Archive-name: scientology/skeptic/faq
Last-modified: 1994/4/21
Version: 1.3



Howdy all, I've decided to begin posting Phil Earnhart's
excellent alt.religion.scientology FAQ.

Does anyone know how to maintain a FAQ?
Anyone know how to submit it to 'rtfm.mit.edu'?

Brian?  Chip?

------------------------------------------------------------

Forward:

This is a FAQ that was compiled by Phil Earnhart
within the group alt.religion.scientology from questions
that were asked within the group and responses that were
made by group members along with his own material.

It is to be distinguished from the "Scientology Users" FAQ
written by Chip Gallo and Brian Wenger, both practicing
Scientologists.


------------------------------------------------------------


0. Should I try Scientology?
1. Is Scientology a Science?
2. Has the validity of Scientology been tested?
3. What does Scientology have to say about [other] Sciences?
4. How do scientifically-orientated Scientologists deal with these 
   contradictions of Scientology?
5. Do Scientologists have paranormal powers?
6. I'm interested in Scientology, but first I'd like to see some proof...
7. Is Scientology a religion?
8. How do Scientologists view other religions?
9. Do Scientologists view Science as a religion?
10. What's an e-meter? Is it a religious device or a Scientific device?
11. Is LRH a God?
12. Who has Scientology ever sued? What suits were lost/won/still pending?
13. Who has ever sued Scientology? What suits were lost/won/still pending?
14. What's a "Squirrel" group?
15. Why would Scientology permit someone to "squirrel" its technology?
16. Is Scientology Successful?
17. Is Narconon Successful?
18. What Countries Officially Sponsor Narconon?
19. What is the essence of Scientology's workability?
20. What do Scientologists think of this FAQ?
21. Well?? Should I try Scientology?







0. Should I try Scientology?

Maybe. Read this FAQ first. Also, you may want to read one or more of the 
books listed in the Books FAQ.

I. Scientology and Science

1. Is Scientology a science?

It depends on who you ask. In his book _Scientology: The Fundamentals of 
Thought_, L.Ron Hubbard (LRH) says:

"It is a precise and exact science, designed for an age of exact sciences."

Scientology claims to be a Science, but it never presents any of its data to 
the world in a Scientific fashion. It presents conclusions (or, perhaps, 
assertions) but never presents anything to back them up.

If you ask this question to Scientologists in this group, they generally 
won't answer. Sometimes they will get hostile and attack the person asking, 
saying that they don't have to prove anything to anyone.

Scientology *claims* to be a Science -- it's leader *asserts* that it is a 
Science -- but has never, ever provided any objective evidence that it is a 
Science. Until it does, Scientology is not a Science.

2. Has the validity of Scientology been tested?

LRH says it has (again, from _Scientology, The Fundamentals of Thought_):

"Tens of thousands of case histories, all sworn to, are in the possession of 
the organizations of Scientology. No other subjects on Earth except physics 
and chemistry have had such gruelling testing."

Unfortunately, there's no public access to this alleged "gruelling testing." 
We only have the assertion and none of the data.

Actually, this statement is an interesting one for several reasons. Why does 
LRH think that Physics and Chemistry have had more testing than any other 
science? How is it that Scientology's testing compares with the testing of 
Physics and Chemistry? How many hundreds of people are there testing 
Scientology? How many man-years have they spent testing? What were their 
methodologies? Is the research ongoing, or has it stopped? And, most 
importantly, how can someone outside of Scientology access their raw data?

[Do the Scientologists have any comments?]

Scientology *claims* to have been tested -- it's leader *asserts* that it has 
been rigirously tested -- but has never, ever provided any objective evidence 
that of that testing. Until it does, Scientology is untested and unproven.

3. What does Scientology have to say about [other] Sciences?

There seems to be questioning about [other] disciplines of Science. In our 
Newsgroup, one Scientologist said:

>Keep in mind, there is a lot of Scn data you are not familiar with. Some of 
>this includes information regarding the physical universe, etc. Since most 
>sciences other than mathematics are based on the physical universe, I do not 
>view them very highly.

[Do any Scientologists wish to elaborate?]

On Page 4 of the book _Scientology: A History of Man_, (ISBN Number 
0-88404-306-1), LRH states on page 4 that the "whole track" (age of the 
Universe to the present) is about sixty trillion years.

Unfortunately, no Scientific data is presented to back up this assertion. And 
this age of the Universe is much older than virtually all cosmological 
models. Note: this is *not* claiming that Scientology is wrong, it's just not 
bringing Scientific rigor to its claims. In other words, if the Universe were 
actually sixty trillion years old, we'd have to create a whole structure of 
theory -- from scratch -- to explain it. It appears as if the number sixty 
trillion was pulled out of a hat by Scientology.

Sometimes, Scientologists seem to be defining Scientology as some sort of 
super-science, invalidating real Sciences in the process. One Scientologist 
says:

>>In other words, are you just a Guy in a Bar -- someone expressing an opinion

>>about the physical universe with no rigirous physical evidence to support 
>>your opinion? Why should I respect what you have to say more than, say, 
>>Steven Hawking when he talks about cosmology?

>No, I don't have any rigirous physical evidence, but scientists have no 
>rigirous evidence either.

Scientology makes claims that contradict other Sciences. Unfortunately, these 
claims totally lack any scientific rigor.

4. How do scientifically-oriented Scientologists deal with these 
contradictions of Scientology?

Mostly, Scientologists in this Newsgroup avoid or ignore the issue. One 
Scientologist answered:

>Unfortunately, I can not provide this data because I am not tech trained and
>can only refer to the books (not the tech references).

[Any scientologists wish to add any more?]
[Any ex-scientologists wish to add any more?]

5. Do Scientologists have paranormal powers?

Some claim that they do, but none are willing to conduct objective 
experiments to demonstrate these powers. Sometimes, they will cite variations 
of Conspiracy Theory (see the sci.skeptic FAQ) as their reason for not 
demonstrating those powers. And they will cite no rational reason for 
avoiding the demonstration.

This is especially interesting in the light of the fact that, given an 
objective demonstration of such skills, many more individuals would probably 
be interested in Scientology.

6. I'm interested in Scientology, but first I's like to see some proof...

Typically, a Scientologist would say to investigate it yourself -- take some 
Scientology courses. Unfortunately, this appears to be a path with no 
cheese....

[Can an ex-scientologist say more here? Why is taking courses unsatisfactory? 
What happens?]

There are no books that objectively evaluate Scientology. As noted above, 
Scientology has never ever provided any public data on its alleged rigirous 
testing.

II. Scientology and Religion

7. Is Scientology a religion?

Yes.

8. How do Scientologists view other religions?

This is not something that's discussed a lot. One non-Scientologist claims:

>By the way "God" in Scn is "the R-6 god". That is the God of the monotheistic

>religions of the world is considered an implant. An implant is a false 
>picture attached to a thetan by the evil overlords. So listen up anybody who 
>got the idea that Scn was tolerant of other religions, your God is a mere 
>implant. Some people think they can retain their own religion and still 
>practice Scn, but on the higher levels it gets audited out. LRH recounted on 
>a tape that he advised his daughter to "be tolerant of the natives" his tone 
>derogatorily refered to christianity. See when John Holifield is objecting to

>Chris Schafmeister's argument about how to restrict power of religious groups

>by saying "Moslems, Jews listen up" well I say listen to this. Scn does not 
>have a friendly agenda for other religions.

9. Do Scientologists view Science as a religion?

Apparently, some do. One Scientologist has said:

>To me, science is as much religious dogma as any religion.

Another said:

>Perhaps you'd care to examine the fact, that in back of all the reasons, 
>logic, and "Scientific" proof you have, your model is the way it is only 
>because you choose for it to be that way.

[Would any Scientologist care to elaborate?]
[Any ex-Scientologists?]

10. What's an e-meter? Is it a religious device or a Scientific device?

One or the other. Or neither. Or both. It depends on who you ask. As one 
reader posted on our group:

>Someone said that in the process of taking apart an e-meter it makes it 
>useless, in the Church's eyes. I was wondering why is this supposed to be 
>true. From an electronics standpoint, that makes no sense. And if the 
>'Church' says this so people won't take it apart, doesn't it seem as if they 
>are trying to hide its mechanism? I reject the concept that the process will 
>destroy its functions since very few simple electronic devices of that sort 
>contain chips that are too high tech to tamper with, and even if they did, 
>looking does not imply damaging.

Don Showen (showen@applelink.Apple.com) says:

>They are basically nothing but a wheatstone bridge with a highly sensitive 
>meter movement. I am still in touch with the designer, he also designed one 
>with an automatic tone arm which I haven't used yet but have heard good 
>reports on. The basic use is to keep the meter in a readable state so the 
>needle activity can be easily observed, constantly making this adjustment is 
>sometimes a pain. If there is anough interest I will check into either 
>selling the schematic or actually building some meters and selling them for 
>around $400.

Some non-Scientologists claim that the equivalent of the e-meter could be 
made for $10. This claim drew the following response:

>How can you make such comments? You've probably never seen a Super Mark VII 
>E-meter. How can you possibly suggest you could build one for $10? Go see one

>(or at least pictures of one) before you continue to comment on these things 
>of which you are *very* ignorant.

Another Scientologist says:

>Just because you feel that it wouldn't be wise to buy one doesn't mean that 
>it's overpriced or anything else. People will pay $3000-$4000 for the meter 
>because they get 3-4Gs worth of utility from one.

One Scientologist justifies the $3000 cost this way:

>Also for those of you who complain about $3000 for an E-meter you are right 
>that it is a lot of money. A Mark 7 E-meter is only necessary for auditing 
>above the level of clear. There is a Mark 5 E-meter which runs for $500 
>retail and up to 40% off with various specials. This is the meter most use 
>for auditing to Clear as in the Dianetics book. By the time you are Clear 
>$3000 won't look too intimidating. $300 may still be more than a radio-shack 
>meter but every meter is hand made and tested and a lot of pride goes into 
>each one.

But questions still remain:

>Could you provide some comparisons between a Mark 7 and a low-end VHS VCR: 
>Are the electronics more or less sophisticated than a VCR? Would a Mark 7 
>have more or less problems with calibration over time than a VCR? Would it be

>more difficult for you to manufacture and test a Mark 7 than a VCR? What 
>makes a Mark 7 more sophisticated than an electronic device that I can 
>purchase for $169.99 at my local retailer?

In short, some readers claim that the functional equivalent of an e-meter 
could be made with $10 worth of electronics. The Scientologists dispute this, 
but fail to explain if there's anything inside an E-meter which would make it 
worth its $3000+ price.

11. Is LRH a God?

Yes. No. It depends on who you ask.

A Scientologist posts:

>Behar's [author of Time's 1991 Cover Story about Scientology] statement that 
>Scientology claims Hubbard is God is false. Many times in Scientology 
>scripture it says very plainly that LRH is a man. Scientology holds no dogma 
>about God. A person is free to choose their own beliefs about God.

Another adds:

>Factually, Scientology teaches that L. Ron Hubbard was only a man.

An investigator of Scientology questions this assertion:

>While your rebuttal (that Scientology does not claim Hubbard is God) may be 
>accurate in the strictest sense as far as the non-confidential scriptures are

>concerned, the sentiment that Scientologists has accepted Hubbard as God 
>still rings true, given a less formal interpretation (e.g. like in the 
>sentence: "Donald Trump has accepted money as his God").
>
>For example: _All_ the true Scientologists I've met seem to think that LRH is

>completely infallible (this is even better than Christ, who failed his task 
>miserably on the cross). Also Scientologists seem to believe that it is 
>impossible for anyone else to improve upon the work of LRH, which to me again

>suggests belief in superhuman qualities. And of course, the mythos include 
>resurrection: LRH isn't dead -- he just "dropped the body", and shall return 
>to earth one day.
>
>If we look at the jokes told by Scientologists, there is two strong recurring

>themes, and that is 1) LRH's godlike abilities and 2) the idea that LRH is 
>superior to God. Here is two from my collection:
>
>>Once there was a newspaper reporter who was constantly trying to get 'news' 
>>about L. Ron Hubbard. He would secretly follow him everywhere. One time he 
>>followed LRH when he went on vacation up in the mountains.
>>
>>Early one morning the reporter quietly followed Ron as he took a row boat 
>>into the middle of the lake to do some fishing. As he waited several minutes

>>to get his first bite, one of the oars fell out of the oar-lock and drifted 
>>about twenty feet away. Ron sat there and thought a moment and made sure no 
>>one was watching. He then got out of the boat and quickly walked across the 
>>water to retrieve the lost oar. All this time the reporter was busily making

>>notes.
>>
>>The next morning the newspaper carried the following headline:
>>"L. Ron Hubbard, founder of Scientology, can not swim"
>
>>A scientologist died one day, and went to heaven. St. Peter met him at the 
>>gates, and said "Come on in my friend"
>>
>>The scientologists says "Wow! I'm in heaven! This is neat! Do you think I 
>>could meet God?"
>>
>>"Well, Gods pretty busy these days, but if you want to see him, go down the 
>>hall and turn left. Its the first door you come to."
>>The scientologist walked down to Gods office and let himself in. There sat 
>>LRH at a big desk. The scientologist says, "Wow, I knew it was you!"
>>
>>LRH looked up from what he was doing and says, "Sorry, Gods not here. He's 
>>in Qual."
>>
>[Qual: short for Qualifications Division, where faulty auditors, students, 
>and staff members are sent to find out what's wrong with them and correct 
>the problem.]

III. Scientology and The Law

12. Who has Scientology ever sued? What suits were lost/won/still pending?

One case has been briefly discussed in the group:

>>The book will proove to you beyond a shadow of doubt that Mr Behar 
>>displayed a complete disregard for the truth, and only intended to scare and

>>upset people.
>
>Does the book explain how come Reader's Digest reprinted the Time article? 
>The Church sued Reader's Digest, trying to stop this, and they lost. The 
>Reader's Digest defence was that an article is not slanderous if it is 
>telling the truth. I would be fascinated to hear the Church's side of that 
>lawsuit.

[??? What are the other cases?]

13. Who has ever sued Scientology? What suits were lost/won/still pending?

[???]

14. What's a "Squirrel" group?

It's someone who would "steal" the technology of Scientology, modify it, 
then use it for their own purpose.

Scientologists cite two examples of "Squirrel" groups. A Scientologist
posts:

>EST (now the Forum) ia a squirrel group (and openly admits it). Free Zone, 
>if I understand correctly, is also a squirrel group. There are several tech 
>bulletins which illustrate squirrelling and its danger. I am not an expert 
>in this field so I can not detail this more.

Someone provides a definition of of the "Free Zoners":

>We had some "squirrels" (they called themselves "Free Zoners) posting to this

>group earlier. They seemed extremely preoccupied with keeping the faith 
>(sorry -- "tech") pure and authentic. I think that one of the major gripes 
>they had woth CoS was that the current bunch of Church leaders was those who 
>had done the altering and so that therefore no longer adhered to the sacred 
>word of Ron. One of them (Elektra I think -- I haven't saved the posts) went 
>as far as stating that all meters built according to a design that had been 
>finalized after Ron lost control of the Church was faulty. Her words was 
>something like "If I come across a Mark <something> I destroy it -- and 
>consider it my good deed for the day". (Squirrels manufacture their own 
>E-meters -- at a cost considerable below that charged by the CoS -- and claim
>that _their_ meters are according to Hubbards original design, while the 
>Church "official" meters are not).

Is EST (now The Forum) really a "Squirrel" group? The Scientologists seem 
think so:

>I've at least two books which describe various human potential movements 
>which include est. In both of these, it is mentioned that Erhard based a lot 
>of his program on Buddhism and Scientology. I do not recall the titles 
>off-hand. I recommend referring to any books that cover several such groups 
>which include est.

...unfortunately, no title, author, ISBN number -- no documentation -- has 
been provided.

Apparently, squrilliness is in the eye of the beholder.

15. Why would Scientology permit someone to "squirrel" its technology?

Good question!

If Erhard/EST did indeed "borrow" materials from Scientology, how was he 
able to do this? Did he have permission? Did he do it illegally? If so, did
Scientology sue? If so, did they win? If not, what happened?

[Any Scientologists care to explain this?]

IV. The Effectiveness of Scientology

16. Is Scientology Successful?

By its own definition, Scientology must be succcessful:

>>Saying this another way, what would it mean if there *were* someone who 
>>completed a level, didn't start another level, and declared his experience 
>>with Scientology a failure?
>
>Part of the completion of a grade is that the PC makes an attest (similar to 
>a sworn statement) that they have successfully reached the end-phenomenon of 
>the grade.
>
>In the case of a student, the attest is that they have studied and know the 
>material and can apply it successfully.
>
>The person makes these statements so that Scientology can be certain that 
>the standard results were achieved. If they later claim that Scientology was 
>a failure, I would say they were a liar. Either they lied at the attest, or 
>they lied when they said it failed.

But is it meaningful to define success in Scientology's terms?

>>Sometimes Scn appears unsuccessful. For example if someone quits, or the 
>>tech is altered. Scn is the way life works, and you can't break those rules.

>>It seems like it would be nice to refuse responsibility for anything that 
>>happens, but we can't. Scn has never failed me. I have failed myself many 
>>times by not applying Scn, or not applying it correctly. Scn has always dug 
>>me out of the whole afterwards though.
>
>1) Is this type of logic valid _only_ when applied to Scientology, or would 
>it be equally valid if applied to any other "science" or "faith"?
>
>For example: If I adopted the stance of "scientific marxism/leninism", and 
>claimed that there exist solid scientific proof that communism, if applied 
>correctly, must always succeed (Marx actually provides such a proof in the 
>first volume of "Das Kapital"). As counterargument, you would probably 
>patiently tell me about the recent collapse of the Soviet Union. I would 
>then proceed to "win" the argument by pointing out to you that the collapse 
>of the Soviet Union cannot be admitted as evidence, as its collapse has 
>nothing to do with shortcomings in "scientific marxism/leninism", but was 
>only due to the facts that:
>
>a) The Soviet Union has failed to apply the theories of Marx and Lenin 
>   correctly; and/or:
>b) The Soviet Union quit too early, in the middle of the process of 
>   transforming the hell of capitalism into a classless paradise. As it quit
>   by its own determination, the Soviet people has itself to blame for the
>   current catastrophic situation.
>
>In case you think there is a difference between applying a particular 
>"science"/"tech" to a society and an individual, please feel free to 
>substitute something else for "marxism/leninism" in the example above -- say 
>Werner Erhard's "est", "Islam" or "Kibology".
>
>My final two questions are:
>
>2) Do you think that the logic I use to show the infallibility of "scientific

>marxism/leninism"/"est"/"islam"/"kibology" is valid?
>
>3) If your answer to question #2 is "no", what is the difference between my 
>logic and the logic you employ to show that scientology cannot possibly 
>fail?

So far, the Scientologists haven't tackled this interesting question.

17. Is Narconon Successful?

In their own literature, Scientology subsidiary Narconon quotes "independent 
studies" that indicate that 76% of the "Narconon graduates" are successfully 
rehabilitated from drug abuse. They do not give any traceable references to 
these independent studies, and have consistently ignored a number of letters 
and faxes sent by myself requesting such references and/or photocopies of 
the original independent studies cited in their literature.

Do there really exist any studies that can confirm the amazing 76% success 
rate for Narconon, or is the figure selected at random, and the alleged 
studies fiction?

[Do any  Scientologists care to comment?]

18. What Countries Officially Sponsor Narconon?

In Narconon promotional literature it is repeatedly claimed (again without 
naming the nations involved) that Narconon an "official" state sponsored 
drug rehabilitation program sponsored in several European nations.

Several letters and faxes by myself to Narconon Chilocco specifically 
requesting the names of those nations have only been answered with letters 
containing standard promotional literature that does not give this 
information.

Is Narconon used as an "official" state sponsored program anywhere in Europe, 
or is this claim a lie prepetrated by Narconon to give this expensive and 
undocumented treatment program undeserved respectability?

[Do any Scientologists care to comment?]

19. What is the essence of Scientology's workability?

The following is reproduced, without comment, from one Scientologist's 
posting:

>I say do a survey of people who have completed any Scientology course or 
>auditing action and find out if they have subjectively achieved the end 
>phenomena. I predict that you will be able to determine objectively that 
>100% of the people will have a subjective reality that they have achieved a 
>gain of some type. This is the essence of Scientology's workability as I now 
>see it.

20. What do Scientologists think of this FAQ?

They say, with spirit, that this document is a [collective] of [untruths]. On
Scientologist (humbly) says:

>As a side note, the perported FAQ is loaded with false, negative and biased 
>material. It would be interesting if the copyright and trademark holders of 
>terms such as "Scientology","Dianetics" etc. took legal action. There are 
>clear, concise answers available from the Church with documentation; a 
>continued distribution of demonstrably false and damaging material could be 
>construed as intentionally malicious. Just my 'umble opinion.

Unfortunately, no references have ever been provided to the "clear, concise" 
answers. Interestingly, while Scientologists have claimed that the (entire?) 
FAQ is untrue, they have never volunteered any corrections.

Anyone is welcome to contribute to this FAQ; the "untruths" can't be 
"corrected" unless someone gives us the appropriate information. Clear, 
concise answers would be most welcome.

21. Well?? Should I try Scientology?

Maybe. It's up to you. Here are a few things you should know about first:

Recently, one Scientologist on this group noticed a posting from someone he 
thought was a fellow Scientologist (he wasn't). Apparently, he didn't like 
the posting too much:

>Do you realize that you are committing serious High Crimes against 
>Scientology by your public disavowals of Scientology on the newsgroup 
>alt.religion.scientology? You have major misunderstood words and you are 
>posing yourself as an authority in an area in which you are not. I'm writing 
>full reports to the Religious Technology Center about your postings.

The same Scientologist, in response to an earlier version of this FAQ, said:

>I have said that you are doing something wrong and I am reporting it. That 
>I have done.

[Without further reference, one assumes he reported it to the Religious 
Technology Center.]

Finally, this same Scientologist has sent what appears to be threatening 
e-mail to some posters of this group:

>What hidden crimes are you trying to hide? I highly suggest that you take a 
>very careful look before I expose them to all.

It's inclear if this person is a Model Citizen among Scientologists. On the 
other hand, no other Scientologist in the group has ever condemned this 
person's actions. This Inquisition-like methodology appears to be a component
of Scientology.

Finally, if you still want to pursue Scientology, but some of the questions 
or issues raised in this FAQ bother you, get those issues answered *first* 
before you put any money down. Based on the experiences of some 
ex-Scientologists, expecting that your questions will get answered later 
would be folly.


-- 
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Christian E.A.F. Schafmeister               Biophysics graduate student
University of California, San Francisco      UUCP: ucbvax!ucsfcgl!schaf
"Biophysics . . . THE future."             INTERNET: schaf@cgl.ucsf.edu