L Ron's timeline for the Universe

Moderator: doubleVee

<<

WileyCoyote

Clear

Posts: 70

Joined: Sun Mar 23, 2008 8:09 am

Post Tue Apr 08, 2008 7:43 pm

L Ron's timeline for the Universe

Here's a question from an anonymous type (that lacks the capital "A" because I am not a member of that group, but agree with their goals enough to quietly support them and for my own personal edification want to better understand the mindset that can actually get people to believe what L. Ron was "selling").

I'm aware that the more out there "space opera" aspects of Scientology are obscured from lower level members. The "Xenu" stuff is the best known of all that, but for me, as someone raised on rational and scientific beliefs, Xenu and his gang are FAR from the most outrageous claim.

For me, the most out there aspect--the part that would stick in my craw far more than thetans, or mind control, or evil Intergalactic Empires, centers around L. Ron's opinion of the age of the Universe. According to L. Ron, "The Story of Creation Implants" is set "70 trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion years ago".

My question is how L. Ron reconciled this (assuming he even bothered to try) with scientific fact. I'm sure when he first came up with these figures, nobody had declared that Earth iteself is only about 4.5 billion years old, and the Universe as a whole less than 14 billion. But certainly these figures had been decided on long before L. Ron shed that wrinkly body of his. Did he somehow claim that the scientists who came up with these figures were SPs in league with the Psychiatrists, did he justify the figures some other way, or did he just ignore the whole thing?

I suppose we could also examine something like The Bear Goals. If I'm reading the materials on the Net about this correctly, L. Ron said that happened somewhere from "40.7 trillion trillion trillion trillion years to about 83 trillion trillion trillion years ago". Ignoring the whole age of the Universe thing, the age of the Earth thing, etc. even that leaves us with the "age of Bears" thing. Again, I'm curious what L. Ron did in the face of Science. But even moreso, I'm curious about what logic--assuming ANY--was used when people eventually reached the level where they were allowed to see this and wondered how the image of a Bear could be used to brainwash before Bears, the Earth, or even the Universe even existed.

I suppose all of this boils down to an actual question of whether or not ANY high level Scientologists, once they are indoctrinated into the deeper secrets actually believe them. Did L. Ron EXPECT them to, or at that point did he simply assume they were SO vested, in both time put in, in pride sacrificed, in money sacrificed, etc. that they'd either ignore it or somehow be in some state where they'd believe it in the same sense that Catholics believe in Resurrection. Was it seen as a matter of faith to believe things that, even more than Catholics and their creationism, fly in the face of Scientific knowledge? I mean at least the Catholics can fall back on that old "God made the Universe seem that old" defense. But in the case of Scientology, and the Universe being much YOUNGER than they claim, nobody seems to be claiming there was a master plan by some Creator to manipulate physical reality and evidence to fool us. The answer seems to be to ignore Science rather than to counter it with any kind of logical argument that explains the discrepancy, however inadequately.

I'm curious to hear some reactions to this from ex-Scientologists, particularly those who actually got deep in enough to be given the information while still members. How did YOU deal with the information being given to you?
<<

Grundy

User avatar

Sticky Master

Posts: 1067

Joined: Fri Feb 29, 2008 7:41 am

Post Tue Apr 08, 2008 8:23 pm

The concept, as I know it, is this:

This is not the first universe.

Universes are cyclical. The are created, progress and are destroyed. The universe existing before this one was a universe of magic.

The idea is that although universes are created and destroyed, life energy units, called thetans, are timeless. They don't exist within a continuum.

Indeed, it's rather pointless to say "trillions of years ago" as time only relates to those things that have existed within the same space-time system of creation.

The billions of years that the universe has existed is only the latest instance of creation.

When you understand the concept of infinity, true infinity, the universe, in all of its splendor and glory is quite limited.

These are not "dimensions" per se. These are different orderings of matter, energy, space and time. Each ordering works according to laws set up by those entities involved in it's creation.

The reason that magic does not work in this universe is because there was an agreement by the life units creating it to limit themselves in the game. The universe is only a game that was created to pass the time for life units, you and I included, that are, in terms of this current universe and any universe(s) ever created, totally immortal, completely unlimited and supremely powerful.

The basis of our concept of magic is a "whole track recall" of past universes and games and the laws that pertained to them.

Does this answer the question?
<<

WileyCoyote

Clear

Posts: 70

Joined: Sun Mar 23, 2008 8:09 am

Post Tue Apr 08, 2008 8:37 pm

As far as the age of the Universe thing? I suppose so.

But "Bears" one still gets me. Is the justification supposed to be that the Bears (or later, Gorillas) are just symbolic, or maybe some creature similar that are just being called "Bears" or "Gorillas" to make them more identifiable?

I suppose this gets into questions about how ol' L. Ron felt about the Theory of Evolution. Did he believe it was valid? Assuming he JUST applied the theory to the physical bodies, and the thetans sat on top of that, of course.
<<

Grundy

User avatar

Sticky Master

Posts: 1067

Joined: Fri Feb 29, 2008 7:41 am

Post Tue Apr 08, 2008 8:44 pm

To make them more identifiable.

In Scientology, it basically is all "a game." We created those things (we as spirits). Evolution is not mentioned as causative, or evolution is only the rules that we set up.

All life has some component of theta. All MEST is theta which has been solidified into position.
<<

everfree

User avatar

Clear

Posts: 141

Joined: Fri Feb 29, 2008 6:52 pm

Post Tue Apr 08, 2008 9:36 pm

Re: L Ron's timeline for the Universe

WileyCoyote wrote:For me, the most out there aspect--the part that would stick in my craw far more than thetans, or mind control, or evil Intergalactic Empires, centers around L. Ron's opinion of the age of the Universe. According to L. Ron, "The Story of Creation Implants" is set "70 trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion years ago".

My question is how L. Ron reconciled this (assuming he even bothered to try) with scientific fact.


He didn't try to reconcile it, he thought he knew better than scientists because a flick of the e-meter needle and past life recall. Re the age of Earth, he flat out said in a tape - I forget which one now, maybe "Principal Incidents on the Track", that Earth has been around much longer than Scientists think - what do they know?

Hubbard and to a lesser degree general Scnists believe they have a better understanding of life and the universe than scientists, doctors, etc, there is no need to reconcile themselves to science, it is up to science to catch up with Hubbard.

I suppose all of this boils down to an actual question of whether or not ANY high level Scientologists, once they are indoctrinated into the deeper secrets actually believe them.


Sure they do, just as otherwise sane, rational adults believe in a guy with a long beard sitting on a celestial throne ruling the universe. The ones that don't believe leave, eventually.

Did L. Ron EXPECT them to, or at that point did he simply assume they were SO vested, in both time put in, in pride sacrificed, in money sacrificed, etc. that they'd either ignore it or somehow be in some state where they'd believe it in the same sense that Catholics believe in Resurrection. Was it seen as a matter of faith to believe things that, even more than Catholics and their creationism, fly in the face of Scientific knowledge?


Some Scnists will deny with their last breath that they have any faith whatsoever, though they certainly do - just accepting their past life recall as real for example is an act of faith.

But because Hubbard said something to the effect that "what is true for you is what you have experienced and found to be true", Scnists tend to have a mental "bin" where they put ideas that are "unreal" to them - where while they don't actively disbelieve something, they suspend ~disbelief~ with the idea that perhaps when they get more auditing and reach OT levels it will make more sense to them. There is a whole class of "success stories" wherein the Scnist exclaims that they found that "Ron was right all along" about something they didn't totally believe before.
<<

WileyCoyote

Clear

Posts: 70

Joined: Sun Mar 23, 2008 8:09 am

Post Tue Apr 08, 2008 11:37 pm

Re: L Ron's timeline for the Universe

everfree wrote:
WileyCoyote wrote:For me, the most out there aspect--the part that would stick in my craw far more than thetans, or mind control, or evil Intergalactic Empires, centers around L. Ron's opinion of the age of the Universe. According to L. Ron, "The Story of Creation Implants" is set "70 trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion years ago".

My question is how L. Ron reconciled this (assuming he even bothered to try) with scientific fact.


He didn't try to reconcile it, he thought he knew better than scientists because a flick of the e-meter needle and past life recall. Re the age of Earth, he flat out said in a tape - I forget which one now, maybe "Principal Incidents on the Track", that Earth has been around much longer than Scientists think - what do they know?

Hubbard and to a lesser degree general Scnists believe they have a better understanding of life and the universe than scientists, doctors, etc, there is no need to reconcile themselves to science, it is up to science to catch up with Hubbard.


Hmm. I guess that's why Isaac Asimov allegedly couldn't stand Hubbard, and was supposedly quite upset when someone once told him they thought Scientology's belief system echoed some of his writings (which was wrong, of course, because even when Asimov incorporated stuff like disembodiment into his fiction, he'd never debate what physics taught him about the universe).

I suppose all of this boils down to an actual question of whether or not ANY high level Scientologists, once they are indoctrinated into the deeper secrets actually believe them.


Sure they do, just as otherwise sane, rational adults believe in a guy with a long beard sitting on a celestial throne ruling the universe. The ones that don't believe leave, eventually.


I dunno. While Christian beliefs CAN in many ways be pretty incompatible with Science, at least in the modern world (well, since the Scopes trial at least) most members of those churches try to bolster the clash between their beliefs and Science with logic. It's deeply flawed logic usually, but its still a recognizable attempt to rationalize--to use SOME kind of logical thought process, even if its a bent or misinformed one. I mean "God made it look like life evolved" at least validates Science in the sense that its a tacit acceptance that the Scientific process should be taken seriously enough for its opponents to try and explain, with a constructed argument, why Science seems to be correct. To an extent, the existence of Theology Studies and Comparative Religion courses and degrees is exactly about this very thing--at attempt to rationalize their beliefs. And instead of being disturbing, I think that mere attempt makes them more identifiable to the rest of the world, more in step, because ultimately they've decided that they can't ignore Science and logic and all of that stuff.

With Scientology though, a lot of what they ask you to believe often seems to be tagged with a caveat that "if someone tells you differently they are lying to you" or "what do they know", or something else that's about circumventing a debate instead of having one. There's not that basis of trying to answer logic with logic that a Christian theologian at least seems willing to engage in (I'm not saying Christian theologian's minds can't be just as closed as any Scientologist--just that they've already compromised with the world of Science and logic by being willing to engage in that debate in the first place).

Did L. Ron EXPECT them to, or at that point did he simply assume they were SO vested, in both time put in, in pride sacrificed, in money sacrificed, etc. that they'd either ignore it or somehow be in some state where they'd believe it in the same sense that Catholics believe in Resurrection. Was it seen as a matter of faith to believe things that, even more than Catholics and their creationism, fly in the face of Scientific knowledge?


Some Scnists will deny with their last breath that they have any faith whatsoever, though they certainly do - just accepting their past life recall as real for example is an act of faith.

But because Hubbard said something to the effect that "what is true for you is what you have experienced and found to be true", Scnists tend to have a mental "bin" where they put ideas that are "unreal" to them - where while they don't actively disbelieve something, they suspend ~disbelief~ with the idea that perhaps when they get more auditing and reach OT levels it will make more sense to them. There is a whole class of "success stories" wherein the Scnist exclaims that they found that "Ron was right all along" about something they didn't totally believe before.


See, its that last aspect which is what scares me most about this mindset. The Scientific mindset is the exact opposite--the burden of proof goes the exact opposite way.
<<

Spork

Clear

Posts: 113

Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 2:29 am

Post Thu Apr 10, 2008 1:55 am

Re: L Ron's timeline for the Universe

WileyCoyote wrote:See, its that last aspect which is what scares me most about this mindset. The Scientific mindset is the exact opposite--the burden of proof goes the exact opposite way.


Scientologists definitely have a pre-scientific attitude towards their own teachings. I'd describe the attitude as scholastic and heavily doctrinaire. There's a general presumption that Hubbard must be right -- the tech "works", they say; if it appears otherwise it must be the fault of the practicing Scientologist who has misunderstood or misapplied it.

Of course this is a total reversal of the correct burden of proof. No speculative hypothesis (e.g. about the spirit, the mind, the underlying nature of the universe) ought to be presumed true until disproven. You can believe such things on faith, but that's not quite the same as supposing it must be right because Hubbard said so and look at all the other OTs who believe it etc etc.

The throwaway phrase "If it isn't true for you, it isn't true" might appear accommodating of critics. In fact it's an attempt to stop the conversation if it threatens to challenge received Scientological dogma. I've had this phrase uttered to me in the same exasperated tone someone might say, "Well if you can't see it, there's nothing I can do to help you."

Before I left Scientology I remember retorting to a few people sitting behind the E-meter that the issue of whatever seems true to so-and-so (and much more obscurely "what _is_ true for so-and-so" -- whatever that might mean!) had no relevance to the objections I was raising at that time. In starting to question many of Hubbard's theories I was starting to ask after what was true (put simply) -- not true-to-me or true-to-Ron. Did that ever get some blank uncomprehending stares. Years later I'd start to twig that these people's faculties of reasoning had been undermined to the point where they were no longer capable of drawing that sort of distinction. They had become perfect unthinking dogmatists.
<<

mommanouse

Clear

Posts: 53

Joined: Sat Mar 22, 2008 1:31 am

Post Thu Apr 10, 2008 12:52 pm

Hey, I don't know from Scientology, but I just nipped in to say that most Christians, *including* Catholics, do not believe in a literal one-week Creation. In fact, Catholics don't take many portions of the Bible literally.

I'm just sayin' is all.

Here's an example link.

Return to OT 3 / Confidential Materials

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group.
Designed by ST Software