	AllExperts > Scientology
	Search

About Marc Abian
Expertise
I am able to answer most questions about the abuses of and within the 'church.' I can answer most questions about the on-going Scientology vs. Anonymous conflict, and address the lies/half truths that are being thrown around.

Experience
I have studied cults for nearly 30 years, most recently Scientology after nearly being absorbed into the 'church' in the late 70's. I have interviewed a number of current and ex-Scientology members, as well as read the materials through OT VIII that is considered 'classified' by Scientology.

Education/Credentials
Masters in Religious History, with a minor focus on Cult Religions at Western Washington's Fair Haven program.

You are here: Experts > Religion/Spirituality > Scientology > Scientology > Your perception of scientology

Scientology - Your perception of scientology

Expert: Marc Abian - 11/10/2009

Question
QUESTION: Do you earnestly believe that none of the 'tech' practiced by the church is whatsoever useful?

If so, do you perceive freezone auditors as deluded fools on a path that leads them squarely nowhere?

ANSWER: Mike -

Scientology does have many basic teachings that are both helpful and instill good morals. This is the same as with most religions. Some of the beginning 'tech' taught at the orgs are indeed useful when presented truthfully for what they are #basic self-help#. This is what makes Scientology so dangerous and addicting to many people. The first few techs learned do have real life applications that can have very positive results. However, after working through those techs, you are then pressured to invest in more 'advanced' classes that are much more abstract and are based less and less in reality.

The problem with the entire 'tech' system that I see #I am not going to get into the advanced 'religious' teachings taught in the OT levels# is the idea put into people's minds that if the tech does not work, it is your own fault, not the fault of the tech. The only way to resolve these problems is to spend vast amounts of money to see an auditor and do the tech over. In fact, the further you get into the 'tech' the more money each class costs, and the more withdrawn you are forced to be. As you learn these 'techs' they slowly put into your mind that anyone outside of the church is negatively effecting your life, and they need to be either brought into the group or cut out of your life. These things are not useful, and are in fact quite harmful.

The freezone is definitely much less harmful, as they are much more open about their teachings and practices. They do not charge nearly as much money for sessions and tech either. Though, to be fair, I am not nearly as familiar with how the Freezone is set up, but from what I do understand about them, if you wanted to learn the Scientology 'tech' they would definitely be the way I would recommend you go.

So no, I do not believe everything taught by the 'church' is worthless, and no I do not feel the freezone auditors are deluded fools. I do think they both follow a system designed to twist people's hope and faith into a money making scheme. That does not mean nothing good can be gained from it, it simply means it is often not presented in a completely truthful light.

---------- FOLLOW-UP ----------

QUESTION: From your perspective, what is the 'line of demarkation' between 'good' tech and 'bad' tech? At what point do you say it splits of from the stream of logical reason into the supposed la la land?

Being as specific as possible, what forms of 'tech' influence a person positively, and which do so negatively?

If the freezoners were not deluded, why would they practice a system which is 'designed to twist people's hope and faith into a money making scheme'?
Also, if they do not charge so much, wouldnt the scheme evaporate?
Because it does not evaporate, wouldnt it follow by logic that there actually IS something to this whole thing?

The only other option I can see from my perspective, other then them being deluded, is that they only follow the 'good' tech you approve of.

But, having said you do not fully have your mind wrapped around the freezone system you wouldn't really know the 'tech' they adhere to...

Where does that leave us?

Answer
Mike -

I am not going to go through the list of tech and list out which I believe has merit and which I believe to be worthless. As a general rule though if someone outside of the church notices an improvement in you, its probably good tech. If they only ones that really "get it" are people that also paid a few hundred bucks for your latest skill, then I'd say 9 times out of 10 its not. I do not think there is some fence line between what is worthwhile and what is not.

I will give you this example. One of the best skills (in my opinion) taught in Scientology is the ability to think about, discuss, and then express ideas in a logical rather than emotional way. Of course this is taught as the difference between your 2 separate minds, but that is one of the basic ideas. While I think that being able to think about things logically without getting emotionally invested into an argument is a great skill to have, I believe Scientology twists it into something very ugly by applying that idea to every moment of the day. When people are taught to completely shut down their emotions it can be very damaging to people over time, especially children. But where do you draw the line between where it crosses the line? Your guess is as good as mine, I'm not a psychologist. (oh no I said the P word!)

There are many reasons the Freezone is able to continue. Sure it is possible there is something to the tech, and some people out there actually develop the promised powers gained from going clear, and gaining the OT levels. The much more likely reason is that the beginning tech is useful to some people, and when the 'church' begins to ask for more and more money, they simply move over to the Freezone to get similar teachings at a much more reasonable cost. It could be that perhaps they were in the Sea Org and decided to leave, and so were declared a degraded being and decided to leave. Perhaps they had a family member declared an OP and decided to continue their studies where the church would not harass them. There are many reasons people leave Scientology but continue to study the 'tech' they've gotten used to. If you are familiar with the placebo effect I should not need to explain.

Would you call a Christian deluded? A Jew? A Muslim? I do not think any of them are the end all be all religion for humanity, but does that make them deluded? I do not think so. Misguided perhaps. They also all have good things taught through their respective mediums. However, they can all be very destructive when taken too far. Extremists are never a good thing, and the problem Scientology has, is that their entire group was created by, and is currently led by an extremist and yes in my opinion the structure of Scientology is set up to make money for those people at the top. You show me any other religion that asks you to pay tens of thousands of dollars over years before you even get to the creation story. Many Christian Televangelists will try to rob you blind for their own greed, but at least they can't get you excommunicated and make your entire family and all your friends (if they are in the church) cut all contact with you, and they aren't selling you the bible $1 for 1 page 1 day at a time.

Now, let me just say that it seems like you already have your own opinion about this stuff (which is fine, and that is totally your right) but if you are just looking for someone to debate with you the pros and cons of Scientology or the Freezone, I would ask that you find someone else, or we can move this into a more appropriate area for discussion. I do not like to use this area for debating opinion. If you have a question about my experiences or about the experiences of those I've interviewed I would be more than willing, but if you are just looking for a debate, this is not the area. Thanks.

Add to this Answer Ask a Question