This is a recent posting on the Patheos website — which is really just an outlet for any content the scientology propaganda machine can generate.
Some of it offers good insight into the minds of scientology. This article, by T. Riggs Eckleberry (ex-SO — he was just Riggs back then) is another of them.
It starts with a premise that is entirely false. Namely that scientology is “truth” and proceeds to build on that false assumption from there. His first sentence asserts that of course scientology is true:
“All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident.”—Arthur Schopenhauer
He then goes on to how back in the bad old days “if you told people you were a member, they looked at you oddly and were very careful what they said.”
And interestingly he claims that “These days, people are more likely to mention how there are a lot of celebrities in Scientology and do I know them?” See, that tactic of recruiting celebrities really DOES work….
Though I suspect that more often these days he is asked “Have you seen Scientology and The Aftermath?” Or “Where is Shelly Miscavige?”
He then makes another wild assertion: “It’s a rule of thumb that the more something is attacked, the more likely it is to be true.”
What exactly does this mean? The “attacks” on priests molesting children means catholicism is true? Or that the priests are in fact molesting children? The logic here is twisted at best, nonsensical at worst.
He then analogizes scientology to Alfred Wegener’s theory of continental drift and Galileo’s discovery that the earth revolved around the sun. Riiiight. Because they were not accepted as true and scientology is not accepted as true means that eventually people will realize that scientology is in fact true? A more apt analogy might be the ridicule heaped upon “flat-earthers”. They too believe that one day they will be vindicated. The difference between Wegener/Galileo and the flat-earthers is that science had NOT caught up to their theories. Science has long since surpassed the nuttiness of the flat-earthers. So too with scientology — Hubbard is the one who claimed Dianetics and Scientology were scientific fact and that he had “researched” and done “case studies” to prove it. No scientific testing has EVER validated any part of scientology and it never will. So, T. Riggs is going to be waiting about as long as the Flat-Earthers for the rest of the world to catch on that they have been wrong all along and scientology is in fact proven science.
He then goes for the gusto: “On BBC.com, Zaria Gorvett recently reviewed all the ways one could get oneself remembered in a thousand years. There aren’t many. One way, she says, is to found a religion.”
Wow, well, that proves it. I guess it also proves that Jim Jones, Reverend Moon and Joseph Smith were great men who made amazing discoveries that helped all of mankind?
Even T. Riggs concedes: “But, you say, none of this proves that Scientology is self-evident truth!”
And then follows with “Look, I’m not here to make claims.”
Then what ARE you doing?
And he promptly proceeds to make yet another claim:
“It means a lot that L. Ron Hubbard founded the only lasting 20th-century religious philosophy.”
Well, I would beg to differ and no doubt T. Riggs doesn’t have much knowledge of anything outside scientology. This is one of those assertions that scientologists love to make and nobody challenges them. The Jehovah’s Witnesses were founded in the early 20th century. They are multiple times larger than scientology. So too the Pentecostal movement. Even the Nation of Islam has more followers than scientology. And the Moonies. The only one? Hardly.
In fact, the Smithsonian listed L. Ron Hubbard as one of the 100 most significant Americans of all time (only 11 US Presidents made the list)”
Here we go again, another “fact” from the guy who is not here to make claims. And a fact that has nothing to do for with the truth of scientology.
And again, you’re not giving the whole picture here T. Riggs. First, there are specific categories, each limited to no more than 11. Artists. Women. One of them is Presidents. Another is “Religious figures” and here is that list:
Joseph Smith Jr.
William Penn
Brigham Young
Roger Williams
Anne Hutchinson
Jonathan Edwards
L. Ron Hubbard
Ellen G. White
Cotton Mather
Mary Baker Eddy
Billy Graham
Benedict Arnold
Jesse James
John Wilkes Booth
Al Capone
Billy the Kid
William M. “Boss” Tweed
Charles Manson
Wild Bill Hickok
Lee Harvey Oswald
John Dillinger
Lucky Luciano
So, while Hubbard may be on the list that “only 11 Presidents” were on, he is also on the list with Benedict Arnold, John Dillinger, Al Capone and Charles Manson.
Obviously Hubbard’s “Logics” don’t really teach about logic – and particularly not about recognizing illogic, or logical fallacies.
I’ve noticed that it’s quite common for true believers of various types, including conspiracy theorists, to resort to that fallacious claim that criticism or attacks must somehow prove that they’re on to some truth.
Scientology has effectively been discredited by the failure of any of its theories or promises to work out over an extended period of time, along with significant parts of it (like Hubbard’s model of the mind as a computer accurately storing every perception) being conclusively disproved. That’s a good part of why history is passing them by and they are virtually no longer able to recruit new members, though those inside the bubble have yet to “cognite” that reality.
Eckelberry also, typically, sloppily cites a common mis-quote of a Schopenhauer passage (from The World as Will and Representation, Preface to the First Edition) that actually says, and means, something rather different; the final part (or two parts), properly translated more along the lines of “condemned as paradoxical or disparaged as trivial,” really sound a bit more like an appropriate treatment of Scientology.
Right. If Scientologists understood logic, then they’d be able to spot Scientology’s logical fallacies.
If Scientologists understood the Scientific Method, then they’d be asking for evidence/experiments done to support it.
If Scientologists understood Psychology, they’d understand how they’re being manipulated.
If Scientologists understood Critical Thinking, they’d be using any of the above.
LRH may not have understood any these, but he knew how dangerous they were to the scam he was running; which is why he banned them for Scientologists.
Here’s my dilemna, Peacemaker:
I benefited a great deal from the intro courses, Comm Course, the Pro TRs course, Key to Life and LOC. I’d be lying if I said I didn’t. I didn’t get far up the Lower Bridge but I definitely got the EP of “knowing I wouldn’t get any worse”.
Ok, here’s my question:
Why does Scientology PROMISE as an EP, an “Ability Gained” for Grade O Communications Release, “The ability to talk to anyone on any subject”…?
This is obviously a lie! I’ve NEVER encountered ANYONE in Scientology who completed this auditing who had this ability, no matter how high up the Bridge they were. In fact, the higher up the Bridge they were, the LESS open and the MORE guarded was their communication, in my experience!
So, instead of this grandiose promise that can’t be delivered, why not just promise, “The ability to communicate more effectively” OR, “The WILLINGNESS to communicate more freely”…you know, something REAL?
The above is just an example of how Scientology could correct itself by NOT promising impossibly grand, hi falutin’ “abilities gained” that simply are NOT gained and are OBVIOUSLY not gained!
Aqua, I’ll grant your initial claim – but note it’s mostly or entirely benefits that could be found elsewhere, for vastly less financial expense and intangible cost (life, family, etc.).
My answer, referring back to that, is that if Scientology made more realistic promises, then they wouldn’t have any basis for selling themselves over alternatives like Dale Carnegie and Toastmasters, or meditation and yoga – all to be had without anywhere near the expenditure.
Thanks for getting back to me, Peacemaker. Yes, I hear you. Very possible that other avenues to the same gains exist and for much less money.
And then as regards extraordinariness of the promises with regard to the “abilities gained”, realistic results promised wouldn’t warrant the outrageous prices they charge for courses and auditing.
Your point actually never occurred to me but, now I see (duh) its certainly the obvious reason, the common sense reason!
God, I just have to get new reading glasses. Sorry for all typos.
I’ve known Riggs for some time. His logic stands up about as well as well as Mikes flat earth logic.
I’d like to talk with him. He would fold in front of any experienced ex.
I like the question Riggs puts to his readers of his blog article.
“Self-evident?
Anyone care to place a bet on how a Scientologist will be viewed in a hundred years, or even a thousand?
On BBC.com, Zaria Gorvett recently reviewed all the ways one could get oneself remembered in a thousand years. There aren’t many.”
Scientologist in a hundred years will be viewed as pathetic, brainwashed, fools. And Scientology will be dead and buried.
I fell down the rabbit hole of the feewinds’ Measles scare to anti-vaxxers, to creationists and flat Earthers. When I moved from scientology to the others,the people involved were very similar; unable to have a discussion as their side of the “conversation” got thought-stopped immediately at their Authority’s pronouncement. Still, it’s fun to bullbait the flat Esarthers. They’re SOO gullible.
I’d talk to my old Scientology friends if they would talk to me. They won’t. I imagine baiting flat earthers is a hoot.
Leave it to me to query a triviality like this but what the hell:
He’s ex-SO, and when he was just “Riggs” (surname). From whence cometh the “Eckleberry”?
He omitted the “T” in the SO. Not so pretentious.
I see. So “Riggs” is his middle name and “Eckleberry” is his surname and his given name begins with a “T” which he eliminated when he was in the SO. Thanks, Mike.
Todd, I agree with everything you’ve said in this post and the one above it, except about coke. We do have to be tricked into buying Coca Cola. If the ingredients in Coke were made clearly known, no one would buy it, no one would start drinking it (not to mention getting addicted to it, like coffee, because Coke has plenty of caffeine and is quite addicting). The healthful benefits of Coke cannot be disseminated because there are none. Instead, it is advertised usually by showing a group of slim beautiful, energetic, laughing young people having a great time together doing something like playing volleyball on the beach or being attracted to one another at a party, etc. They’re always having an uproariously good time. The silent message is that stimulating, effervescent, it tastes good, it gives you “energy”. The visuals impart a pleasing, stimulating, positive concept. All unessential to health products aka junk foods and junk soft drinks are advertised this way. There is no real TRUTH in this kind deceptive, visual advertising but its allowed because LEGALLY they’re not SAYING anything that’s UNtrue or an outright LIE. No one is ever SAYING that this shit is good for you. The visual says it all and its YOUR interpretation that is positive. An honest visual ad of people getting together who drink LOTS of Coke and other crap soft drinks would show a bunch of fat, pimply faced people with bad teeth.
“Coke’! Ugggh. I’m in the middle of major dental work due to no medical/dental care while in scn and smoking way too much — to ward off cancer, don’cha know?
In other words,NO liquid sugar for me any more: my weight’s too high and I’ve lost the urge for it, anyway.
Got it, jere. Coca Cola is MURDER. SO addicting. Believe me, I know. I was such a caffeine addict. Had to kick coffee, coke, Mountain Dew…OMG. It didn’t put weight on me because it killed my appetite for real food but OMG I was a nervous wreck, rarely slept a full night…drank a lot of coffee and coke. WELL DONE on kicking it, jere. Kicking caffeine is NO SMALL THING! I’m still an “addict”. It would be VERY easy for me to start “using” again, LOL.
Taking lots of vitamins, particularly B complex, helps. Don’t let yourself get hungry! Don’t worry about your weight for now.
Keep your system beefed up with the good stuff. Over time the cravings will subside at least to the point of being able to be managed. And GREAT on getting the necessary dental work done too! That’s a big confront! And I understand that there’s a lot of work now because you ignored the situation back in the day. Well, so what? You’re still alive and kicking and you’re doing it NOW. That’s well done, if you don’t mind my saying so. VERY well done!
T.Riggs Eckelberry has a flash fb page. Little mention of $cientology except in a few photos. There is one at the Fort Harrison with his son George,22, who appears to be on staff somewhere. He is listed as founder & head honcho of Origin. Clear . He looks like one of the seriously brainwashed who would take a bullet for the cult screaming out his last words ‘’ the tech works’’
Is the Mormon church one that was developed, invented in the 20th century? If so you can add that one to the list too.
No, that was 19th century
I like to say that Mormonism is “the transparently false religion that was invented in the 19th century” and Scientology is “the transparently false religion that was invented in the 20th century.”
And by ‘transparently false,’ i mean that they make many testable claims (always a dangerous thing for a religion to do) that are both easy to check and have turned out to be false, thereby disproving them.
Riggs and his brother Alex are both very affluent. However,their mother,the late, Rene Duke, a Scientologist, had a crappy apt , a clunker car and lived on food stamps. Go figure ?
That is shameful that Rene Duke’s rich kids didn’t help their poor mother.
The problem with halftruths is that people will always tell the wrong half.
Eckelberry is absolutely right. Truth will attract criticism and will be vetted over time. Then again, lies will also attract criticism and will fail to stand up to vetting. What he does NOT want to ask is: So how has that gone for scientology, Hubbard or the “church” and its “ecclesiastical leader?”
Eckelberry is absolutely right. Novel ideas will often be looked at askance. People will reject them because of lack of information about these ideas. Then again, there are ideas that after 70 years are better known than ever and more widely rejected than they were when they first came out. Hey, just saying…
Whenever I open up my email account and look at all the spam and fraud I received I ask myself some simple questions:
Why would someone selling genuinely valuable goods/services use deception in trying to effect that sale?
If I can’t trust a party’s honesty while I still have a choice, BEFORE they have my money, how much LESS will I be able to trust them once they do?
Or in this case:
If scientology is “the truth” or even just one valid truth, why does it take so many lies and tricks as exhibited in that blog (or many others) to try and sell it?
Why does it require front organizations or anonymous online ads to sell this “truth?” No one has to be tricked into buying a Mercedes, a Coke or an Apple product.
Why do you have to apply coercion to keep people in that “truth” who no longer want to be?
You don’t, but since Dave is stuck with the remnants of a deceptive con artist, his only option is to dress up the lies and hope the whales will continue to give him the money he needs to support his esleazeeastical lifestyle.
Todd, I agree with everything you’ve said in this post and the one above it, except about coke. We do have to be tricked into buying Coca Cola. If the ingredients in Coke were made clearly known, no one would buy it, no one would start drinking it (not to mention getting addicted to it, like coffee, because Coke has plenty of caffeine and is quite addicting). The healthful benefits of Coke cannot be disseminated because there are none. Instead, it is advertised usually by showing a group of slim beautiful, energetic, laughing young people having a great time together doing something like playing volleyball on the beach or being attracted to one another at a party, etc. They’re always having an uproariously good time. The silent message is that stimulating, effervescent, it tastes good, it gives you “energy”. The visuals impart a pleasing, stimulating, positive concept. All unessential to health products aka junk foods and junk soft drinks are advertised this way. There is no real TRUTH in this kind deceptive, visual advertising but its allowed because LEGALLY they’re not SAYING anything that’s UNtrue or an outright LIE. No one is ever SAYING that this shit is good for you. The visual says it all and its YOUR interpretation that is positive. An honest visual ad of people getting together who drink LOTS of Coke and other crap soft drinks would show a bunch of fat, pimply faced people with bad teeth.
Sounds to me like a flat earther exclaiming “people all around the globe know that Earth is flat.”
Um, what?
Wait, you mean it’s not flat?
You’re right Todd. The “truth” of scientology has been getting more and more known in the last 70 years, especially in the last 20-30, MOST especially since they pissed off the wrong New Yorkers, Leah and Tony Ortega in particular.
scientology’s most successful “process” is making ‘bitter apostates’.
O/T. VIDEO: Aaron Kyro donates $750k to Scientology but begs his fans for donations for a $200,000 skate park.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IMjSMY9bjJE
/
Jonathan Edwards???? The ‘Talking to the Dead Guy’?? Not a very illustrious list is it?
$cientology lives and dies on the ‘Confuse a Cat’ principle. False equivalency is a $cieno sacrament, as are every other medicine show tactic. It even has 3 card monte thrown in.
Jonathan Edwards the 18th Century Preacher and Theologian
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jonathan_Edwards_(theologian)
“And it’s clear that the movement has survived the most dangerous moment in any religion’s history: the death of its Founder. ”
El Tubolard died? I thought he shed his body to go and work on target 2… I think Riggs is going to get a beat down.
Yeah, this stood out to me, too. I think this is the first I’ve heard a Scientologist acknowledge the death of El Ron.
All well and good Mike, but what about the fact that 75,000,000 years ago Xenu enslaved entire populations by sending them off in DC 8s to be dumped into volcanoes and implanted with all kinds of nasty pictures, resulting in the presence of BTs and clusters in the present society. Surely that is self-evident.
@gadfly, about as self evident as the guys with the oversized butterfly nets and straitjackets creeping up behind you right now 😉
How did you know?!
Errrm, I called them. Tee hee.
Damn, how did you know?!
Hand-picked successor? Even Scientology’s lawyer admits Hubbard never OFFICIALLY picked Miscavige as his replacement.
“Mr. Hubbard viewed David Miscavige as one of his closest and trusted aides, and he essentially groomed him to become the leader of the Church,” said Church lawyer Monique Yingling. “So really while there wasn’t an anointment or anything like that, it was clear to everyone… that David was the person that Mr. Hubbard would want to take the Church forward.”
Source: https://abcnews.go.com/US/scientology-leader-david-miscaviges-father-son-changed-joining/story?id=38703114
Yet, Hubbard clearly stated in HCOB 16 April 1965 the following: “If it isn’t in an HCOB or an HCO PL or recorded on a tape in my voice, it isn’t tech or policy.”
Let’s see this receipts!
Flat earth, conspiracy, scientology, all of them have one thing in common: they think that only they will solve the problems. As altruistic minds, as they are proud to be, you cannot help them, as they already help you full time. They think all others are too much ego, to realize, what they realized.
I was the same mind, and thought the altruistic way as servant is the best way to go enlightened OT.
And I was convinced that this is a fast and genius way to heaven.
Idiotic as I know now.
hope others of these cults realize this. But for sure, there are so many other nice people which deserved it more to have time with my EGO 😉
I’d hazard a guess that if they combined the lists for outlaws and religious figures, Hubbard would still make the list of top 11 criminal religious leaders. Isn’t that impressive?
In the 21st Century the combined list of outlaws and presidents is off to a good start.
The last thing a scientologists wants to know is the truth and if they do find out “the truth” about their “religion” they immediately measure it up against how it makes them feel about scientology or its leader. If it makes them feel badly about either one, then they know they have overts/sins or transgressions against it or him. Period.
Now, Now, Mary,
You know that O-W is a ‘Limited Theory” (HCOB 22 Dec 1960). The hubbard man said so hisself.
It was supposed to kick in when someone (the COS comes to mind) failed to HELP. They would then go on an O-W binge in asserting their (ir)responsibility in the arena. What they sell as help comes with such a price tag it can hardly be called help.
Yup, you nailed it, Mary.
That is precisely how Still Ins “think” and “evaluate data”.
“To hell with FACTS. How does this data make me FEEL?”
Amazing, really. But that’s how they roll.