All of them, those in power, and those who want the power, would pamper us, if we agreed to overlook their crookedness by wilfully restricting our activities.
Disclaimer: Dianetics and Scientology are trademarks of the Religious Technology Center (RTC.) These pages and their author are not connected with the Church of Scientology or RTC, or any other organization residing under their corporate umbrella.
This site is best viewed using a highly standards-compliant browser
By Michel Reuss more
No, psychiatry is based on science, which holds that the ONLY way to KNOW things is to test and falsify, and retest and verify and observe. In this way, mistaken and incomplete theories are replaced with correct or improved, or more complete theories.
Scientology, on the other hand, defines itself as true, a priori, then rants and raves about everything not in agreement with it.
Psychiatry isn't perfect. Because it is a human enterprise, it never will be perfect. But because it self-corrects (eventually), it is a vast improvement over bull crap quackery like Scientology.
No, you are confused. The state of consciousness and self-awareness is not described as an "illusion" in any of the psychological texts, as far as I am aware. And I have read some. I suspect you have not.
There is clear and overwhelming evidence that "we" (including all our advanced abstract thoughts, our subconscious evaluations, as well as our emotions) are indeed based in the complex system that is our brain and body. That is the working theory, right now. The evidence all supports this theory. And that is why drugs can actually affect your state of mind.
If you have a better theory, if it can be objectively tested, you should bring it to a peer-review psychology publication.
But you don't. You won't. You can't. Because you ain't got shit! All you have is "L. Ron Hubbard is right because he said so." If you brought Scientology "axioms" to such a psychological journal, they laugh your article right out the friggin' door.
Face it, meat boy, until one of you OwE teEs lifts the god dammed ashtray with your mental powers, science will continue to dismiss you as irrelevant whining nutballs.
Psychology has a lot to say on the subject of responsibility. You just don't know any of this, because you are getting a slanted, brain-washing style education on the subject from a cult who's interest is served by defining enemies, and by creating an Us-vs-Them dichotomy that binds you (and your wallet) more strongly to your group.
There is no evidence for a "spirit." Ergo, to science, you are just making that up. And without a "spirit" as an objectively demonstrable object, there is no vehicle except the body to produce the phenomenon of "mind."
All the evidence points to the fact that the body and brain does a fine job of giving most of us functioning "minds." But when the meat brain is injured (and again, there is a lot of literature on this, should you ever bother to pull your head out of L. Ron Hubbard's dead ass, and read some of it), the mind can be fundamentally altered, and in observable and understandable ways. The meat brain can be injured and the mind will not be the same. The meat brain can have a disease like Alzheimer's, and the conscious thoughts and feelings of the victim will be altered. And psychology requires no outside invisible, magical agency to explain this.
Croesus, this is all in the psychology books and neurology training. You could even read some of this. For free! On the internet. Please do.
And there is always the disclaimer. The field of psychology is new, and it isn't complete or perfect, and this imperfection hidden or covered up. Advances come when new students, doctors, researchers add to the body of knowledge, or correct a past mistake.
You're stating a personal belief (which is based on brainwashing) as a factual truth. There is no fundamental evidence that points to the existence of a spirit being.
In fact, only Scientologists who've been brainwashed for years have their meat brains reformed and altered to believes this.
Non-scientologists, for the most part, don't believe your theory.
Of course, Christians also believe they have some sort of soul or spirit. And even more like Scientology, in the past, the pious and powerful Christians LOVED to kill and maim people to help these souls go to heaven, 100% certain that burning a person alive would purify the soul. And then the political realm impinged on them, and they had to tone down their dogma.
Now here you come, as Scientologists, trying to stir up that pot, again, with your constant focus on defining enemies, finding the PTS person, eliminating the suppressive. But it does not amaze or surprise me to see how marginal is the historical perspective of fanatical religious cults. If you had such perspective, you wouldn't be fanatical enough to recruit, as you do. So tuning out any grasp of the similarities to your witch-burning predecessors is understandable, if also unforgivably unethical.
And Scientologists dying and not "coming" back in a clear and unambiguous way, prove over and over that this theory is a crock of shit. All the alleged benefits are grandiose super-human, perfect health, etc. at first, when a Scientologist is being recruited. But then, later on, these benefits slowly degrade into self-congratulating placebo pablum after the Scientologist is hooked. And then, when we look at evidence, dead Scientologists appear to be as equally dead as dead non-Scientologists.
Scientology, in it's psychological effects, more closely represents a harmful mental addiction than it does a panacea for practical human problems and immortal spirit life.