to Hubbard's statements], it would seem to follow that those who decline to agree with Hubbard's conception of what constitutes knowledge are out of touch with reality; and that those who reserve their judgement, or who retain some uncertainty as to the truth of his claims, are insane." [RTF, p. 110]
Indeed, Hubbard himself explicitly referred to coercion in Scientological doctrine:
"Those who do not believe in past lives do not have to believe in past lives ...but don't get audited!"
[LRH, "The skills of clearing", lecture #2 of the Lectures on Clearing, 1958]
And if they don't get audited, they are condemned to the Scientological equivalent of an eternity in purgatory - unthinkable for the true believer.
"addresses the individual and brings about self-improvement by increasing a person's awareness and ability to handle life."
This is, of course, highly subjective. The other claim made in this answer is that it is the only religious philosophy which "supplies the means through which a person can increase his ability [etc]". This is a little dubious, as well as (again) being subjective. Piety and penance in religions such as Catholicism, Judaism and Islam is not solely intended to provide benefits in the next life, but to improve conditions on earth as well; what would be the point of charitable giving, for instance, if it did not attempt to meet this end?
It is stated that
"Scientology can increase a person's awareness and ... can help one achieve greater happiness, self-confidence and ability."
Although a very subjective statement, it does nonetheless seem to be true for many people. The large numbers of "Success Stories" circulated by the CoS confirm that a significant number of individuals do consider Scientology to have been of genuine benefit to them. Even Cyril Vosper, otherwise a fierce critic of Scientology, comments that
"... Hubbard offers undoubted benefits in terms of increased awareness, mental calmness, a point to an otherwise pointless existence." [TMB, p. 21]
Likewise, Professor John A. Lee wrote that
"those who survive Scientology's rigorous training manifest a most impressiveself-assurance, poise and ability to communicate effectively with others."
[Lee, "Sectarian Healers and Hypnotherapy - A Study for the [Ontario] Committee on the Healing Arts", 1970, pp. 87-88]
Whether or not this outweighs the negative elements of Scientology is a matter of personal opinion, which I leave to the reader.
The next paragraph differs considerably between the two editions. Both basically praise the practicality of Dianetics and Scientology. The 1978 edition, however, talks about using this practicality to help the individual "love his neighbour", whereas the 1992 edition has changed this to allowing the individual to "bring about desirable changes in one's life".
The two versions of the final paragraph differ totally. The 1992 edition concentrates on the crucial role of the individual in improving himself, warning that "Scientology cannot promise to do anything by itself". This is contradicted by the 1978 answer, whose words are worth quoting in full:
"Pastoral counselling [auditing] is much more effective and much faster than any previous study [sic]."We believe that each individual does have answers to various problems of living and simply needs the right questions to find the right answers for himself. Scientology supplies those questions."
Mysteriously, these words have disappeared from the 1992 edition.
The two editions give very similar negative answers, the 1992 answer being, if anything, an even stronger denial than the 1978 version - it states firmly "there is no resemblance". The CoS has been consistent and firm on this point. Hubbard himself castigated hypnotherapy as "dangerous" (though it has to be said that he regarded with disfavour every psychotherapy save Dianetics and Scientology), and individual Scientologists have denied being hypnotised during auditing:
"John Tanzer, for the defence, asked Miss Wilson: "Are you being put into a light trance in these sessions?"She replied: "No, nothing happened."
Mr Tanzer said: "Were you ever hypnotised during these sessions?"
"No," she said. "You go in as you are and come out as you are." "
[Report on R. v. Cooper from The Independent, 10th March 1995, p. 4]
The jury in this case disbelieved the denials of the use of hypnosis, as did the Anderson Board 30 years earlier. It concluded (the emphasis marks are mine) that:
"... the scientific evidence which the Board heard from several expert witnesses of the highest repute and possessed of the highest qualifications in their professions of medicine, psychology, and other sciences - and which was virtually unchallenged - leads to the inescapable conclusion that it is only in name that there is any difference between authoritative hypnosis and most of the techniques of scientology." [AR, p. 115]
It was also the conclusion of Dr. Joseph Winter and others who were associated with Hubbard in the early days of Dianetics that auditing created a light trance in which the preclear was in a highly suggestible condition. [Winter, Dr. Joseph, "A Doctor's Report on Dianetics", 1951, 1987]
This is obviously an issue of major concern to the CoS. From a single question and three-paragraph answer in 1978, it has now expanded to two questions and seven paragraphs. The two new answers cover some of the same ground, so I have considered them together in comparing them to the 1978 answer. For the sake of convenience, I have labelled Is Scientology a secret society? as question A and Is Scientology a cult? as question B.
The 1992 answer to question B opens with a fine non-sequitur:
"Assuming that modern usage of the word cult implies an elite secrecy and unthinking zealotry, then consider this: Scientology is the fastest growing religion in the world today."
Why are the two necessarily incompatible? And what independent evidence is there that Scientology is the world's fastest-growing religion?
Furthermore, the 1978 answer includes a paragraph which has somehow been missed out of the 1992 edition:
"Even though there exist confidential materials in the upper level course, this only exists to ensure that a student does not impede his progress, or that of his friends, by studying the material he is not yet qualified to handle."
One might reasonably suggest that those few who have reached the heights of OT VIII - a secret document - do indeed form an elite as their knowledge is restricted solely to their ranks. The very fact that "confidential materials" exist at all means that those who know the contents of those materials will inevitably have a higher status than those who do not. I have already dealt with the "unthinking zealotry" aspect in question 16, above.
Both editions state that "Scientology literature is freely available to anyone"; furthermore, the 1992 edition adds that
"The materials that compromise Scientology scripture [sic] are fully codified, broadly published and available to anyone."
Neither answer makes any mention of the cost of obtaining these materials, although the use of the word "freely" implies that they are available free. It is true that the words mean different things, but the impression given is undoubtedly highly misleading. In fact, it is notable that while the 1978 edition of WIS very occasionally gives actual costs - "between $2500 and $5000" to go Clear - the 1992 edition gives no mention of cost whatsoever. At least the 1978 edition made it clear that considerable cost was involved (there was even a question: Why isn't it free?), but the 1992 edition completely avoids giving any impression that Scientology is at all expensive.
The 1992 edition is also very disingenous in its claim that Scientology materials are broadly published. In fact, they are published solely by the CoS itself and, although a good many Scientology books are available from public libraries, many of the most important (and expensive) works are not. For instance, the OT III course - which in 1984 cost $5,774 [RI, p.165] - is not to be found anywhere outside of locked vaults in certain CoS buildings. The inquiring reader is thus denied the chance to find out about a number of fundamental Scientological ideas: the galactic tyrant Xenu and his Marcabian Confederation, the killing of millions of thetans by chaining them to Earth's volcanoes and dropping H-bombs on them, and so on. The materials are most definitely not available to anyone - a member of the public who asks about Xenu and the Marcabs will get short shrift.
The 1992 edition also states that
"There is no demand for the individual to withdraw from society; on the contrary, Scientologists become more involved in life around them, as they want to take responsibility for improving conditions."
It is perhaps worth quoting Professor John A. Lee again:
"[Scientologists] appear to appreciate the environment of Scientology groups, so much preferring it to the world of "wogs" that most remain on Scientology staff.. This could be interpreted also as an effect of training in unfitting Scientology members for normal social relationships. The doctrine of Suppressive Persons, the special in-group terminology, and the dedication to "help Ron clear the planet" also disable Scientology graduates in normal social intercourse." [Lee, ibid., pp. 87-88]
It cannot be denied that if someone said to a non-Scientologist "he's been 2D out-ethics" ("he's committed adultery"), the non-Scientologist would have some difficulty in understanding. In this respect, Scientology is a classic example of an exclusivist movement, with hundreds of neologisms having been invented by Hubbard; the "Dianetics and Scientology technical dictionary" is said to include as many as 3,000 terms.
It is certainly true that Scientologists are involved in a fair number of public activities which could be described as "socially responsible" - anti- drugs projects, anti-crime projects, campaigns to expose misdeeds in psychiatric facilities, and so on. The reason for this, however, does not appear to be one of simple social concern. As Roy Wallis notes,
"increased involvement [in social affairs] was seen as a propaganda and promotional activity designed to spread the name and basic beliefs of the movement to a wider potential clientele." [RTF, p. 198]
Or, as Hubbard himself wrote in 1955,
"Lay off the fantastic ... The quickest way to lose a beset person or group is to load him down with phenomena ... Talk about the fact that Scientology solves social problems." [RTF, pp. 106-7]
One has to ask why, if Scientologists are so concerned with "taking responsibility for improving conditions", groups which are organised, funded and controlled by the CoS often do not publicise their links with the CoS. Some are open: the anti-psychiatry Citizens' Committee on Human Rights, for instance, makes no secret of its Scientology connections (it is predominately composed of Scientologists and its literature is distributed by the CoS).
Others keep very quiet about their Scientology links. When millions of copies of Hubbard's booklet "The Way to Happiness" were distributed to American schoolchildren in 1981, for instance, no mention was made of the fact that the booklet was essentially a distillation of Scientological principles or of the fact that Hubbard was the founder of Scientology. Indeed, the booklet notes in small print that it was written by Hubbard "as an individual and not as part of any religious doctrine". Despite this, the CoS has told its members that the campaign was "the largest dissemination project in Scientology history" and that it forms "the bridge between broad society and Scientology". [Los Angeles Times, June 1990]
This, and other examples, make it fairly clear that the involvement of Scientologists in social affairs is viewed by CoS management (though not perhaps the people on the ground) as being for the primary purposes of recruitment and of gaining wider acceptance for Scientological ideas. In other words, it can fairly be described as a policy of entryism.
The 1992 answer claims, once again, that
"Scientology is unique in that it contains no dogma and its adherents are not told or forced to "believe" anything."
This has been adequately discussed with relation to question 16, above.
Another strong theme of the 1992 answer is that Scientology is only labelled a cult because of certain "antagonistic interests" - it states:
"History has taught us to beware of those who would label any religious group a cult. It is traditionally the first step before wholesale persecution, and is always the statement of an unenlightened and uninformed individual, usually with ill motives as the Nazi history makes so clear."
It is rather intriguing that the statement should be couched in these terms; according to "The Scientology Handbook", one of the classic characteristics of the "antisocial personality" is that "he or she speaks only in very broad generalities"! ["The Scientology Handbook", p. 415]
This is part of a long history of extreme defensiveness on the part of Scientology, as noted by Sir John Foster (see question 3, above). Hubbard created a certain form of reality (or, alternatively, counter-reality) which is constantly legitimised through a number of processes, most notably nihilation - the interpretation of outside challenges by the use of internal concepts. Scientology's nihilation is accomplished by interpreting any external criticism as being part of a vast conspiracy theory operated by guilty individuals who aim to destroy Scientology before it "finds them out".
The 1992 edition of WIS devotes an entire chapter - nine pages - to an explanation of this conspiracy theory. This paranoia (for such it undoubtedly is) was a direct product of Hubbard's own psychology. Take this quote:
"Unfortunately the person who does not want you to study Scientology is your enemy as well as ours."When he harangues against us to you as a 'cult', as a 'hoax', as a very bad thing done by very bad people, he or she is saying 'Please, please, please, don't try to find me out'." [LRH, "The future of Scientology and Western Civilization", lecture #6 of the "Lectures on Clearing", 1958]
And in a similar vein:
"Of twenty-one persons found attacking Dianetics and Scientology with rumours and entheta, eighteen of them under investigation were found to be members of the Communist Party or criminals, usually both." [LRH, "Manual of Justice", 1959]
One of the fundamental principles of Scientology is, unfortunately, that it is beyond criticism.
The 1978 edition makes a truly bizarre assertion:
"We hold no secret rituals nor have we altered the Bible in any way."
I didn't think anyone had accused the CoS of "altering the Bible"! Perhaps more to the point, why would they alter the Bible when they do not hold to its precepts? Richard Reiss - who in 1986 was the overseer for the "tech" for the US, and therefore knew more about it than most - told Stewart Lamont at Saint Hill that "Jesus Christ does not figure in the religious technology of Ron Hubbard." [RI, p. 32]
It is also stated that
"In Scientology there is no attempt to change a person's beliefs or to persuade him away from any religion to which he already belongs."
This may, strictly speaking, be true in the sense that nobody says "You must not believe this any more"; but it is also true that the cosmology of Scientology and the statements of Hubbard are fundamentally incompatible with the philosophies espoused in Christianity, Judaism, Islam and Buddhism. (See below, questions 24-26)
Critics of Scientology would also contend that Scientology's well-documented history of harassing dissidents, charging huge "donations" for its services and keeping its doctrine secret are also fairly major differences between it and other religions.
It has to be said that Scientology undeniably conflicts with the ideas of other religions. The higher OT levels, most notably OT III (Xenu and the Marcabs) reminded Stewart Lamont more of "pagan cosmologies". [RI, p. 33]
Hubbard wasn't very keen on other mystical systems either. As he put it,
"Data from India, even that found in the deepest 'mysteries' ... is knowingly or unknowingly 'booby-trapped'." [LRH, "Scientology 8-8008, p. 135]
It is hard to see how a loyal Buddhist could believe this and remain a Buddhist. It is perhaps significant that the 1978 statement that
"many ministers, rabbis and priests have taken Scientology courses and have found Scientology principles entirely compatible with their religions"has been dropped from the 1992 edition.
The second false assertion is that "Scientology does not conflict with other religions or other religious practices." This is easily disprovable, as shown in reply to questions 24 and 26.
Arguing against this public position, Jon Atack suggests that "Scientology is essentially anti-Christian". It is hard to resist this conclusion. There is next to no mention of God (and the "Supreme Being" is not defined in anything other than the vaguest terms); the Christian values of humility and charity are viewed as being undesirable; the belief in what is, in effect, reincarnation conflicts fundamentally with Christian doctrine held since the 4th century AD; and Christ himself is described by Hubbard as being variously "an implant" and later as a real person, albeit with paedophile tendencies [PBS, p. 383]. A document has been circulated on the Internet which is said to be part of OT VIII; if it is genuine (and there is some debate on this score), then Hubbard wrote:
"For those of you whose Christian toes I may have stepped on, let me take the opportunity to disabuse you of some lovely myths. For instance, the historic Jesus was not nearly the sainted figure has been made out to be. In addition to being a lover of young boys and men, he was given to uncontrollable bursts of temper and hatred that belied the general message of love, understanding and other typical Marcab PR."It is very hard to see how this can possibly be reconciled with Christian belief.
(Alleged OT VIII Series I Student's Briefing, dated 5 May 1980)
Leaving aside the question of why Scientology management favours "social outreach" programmes (as discussed in relation to question 22, above), there is no doubt that many individual Scientologists do have a strong desire to "help mankind". To that extent, the answers given seem accurate enough.
"Close your eyes and get a picture of a cat. Done? That which is looking at that cat is you, a spirit."
This answer is based on the theory that a person consists of three elements: the body, the mind and the thetan or spirit. This is not immediately explained though a more detailed description can be found in "The Scientology Handbook". Briefly put, this states that the mind is "simply an accumulation of memory image pictures" ["The Scientology Handbook", p. iv]. In computer terms, it is rather like the ROM. The CPU - the thetan - is separate from it but can access it at will. Unfortunately, this theory falls foul of two fairly fundamental points.
The first is that neuroscience - which is immeasurably more advanced now than it was in the 1950s, when Hubbard first devised his theories - has found absolutely no evidence that the thetan, or even the Christian soul, exists as anything other than an abstract concept. Indeed, it appears more and more likely that consciousness is more the result of physical and biochemical processes than anything else.
The second problem is that the test proposed in WIS falls infinitely far short of anything which could be considered to be empirical proof. One could explain the ability to "summon" a mental image of a cat in terms of biological processes just as well as in terms of anything else; indeed, probably rather better so, as there is considerably more scientific knowledge about biological than about putative spiritual processes.
"Do you believe that your body would do anything by itself if it were not guided by you, the being?"
But one might just as easily turn the question around and ask: "Would you, the being, be able to do anything without your body?". That, of course, assumes that the body and being are necessarily separate: all the scientific evidence suggests otherwise.
It is interesting, though, that the answer given in WIS does not actually address the original question...
This lack of 'Godliness' is one of the key facts which has so far prevented Scientology from being given religious status in the UK.