Critical thinking and logic have radically changed my life for the better. Unfortunately, when I bring up ‘critical thinking’ I notice that some people’s eyes seem to glaze over. People seem to think these are immensely philosophical and deep subjects which only college-educated intellectuals want to have anything to do with.
I’d like to break through that, so let’s talk about something really practical and useful, which also just happens to be the very heart and soul of critical thinking.
I think it’s safe to say that we’ve all fallen for some nonsense in our lives. I dare say, most everyone probably has some part of their life where they are being taken advantage of and they don’t have a clue it’s going on. Their friends or family sadly shake their heads when they aren’t looking, hoping that somehow they will “wake up” and stop being idiots. It could be anything from politics to religion to relationships to diet to…whatever. And trying to “talk sense” into them goes nowhere, right? It just makes them hold on to the nonsense even harder. It’s almost as though they are held captive in a prison of belief.
Ever since I got out of Scientology I’ve been wondering about this. How did I get duped? How did I fall for that nonsense for so long?
Why do people just flatly refuse to look at facts or evidence? It seems that the more ridiculous the beliefs, the more viciously they will fight to hold on to them.
Believe me, the irony is not lost on me that here I am now trying to figure out how to reach the same kinds of True Believers that I once was.
I was talking to a friend about this and we were deep into the meanings of ultimate truth and comparing notes on subjective reality when it suddenly hit me that none of what we were talking was actually relevant to this problem, at least not in any practical sense. I think the way to handle this is a lot simpler than figuring out ‘ultimate truths’ and the nature of what is or is not knowable.
Science, Man, Science!
Carl Sagan, the astrophysicist and author of so many wonderful books, wrote, “Science is much more than a body of knowledge. It is a way of thinking. This is central to its success. Science invites us to let the facts in, even when they don’t conform to our preconceptions.”
When I talk about science and reason and logic, I’m not talking about facts and figures and periodic charts. I’m talking about a way of looking at life and dealing with it.
Sagan’s daughter wrote this about him in an essay entitled “How Carl Sagan Described Death to his Young Daughter”:
“Then he told me, very tenderly, that it can be dangerous to believe things just because you want them to be true. You can get tricked if you don’t question yourself and others, especially people in a position of authority. He told me that anything that’s truly real can stand up to scrutiny.”
How do we keep ourselves from being taken advantage of? How do we keep our friends and family safe?
It all comes down to one word: science.
Forget the white lab coats and the slide rules and hours peering into microscopes or writing really hard math equations on blackboards. I’m not talking about any of that. Besides, those are all just tools and trappings. A lab coat doesn’t make someone a scientist any more than a stethoscope makes someone a doctor.
I’m talking about much more basic science. You know, the word science comes from Latin and means “knowledge”. So what do scientists – the people who are basically the closest things to knowledge experts that we have in the world – what do they do?
They question everything.
Not just once. Not just twice. All the time.
It may sound easy but it’s not. It actually goes against our very nature to do this. Yet from this questioning approach to life comes everything else.
Every great or fundamental discovery in science began by asking questions, by realizing that there is something out there that we do not know. The smarter or more experienced the scientist becomes, the only thing they become more sure of is how much they don’t know.
When we stop questioning, we stop learning and we stop all possibility of knowing.
People like Scientology founder L. Ron Hubbard utter “words of wisdom” like “knowledge is certainty.” No it’s not! Like so many of the fundamental principles in Scientology, he got it totally backwards. And don’t think that this is by accident. Creating a mindset of utter certainty and total belief is part of the package of being in a cult. It’s a way of keeping people from thinking.
It’s actually called thought-stopping. Why? Because a person who thinks he knows all about it is the person is who not going to ask any more questions or do any more looking. I can’t think of a more miserable existence than to imagine that you know it all. I’ve been there and it was not fun.
The one thing a scientist never stops doing is wondering about things and asking questions to find out more.
There is absolutely nothing wrong with saying that you don’t know something. There is nothing wrong with not having all the answers. Maybe because it’s in our cultural fabric or it’s part of human nature, we feel compelled to always have answers for everything. We even make stuff up if we don’t know it. But my point is that if you want to keep from getting conned, if you want to really succeed out there in the world, it’s all about learning to be a very curious person.
Geniuses Don’t Know Much
If you look to the great thinkers and truly great leaders of history, you find an almost universal agreement amongst them that great wisdom and great happiness come from great humility. There is nothing whatsoever wrong in knowing that you do NOT know.
“It is unwise to be too sure of one’s own wisdom. It is healthy to be reminded that the strongest might weaken and the wisest might err.” – Mahatma Gandhi
“A true genius admits that he/she knows nothing.” – Albert Einstein
“A man should never be ashamed to own that he has been in the wrong, which is but saying in other words that he is wiser today than he was yesterday.” – Alexander Pope
“The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, and wiser people so full of doubts.” – Bertrand Russell
How Every Con Works
Con artists, religionists, mentalists and all the like take advantage of this simple flaw in our thinking: our craving to simply believe what people tell us so we don’t have to think about it anymore.
Look at your own life. Are there areas of your life where you are absolutely sure you have it all taped? You are so sure of the truth of your beliefs that you don’t even need to think about it anymore? That if anyone questions you about it, you get this impatient sort of knot in your stomach and want to tell them to just shut the hell up? Is there anything you are so sure of that you wouldn’t even bother to look at anything someone else might want to show you which contradicts it?
People become locked into a close-minded prison of belief because they forget to question what is right in front of their noses. They accept the authority of someone else to tell them how things are, how things work, what is right and what is wrong.
That is how we get taken for a ride. We accept that we know everything there is to know about something. We refuse to even look at anything that might challenge those beliefs. We forget to question everything.
It takes practice to do this, because it’s not necessarily in our nature. We somehow like it when we don’t have to think too much. We like having people tell us what to think or how to vote or who to pray to or why the world works the way it does. Let me please remind you that down that path there be dragons. The kind that eat you up.
Trust Me
The other factor behind any con is trust.
It may seem that what I’m proposing is to never trust anyone about anything. No, there comes a point where you have to decide to trust. My point is that doesn’t mean you should shut down your thinking. Trusting someone does not mean handing over your brain to them.
I trust lots of people. That doesn’t mean I’m going to buy everything they tell me just because they said it’s true.
In science, there are no “authorities”. No one follows Isaac Newton’s Laws of Motion just because it was Newton who said it. They follow it because his theories stood up to more rigorous testing and development than any other proposition on the relationship of space and matter and their interaction. That is why these are now called Newton’s Laws of Motion.
Newton didn’t get to be called a genius because people believed in him. He’s a genius because what he formulated works and has been proven over and over and over again. There is not one person anywhere in this world who has not benefited from Newton’s discoveries.
Con men work very hard to gain your trust by feeding you false or colored information to sway your judgment or opinion. They ask you to trust them, to take what they say on faith or because they have it on the very best of authority. Some of them even claim that what they are saying is based in science and has been absolutely proven to be true.
I’m not saying that you should assume everyone is a con artist, but accepting anything on blind faith is ill advised. By asking lots of questions, by continuing to probe, you can either prove someone’s story is true or you can bust it apart.
Most of the time, if you just keep asking some con man about this or that or the other thing, they’ll go away just so they can find an easier mark. They don’t like people who ask questions. Scientists on the other hand, are trained to expect to be hit with about a thousand questions and to ask a thousand more themselves.
A Better World
If you still think that this all sounds too simple and obvious, then maybe you can explain to me why is it not practiced more often. It only sounds simple because it’s easy to say, not because any of this is easy to do.
I invite you to adopt this questioning frame of mind as a conscious effort and to practice it often. Maybe suggest to others that they do the same.
If we could do this and teach our children to do it too, I think we’d see a very different world very quickly. One in which crooked politicians, pseudo-scientific con artists and religious fundamentalists would not be able to take advantage of the gullible masses.
I think that would be a world that would be actually be going in the right direction. I think that would be a world worth living in.
Great post Chris and if indeed everyone did this, there would be less people duped. Cross referencing is another thing you can do when you can’t question someone in person. There also is a fine line from being a critical thinker to being a cynic and that is something to watch out for else one can then miss good opportunities. I am not saying that is you, as you are a very balanced guy but i have met many cynics and I would not be surprised that cynics eventually become dupes in an effort to balance out long term cynical behavior!
One thing I have a query on in your post and that is the validity of all of Newton’s theories. If gravity can cause something to drop, how did it get up there in the first place? I am a follower of the works of Walter Russell and he disses most of Newton’s theories. Sorry, just thinking critically Chris. I thoroughly recommend you check out Russellian science and you will find that Walter Russell was the guy Hubbard stole most of his good information from and I might add the spiritual gains you wanted from Scn. are sitting there available from the works of Walter and Lao Russell, no joke. But hey, don’t trust me of course, but you can get all of the works of Walter and Lao Russell from a guy in your country called Joey Korn who is in Georgia and on http://www.dowsers.com. I bought all their books and CD’s for $550 Australian inc. shipping and i got more new abilities gained in the first month of reading their stuff than in 25 years in Scn. with 17 years on staff and ED of 2 orgs. Anyway, love your stuff mate.
“Newton didn’t get to be called a genius because people believed in him. He’s a genius because what he formulated works, and has been proven over and over and over again”.
With respect, that’s not *quite* how science works. There is a deeper lesson here.
You cannot ‘prove’ a theory. Instead, science proceeds by trying to disprove its most cherished ideas – to falsify a theory. Every time an experiment fails to falsify a theory, this means you can place more confidence in it. However, you can never, ever, be certain.
Newton’s work is still valid – and predictions made from his theories are good enough for most practical purposes. However, Einstein demonstrated that in some (extreme) cases Newton’s equations don’t give quite the right answers. For example, GPS satellites have to take relativistic effects into account in order to provide their incredible accuracy.
The distinction between proving a theory and failing to disprove it sounds like a quibble. It isn’t. It’s central to the philosophy of science (a case well argued by Karl Popper).
Happily, this distinction only supports your conclusion. Human knowledge will always be tentative and uncertain. Reasonable scepticism and humility are essential characteristics if you are to live in the real word and behave well.
This man said it best <a href="” title=”Jacob Bronowski”>
http://tune.pk/video/3653752/bronowski-the-ascent-of-man-on-auschwitz-amp-science
Very good point and you are totally right. Theories aren’t “proven” they just continue to be shown to not be disproven. A somewhat difficult concept to easily explain so thank you for taking the time to note this.
Compare Hubbard’s “theories” to this brief checklist. I found they don’t hold up well!
http://skeptoid.com/episodes/4037
“1. Does the claim meet the qualifications of a theory?
Very few claims that aren’t true actually qualify as theories. Let’s review the four main requirements that a theory must fulfill. 1) A theory must originate from, and be well supported by, experimental evidence. Anecdotal or unsubstantiated reports don’t qualify. It must be supported by many strands of evidence, and not just a single foundation. You’ll find that most pseudoscience is supported by only a single foundation. 2) A theory must be specific enough to be falsifiable by testing. If it cannot be tested or refuted, it can’t qualify as a theory. And if something is truly testable, others must be able to repeat the tests and get the same results. You’ll find that this feature is truly rare among pseudosciences; they’ll generally claim some excuse or make up a reason why it can’t be tested or repeated by others. 3) A theory must make specific, testable predictions about things not yet observed. 4) A theory must allow for changes based on the discovery of new evidence. It must be dynamic, tentative, and correctable. You’ll find that most pseudoscience does not allow for changes based on new discoveries.”
We all get bamboozled sometime. That’s why cults have so much to teach us.
Chris, good morning! I’ve been reading, and listening to your writings and videos for a while , and want to compliment you on your clear and concise style. YOUR COMMUNICATIONS RESONATE as TRUE!
Breaking from the cult takes courage because of the nasty, INSIDIOUS TRAPS built in and then reinforced.
I applaud your courage, and wish for you much success, and health in your long and happy life.
Keep up the good work Chris…. YOU ARE TALENTED!!
THE WORLD NEEDS WRITERS and VIDEO PRODUCERS LIKE YOU!!
All the best……
Dee
Amen to that! 🙂
Brilliant and crystal Clear!
I just listened to an LRH lecture yesterday, from April 1953. I hate to break this to you Chris, but you sound just like LRH in the mid fifties. The similarity is actually freaky.
It amazes me how in the last 30 years the Sea Org has completely reversed everything LRH said.
LRH wrote “never use lies in PR”. As you wrote earlier, you left because you had to lie to do your post. Lying is all the church does now. This is only one example off the top of my head. I could think of many. Another example is the alteration of the definition of “suppressive person” to someone who doesn’t follow cob’s command intention.
The most violated policy of all time, is KSW, which basically says if you want to be a Scientologist, then fucking do what LRH says-not the opposite!
This is not any different, than saying if you want to be a Buddhist then do what Buddha teaches, or if you want to be a Christian then do what the bible says.The bible says thou shalt not kill, but there has been endless slaughter in the name of Christ.
Beginning with the death of LRH, policy of management became praise LRH, but do completely the opposite of what he said. It has taken 30 years to crash the church.
Part of “critical thinking” is looking at what LRH actually said. This not what the radical c of s has ever, wanted anyone to do!
I’ve been out for many years, and this is where my free thinking has led me.
LOL – “Never use lies in PR”. Because none of you can lie as well as I can and you’ll get caught. No, lies are used to enslave people and defame our enemies. NEVER use them in PR – LRH
I will keep this short. LRH said some very nice things in the 50s only to completely negate them in the 60s with his “keeping Scientology working, ethics, DBs, SPs, fair game and so on. I did the briefing course when it was date ordered from the beginning. He kept up his insanity through till his death. With the RPF and hunting for the SP who are after him on staff by using a Rock Slam to find them, etc, etc, etc. If you don’t know about these things I would be happy to enlighten you. LRH died a completely broken man. Miscavige is keeping up with LRH and is better in someways with suppressing his flock. LRH was brilliant in cultifying his flock (you and me). No, don’t do what LRH would have done, think for yourself.
Thank you, Chris for sharing this!!! I realized when I was a little girl I used to ask my dad WHY about everything. I was such a curious little girl. I think that helped me get out of Scientology cause as I grew up that WHY would come out sometimes and now I ask it more than ever!!!
You raise some very important points, Chris. Good advice for anyone recovering (or beginning) their Scn experience.
For me this is especially important in understanding how and why I remained in Scn for 30 years. I was familiar with the scientific process, having studied science, mathematics and engineering at university. So, what possible explanations could I offer?
In addition to my own intellectual shortcomings, there is something to be said about time and access to information. In the mid 80s information was largely accessed through libraries or bookstores. Before I got involved in Scn I did some research at the library and managed to acquire a couple books critical of Hubbard and Scn. None were terribly well written or convincing. So, in effect, it was a couple of detractors versus Hubbard and a number of his books. Needless to say, Hubbard won.
One of things which appeal to me about Scn was that it was not based on belief; instead it was the result of applying the scientific process to the spiritual realm, done by (of all people) a civil engineer. So, instantly Hubbard had credibility. Of course, I later determined this was undeserved. One, he wasn’t a civil engineer, and Two, he knew very little of the scientific process or standard research methodology, or simply could not be bothered to follow it.
Hubbard made bold assertions and had an air of authority about him. Couple that with the fact that I WANTED these things to be true. I really felt that he was onto something and was researching on the fringes of known science.
Say what you will about Hubbard, but, the man was not stupid. Especially when he says things like “Don’t take my word for it, check it out yourself.” Not something a con man would normally say to his mark. But, that is part of his genius, really.
On thing many people ask former members is “You seem like an intelligent person, how could you be duped like this?” Fair question. And man ex-members may beat themselves up over it. But, consider this:
Suspension of disbelief
a term coined in 1817 by the poet and aesthetic philosopher Samuel Taylor Coleridge, who suggested that if a writer could infuse a “human interest and a semblance of truth” into a fantastic tale, the reader would suspend judgement concerning the implausibility of the narrative.
Generally this term is associated with film and TV, however there is much more to it and is worth checking out.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suspension_of_disbelief
StatPush
Say what you will about Hubbard, but, the man was not stupid. Especially when he says things like “Don’t take my word for it, check it out yourself.” Not something a con man would normally say to his mark. But, that is part of his genius, really.
Statpush,
That statement of Hubbard’s actually kept me in for a long time. It had a profound effect on me and is indeed part of his genius. Great point.
Here, I believe that Hubbard ‘borrowed’ this idea from the Buddha who said:
“Believe nothing, O monks, merely because you have been told it … or because it is traditional, or because you yourselves have imagined it. Do not believe what your teacher tells you merely out of respect for the teacher. But whatsoever, after due examination and analysis, you find to be conducive to the good, the benefit, the welfare of all beings—that doctrine believe and cling to, and take it as your guide.”
It is my understanding that the Buddha taught this in an effort to eliminate blind faith in his followers. Here he is encouraging his followers to use doubt to deepen their understanding and realization.
Contrast that with Hubbard. He says that he wants his followers to look for themselves, but saying something and doing something are two entirely different things. Anyone who has even the briefest involvement with scientology knows that this utterance by Hubbard is a total crock of shit. There is no room for doubt, doubt is a lower condition. If you have doubts, you are just one notch above an enemy and lower than a liability to the group. Even if you were to actually use the ‘doubt formula’ you have no access to the real statistics of scientology, so you can’t actually make a decision based on that. The only thing that keeps you in the group at that point is what Chris points out here, your personal prison of belief. This prison can be incredibly difficult to break out of because you created it yourself. You have to actually admit that you were wrong and were taken in by the con. That is a very bitter pill to swallow, but swallow you must if you want out.
Of course, I wasn’t around when the Buddha was teaching, so I am taking the above quote with a grain of salt. I don’t know what was actually going on with the Buddha’s followers either, but I have a hard time imagining that he had body routers out finding people’s ‘ruins’, regs making sure that followers were signed up for the next meditation retreat the Buddha was offering, ethics officers going around keeping the sangha in line, or an ancient OSA operative lurking behind your hut keeping tabs on you and spreading black PR thorough the village if you were the one to ask an uncomfortable question at a teaching. And I’m pretty sure that there were no sec checks and SP Holes.
The Buddha’s objectives were the elimination of human suffering. Did he achieve that purpose? I don’t know. This may be a bit difficult to prove because one is moving out of the realm of science and into the metaphysical. Be that as it may, compare the Buddha’s reported actions with Hubbard’s documented actions. It is my opinion that this would be the comparison of a selfless saint with a world class con man.
Excellent analysis, Chris! Thanks!
Chris,
I have been reading your writings for some time now. I also follow the information provided by Surviving Scientology, Scientology Money Project, The Bunker, etc. as often as I can. I have never been in the COS, nor do I know anyone personally that has been a member, to my knowledge. I have never written on any of these sites a comment, until now. This article has really hit me square in the gut.
I live in OK and most people have their TV’s and Radios tuned to FOX, so the brainwashing and thought stopping is enormous. So much so, in fact, I cannot stand to even be in a simple conversation with most of my relatives (or my husband’s) because they drink the kook-aid daily from the Fox Fountain. I rarely watch the news anymore, unless I need to find out some info on a local event.
I got interested in COS because I was also in a cult-type of organization called chiropractic. I sold my soul to this pseudo organization and was duped for many, many years. I will never recover financially from this decision to suspend my beliefs. But I did recover my mind, which is priceless.
Also, living 1 hour from the NARCONON facility in OK I became interested in the criminality of COS, as most people in OK are blissfully ignorant of its true origins and practices. If asked about it I have found the average John or Sue Q. Public thinks narconon is a great idea “’cause it keeps those dope heads off dope.” Roll eyes, I know. Once I enlighten folks on the true scope-of-practice that Narconon and SCN espouse, there is a very characteristic look of bewilderment on their face, followed by skepticism so thick you would need a machete to cut through it. “If that place is so corrupt, OBI (OK Bureau of Investigations) would shut it down”, or “if SCN was not a ‘real’ religion, the IRS would shut it down” are so common in regard to the comments I get that its become quite predictable what people will say. Ignorance is Bliss.
I just want to say in closing that when you write articles such as this, you are reaching far beyond the perimeters of SCN; people such as myself that have recovered from other charlatanisms. Your article drives home the point that The Mind is ours, not someone else’s. We need to take care of It and nurture It, protect It at all costs.
Thank you and continue the good work. I will be reading and learning.
Like you, I have started to unclutter my Scientology-based thinking with critical thinking. Sagan and Randi are great people to begin with.
I think you’d like Brian Dunning’s Skeptoid site, particularly this podcast of his, “How to Spot Pseudoscience” in which he gives a 15-point checklist to detect a pseudoscience. After a casual listen I think Scientology failed on 14 of the 15 points!
Thanks for your great posts.
Nice article Chris.
I find it ironic that LRH said that Scientology comes from the latin scio which means to know and that it is the study of how to know. (something to this effect) Truthfully SOME of Scientology is valuable and helps a person to know things. Other parts of it help to trap an individual.
I think part tot he trap with Scientology is that people got results and did sort of an A=A that “since I got results from this then maybe the rest is true.” Personally I have had spectacular results from Scientology auditing. Maybe I got those results because I “believed” or whatever, I would still attribute those gains or successes to Scientology auditing. I can now separate those wins from other things in Scientology that I think is just pure bullshit.
I think it could be incredible valuable to take what is workable from Scientology and improve upon it. Marty’s recent post about Congruence is an example of this kind of thing.
I agree that critical thinking is a must. People have varying degrees of ability to do this. People need to have answers and in some cases, very simple ones that pervade life. Example: Jesus is my Lord and savior. I believe in Jesus and he and God will help give me the answers and keep me away from Satan. This is an example of an all encompassing solution that could make it easier for people to keep living and feeling secure. Some people then find all sorts of evidence to validate these beliefs. Millions of people believe in this sort of thing. I think the planet is chock full of people that are ready willing and able to give up the critical thought process. That is why Earth is Earth. Pretty pessimistic but pretty real I’m afraid.
Thank you Chris, for your articles and posts. They are very helpful and thought provoking. It’s so funny to me because I got in Scientology through Dianetics, which I approached as a “science” and not a religion. I had studied science and life sciences in particular, so this was an interesting new facet to me. Somewhere along the way, I stopped asking questions and got in deep. Maybe that’s exactly what happened; I stopped questioning, looking for proof and just followed along. It was easier that way. Scientology demands conformity.
Very good article, Chris. I found some additional info on my point we were discussing the other day. I had said, “At some point a Scientologist “snaps” into the mindset and after that it is very difficult, if not impossible to get that person to think critically about the subject of Scientology. That is, until some life crisis comes along that “snaps” the person back out of it. ”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suspension_of_disbelief
I can only speak from my own experience, because that is what occurred with me, although I have to admit, I never totally bought into the whole cockeyed story. My underlying consideration was that LRH was a snake oil salesman. Hell, one can listen to the guy on some of the SHSBC tapes and practically hear him, totally full of himself, making it up as he goes. Anyway here is part of the article called suspension of disbelief.
Suspension of disbelief.
Deborah (Linda Berg) Davis, the daughter of David Berg (a.k.a. Moses David), the founder of the Children of God cult, wrote a book about the cult which contains a very perceptive explanation of the role of the suspension of disbelief in the process of brainwashing new cult members. She explains that we voluntarily suspend disbelief in order to enjoy a movie like Star Wars. For a few hours, we allow ourselves to believe in a fantasy world of spaceships and robots and Jedi knights. But we return to reality when the movie ends and we leave the theater.
The person who joins a cult goes through a similar process. In order to become one of the group, he must embrace all of the beliefs and teachings of the cult, so the newcomer suspends his disbelief and enters into the movie. But the person who joins the cult doesn’t leave the movie theater.
Unlike the movie-goer, however, a cult victim who suspends his disbelief doesn’t necessarily come out of it. He stays in that state. The cult and its doctrine become his reality. It is significant that when we go to a movie theater we are already prepared to suspend our disbelief. We fully intend to enjoy the movie. So it is with the cult victim. In many cases he is ready to suspend whatever mental reservations he has in order to “enjoy” life. Stoner and Park, the authors of All God’s Children, write, “These young people are idealistic and are frequently searching for a goal, a purpose, and a sense of community, so the promises of the cults appeal strongly to them. Many are willing, even anxious, to be persuaded.”
The enjoyment a prospective cult member seeks lies on a much deeper level than mere entertainment; he is hoping to find fulfillment, purpose, and direction for life. But like the movie-goer who attends Star Wars seeking enjoyment, an individual joins a cult because he wants to enjoy the movie of life.
When a cult recruit crosses the invisible barrier in his mind — when he enters the world of the cult and its doctrine at some point in his flirtatious sampling of the cult — he is tripping the switch of his voluntary suspension of disbelief.
Brainwashing or mind control then occurs naturally, sometimes effortlessly. In many cases the new cult member will struggle hard to brainwash himself. He must do this in order to balance out the guilt he feels. When doubts rush in like a flood, he tells himself, “I am following the truth. The rest of the world may be going to hell, but I am following the truth!”
Other members are there to encourage the new recruit. He either accepts their help and counsel, or he rejects it. If he rejects it, he doesn’t stay around long. If he receives their help, he goes deeper into the cultic doctrine. He will sell flowers, chant, memorize, litness [witness and raise funds with literature], or do, whatever it takes, to the utmost of his ability to prove to himself and others that he is right. The brainwashing that occurs in cults is the finest, purest, and most effective around.
Note the voluntary nature of the process. Deborah Davis makes the point that joining a cult is not just a process of being fooled by a slick phony guru or of being quickly brainwashed without knowing what is happening. On some level of his mind, the newcomer must voluntarily buy into the game, or else he will leave the cult.
Great quote, Bob, and completely apropos to what we are talking about here. This business about the suspension of disbelief is very interesting and not something I had thought of in those terms, it being mainly a term I’ve used to talk about entertainment. It totally fits here and I have been fascinated by the links people have provided in the comments about this.
I think the Suspension of Disbelief idea has some merit. Hubbard was well aware of this from his experience as a writer of fiction. The man could spin a good yarn.
How is the data in Scn any different than one of his adventure novels? Because it is “scientific?” Because it is “philosophical?” Because it is “truth?” No, it is those things because Hubbard SAYS it is. This is not make it a fact.
Compare – “An alien invader force secretly controlling the inhabitants of the planet”, as a plot for a pulp fiction story or as the subject of one of LRH’s lectures. Is one more legitimate than the other? You could say the pulp fiction story lacks pretence and may even be entertaining. For the lecture, until Hubbard produces some evidence, it is at best wild speculation and at worst, a deceptive lie. In both cases, suspension of disbelief comes into play to achieve the desired effect.
The key issue is more social than thought (or thought stopping). What Hubbard learned early on was how to hypnotize and isolate his subjects and keep them in a mental box. They could not learn anything he did not want them to know. Eventually they were so far in that they could not understand what hit them. Any normal person being put in RPF for some unknown reason would say, “I’m outta here.” But that fence is pretty high and looks pretty tough to get over. And we do want to save the world — don’t we?
Most religions/cults use thought control to keep their followers in line. I was never a Sociologist. The only thing I know about it is from reading the Bunker and the Xenu story, which is good science fiction but bad history (really it is totally ridiculous).
Personally, I was inoculated against Scientology by being raise a Christian Scientist. I took offense at LRon using the word “science” for his ideas. I eventually had to give CS up when I learned to think for myself.
Even the physical sciences can be misused. If that were not true, aspartame would never has been approve for human consumption since it is a neurotoxin.
They don’t teach Scientology as a required course in High School for a reason.
It’s a crank subject.
Crank subjects thankfully are not taken seriously.
Scientology writings by Hubbard cannot be taken seriously, and the writings that make Scientology seem ridiculous are the ones that need the most constant exposing.
Crank subjects need full exposure of their ridiculous tenets.
If past life auditing worked, if the high volume exoricism of dead alien souls worked, then we’d have some OT supersouled people.
We don’t.
Scientology’s a crank subject.
If Scientology produced real superpowered supernaturally improved people, then the world would be amazed and transformed.
Scientology would be taught in high school!
I think there are aspects of Scientology auditing that are very workable. Not to create super beings that can do super power type things but it can be used therapeutically. I’m mostly talking about the grades and using the comm cycle. Many people have had great improvements using these. Teaching it so the results are uniform can be a challenge.
Hi Chris,
One thing that struck me was that quote from Carl Sagan’s daughter: “…He told me that anything that’s truly real can stand up to scrutiny.”
I would add to that: Anything that’s really true can stand up to scrutiny.
L. Ron Hubbard, his works and his organization cannot stand up to scrutiny. The whole package is neither real, nor true.
Great post Chris! Keep up the good work!
My favourite Vonegut quote applies:
TIger got to run,
Bird got to fly,
Man got to ask himself
Why, Why, Why?
Tiger got to sleep,
Bird got to land,
Man got to tell himself
He understand.
And a poor paraphrase from Martin Gardner:
“People have an 85% tendency to think that they believe as they do through logic, and that the other guy believes what he does through emotion”. When I talked to Scientologists in the past, they thought they were making sense, too. We both know how hard it is to untie the Gordian Knot of their belief system (though you are doing a superb job). It is still hard for me to talk to a Scientologist about the nonsense while encountering the logical roadblocks they put forth. Maybe I should quote, I think it is Bertrand Russell here with the most pity response– “Not enough evidence”.
I also remember, very distinctly, what was going on when me and those around me got sucked into Scientology. Back then, it was easy to see that some of us were firmly grounded and would never get involved with an organization started by a science fiction writer that handed out leaflets on Yonge Street. Then there were those who seemed to be lost souls looking for someone who could at least say they would help. They got sucked in first and longest. Then there were a few who flirted with non-traditional behaviours but had, to that point, never been consumed by one of them. I put myself in that third group.
Why did some of my brothers stay out of Scientology when I got sucked in? They were able to repel those who told us not only that Scientology made sense but that they had seen OT phenomenon. Why did I leave in the middle of my second course while a sister remains in over forty years later (if only as a member of the freezone). Of course I don’t expect an answer to these questions. My own answer, the best I can do, is that the true answer is multifaceted.
At the time, my ruin was pretty close to the surface and Hubbard gave me hope. But the notion that things would play themselves out regardless, gave me hope too. I think the ones who remained in for many years, had problems that could not really be dealt with any other way, problems that did follow them into Scientology and, at times, through the rest of their lives.
Well, Chris, at this point, if I was close to someone who was interested in Scientology but not so brainwashed that he would push aside every resource that wasn’t Hubbard approved, I would recommend your videos and essays, first. I hope others are doing just that.
I’m close to finishing Lawrence Wright’s _Going Clear_. I’m so stupefied by what I’m reading, I don’t know how to make sense of it.
How does a man who is said to be 5′ tall beat up other men, even multiple men who are presumably taller than he is? Why would people of economic means, with education, stick with this? In an effort to understand it, I’ve tried to relate it to things I’ve experienced. Here are the 3 situations that I’ve come up with.
1. My parents. They were so off kilter as parents, and did so much damage to their children psychologically, that you’d think at 18 I would have left and never looked back. Instead I spent until mid life trying to get their attention.
2. A man walked into my life once that I fell in love with. (I’m female.) I admired him so much, and was charged and uplifted by his energy and drive. I was also terrified of his judgment, and raced around all the time trying to get things done so he wouldn’t criticize me. Even at the time I reflected on the possibility that this must be what women go through who won’t leave an abusive male. There was nothing physically violent in this situation, it was rather the sense that I couldn’t just be myself, and was driven by apprehension of someone else’s world to the point of abdicating my own.
3. My job. The Director is so brilliant, and driven, that everybody is energized by him, including me. He also needs to direct everything around him to the point of always telling other people what their mental options are. I’m on pins and needles around him all the time, and have observed a loss of spontaneity in others. So why don’t I leave? Because I need a job. Instead I just avoid him, in order to not lose myself in fear, and into being something I’m not. But if I believed that my salvation depended on that man, I’d probably be a complete wreck.
That’s the best I can do, to try to understand.
Chris,
Do have a suggested reading list for novices like me? Books that explain critical thinking clearly without dense language? Books that helped you? Books you love? I looked around your website and couldn’t find a list. Did I miss it?
Thanks for your great videos and posts . . . here, there, and everywhere. They’re da bomb!
Cheers
Good point, FL. I should put up a list of books I suggest people read on this. The first one I’d start with is Carl Sagan’s The Demon-Haunted World. It’s a classic on science in everyday life and critical thinking. I’ll get a list up so by the time you are done with that one, I’ll have more for you.
That would be my first choice, too. Here is another good one, “Why people believe weird things,” by Michael Shermer. http://www.amazon.ca/People-Believe-Weird-Things-Pseudoscience/dp/0805070893
THE BELIEVING BRAIN, Michael Shermer
Excellent post, Chris.
A really good book along the lines of what you are talking about is “Why People Believe Weird Things” by Michael Shermer.
When I read it, it answered a long unanswered question for me.
Most people believe that you have to be stupid to join a cult. The general consensus is that stupid people fall for the claims that cults make, and that’s why they get taken – because they’re stupid.
Well research has actually shown that it is not stupidity that makes people join cults.
How the cult actually takes hold of someone is a very different process than being stupid. In fact, research has shown that it is a person’s intelligence that actually traps him.
Here’s a relevant quote from the book in a Chapter called “Why Smart People Believe Weird Things”:
I love that concept “beliefs they arrived at for non-smart reasons”.
I’ve always known that it was some deep emotional need that kept a person stuck in a cult like Scientology. But the process by which they keep themselves stuck was never clear to me before learning this.
Now – after learning this – I see it everywhere on the Sciosphere.
I see Indies and Churchies and even Exes rationalize a complex apparatus of escape-hatch excuses around themselves, constantly confirming their own previous ideas in the face of disconfirming facts, and fashion it into their own prison of belief.
It’s just plain as day to me now.
Here’s a link to that chapter of Shermer’s book:
http://www.michaelshermer.com/weird-things/excerpt/
I highly receommend this book, as well as another book by Shermer called “The Believing Brain”. These are not atheistic materialist rants condemning God and everything spiritual. Shermer is a careful and caring researcher who understands the limits of science, as well as its strengths. And he respects others who believe differently than he does – knowing that we are all human beings and none of us have all the answers.
I hope anyone who has ever been trapped in a cult makes their way out of it.
You are doing great work, Chris. You give me confidence that the work of exposing Scientology has a great future for all those who have been trapped.
Alanzo
You write and speak very well; it’s accessible and unpretentious. I study Physics, where we are constantly reminded that “all knowledge is provisional”. As time goes on, I gain an ever greater appreciation of the vastness of my ignorance. For which I am grateful.