Scientology The Aftermath S2 Ep 2: Most heartfelt thanks to Marie Bilheimer and Lauren Haggis — two beautiful, courageous and caring women. Without contributors like them who are willing to stand up and bravely tell their stories, there would be no show at all. The purpose of this program is to provide a venue for the real, painful stories of life in scientology to be told.
InLafayette Ronald Hubbard published Dianetics: All page references here are to this edition.
The book is treated as if it were a holy scripture by Scientologists and they treat it as if it were the cornerstone of their church, their religion, and what they consider to be their science.
Hubbard tells the reader that dianetics " However, in a disclaimer on the frontispiece of the book, we are told that "Scientology and its sub-study, Dianetics, as practiced by the Church He also repeatedly insists that dianetics is a science.
Yet, just about anyone familiar with scientific texts will be able to tell from the first few pages of Dianetics that the text is no scientific work and the author no scientist. Dianetics is a classic example of a pseudoscience.
On page 5 of Dianetics, Hubbard asserts that a science of mind must find "a single source of all insanities, psychoses, neuroses, compulsions, repressions and social derangements.
Undaunted by this apparent contradiction, he goes on to say that this science of mind "would have to rank, in experimental precision, with physics and chemistry. Of course, science presupposes a regular order to nature and assumes there are underlying principles according to which natural phenomena work.
It assumes that these principles or laws are relatively constant. But it does not assume that it can know a priori either what these principles are or what the actual order of any set of empirical phenomena is.
A real science is built on tentative proposals to account for observed phenomena. Scientific knowledge of causes, including how many kinds there are, is a matter of discovery not stipulation. Also, scientists generally respect logic and would have difficulty saying with a straight face that this new science must show that there is a single source of all insanities except for those insanities that are caused by other sources.
There is other evidence that dianetics is not a science. For example, his theory of mind shares little in common with modern neurophysiology and what is known about the brain and how it works. According to Hubbard, the mind has three parts.
It thinks in differences and similarities. The reactive mind is that portion of the mind which files and retains physical pain and painful emotion and seeks to direct the organism solely on a stimulus-response basis. It thinks only in identities.
The somatic mind is that mind, which, directed by the analytical or reactive mind, places solutions into effect on the physical level" Hubbard, According to Hubbard, the single source of insanity and psychosomatic ills is the engram. One searches in vain for evidence of these claims.News Corp is a network of leading companies in the worlds of diversified media, news, education, and information services.
Scientology is apparently hell bent on turning Alex Gibney’s upcoming documentary into a major hit.
More power to them. The New York Times reports the church is taking out full page ads to denounce a film they have not seen. This is every PR man’s dream.
reader comments. further reading. books and articles. Atack, Jon.
A Piece of Blue Sky: Scientology, Dianetics, and L. Ron Hubbard Exposed (New York, NY: Carol Pub. Read the truth! Alex Gibney’s HBO documentary, “Going Clear: Scientology and the Prison of Belief”. Read the Church of Scientology letters to Alex Gibney & Sheila Nevins.
Research Lawrence Wright, Jason Beghe, Marty Rathbun, Mike Rinder, Paul Haggis, Marc Headley and others. The outspoken actress, talk show host, and reality television star offers up a no-holds-barred memoir, including an eye-opening insider account of her tumultuous and heart-wrenching thirty-year-plus association with the Church of Scientology.
Welcome to Pajiba. Dan Fogelman of 'Life Itself' Isn't Wrong on Film Criticism Being White and Male But He’s Not Right Either.