This is a comment by a Scientologist to directly answer my questions and I’m very thankful for that, it’s not very often you get this kind of response and because of that I feel it right to go through it very closely. Italics will denote what Jay has written, and my response and comments will be in regular type.
Before I begin I would like to say a quick thank you to Jay for taking the time to respond.
I’ve been a Scientologist for about 35 years. It’s true that, generally speaking, Scientologists do believe that we are all immortal spiritual beings. Any Scientologist is free to disagree with that, if it’s not true for him or her. People who are starting to study Scientology should approach it by looking for useful information — what’s true for them is true for them. Maybe the bit about being an immortal spiritual being is not very real to them and doesn’t ring true.
I’m confused by this, Scientologists ‘believe that we are all immortal spiritual beings’, yet, a Scientologist is ‘free to disagree with that’. We can see that the initial statement is a clear fallacy using the following simple statements.
- A’s believe in B
- A’s don’t have to believe in B
Here, A is Scientologist and B is humans being ‘immortal spiritual beings’.
Once again though I am starting to see this very common sentence ‘what’s true for them is true for them’, which is what I explained before was the way most Scientologists I have spoken to seem to try and get out of questioning and on a whole it’s a true statement. It’s just an assertion that our perception is subjective, if I see the grass as being green (green being how I have been brought up to describe the colour of the grass) then that is correct for me, it may appear blue, red, purple, etc, to someone else, but to me, the grass is green. This falls down when you have two logical statements as above. If a Scientologist says to me, ‘Scientologists believe in spirits and you have to believe that to be a Scientologist’ I’d be fine with that, that makes logical sense, or even ‘You don’t have to believe in spirits to be a Scientologist, but some do’, that works as well.
But there’s plenty of other information and tools in Scientology that one can use. For me, it was the very clear explanation of communication, and an actual workable communication formula. Using that formula, for the first time in my life I was able to communicate with anyone, about nearly anything. That tool was really real to me when I first came aboard as a Scientologist.
I really love the idea that Scientology helps people, that it futhers peoples lives and that they have really gained lots from it. What do you mean (if you read this) by ‘really real to me’?
I kept scanning through materials looking for things that were real to me and that I could use. There were lots of such tools.At no time did anyone ever say to me, “You have to believe this”. Nobody ever twists your arm. As the old saw goes, “You can lead a horse to knowledge, but you can’t make him think.”
Here’s something that I’ve been pondering a while about the phrase “seek and ye shall find”, which my girlfriend will probably cringe at. If you are looking for things, you will find them. This is most apparent in conspiracy theorists and crackpots who search for alternative answers to what can be taken as very clear and direct questions. The Da Vinci Code is a good example of this also, as are all the theories on Freemasonry and Skull and Bones societies. Not to say that they’re good or bad, just that if you look for something (in this case ‘tools’) you will find them. I believe the phrase is ‘You can lead a horse to water, but you cannot make him drink.’ and I disagree, if you present a thirsty (someone seeking) horse to water (information), it will drink(find knowledge).
The best way, really, to learn Scientology and see if it is true for you is to read one of the basic books on it. If you don’t get anything out of it you can use, if nothing in it is “true for you”, then you don’t need to go any further into it.
I must admit this is something I have really been meaning to do, I have read some of Science of Survival, but not Dianetics or any of the basic material, I may well try and get it out of my local Library and read through it.
Jerry Seinfeld said that the communication skills he learned 30 some years ago in Scientology were very helpful. That didn’t stop him from poking fun at it in his TV show, but still — he obviously took something positive away from the experience. He learned something and used it therafter.One of the definitions of Scientology is that it’s an applied religious philosophy. We USE the tools within Scientology to do things that can be extremely difficiult if not impossible, without them.Does that help answer your question?
I don’t mean to be patronising or condescending, but how many definitions of Scientology are there and could you point me to them. I was very much under the impression that Scientology was the Study of Knowledge. Also, by that definition, is there not a belief in the philosophy of Scientology meaning that one is required to believe in some Scientology belief.
I’d like to thank Jay again for his response and make a note that although I may appear to be aggressive and offensive in my response and questioning it is only because I wish to understand Scientology better.