Scientology is often presented by critics as a scam. I argue that for it to be a scam, there would need to be intent. I also argue that founders and leaders of cults are usually true believers themselves. Therefore, even though I do not agree with Scientology, I question the scam label.
The claim that Scientology is a scam, dressed up as a religion, and that cult founders are con men exploiting brainwashed victims for personal wealth and power is often made by critics. In fact, it's a very common myth which anti-cultists launch at a great variety of groups.
Why is this a myth? Because a scam would mean that leaders are *knowingly* exploiting others, that they know perfectly well that their doctrine is pure fantasy but somehow manage to hypnotize followers into accepting it. In other words, that they don't believe their own doctrine themselves. This, in my opinion, and that of many scholars who have studied cults, is false.
If leaders really believed their own doctrine, would it still be a scam? Of course not. At the worst, it would qualify as a form of illusion.
If one thus assume that leaders are themselves as convinced about their own doctrine as any dedicated member (and this is what I witnessed in the cult myself), then he will view the claim that the group is a scam as a myth. Not just a myth, in fact, but a derogatory, false, and dangerous accusation.
The scam myth works together with the mind-control myth in promoting ostracism against unpopular groups and bring authorities to over-react.
The FBI, who made the mistake to follow anti-cult advises in the Waco tragedy, now seems to realize this important aspect. In their Law Enforcement Bulletin of September 2000, they describe this particular myth and its dangers:
NRMs often are stereotyped as con games run by opportunistic leaders. Undoubtedly, some founders establish NRMs to intentionally bilk followers out of money or to unilaterally promote their own interests. More frequently, though, NRM leaders genuinely believe in their teachings, however outlandish or fantastic these seem. Such leaders or prophets will undergo great sacrifices-up to and including death-for the sake of their message, and it is dangerous for law enforcement officers to approach such leaders as if they were disingenuous con artists.
Certain practices sometimes are mistaken for indicators that leaders are insincere. For example, the fact that NRM leaders enjoy benefits or living comforts that their followers do not simply may reflect the honor that the groups attach to the leaders' positions. Similarly, groups' requirement that members turn over their assets to the movements may be prompted by a genuine attempt to promote an ascetic lifestyle among the members. Law enforcement officers should be very hesitant to assume that the leaders of NRMs are not sincere.
If officers suspect that NRM officials have improper motives, they should examine the leaders' backgrounds. Sociopaths or con artists generally will not invest years trying to spread their messages and form groups without a guaranteed payoff. Officers also should remember that NRM leaders and followers may have many complex motivations for their behavior, not all of which are internally consistent. NRM leaders may manipulate others and, yet, still hold sincere religious beliefs. Thus, even if leaders display signs of sociopathic or criminal behavior, officers should not assume that these individuals are insincere about their religious beliefs.
In the absence of contrary evidence, officers should assume that NRM leaders are true to their spiritual convictions.
The Scientology case
In the case of Scientology, in addition of the usual "it's all crap" and "mind-control" allegations, two of the main arguments being made by critics to convince others (and themselves) that Scientology is a scam, are as follows:
The core doctrine is being held secret until the member is sufficiently brainwashed to accept it and is ready to pay the big bucks for it.
Members are not being told what the whole path will cost them.
There are, however, several myths and misconceptions involved in these allegations:
1. The secret levels are NOT the core belief of Scientology. It's merely one of many incidents one will find on his "time track", albeit a powerful one and one which is supposed to still influences people thought their bundled together BTs. The core belief of Scientology is that one is a spiritual being, and that through the Scientology process referred to as "auditing", can free himself of "engrams" and "implants" (among which the Xenu incident) and thus recover their native spiritual abilities. It was their belief long *before* the BTs episode even entered the scene, and it is still the belief of the majority of Scientologists since they don't even know about Xenu and BTs, yet call what they do "Scientology". It is thus deceptive to claim that the core belief of Scientology is hidden until one reaches the OT levels. For more information on that issue, check the Xenu page.
2. The NATURE of the belief isn't even hidden. The promotional material clearly indicates that it is a galactic incident that happened 75 billion years ago. To claim that Scientology presents one facet on the outside and another on the inside is false. Space opera fiction references in Scientology abound in Scientology literature, including in magazines that are sent out on a large scale to outsiders. One of the most quoted book, History of Man, is widely available and contains loads of wild science-fiction stories (as do many other books and articles).
3. The costs of courses and auditing aren't hidden either. In fact, a list of prices and items often arrives together with promotional material, and is very widely available. Apart for the fact that the total price quoted by critics is an high estimate (the price depends on the length of each action and a much cheaper route is available through training and co-auditing), it is very easy for anyone to make an estimate of the magnitude it will cost him would he want to make the whole road. The price isn't in a bulk, and the person is free to stop at any stage were he to become disillusioned in Scientology and its technique. It is their choice to continue or not, and many continue simply because they make case gains and are happy with the results.
4. Keeping something secret is not necessarily part of a scam, and is being done by quite a few other religions. The Mormons do it, the Kabalistic Jews do it, to name just two - not to speak of countless esoteric movements such as the Free Masons and others. The point is, again, that members and leaders alike *really* believe it can be dangerous to read about the Xenu episode or run the related processes before one is spiritually advanced enough to confront the trauma this supposed accident is supposed to carry. Again, because of their genuine believe, it hardly qualifies as a scam. At the worst, merely a very silly belief.
As an ex-member, I don't believe in Scientology techniques. While I do think it can have positive effects, I view the spiritual bragging and exploitation it is marketed with as a form of illusion in which people buy because they need to believe, accept an outside authority, are anxious about their eternal future, and are in need of an higher purpose to lighten their way. However, I do NOT consider it a scam because, IMO, the strength with which the leader is able to pass his own visions and delusions to his followers is potent precisely because he genuinely shares these with them.
The scam myth is responsible for much unnecessary distress from cult members' relatives and for unwarranted phobias from the public and authorities. It also comes in the way of a fair understanding of the real phenomena that underlies the issue and is responsible for the fact that ex-members who have fallen prey of this other form of cultic belief are unable to leave the cult behind and move on. In a self-perpetrating circle, they will continuously reinforce their new us/them, black and white, belief to justify themselves, and will thereby keep the fuel of endless resentment alive.
> Scientology is often presented by critics as a scam. I argue that for > it to be a scam, there would need to be intent. I also argue that > founders and leaders of cults are usually true believers themselves. > Therefore, even though I do not agree with Scientology, I question the > scam label.
> The claim that Scientology is a scam, dressed up as a religion, and > that cult founders are con men exploiting brainwashed victims for > personal wealth and power is often made by critics. In fact, it's a > very common myth which anti-cultists launch at a great variety of > groups.
> Why is this a myth? Because a scam would mean that leaders are > *knowingly* exploiting others, that they know perfectly well that > their doctrine is pure fantasy but somehow manage to hypnotize > followers into accepting it. In other words, that they don't believe > their own doctrine themselves. This, in my opinion, and that of many > scholars who have studied cults, is false.
> If leaders really believed their own doctrine, would it still be a > scam? Of course not. At the worst, it would qualify as a form of > illusion.
> If one thus assume that leaders are themselves as convinced about their > own doctrine as any dedicated member (and this is what I witnessed in > the cult myself), then he will view the claim that the group is a scam > as a myth. Not just a myth, in fact, but a derogatory, false, and > dangerous accusation.
> The scam myth works together with the mind-control myth in promoting > ostracism against unpopular groups and bring authorities to over-react.
> The FBI, who made the mistake to follow anti-cult advises in the Waco > tragedy, now seems to realize this important aspect. In their Law > Enforcement Bulletin of September 2000, they describe this particular > myth and its dangers:
> NRMs often are stereotyped as con games run by opportunistic leaders. > Undoubtedly, some founders establish NRMs to intentionally bilk > followers out of money or to unilaterally promote their own interests. > More frequently, though, NRM leaders genuinely believe in their > teachings, however outlandish or fantastic these seem. Such leaders or > prophets will undergo great sacrifices-up to and including death-for > the sake of their message, and it is dangerous for law enforcement > officers to approach such leaders as if they were disingenuous con > artists.
> Certain practices sometimes are mistaken for indicators that leaders > are insincere. For example, the fact that NRM leaders enjoy benefits or > living comforts that their followers do not simply may reflect the > honor that the groups attach to the leaders' positions. Similarly, > groups' requirement that members turn over their assets to the > movements may be prompted by a genuine attempt to promote an ascetic > lifestyle among the members. Law enforcement officers should be very > hesitant to assume that the leaders of NRMs are not sincere.
> If officers suspect that NRM officials have improper motives, they > should examine the leaders' backgrounds. Sociopaths or con artists > generally will not invest years trying to spread their messages and > form groups without a guaranteed payoff. Officers also should remember > that NRM leaders and followers may have many complex motivations for > their behavior, not all of which are internally consistent. NRM leaders > may manipulate others and, yet, still hold sincere religious beliefs. > Thus, even if leaders display signs of sociopathic or criminal > behavior, officers should not assume that these individuals are > insincere about their religious beliefs.
> In the absence of contrary evidence, officers should assume that NRM > leaders are true to their spiritual convictions.
> The Scientology case
> In the case of Scientology, in addition of the usual "it's all crap" > and "mind-control" allegations, two of the main arguments being made by > critics to convince others (and themselves) that Scientology is a scam, > are as follows:
> The core doctrine is being held secret until the member is sufficiently > brainwashed to accept it and is ready to pay the big bucks for it.
> Members are not being told what the whole path will cost them.
> There are, however, several myths and misconceptions involved in these > allegations:
> 1. The secret levels are NOT the core belief of Scientology. It's > merely one of many incidents one will find on his "time track", albeit > a powerful one and one which is supposed to still influences people > thought their bundled together BTs. The core belief of Scientology is > that one is a spiritual being, and that through the Scientology process > referred to as "auditing", can free himself of "engrams" and "implants" > (among which the Xenu incident) and thus recover their native spiritual > abilities. It was their belief long *before* the BTs episode even > entered the scene, and it is still the belief of the majority of > Scientologists since they don't even know about Xenu and BTs, yet call > what they do "Scientology". It is thus deceptive to claim that the core > belief of Scientology is hidden until one reaches the OT levels. For > more information on that issue, check the Xenu page.
> 2. The NATURE of the belief isn't even hidden. The promotional material > clearly indicates that it is a galactic incident that happened 75 > billion years ago. To claim that Scientology presents one facet on the > outside and another on the inside is false. Space opera fiction > references in Scientology abound in Scientology literature, including > in magazines that are sent out on a large scale to outsiders. One of > the most quoted book, History of Man, is widely available and contains > loads of wild science-fiction stories (as do many other books and > articles).
> 3. The costs of courses and auditing aren't hidden either. In fact, a > list of prices and items often arrives together with promotional > material, and is very widely available. Apart for the fact that the > total price quoted by critics is an high estimate (the price depends on > the length of each action and a much cheaper route is available through > training and co-auditing), it is very easy for anyone to make an > estimate of the magnitude it will cost him would he want to make the > whole road. The price isn't in a bulk, and the person is free to stop > at any stage were he to become disillusioned in Scientology and its > technique. It is their choice to continue or not, and many continue > simply because they make case gains and are happy with the results.
> 4. Keeping something secret is not necessarily part of a scam, and is > being done by quite a few other religions. The Mormons do it, the > Kabalistic Jews do it, to name just two - not to speak of countless > esoteric movements such as the Free Masons and others. The point is, > again, that members and leaders alike *really* believe it can be > dangerous to read about the Xenu episode or run the related processes > before one is spiritually advanced enough to confront the trauma this > supposed accident is supposed to carry. Again, because of their genuine > believe, it hardly qualifies as a scam. At the worst, merely a very > silly belief.
> As an ex-member, I don't believe in Scientology techniques. While I do > think it can have positive effects, I view the spiritual bragging and > exploitation it is marketed with as a form of illusion in which people > buy because they need to believe, accept an outside authority, are > anxious about their eternal future, and are in need of an higher > purpose to lighten their way. However, I do NOT consider it a scam > because, IMO, the strength with which the leader is able to pass his > own visions and delusions to his followers is potent precisely because > he genuinely shares these with them.
> The scam myth is responsible for much unnecessary distress from cult > members' relatives and for unwarranted phobias from the public and > authorities. It also comes in the way of a fair understanding of the > real phenomena that underlies the issue and is responsible for the fact > that ex-members who have fallen prey of this other form of cultic > belief are unable to leave the cult behind and move on. In a > self-perpetrating circle, they will continuously reinforce their new > us/them, black and white, belief to justify themselves, and will > thereby keep the fuel of endless resentment alive.
> Scientology is often presented by critics as a scam. I argue that for > it to be a scam, there would need to be intent. I also argue that > founders and leaders of cults are usually true believers themselves. > Therefore, even though I do not agree with Scientology, I question the > scam label.
> The claim that Scientology is a scam, dressed up as a religion, and > that cult founders are con men exploiting brainwashed victims for > personal wealth and power is often made by critics. In fact, it's a > very common myth which anti-cultists launch at a great variety of > groups.
> Why is this a myth? Because a scam would mean that leaders are > *knowingly* exploiting others, that they know perfectly well that > their doctrine is pure fantasy but somehow manage to hypnotize > followers into accepting it. In other words, that they don't believe > their own doctrine themselves. This, in my opinion, and that of many > scholars who have studied cults, is false.
> If leaders really believed their own doctrine, would it still be a > scam? Of course not. At the worst, it would qualify as a form of > illusion.
> If one thus assume that leaders are themselves as convinced about their > own doctrine as any dedicated member (and this is what I witnessed in > the cult myself), then he will view the claim that the group is a scam > as a myth. Not just a myth, in fact, but a derogatory, false, and > dangerous accusation.
> The scam myth works together with the mind-control myth in promoting > ostracism against unpopular groups and bring authorities to over-react.
> The FBI, who made the mistake to follow anti-cult advises in the Waco > tragedy, now seems to realize this important aspect. In their Law > Enforcement Bulletin of September 2000, they describe this particular > myth and its dangers:
> NRMs often are stereotyped as con games run by opportunistic leaders. > Undoubtedly, some founders establish NRMs to intentionally bilk > followers out of money or to unilaterally promote their own interests. > More frequently, though, NRM leaders genuinely believe in their > teachings, however outlandish or fantastic these seem. Such leaders or > prophets will undergo great sacrifices-up to and including death-for > the sake of their message, and it is dangerous for law enforcement > officers to approach such leaders as if they were disingenuous con > artists.
> Certain practices sometimes are mistaken for indicators that leaders > are insincere. For example, the fact that NRM leaders enjoy benefits or > living comforts that their followers do not simply may reflect the > honor that the groups attach to the leaders' positions. Similarly, > groups' requirement that members turn over their assets to the > movements may be prompted by a genuine attempt to promote an ascetic > lifestyle among the members. Law enforcement officers should be very > hesitant to assume that the leaders of NRMs are not sincere.
> If officers suspect that NRM officials have improper motives, they > should examine the leaders' backgrounds. Sociopaths or con artists > generally will not invest years trying to spread their messages and > form groups without a guaranteed payoff. Officers also should remember > that NRM leaders and followers may have many complex motivations for > their behavior, not all of which are internally consistent. NRM leaders > may manipulate others and, yet, still hold sincere religious beliefs. > Thus, even if leaders display signs of sociopathic or criminal > behavior, officers should not assume that these individuals are > insincere about their religious beliefs.
> In the absence of contrary evidence, officers should assume that NRM > leaders are true to their spiritual convictions.
> The Scientology case
> In the case of Scientology, in addition of the usual "it's all crap" > and "mind-control" allegations, two of the main arguments being made by > critics to convince others (and themselves) that Scientology is a scam, > are as follows:
> The core doctrine is being held secret until the member is sufficiently > brainwashed to accept it and is ready to pay the big bucks for it.
> Members are not being told what the whole path will cost them.
> There are, however, several myths and misconceptions involved in these > allegations:
> 1. The secret levels are NOT the core belief of Scientology. It's > merely one of many incidents one will find on his "time track", albeit > a powerful one and one which is supposed to still influences people > thought their bundled together BTs. The core belief of Scientology is > that one is a spiritual being, and that through the Scientology process > referred to as "auditing", can free himself of "engrams" and "implants" > (among which the Xenu incident) and thus recover their native spiritual > abilities. It was their belief long *before* the BTs episode even > entered the scene, and it is still the belief of the majority of > Scientologists since they don't even know about Xenu and BTs, yet call > what they do "Scientology". It is thus deceptive to claim that the core > belief of Scientology is hidden until one reaches the OT levels. For > more information on that issue, check the Xenu page.
> 2. The NATURE of the belief isn't even hidden. The promotional material > clearly indicates that it is a galactic incident that happened 75 > billion years ago. To claim that Scientology presents one facet on the > outside and another on the inside is false. Space opera fiction > references in Scientology abound in Scientology literature, including > in magazines that are sent out on a large scale to outsiders. One of > the most quoted book, History of Man, is widely available and contains > loads of wild science-fiction stories (as do many other books and > articles).
> 3. The costs of courses and auditing aren't hidden either. In fact, a > list of prices and items often arrives together with promotional > material, and is very widely available. Apart for the fact that the > total price quoted by critics is an high estimate (the price depends on > the length of each action and a much cheaper route is available through > training and co-auditing), it is very easy for anyone to make an > estimate of the magnitude it will cost him would he want to make the > whole road. The price isn't in a bulk, and the person is free to stop > at any stage were he to become disillusioned in Scientology and its > technique. It is their choice to continue or not, and many continue > simply because they make case gains and are happy with the results.
> 4. Keeping something secret is not necessarily part of a scam, and is > being done by quite a few other religions. The Mormons do it, the > Kabalistic Jews do it, to name just two - not to speak of countless > esoteric movements such as the Free Masons and others. The point is, > again, that members and leaders alike *really* believe it can be > dangerous to read about the Xenu episode or run the related processes > before one is spiritually advanced enough to confront the trauma this > supposed accident is supposed to carry. Again, because of their genuine > believe, it hardly qualifies as a scam. At the worst, merely a very > silly belief.
> As an ex-member, I don't believe in Scientology techniques. While I do > think it can have positive effects, I view the spiritual bragging and > exploitation it is marketed with as a form of illusion in which people > buy because they need to believe, accept an outside authority, are > anxious about their eternal future, and are in need of an higher > purpose to lighten their way. However, I do NOT consider it a scam > because, IMO, the strength with which the leader is able to pass his > own visions and delusions to his followers is potent precisely because > he genuinely shares these with them.
> The scam myth is responsible for much unnecessary distress from cult > members' relatives and for unwarranted phobias from the public and > authorities. It also comes in the way of a fair understanding of the > real phenomena that underlies the issue and is responsible for the fact > that ex-members who have fallen prey of this other form of cultic > belief are unable to leave the cult behind and move on. In a > self-perpetrating circle, they will continuously reinforce their new > us/them, black and white, belief to justify themselves, and will > thereby keep the fuel of endless resentment alive.
L. Ron Hubbard never pops up from a box saying to his victims "SMILE! You're in scientology" so they goes on believing his lies have an existence in the reality.
If Hubbard had learned himself how to end cycles from the professionals in Candid Camera he could have avoided much hate, war and stupidity in the world.
> Scientology is often presented by critics as a scam. I argue that for > it to be a scam, there would need to be intent. I also argue that > founders and leaders of cults are usually true believers themselves. > Therefore, even though I do not agree with Scientology, I question the > scam label.
1) You are told that Scientology is a way of improving people's lives by making the able more able.
2) You are told that Scientology is not a religion but rather "an applied religious philosophy".
3) You are told about a state of Clear whereby a person has perfect recall, immunity from accidents and flu, a longer life and the ability to solve chess problems in a fraction of the time and that you can reach this state by inexpensive Dianetics auditing.
4) You pay for the auditing and after a few hours of it it is stopped because you don't seem to be getting enough benefit from it.
5) You are told you need Scientology auditing rather than Dianetics auditing which is 100 times more effective. Trouble is, it cost 20 times the price. You can't afford it so you are persuaded to learn to be a Scientology auditor yourself where you can co-audit and therefore do it cheaper.
6) So you are sold the courses and the e-meter and you hope to go clear at half the price. But you so much want to have those powers as a Clear tat you press on.
7) Two years later and you are getting nowhere. You are frustrated. The auditing your twin gave you doesn't work. What you need now is "repair auditing" done at the cost you were trying to avoid.
8) You get the repair auditing and you are now back on course. Several months later you are gettting nowhere.
9) Your only way to make any progress at all is to go for the full priced auditing you were trying to avoid. You are told that the "professional" auditors will give you more benefits in an hour than you have ever got in your life from doing Scientology.
10) You get "professional" auditing. You are pleased to have a chance to progress at last. A few weeks later you realize you are getting nowhere. But you want to be a "Clear" so you shut up and get on with it.
11) You have the elusive Clear cognition that basically says that a person realises that they are mocking up their own reactive mind. You go to "attest".
12) You attest but wonder why you haven't got immunity from colds and flu, perfect recall etc. Just that you are "mocking up your own reactive mind less". The goal you aimed for is not there. You express your concern but are told that all those goals and so much more are there on the OT levels.
13) Having gone Clear and hoping to have greater abilities, you are now told that "you are at risk and must rapidly move up to OT III". So having gone Clear and paid money for Dianetics auditing, then training, then repair auditing and then having paid for the too expensive "professional auditing" you tried to avoid in the first place you reach the stage after paying more money where you have no extra abilities -- worse still, you are at risk.
14) You have learnt by now that Scientology IS a religion and anyone who says otherwise is an SP and an enemy of the Church and mankind. You hand over money to help them in their legal battles to keep Scientology running as a religion even though you were told it was not a religion but rather "an applied religious philosophy" yourself when yu asked.
15) You do OT III and the self-help group you thought you joined now takes on a new turn. You learn that you are full of the souls of dead space aliens named "body thetans" and it is they who are holding you back. You have to telepathically audit these dead space aliens to make them go away and then you will get super-powers like being able to leave your body at will and fly around the universe.
16) You do the expensive OT III and you attest to being free of body thetans. You wonder why you can't "exteriorize" or fly around the universe.
17) You are now told that you are still full of body thetans but the nearly dead or unconscious ones that didn't respond to OT III. You now have to do the OT IV Drug Rundown to take vitemins to wake up these body thetans so they can be audited.
18) Now come OT V audited NOTs. This is *really* expensive at double the cost per hour of the "professional auditing" you were trying to avoid when you got in and wanted to become Clear. And you are auditied on this for many many hours. It seems like the richer you are, the more body thetans you have, so all your money goes away and you go deep into debt.
19) After OT V you at last get onto OT VI. Guess what? More body thetans need to be handled but you can "solo audit" them away.
20) So you finally finish OT VI. Guess what? More body thetans need to be handled on OT VII. This is going to take many years and all the money you could ever get from anywhere. On top of this a "six month sec check" has to be performed that you have to pay for.
21) Few people finish OT VII but of they do they get onto OT VIII. The final blinding "cognition" of this level is you realise "now I know who I am not and am interested in finding out who I am" when you realise that all your supposed memories were not real but belonged to the body thetans you got rid of. And as for the OT powers, there are none because you are a "baby OT" now. No immunity from colds and flu and perfect recall that you were told about when you came through the door. You have parted with perhaps $350,000 for "now I know who I am not and am interested in finding out who I am".
> Scientology is often presented by critics as a scam. I argue that for > it to be a scam, there would need to be intent. I also argue that > founders and leaders of cults are usually true believers themselves. > Therefore, even though I do not agree with Scientology, I question the > scam label.
Your definition of a scam is flawed.
Otherwise a pyramid scheme, chain letter, amway or anything anyone believed in at any link on the chain would not be a 'scam'.
The fraud can be present at *any* link on the chain, with all the other links being 'well intentioned'.
Scientology presents a 'special' problem, since it's literally training in 'believing' any damn thing you want, regardless of actual and/or obvious fact. 'True for you' is a recipe for delusion.
The Scientology scammer (Ron, for example, or Davey) can be perfectly aware of his fraud, but, at the same time, believe in it utterly.
Zinj -- You Can Lead a Clam to Reason; but You Can't Make Him Think
> > Scientology is often presented by critics as a scam. I argue that for > > it to be a scam, there would need to be intent. I also argue that > > founders and leaders of cults are usually true believers themselves. > > Therefore, even though I do not agree with Scie
