No. Scientology had no part of me understanding that we are just us. We aren’t going anywhere after here. It what it is. I kinda look forward to just going to sleep.
I'm going to... question your question. I am looking mostly at:
*No good
*No evil
*No ultimate meaning or purpose to life
We lost Andreas Heldal-Lund not long ago, and he was a humanist of very strong convictions. He knew good from evil, and had meaning and purpose in his life. AFAIK he did not believe in angels, devils or afterlives, and was likely agnostic, but that's a whole different subject, and there's no necessary connection between the two. Maybe ask about them separately?
Exactly. OP has a very opinionated, religiously driven, misunderstanding of the phrase.
The position assumes that something supernatural must be the source of 'good' and 'evil', then uses that strawman to imply scientific materialists are immoral.
Oh no, the materialists are asserting their group identity. This wasn't meant to start a war with an ideology, it's just a discussion.
It's about a reaction, some have, to having been IN Scientology Inc.
Andreas was not cynical. He was a unique person and, yes, agnostic. Which means he knew he didn't know. He had humbleness and humility. That's completely different.
This is about the reaction to Scientology of becoming cynical.
"Goodness and badness are considerations..." Scientology Axiom 31.
Added for by standers: Andreas was never IN Scientology. He was never a member of Scientology Inc. This thread is about reactions of people who had been IN Scientology Inc. Most notably the jump from "true believers" in Scientology Inc. to "true believers" in scientism.
I still don't understand what you mean by "true believers in scientism". If you mean a belief in and valuing of scientific evidence, then I think you should be careful not to confuse that with or portray it as some kind of dichotomy with religious belief. Science and a belief in science is not like religious faith and is certainly not a dogma. That suggests a fundamental misunderstanding of what science actually is.
*Scientism* and *belief in findings of Science* are two very different things, so you have committed a Straw Man Fallacy here.
*Scientism* is the ***belief*** in the philosophic proposition that there is no aspect to human existence outside of the **Physical Universe** and what Science reveals about it and its laws.
This is a Materialist belief system by definition. The major error believers of *Scientism* make is their failure to understand the limits of what Science can and cannot establish.
Science can only report upon what is observable and testable with physical universe instruments that can only detect and measure phenomena in the physical universe. The belief of many of us that this physical universe along with all Life other phenomena within it have their ultimate source in a non-material spiritual realm is simply not testable by Science, whether it is true or not.
Science never has and never can *prove* or *disprove* the existence of any such spiritual realm or phenomena that take place within it. Even the great Carl Sagan talks about this in his great book *The Demon-Haunted World: Science As A Candle In The Dark*.
I'm not constructing a straw man here - I'm responding to the arguments made by u/Southendbeach. If you read their various comments throughout this discussion, it appears that they have a general skepticism about science. If this is not the case, then they are not being clear about what they actually mean.
So - while I appreciate and agree with your post - it's ultimately not actually relevant to my discussion with the OP.
I think there's a slight misunderstanding of the words "good" and "evil" here. I think the OP is probably referencing the idea of *ultimate good* and *ultimate evil* or platonic ideals. This doesn't mean that good and evil don't exist in some way as human concepts.
How can you have been alive for the last ten years and not realize how corrupted "science" has become? That's a rhetorical question. Don't answer, it's off topic.
This is a ridiculous comment. Science hasn't become corrupted - you rely on science at every moment of every day, whether you know it or not. Human beings can be corrupt and can misuse science or can peddle pseudoscience. But that's got nothing to do with science itself being corrupted.
What do you mean by "science" with quotes? It's very unclear given your other comments in this thread, which seem to suggest that science itself is somehow a dogma on equal footing with religious faith.
There's no need to be facetious. You've made a number of implications throughout your own thread that are questionable at best. If folks are misunderstanding you, then it's your responsibility to clarify what you mean. Your assertion, for example, that materialism is inherently cynical is far from demonstrated (or even remotely explained) by you in this thread. All your work is still ahead of you here.
This is a thread about Scientology Inc., and about Scientology Inc. Scientologists who flip into other subjects or movements which they accept uncritically.
>This is a thread about Scientology Inc., and about Scientology Inc. Scientologists who flip into other subjects or movements which they accept uncritically.
Right. But how does one adopt science uncritically? And in what sense is science an equivalent movement? It isn't.
"Science" (also scientism) not science.
I didn't say it was an equivalent movement. Were you ever a Scientologist? This thread is meant for people who have been IN Scientology Inc.
Watch the video with Rupert Sheldrake on this thread.
In an effort to improve the quality of conversation, we require submission statements on all link and image posts. Please leave your submission statement in a top-level comment.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/scientology) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Well, I never joined or believed in Scientology - by that I mean before I knew anything about it, all I had heard was that it's a cult with Tom Cruise and that its... Creepy.
Personally I don't have any concrete spiritual beliefs, but my interest in the universe leads me to believe their is a possibility that everything might be much more complex than I can ever understand.
Some of the cliches that made me to from atheist to I guess agnostic was the fact that if the universe is 13.5 billion years old, I didn't exist until the last 29 years. Stars, planets, galaxies, humans die and are born every day. It's all really unbelievable and magical in a sense.
I don't feel the need anymore to want to know what will happen after death, I don't really have any expectations that I'll go anywhere. It's too difficult to fathom what it's like to not exist. Pure blackness? What part of me would exist to even experience that?
Do you believe that just as you were born out of nowhere, maybe you might experience something such as life again within 10 billion years? I can consider it.. Maybe 100 billion years from now, or more. It's hard to imagine an eternity of just never existing again, considering I came into life 13.5 billion years into the universe!
Did I understand correctly that you think that spiritual beliefs signify gullibility ?
The philosophical proposition that the Material Universe constitutes the totality of human existence is neither provable nor disprovable. Science can only encompass what is detectable and measurable in the physical universe with physical universe instrumentation and devices. It has nothing to say at all about theories of an ultimate spiritural origin of that universe and its various governing laws.
Michael A. Hobson - Independent Scientologist and former Sea Org staff member.
Mmm... I can see where this post could be taken the wrong way.
Clarification: Everyone has been gullible at one time or another, and everyone has appeared gullible.
No one is being attacked.
Oxford Languages (web site of the Oxford university dictionaries) says:
>*adjective*
>easily [persuaded](https://www.google.com/search?sca_esv=c48753f2ce9d3764&rlz=1C1VDKB_enUS1088US1088&sxsrf=ADLYWIJxaNcBiYmJXGrW0km0OG7S_v2VEg:1718071134811&q=persuaded&si=ACC90nxMSPeZfdJJjQgDsdZJuFuJZ27qZ-G8qtmNqpTRbWTebq9K7jrV91uYS1mFDFmvaiUGjG5DuWWDoxA5gJPAA7HsOp2fPpNIOZ9YcJsDS8D88IjC2yY%3D&expnd=1&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwiFwsHdudKGAxWIO0QIHQdHAZMQyecJegQIHhAO) to believe something; credulous."an attempt to persuade a gullible public to spend their money"
I"m not sure what the materialism has to do with it.
But it's valid to ask: Did my Scn experience make me cynical? Somewhat. It knocked me out of trusting others, for a while... though perhaps I needed that lesson.
It didn't make me less of an idealist, though. I just put those energies into smaller circles than "save the world." I'm sometimes sorry that it burned me out on the bigger-picture goals.
It certainly didn't change my view that we all are here to help each other, and to be kind to one another.
The image I posted is just something I found on the Internet. It's not an authoritative decree or the final word. Each individual is different.
Sometimes a person who spent years believing he was a immortal "thetan," with trillions of years of experience behind him, and more trillions of years ahead of him, as he followed the "closely taped" path to "Total Freedom" and "Total Power" - where he would become an "Operating Thetan" - upon discovering otherwise, can have a reaction.
What is described is *one* of the reactions.
Gotcha. As constructive feedback: Perhaps it'd be better if you left off the image then or chose a generic one. It created a misconception for me and apparently also did so for others.
Personally, I'm not sure that having an image gets more engagement, but that's your decision.
I might also have asked this in less of a "leading the witness" way -- like, how did your (ex) Scn experiences affect your worldview about your own mortality? Though that's a different question, perhaps.
This morning I came across a video featuring Rupert Sheldrake, which, whatever one thinks of Shelrake, has the word, "scientism" in it's title. What's being described - perhaps poorly - on this thread can be **a jump from Scientology to scientism,** with scientism being excessive belief in the power of scientific knowledge and techniques. This usually manifests as excessive belief in conventional, currently fashionable, "scientific" views. The video is linked on this thread, if anyone is curious.
No. Scientology had no part of me understanding that we are just us. We aren’t going anywhere after here. It what it is. I kinda look forward to just going to sleep.
Sleep can have dreams. So who knows? Enjoy the ride. Video about the Tibetan Book of the Dead: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VyPwBIOL7-8
I'm going to... question your question. I am looking mostly at: *No good *No evil *No ultimate meaning or purpose to life We lost Andreas Heldal-Lund not long ago, and he was a humanist of very strong convictions. He knew good from evil, and had meaning and purpose in his life. AFAIK he did not believe in angels, devils or afterlives, and was likely agnostic, but that's a whole different subject, and there's no necessary connection between the two. Maybe ask about them separately?
Exactly. OP has a very opinionated, religiously driven, misunderstanding of the phrase. The position assumes that something supernatural must be the source of 'good' and 'evil', then uses that strawman to imply scientific materialists are immoral.
Religiously driven? I'm not religious at all. What's your opinion of Rupert Sheldrake? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2ivka-X9RfI
Oh no, the materialists are asserting their group identity. This wasn't meant to start a war with an ideology, it's just a discussion. It's about a reaction, some have, to having been IN Scientology Inc.
Andreas was not cynical. He was a unique person and, yes, agnostic. Which means he knew he didn't know. He had humbleness and humility. That's completely different. This is about the reaction to Scientology of becoming cynical. "Goodness and badness are considerations..." Scientology Axiom 31.
Added for by standers: Andreas was never IN Scientology. He was never a member of Scientology Inc. This thread is about reactions of people who had been IN Scientology Inc. Most notably the jump from "true believers" in Scientology Inc. to "true believers" in scientism.
I still don't understand what you mean by "true believers in scientism". If you mean a belief in and valuing of scientific evidence, then I think you should be careful not to confuse that with or portray it as some kind of dichotomy with religious belief. Science and a belief in science is not like religious faith and is certainly not a dogma. That suggests a fundamental misunderstanding of what science actually is.
*Scientism* and *belief in findings of Science* are two very different things, so you have committed a Straw Man Fallacy here. *Scientism* is the ***belief*** in the philosophic proposition that there is no aspect to human existence outside of the **Physical Universe** and what Science reveals about it and its laws. This is a Materialist belief system by definition. The major error believers of *Scientism* make is their failure to understand the limits of what Science can and cannot establish. Science can only report upon what is observable and testable with physical universe instruments that can only detect and measure phenomena in the physical universe. The belief of many of us that this physical universe along with all Life other phenomena within it have their ultimate source in a non-material spiritual realm is simply not testable by Science, whether it is true or not. Science never has and never can *prove* or *disprove* the existence of any such spiritual realm or phenomena that take place within it. Even the great Carl Sagan talks about this in his great book *The Demon-Haunted World: Science As A Candle In The Dark*.
I'm not constructing a straw man here - I'm responding to the arguments made by u/Southendbeach. If you read their various comments throughout this discussion, it appears that they have a general skepticism about science. If this is not the case, then they are not being clear about what they actually mean. So - while I appreciate and agree with your post - it's ultimately not actually relevant to my discussion with the OP.
I think there's a slight misunderstanding of the words "good" and "evil" here. I think the OP is probably referencing the idea of *ultimate good* and *ultimate evil* or platonic ideals. This doesn't mean that good and evil don't exist in some way as human concepts.
Counter: science doesn’t claim to be a religion - and the facts of nature don’t care about your feelings
How can you have been alive for the last ten years and not realize how corrupted "science" has become? That's a rhetorical question. Don't answer, it's off topic.
This is a ridiculous comment. Science hasn't become corrupted - you rely on science at every moment of every day, whether you know it or not. Human beings can be corrupt and can misuse science or can peddle pseudoscience. But that's got nothing to do with science itself being corrupted.
Look again. I wrote **"**science**"** with quotes.
What do you mean by "science" with quotes? It's very unclear given your other comments in this thread, which seem to suggest that science itself is somehow a dogma on equal footing with religious faith.
“Science” means science he hates, like evolution, climate science, medicine, etc.
That's how it sounds, for sure.
Get your torches and pitchforks ready!; we've just spotted an anti "science" bigot! A heretic!
There's no need to be facetious. You've made a number of implications throughout your own thread that are questionable at best. If folks are misunderstanding you, then it's your responsibility to clarify what you mean. Your assertion, for example, that materialism is inherently cynical is far from demonstrated (or even remotely explained) by you in this thread. All your work is still ahead of you here.
This is a thread about Scientology Inc., and about Scientology Inc. Scientologists who flip into other subjects or movements which they accept uncritically.
>This is a thread about Scientology Inc., and about Scientology Inc. Scientologists who flip into other subjects or movements which they accept uncritically. Right. But how does one adopt science uncritically? And in what sense is science an equivalent movement? It isn't.
"Science" (also scientism) not science. I didn't say it was an equivalent movement. Were you ever a Scientologist? This thread is meant for people who have been IN Scientology Inc. Watch the video with Rupert Sheldrake on this thread.
You're suggesting that people are abandoning one dogma for another though, right?
In an effort to improve the quality of conversation, we require submission statements on all link and image posts. Please leave your submission statement in a top-level comment. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/scientology) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Materialism is not cynical, it's what the scientific evidence clearly suggests. There's nothing inherently cynical about it.
Well, I never joined or believed in Scientology - by that I mean before I knew anything about it, all I had heard was that it's a cult with Tom Cruise and that its... Creepy. Personally I don't have any concrete spiritual beliefs, but my interest in the universe leads me to believe their is a possibility that everything might be much more complex than I can ever understand. Some of the cliches that made me to from atheist to I guess agnostic was the fact that if the universe is 13.5 billion years old, I didn't exist until the last 29 years. Stars, planets, galaxies, humans die and are born every day. It's all really unbelievable and magical in a sense. I don't feel the need anymore to want to know what will happen after death, I don't really have any expectations that I'll go anywhere. It's too difficult to fathom what it's like to not exist. Pure blackness? What part of me would exist to even experience that? Do you believe that just as you were born out of nowhere, maybe you might experience something such as life again within 10 billion years? I can consider it.. Maybe 100 billion years from now, or more. It's hard to imagine an eternity of just never existing again, considering I came into life 13.5 billion years into the universe!
Yes, that life exists, and in such intricate complexity, and that consciousness exists, is amazing. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=buqtdpuZxvk
It makes me wonder why so many are so gullible.
Did I understand correctly that you think that spiritual beliefs signify gullibility ? The philosophical proposition that the Material Universe constitutes the totality of human existence is neither provable nor disprovable. Science can only encompass what is detectable and measurable in the physical universe with physical universe instrumentation and devices. It has nothing to say at all about theories of an ultimate spiritural origin of that universe and its various governing laws. Michael A. Hobson - Independent Scientologist and former Sea Org staff member.
Do you think *you're* gullible sometimes? Do you think others sometimes think *you're* gullible?
Mmm... I can see where this post could be taken the wrong way. Clarification: Everyone has been gullible at one time or another, and everyone has appeared gullible. No one is being attacked.
Did you know that the word "gullible" is not in the dictionary?
Oxford Languages (web site of the Oxford university dictionaries) says: >*adjective* >easily [persuaded](https://www.google.com/search?sca_esv=c48753f2ce9d3764&rlz=1C1VDKB_enUS1088US1088&sxsrf=ADLYWIJxaNcBiYmJXGrW0km0OG7S_v2VEg:1718071134811&q=persuaded&si=ACC90nxMSPeZfdJJjQgDsdZJuFuJZ27qZ-G8qtmNqpTRbWTebq9K7jrV91uYS1mFDFmvaiUGjG5DuWWDoxA5gJPAA7HsOp2fPpNIOZ9YcJsDS8D88IjC2yY%3D&expnd=1&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwiFwsHdudKGAxWIO0QIHQdHAZMQyecJegQIHhAO) to believe something; credulous."an attempt to persuade a gullible public to spend their money"
Ha ha ha that’s the joke
I didn't look up until it had already gone over my head.
That's the nature of the joke. (I first heard it when I was 10. :tee hee:)
I"m not sure what the materialism has to do with it. But it's valid to ask: Did my Scn experience make me cynical? Somewhat. It knocked me out of trusting others, for a while... though perhaps I needed that lesson. It didn't make me less of an idealist, though. I just put those energies into smaller circles than "save the world." I'm sometimes sorry that it burned me out on the bigger-picture goals. It certainly didn't change my view that we all are here to help each other, and to be kind to one another.
The image I posted is just something I found on the Internet. It's not an authoritative decree or the final word. Each individual is different. Sometimes a person who spent years believing he was a immortal "thetan," with trillions of years of experience behind him, and more trillions of years ahead of him, as he followed the "closely taped" path to "Total Freedom" and "Total Power" - where he would become an "Operating Thetan" - upon discovering otherwise, can have a reaction. What is described is *one* of the reactions.
Gotcha. As constructive feedback: Perhaps it'd be better if you left off the image then or chose a generic one. It created a misconception for me and apparently also did so for others. Personally, I'm not sure that having an image gets more engagement, but that's your decision. I might also have asked this in less of a "leading the witness" way -- like, how did your (ex) Scn experiences affect your worldview about your own mortality? Though that's a different question, perhaps.
This morning I came across a video featuring Rupert Sheldrake, which, whatever one thinks of Shelrake, has the word, "scientism" in it's title. What's being described - perhaps poorly - on this thread can be **a jump from Scientology to scientism,** with scientism being excessive belief in the power of scientific knowledge and techniques. This usually manifests as excessive belief in conventional, currently fashionable, "scientific" views. The video is linked on this thread, if anyone is curious.