French Court Says Scientology Is A Scam, Not A Religion

[Audley Strange]

Actually, this is not necessarily the case. It is possible to know two representations without being aware of their equivalency. Best case scenario, only one is true, knowably true, and knowably unique. Second best is probably that none are true (including secular belief systems) but all are knowably false. Next is the case where multiple systems are equivalently true, knowably equivalent, but not yet known to be true or equivalent. Eventually we get to the worst case in which it's unknowable whether any of them are equivalent, unknowable whether any of them are true, and unknowable whether any of these properties are ultimately knowable.

And when Rumsfeld explained precisely that to journalists he was treated with derision, probably a defence mechanism for having their narrow minds blown.

[Seth]

The cultish practices of Scientology, in terms of their treatment of ex-members, differentiates them from run-of-the-mill religions, and seems to border on the criminal in some cases. My view, though, is that if those members signed a contract for "treatment", both parties should uphold their bargain.

In the absence of a legal agreement, I don't see that the government should have an interest in the matter; I'm suspicious of any government action which may infringe on the freedom of conscience.

Well, yes, if they treat ex-members criminally, they should be prosecuted. Then again, most ex-members signed some sort of confidentiality agreement, as I understand it, stating that they would never reveal the secrets of Scientology, so they can be held civilly responsible for violating that agreement.

[Seth]

Actually, this is not necessarily the case. It is possible to know two representations without being aware of their equivalency. Best case scenario, only one is true, knowably true, and knowably unique. Second best is probably that none are true (including secular belief systems) but all are knowably false. Next is the case where multiple systems are equivalently true, knowably equivalent, but not yet known to be true or equivalent. Eventually we get to the worst case in which it's unknowable whether any of them are equivalent, unknowable whether any of them are true, and unknowable whether any of these properties are ultimately knowable.

This falsely presumes that God is limited in his nature or manifestations to what humans perceive or believe.

It is just as likely that God manifests to different people differently according to their need, God being axiomatically omnipotent. Therefore, God can indeed be all things to all people simultaneously, thereby making all such claims true.

[Xamonas Chegwé]

Actually, this is not necessarily the case. It is possible to know two representations without being aware of their equivalency. Best case scenario, only one is true, knowably true, and knowably unique. Second best is probably that none are true (including secular belief systems) but all are knowably false. Next is the case where multiple systems are equivalently true, knowably equivalent, but not yet known to be true or equivalent. Eventually we get to the worst case in which it's unknowable whether any of them are equivalent, unknowable whether any of them are true, and unknowable whether any of these properties are ultimately knowable.

This falsely presumes that God is limited in his nature or manifestations to what humans perceive or believe.

It is just as likely that God manifests to different people differently according to their need, God being axiomatically omnipotent. Therefore, God can indeed be all things to all people simultaneously, thereby making all such claims true.

Surely, god's "axiomatic omnipotence" falls in the category of "what humans perceive or believe" though? You are making an assumption about the nature of god - one that is by no means universal among believers throughout human history.

[MrJonno]

It is just as likely that God manifests to different people differently according to their need, God being axiomatically omnipotent. Therefore, God can indeed be all things to all people simultaneously, thereby making all such claims true.

And its just as likely that Seth doesnt believe in a god in any shape or form (bar 'freedom') but to admit to such would cost him his job

[Seth]

Actually, this is not necessarily the case. It is possible to know two representations without being aware of their equivalency. Best case scenario, only one is true, knowably true, and knowably unique. Second best is probably that none are true (including secular belief systems) but all are knowably false. Next is the case where multiple systems are equivalently true, knowably equivalent, but not yet known to be true or equivalent. Eventually we get to the worst case in which it's unknowable whether any of them are equivalent, unknowable whether any of them are true, and unknowable whether any of these properties are ultimately knowable.

This falsely presumes that God is limited in his nature or manifestations to what humans perceive or believe.

It is just as likely that God manifests to different people differently according to their need, God being axiomatically omnipotent. Therefore, God can indeed be all things to all people simultaneously, thereby making all such claims true.

Surely, god's "axiomatic omnipotence" falls in the category of "what humans perceive or believe" though? You are making an assumption about the nature of god - one that is by no means universal among believers throughout human history.

Again, God, if God exists, is not constrained or defined by human perception or belief. That's part of the Atheist's Fallacy I've stated.

[Seth]

It is just as likely that God manifests to different people differently according to their need, God being axiomatically omnipotent. Therefore, God can indeed be all things to all people simultaneously, thereby making all such claims true.

And its just as likely that Seth doesnt believe in a god in any shape or form (bar 'freedom') but to admit to such would cost him his job

Admit to it? I've stated it clearly and precisely on many occasions, but since you've forgotten, I'll state it again: I don't believe in God, or gods. I'm a Tolerist™, not a theist.

[Thumpalumpacus]

The cultish practices of Scientology, in terms of their treatment of ex-members, differentiates them from run-of-the-mill religions, and seems to border on the criminal in some cases. My view, though, is that if those members signed a contract for "treatment", both parties should uphold their bargain.

In the absence of a legal agreement, I don't see that the government should have an interest in the matter; I'm suspicious of any government action which may infringe on the freedom of conscience.

Well, yes, if they treat ex-members criminally, they should be prosecuted. Then again, most ex-members signed some sort of confidentiality agreement, as I understand it, stating that they would never reveal the secrets of Scientology, so they can be held civilly responsible for violating that agreement.

Indeed. But really, if they're stupid enough to sign off on that, I wash my hands of them. When you lay down with dogs, you're bound to get fleas.

However, a confidentiality agreement cannot be used to skirt the law here in America, and I imagine in France as well the civil and criminal code is regnant. Furthermore, the appropriate response to any violation of a confidentiality agreement is the retaining of counsel and filing of suit ... not harassment, stalking, etc. If the CoS cannot see its way to behaving in comportment with societal expectations, then they deserve censure and punishment, depending on the severity of the violation.

[MrJonno]

It is just as likely that God manifests to different people differently according to their need, God being axiomatically omnipotent. Therefore, God can indeed be all things to all people simultaneously, thereby making all such claims true.

And its just as likely that Seth doesnt believe in a god in any shape or form (bar 'freedom') but to admit to such would cost him his job

Admit to it? I've stated it clearly and precisely on many occasions, but since you've forgotten, I'll state it again: I don't believe in God, or gods. I'm a Tolerist™, not a theist.

Then I apologise put that on your blog and I will be even more impressed

[Xamonas Chegwé]

Actually, this is not necessarily the case. It is possible to know two representations without being aware of their equivalency. Best case scenario, only one is true, knowably true, and knowably unique. Second best is probably that none are true (including secular belief systems) but all are knowably false. Next is the case where multiple systems are equivalently true, knowably equivalent, but not yet known to be true or equivalent. Eventually we get to the worst case in which it's unknowable whether any of them are equivalent, unknowable whether any of them are true, and unknowable whether any of these properties are ultimately knowable.

This falsely presumes that God is limited in his nature or manifestations to what humans perceive or believe.

It is just as likely that God manifests to different people differently according to their need, God being axiomatically omnipotent. Therefore, God can indeed be all things to all people simultaneously, thereby making all such claims true.

Surely, god's "axiomatic omnipotence" falls in the category of "what humans perceive or believe" though? You are making an assumption about the nature of god - one that is by no means universal among believers throughout human history.

Again, God, if God exists, is not constrained or defined by human perception or belief. That's part of the Atheist's Fallacy I've stated.

But surely, the fact that a god "is not constrained or defined by human perception or belief" is itself a human belief?

You could just as well be falsely presuming that gods are NOT limited in his nature or manifestations to what humans perceive or believe.

The concept of a single, omnipotent, universal deity is quite a recent theological event, after all.

[Robert_S]

Mayhaps Seth means the class of improbable entities which would qualify for being called "God" by a human should include beings which are not constrained by what we can understand?

[Xamonas Chegwé]

Mayhaps Seth means the class of improbable entities which would qualify for being called "God" by a human should include beings which are not constrained by what we can understand?

Well that makes sense, however, I was under the impression that he was applying the condition unilaterally to a single entity which he was proposing as the only such entity - which is a bit more wooish, I am sure you'll agree.

[apophenia]

Actually, this is not necessarily the case. It is possible to know two representations without being aware of their equivalency. Best case scenario, only one is true, knowably true, and knowably unique. Second best is probably that none are true (including secular belief systems) but all are knowably false. Next is the case where multiple systems are equivalently true, knowably equivalent, but not yet known to be true or equivalent. Eventually we get to the worst case in which it's unknowable whether any of them are equivalent, unknowable whether any of them are true, and unknowable whether any of these properties are ultimately knowable.

This falsely presumes that God is limited in his nature or manifestations to what humans perceive or believe.

It is just as likely that God manifests to different people differently according to their need, God being axiomatically omnipotent. Therefore, God can indeed be all things to all people simultaneously, thereby making all such claims true.

No, it does not falsely presume anything about God. My point is explicitly about limitations and problems in human knowledge about such things. In particular, your suggestion of the case where God is all things to all men is the case wherein multiple representations are equivalent, they point to the same thing, yet humans are unaware that they point to the same thing (currently). Whether they are knowably equivalent or not is a further question. That was the exact point I was making. Anyway, thanks for agreeing with me, in your own, thinking you have a counter-point to make when you actually don't kind of way.

The cultish practices of Scientology, in terms of their treatment of ex-members, differentiates them from run-of-the-mill religions, and seems to border on the criminal in some cases. My view, though, is that if those members signed a contract for "treatment", both parties should uphold their bargain.

In the absence of a legal agreement, I don't see that the government should have an interest in the matter; I'm suspicious of any government action which may infringe on the freedom of conscience.

Well, yes, if they treat ex-members criminally, they should be prosecuted. Then again, most ex-members signed some sort of confidentiality agreement, as I understand it, stating that they would never reveal the secrets of Scientology, so they can be held civilly responsible for violating that agreement.

Devil is in the details. IANAL, but the Sea.org contracts which stipulate a term of a billion years would probably have such clauses struck down as unconscionable and therefore unenforcable in a U.S. court. Maybe not. I've never seen an actual contract, and I suspect nobody has considered it material to bring the matter before a court, but I don't know.