What Does Being "Pro-Scientology" Mean?

When I started this blog, my motivation was to clear up much of the misinformation and misunderstandings about Scientology and the Church of Scientology that were rampant at that time.  The bad information came not only from the church itself, but even a lot of the negative information about Scientology was incorrect as well.

I knew a lot, and I was in touch with many Scientologists and ex-Scientologists, so I felt compelled to clear up the confusion.

All I have endeavored to do was get the truth better known and to expose the lies.

Obviously, this would cause the Church of Scientology to consider me an Enemy.  The church is built on lies, misinformation and exaggeration and they didn’t appreciate what so many, many people were doing.

Today there are many people who have left the church but who still firmly believe in the Scientology belief system.  One would think that, free from the systemic lies of the Church of Scientology, these people would seek to discover and live with the truth.  One would hope that Scientologists would seek to root out all lies from their lives.  After all, they are on the “Road to Truth”.

So it is with considerable surprise that I find that my blog, Ask the Scientologist, is considered, by some true believers, to be “anti-Scientology”.  I read that “true” Scientologists are being warned to avoid this blog at all costs.

Let me be very clear about this, I am not anti- the Scientology belief system.  Never have been.

However, I am pro-truth.

All I have asked from believers of Scientology is honesty.  It’s a simple request: If a Scientology process, formula or procedure does not deliver what was promised for that process, formula or procedure, then don’t claim that “it works”!  That’s all.

This isn’t about whether “Scientology works”.  Whether it does work, or should work, or might work is not the point.  The point is whether or not the explicit promises made for various Grades, Rundowns, Levels, courses are actually delivered.

And, for a large majority of the services delivered by Scientology, the promised results are not delivered.

I experienced some good things in the early days.  But I can see — anyone can see — that the grandiose claims of Scientology on its Grade Chart, in its promotions, in conversations with Scientologists, are not happening.  I’ve listed many of these things before.  The actual results from public school students using the “Hubbard Study Method” have been analyzed and the technology does not detectably improve student results.  The actual results from Narconon show worse results than other methods.  Grade 0 Releases are not able to “talk to anyone on any subject”.  Grade I Releases still have problems.  Graduates from the PTS/SP course can’t handle antagonistic people or situations.  Clears and OTs do not have the promised abilities and powers. And so on and so on.  Whether Scientology could, possibly, produce those results is not the point.  The point is that it hasn’t.

The Church of Scientology does something quite evil about this.  When a Scientologist does not receive the promised results from a Grade, Level, course or Rundown, the church says it is the Scientologist’s fault, and has them pay for their own “correction”.  When the Scientologist still does not receive the results promised by the church, the church again blames the Scientologist and has them pay to redo everything.  This goes on and on with the church forcing Scientologists to pay and pay and pay and never delivering what was promised.  And all the time blaming the Scientologist for the missing results.

Finally, when it becomes obvious that the church will never deliver what was promised, and the Scientologist has run out of money, the church blames the Scientologist, saying the Scientologist is “too out-ethics” and kicks them out.

This policy of the Church of Scientology of blaming their customers for the church’s failures ultimately destroys Scientologists.  Many Scientologists end up firmly believing that they are evil, they are the cause of the failures, they are “degraded beings” and “suppressive”.

This is so very wrong.

All I’m asking of the true believers of Scientology who wish to practice and promote the Scientology belief system outside of the church is that they don’t do that.

If those who believe in the Scientology technology want to stop destroying people, then they need to promise only results that they can actually, provably and consistently produce.  They need to actually deliver every result promised — and if they don’t deliver it they must not blame the customer.  And they need to stop claiming results for Scientology that Scientology has not delivered.

Believe what you want but only promise what you can, for certain, deliver.  And then always deliver what you promised.

That is living with the truth.  That is honesty.

Now, if that request is “anti-Scientology”, then you Scientology true believers have major problems — because all I’m asking for is honesty and truth.  If that’s unacceptable to Scientologists, then that says worse things about Scientology than any real anti-Scientology blog or site ever did.

Advertisements
This entry was posted in Uncategorized and tagged , , . Bookmark the permalink.

38 Responses to What Does Being "Pro-Scientology" Mean?

  1. Anonymous says:

    I do agree with you about what it says about scientology when you're considered anti-scientology. The problem IMHO is the fact that scientologists still believe that if only the tech was "correctly" applied they will get the results that they were previously promised. This is an unfortunate barrier to truth.

  2. Just Bill says:

    You are correct.It's true, some believe there exists some mythical "standard" version of Scientology, but all available evidence shows that they do not have it yet. No honest person can deny that.And until Scientologists work out what that magic version of Scientology is that "works 100%" they cannot promise that result — that's just dishonest.And it's about time Scientologists talked about the results they are actually producing rather than the results they so earnestly believe they should be producing.But it doesn't seem they are capable of that level of honesty.

  3. Anonymous says:

    As a 30-year ex-scientologist I hear what you are saying. I no longer practice the "tech" nor do I view LRH as "source" any longer. But that doesn't mean I wouldn't invite a Scientologist to dinner because of their beliefs. I wouldn't exclude a Jew or Catholic for their religious beliefs either. My tolerance for others' beliefs is pretty high and I find it all quite interesting because I find people to be so interesting. Like you – I finally saw that the "tech" was not delivering what was promised and when I pulled the strings I found I had been had by a very clever conman who used "KSW" to keep his true-believers firmly on the control grid. But doesn't mean I am "anti" to people to still believe. I still like them even though I don't always get that back in return. Wishing you continued good luck with your blog.

  4. Anonymous says:

    I have come to the conclusion that all who sell spiritual abilities or conditions are, inadvertantly or advertantly, scamming money out of needy people and/or sincere seekers.Sell a book or a bagel or a math class or a hatha yoga exercise class, but as you say, Bill, at least deliver the item or instruction promised. Invisible, unverifiable, subjective,spiritual "stuff" should not be sold under any circumstances.Thanks for clarifying what it means to search for the truth in this regard. Anyone who sees that search as an attack probably has something, a business or an illusion, to protect.

  5. dontscamme says:

    Just Bill, this blog post is so simple and yet so profound. All you are asking for is an honest look at actual results. No more, no less.Thanks for this blog. I feel that it contains some very valuable information and comes from a frank but fair and even-handed perspective.

  6. Anonymous says:

    The "the tech is perfect, application has been faulty" stance allways has me wondering. How can people not see what is going on?People have been trying for years and years to follow Hubbards "tech" to the letter. There must be thousands of people who have reached Clear, and yet no-one have demonstrated the promised perfect memmory or any other superhuman traits. With so manny attempts, and nothing to show for it, it should be obvious even to the densest that it the error must be somewhere else? If Hubbards instructions were even remotely right (and the results even remotly possible), someone should have hit it spot on by accident by now.

  7. Anonymous says:

    Just Bill,Thanks for another great post. I've been reading both the "true believer, anti-Church" blogs and yours for months now. Even those true believers never address the question of whether or not Scn produces the promised results in some provable way. That in and of itself speaks volumes . . . . .

  8. Anonymous says:

    Hello Just Bill,First of all I'd like to say that your blog is excellent. I have never been involved in Scientology, but I'd think your approach is the best: Asking the right questions and let disenchanted members make their own conclusions instead of hammering them with "entheta". I know that Scientoogists are trapped in cycle where they always get blamed whenever "the tech" doesn't work, but in the context of your article I got the impression that this simply goes on until they're broke. From what I've heard I thought they have to explain pretty soon why they "make the tech unworkable". Doesn't it always come down to O/Ws, evil purposes or an undisclosed PTSness?Or is this just for those who show signs of actually questioning the tech itself? Greetings from the land of intolerance.

  9. Just Bill says:

    Oh, yes. As time goes on, and it is obvious the Church of Scientology is never going to deliver the results promised, it does get into "heavy ethics" where the Scientologist is getting more and more "Sec Checking" and FPRD (finding past crimes) — as well as lower conditions. But as long as the Scientologist continues to give the church money, they may continue to receive services. They are only kicked out when they "refuse" to continue to give the church their money — usually when they are bankrupt, but sometimes when they wake up.

  10. Anonymous says:

    Thanks for clearing this up. I've read the FPRD (Wiki Leaks)and it was a truly mindboggling experience. The same applies to the questions asked during the L-Rundowns and the PTS/SP RD. Those procedures are so ripe with paranoia that it's hard to grasp how people don't ask the only question that really matters: Would the most ethical group on the planet come up with interrogations that resemble procedures used by totalitarian regimes? I think the fact that they don't question this speaks volumes.I think it would be very interesting for outsiders to learn how former Scientologists deal with this once they've taken a step back and see their involvement from a different angle (unless it's too personal, of course).I hope it's not too off-topic, but I've heard that the FPRD was allegedly not developed by Hubbard but by Miscavige in order to bring back the victims of his purges without having to make any concessions – to make them understand why they were dedclared in the first place. Does that make sense to you?Keep up the good work!

  11. Anonymous says:

    Oddly enough, you are listed on http://leavingscientology.wordpress.com/. If this link disappears we will know that FZs are no better than Co$

  12. Anonymous says:

    IntegritySincerityFranknessHonestyOpennessIngenuousnessCandorOutspokennessBluntness“What is personal integrity?Personal integrity is knowing what you know–What you know is what you know–And to have the courage to know and say what you have observed.And that is integrity.And there is no other integrity – LRHWhat a load of crap. What about honoring a promise or more importantly, not lying. What about what you DON’T know? And this is why I read this blog. You, sir, have integrity.

  13. Just Bill says:

    Re: FPRD (copied from my comment on another post)The FPRD was developed when Hubbard was still alive and before Miscavige had done much alteration of the tech. How Miscavige currently uses the FPRD is something else. It definitely is a punishment. Miscavige firmly believes that everyone (except himself) is SUPPRESSIVE, and his use of ethics, Sec Checks and the FPRD is based on that belief. Everyone is suppressive, everyone is guilty, everyone must confess and confess and confess — and they can never confess enough, or be punished enough for Miscavige.Yes, Miscavige does work hard, all the time, to make sure everyone else knows how evil and suppressive they really are.

  14. Anonymous says:

    What is interesting, and pretty consistent about Scientologist's "wins" using Scientology technology is the pervasive vagueness of those wins.A Scientologist might say "I feel better" or "my life was improved" or some such — never "I now can talk to anyone on any subject". In other words, they do not state as their gains any of the promised results from a specific Level, Grade, Rundown or course.They might, immediately after completing a Grade, and while still in the glow of the after-session euphoria, say "I am sure I will no longer have problems", or some such, but that is a hope, not an actual statement of what they gained. After some time has passed, and after they have had a chance to live in the real world with those "gains", you don't hear them make any definitive statements.I don't doubt that Scientologists do experience "I feel better" or "my life has improved" gains during Scientology. But, in general, they do not assert the specific abilities gained that Scientology promises.

  15. Luis says:

    The degree of need, a person or group has, of any or all of their viewpoints to have to be right, is directly proportional to the intensity of the attack (make wrong)one receives from that person or group when any of their viewpoints is questioned or criticized.That, of course, is my viewpoint (and my own experience with myself).By the way Bill, a growing 2010 to ALL of us!

  16. Anonymous says:

    Just Bill: looked for an email address for you on this site but looks like this the only way to get in touch with you. Obviously, you have my permission to post this. A friend and I discovered today that emails between us containing your link do not get past our EARTHLINK spam filters. Neither of us have you on our spam list. My friend has a spam folder and accidentally came across an email sent to her from another friend with your link in it. Then an email she sent me with the same link simply never arrived (I have a different email program; I never see what is taken out as confirmed spam). Only incoming messages containing the link are being affected, and we're not aware of any other emails being censored currently.This is not the first time this has happened. A few weeks ago this same thing occurred with emailscontaining a link to a site that had details of the recent lawsuit brought against DAVID MISCARRIAGE for human trafficking. We complained to EARTHLINK and after a ridiculous amount of run-around, were finally able to get the problem cleared up, though their promise to let us know what they had found to be the cause of the problem was not kept.Thought you should know.

  17. Currently there are a number of persons publishing this and that on the net, thinking that the general public could, should, differentiate between Scientology as a subject, and The Church of Scientology.This is a far stretch.All these "defected, but true to the subject" persons do, is attract paying preclears (subjects to auditing) and others, from the ranks of those having found Scientology (from the efforts of organized Church Of Scientology), but who for different reasons shy off from participating in the Church activities and demands.Outside of that – the uninformed will probably to a very large degree blame the subject of Scientology for the errors in the Church that is promoted by the defectors.So, they actually tarnish the subject itself by promoting claimed atrocities.The fact of the matter is, that these defectors considered at some point that they could not change those things inside the organization that they disagreed to. That was a failure. What else can one call it?They failed, and then they point at us being inside the Church and say we are doing something wrong by continuing? They assume we don´t change anything. They assume we silently look at misapplication of Scientology and we are cowards? Some of us makes those errors, and that cannot be defended from any standard. But many of us are contributing to an application of Scientology that are getting closer and closer to the ideal, as envisioned by LRH.The defectors failed. Doesn´t matter if they put on a show of "knights of truth and honor". They failed, and they dropped it.

  18. Just Bill says:

    @anders andersonHuh? Your comment is quite strange. You seem to think that the only crime that the Church of Scientology is committing is alteration of the tech. And you seem to be claiming that you are "doing something" about that. Your message is coming from an entirely different planet than reality.What are you doing about the atrocities being committed in your name at the Int Base? The 100 hour work weeks, virtually no pay, no vacations, no health care, the abuses, the forced abortions, the forced divorces, the torture, the isolation, the invasion of privacy, the human rights abuses? These are the "problems" of your church you should be correcting. BUT YOU WON'T EVEN ACKNOWLEDGE THEM.You should be out there protesting. You should be raising such a stink! But you ignore your church's fraud, crimes, abuses and torture. You think the only thing "wrong" is altered tech.Trust me, the altered tech is the very, very, very least of the crimes of your little Church of Scientology. Your ignorance of what is really going on is incredible — almost unbelievable.By the way, rather than failing, as you claim, the protesters and the "defectors" (as you term them) have won. Your church has collapsed and will soon completely cease to exist. The truth has gotten through and Scientologists everywhere have woken up.You see, for all your blustering, I know that you have, and are doing nothing. The worst thing that can be said about Scientologists still in the church is that they know things are very wrong, and they, like you, do nothing.

  19. Anonymous says:

    Just Bill, HIGH FIVE!! I just read that posting about the righteousness of those"still inside" and while suppressing my gag reflex, fingers gripping the mouse to scroll down to the comment box, I see your reply. Ahhhhhh. Relief.I am recently "out" after 31 years. Truthfully, I bounced in and outish that whole time so have been accused of being on the fringe at times. Got in when it was lighter and more fun and less like grinding your sex organs on a grist mill, but was constantly being repulsed by the pressure,regging, coercion, pressure, group think, pressure, you get the picture. Anders anderson obviously is NOT inside the church at all, or if he is he is so FAR inside (can you say OSA?) that he doesn't even know what he doesn't know. Anybody who can read and use a computer and lives in the REAL world is aware of the degree of corruption within that organization.Ironically, it's only those for whom the church is the whole world who do NOT know. Anders, you don't even realize how much you embarass yourself with that "party line" bullshit Take a look at the rest of the internet – Google Rediscover scientologyfriends of lrhscientology-cultex scientologist message boardleaving scientologyHope you're able to look freely, but I suspect you're not yet free at all.

  20. Anonymous says:

    Hello, BillI posted yesterday about EARTHLINK censoring mail with the link to your site by identifying it as spam. You should know that this has been mysteriously corrected overnight. I have no idea what's going on. My friends and I are going to have to start sending "chaser" emails now whenever we send mail with "anti-scientology" links. Funny how this never happens to the links to sites about cute puppies…

  21. All I can say is RIGHT ON Bill! The proof should always be in the "pudding." Anything else is just heads talking.

  22. Just Bill says:

    Re: EarthlinkVery interesting. I read your comment, and was pondering what, if anything, I could do about it. Now, everything is cleared up. Fascinating.I see, from Googling it, that Earthlink has had quite a history of censoring free speech when someone there disagrees with a viewpoint. Maybe they are waking up?

  23. Just Bill says:

    Note this significant point about Scientology true believers: When they get upset and reject calls to "only claim results that they can verifiably and consistently produce", they are admitting that they know that they are not producing and cannot produce those claimed results.Because if they could and knew they could, they would happily welcome such suggestions.Their rejection and upset about calls for such honesty are extremely revealing about what they know about Scientology's actual results.Interesting? No?

  24. Anonymous says:

    Earthlink is run by Sky Dayton who is a Scientologist and who also runs Helio Phones. so that may be why you have the blocked emails

  25. Anonymous says:

    Sky Dayton sold Earthlink a few years ago to a non-Scientologist entity, but I'm sure there are still Scientologists working there. It's entirely possible that this could be the problem. Judging by OSA's past operations, the individuals responsible wouldn't even necessarily be known to the company as Scientologists. And what better place to have a plant or plants than at a nexus of communication lines the size of Earthlink. It's speculation, but at this point it's actually the simplest explanation I've heard.

  26. Anonymous says:

    Hey Just Bill,I got a CoS mailer the other day(only get about 3 or 4 a month now as opposed to 3 or 4 a week a few years ago) and it was so shoddily done–smeared ink, poor graphics–I could believe it! Oh, joy, could this mean they are running out of money with which to harass people by mail?

  27. Just Bill says:

    Amazingly enough, the Church of Scientology is running out of money.Because Miscavige has hundreds of millions, maybe even billions, of dollars sucked from Scientologists pockets over the years, you'd think the church has a lot of money. Well, no. You see, in Miscavige's mind, that's his money and he is not going to send money to the churches for anything. No, they must continue to send him millions. Which leaves the churches with nothing.So, yes, the Church of Scientology is running out of money.

  28. omnom says:

    Interesting on the shoddy mailers. CoS just bought and trained for some serious equipment (see link below). These presses are not something you'd find at Kinkos…http://tinyurl.com/yde49nx

  29. Anonymous says:

    Bill,Thank you for your insight talent.Once I was wondering why we have to send mail to people who did not buy anything else in the last ten years. I asked the LC (LRH Communicator) to stop wasting money and the answer was: The stuff is SO good that in case he does not live there another one will benefit" If you still try to reach someone in another dimension, there you were.

  30. Just Bill says:

    @omnomBut what you don't factor in about the Church of Scientology is the pervasive greed of David Miscavige. He bought all that equipment so he could more effectively sell his latest money-making scheme to Scientologists. Those presses are for his promotional pieces, and are not available, under any circumstances, to any local church.So the local churches, who have no money any more, produce the sloppy kind of mailers you see.

  31. Anonymous says:

    It just boggles my mind how anyone could still follow/believe/defend Scn – the church or the tech. You have to be seriously delusional to believe the "tech" actually works. But then I remember how strong a hold Scn had on me for almost 20 years. Lack of sleep and extreme pressure does not make for clear thinking. Plus you get caught in the trap believing that you are saving the world and put up with otherwise intolerable conditions because you're "fighting a war" with a noble cause. I went up a good part of both sides of the bridge, was SO and part of Int Mgmt but by the time I got myself out, they had pounded me down so far I believed I had failed in Scn. Just like you point out. It took me a good while to untangle my thinking and regain myself. Back when I left there was no internet and I was alone, so the process took much longer than it does today. But once I sorted things out, I finally came to realize it was Scn that failed me. If all of us told our horror stories it would surely fill more volumes than all of Scn tech. Wouldn't it be a fitting judgement on DM and Scn – to make them use their new shiny presses to publish Scn's failures?

  32. Anonymous says:

    The lowering standards for org promo is starting to be noticeable. Fortunately for them (though not for us), email promo is free, so that's not going to stop anytime soon. Still, I got some promo from St. Bloody Hill in my email box today that was a scan of a letter printed out on generic-looking stationery, the kind you buy at Office Depot or Staples. How hard would it have been to make an emailed piece LOOK expensive? We're talking virutal reality, here, folks. So it looks like I'm seeing something else besides the budget getting smaller; this particular piece looked like they just weren't trying anymore. It must be very demoralizing to have upper management stealing your public, bankrupting your field and thus completely cutting your income lines, so that they can put out slick promo to sell services to YOUR public that you should be delivering.

  33. Old Auditor says:

    I can understand the certainty that some have about the Tech not working on them or the people they know.From personal experience I can agree that the Tech and its delivery has gone to hell since the early 1980s. I was extremely fortunate to have received auditing starting in 1976 from a lot of different auditors and I had stable gains from my auditing all the way up to the OT levels. It wasn't until I got to Flag that I began to see auditors who go solid when I would originate something beyond their reality.Good auditors and spot-on CSing were the exception, not the rule, at Flag. The auditor presence was so ethics-officer oriented that it actually inhibited communicating anything significant in session.An auditor who is actually there for the PC and is adept at two-way comming situations that come up is usually able to work around processes that were not biting or were wrongly programmed. Unfortunately those good people left the organization when the GAT garbage began.The rigidity of current tech application coupled with the robotic TRs that are now in vogue makes for a disastrous combination that invalidates a PCs knowingness.The future lies in a more open source approach to refining and replacing LRH's duct-taped Bridge with processes that play to the PCs knowingness and validate the being, not the bank.I think we will see a growing interest in all of the new independent developments that have appeared since the church morphed into a monolithic cult.I have been researching them and feel that there is a place for all of them whether the service mimics early Scientology, or follows more innovative paths like Idenics, Knowledgism, or Paul's Robot Auditor. I spent 20 years in the chair delivering Scientology auditing and found that in the years I audited in Class V and Advanced orgs that I spent too much time battling CSes on behalf of the PC. Auditing at my mission was far more effective because we cared more about our PCs than arbitrary stats.The Bridge is a hodge-podge of actions that were assembled on the run by LRH to handle problems that came up. In many cases, he based entire rundowns on his own case or a unique situation. It is no wonder that his one-size-fits-all approach does not work on all PCs. The miracle is that is worked on as many as it did!Now that the CofS is doing a Titanic, it is time to get our best and brightest auditors working on solutions that will do the following:- Must be deliverable in a way that puts the PC at cause- Should be deliverable by telephone or webcam connection- Must be tailored to address what the PC wants handled and nothing else.- Must not overpower the "minds protection".- Should not require years of training to become a competent practitioner and produce repratable results.There are more, but this is a start. I think we need to stop cursing the darkness and light a few candles. Finally, we should not go around attacking efforts to accomplish the above. There is no Gold Standard to measure new efforts against. The "Gold Standard" that existed in the CofS produced sheep, not lions and these poor souls were no match for Miscavige or for LRH in his declining and degraded years.Proof of that is that our "best and brightest" have spent the last few years as prisioners at the Gold golf course and concentration camp.

  34. Just Bill says:

    Pardon me for being blunt, but Scientology will always be a fringe cult followed by a handful of "true believers" unless and until it does something to validate itself.From the outside, it appears that only True Believers say they "get gains". Apparently, if you don't believe enough, it doesn't work.Well, if Scientologists want Scientology to be accepted mainstream they have to do some very simple things.- Have each and every Scientology and Dianetics process tested under laboratory conditions to find out exactly what it does, if anything.- If some Scientology tech does something, determine exactly what it does and under what conditions it does and doesn't work.- Scientifically discover what is happening and how to use that to make it work better.- Admit it when things in Scientology don't work or don't do what was promised.But Scientologists won't do that. They are so firmly convinced that Scientology will not stand up to scientific scrutiny that they hide in their little aren't-we-so-good communities, never testing, never verifying, never doubting, never questioning.I'm not anti-Scientology. This is the best advice you Scientologists will ever get. You want mainstream acceptance of Scientology, then prove everything.If you don't, then Scientology will remain a fringe, weirdo, flaky belief system that doesn't work.

  35. Anonymous says:

    Just Bill,You are spot on – Scientology will always remain a fringe belief system. I have imagined what kind of hell a "cleared planet" would be, but I don't worry about it for a second, because Scientology is inherently self-limiting.-BB Sox

  36. bhp says:

    You are sooo smart Bill. What I cannot comprehend is how these people who have left the COS still cannot confront the lies Hubbard provably gave…or how he let his friends and wife go to prison…the list goes on. I simply don't understand the logic of these True Believers.

  37. Mike Smith says:

    The question isn't "Does Scientology work?". The question is "Why doesn't Scientology work?"People go to the gym, diet, and exercise with little results.People go to Scientology with little or no results.People go to the gym, diet and exercise with great results.People go to Scientology with great results.Scientology drills are exercises to strengthen the mind.The stronger mind is certainly more able.

  38. Just Bill says:

    @Mike SmithThanks for your comment, you are quite correct that the question is wrong.The question "Does Scientology work" is far, far too general. "Scientology" is undefined and therefore lumps all of Scientology into one generality. And "works" is undefined. What is the criteria for determining if something "works"?I think it should be: "Which Scientology techniques produce the promised results and on who?" and "Which Scientology techniques fail to produce the promised results?"And perhaps, "When the promised results aren't produced, what is produced and why?"All Scientologists and some critics speak of, and think of, Scientology as one great lump that "works" or "doesn't work".But when a Scientologist insists that "Scientology works" they are thinking of one or two specific times they "felt wonderful" or "got results", and they are ignoring any and all failures.When a critic declares that "Scientology doesn't work", they are looking at the general population of Scientologists, where none of the promised "powers and abilities" are evident.Apples and oranges.In a very real sense, both are right. Yes, some people get "great results" from specific Scientology techniques (though not necessarily the promised results) and, yes, the broad, miraculous results that Hubbard promised have never been attained by anyone.

Leave a Reply. It will be moderated.

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s