The Foster Report

The Theories of Scientology

"What is matter? Never mind.
What is mind? No matter."

Punch, vol. XXIX (1855).

(a) Content

82. At different stages in their history either Dianetics (the first aspect of Mr. Hubbard's teaching to gain public attention), or Scientology (its later development), has been more prominent than the other. In its essentials, however, the theory of the human personality which underlines Dianetics and Scientology is the same, though Scientology elaborates it further, and adopts different techniques to seek to bring its adherents to the optimum state of human functioning, described in its own works as 'clear', or (at a later stage peculiar to Scientology) 'operating thetan'.

83. The fundamental thesis on which both Dianetics and Scientology are based - the discovery Scientologists regard as "the major advance of centuries of philosophy" (68) - is that the mind consists of three parts. The first, the "analytical" mind, is likened to a computer: "The analytical mind is not just a good computer, it is a perfect computer. It never makes a mistake" (69). Every perception is "filed" in a standard memory bank and remains there indefinitely, whether or not the individual intelligence has access to it. The banks contain perceptions for every moment of an individual's existence, asleep or awake, and even before birth. In Scientology theory, memory reaches back before the moment of conception to previous lives or existences, even in non-human forms or on planets elsewhere in the universe. The analytical mind is programmed to use this material to find the 'optimum survival conduct pattern': it can only consider problems from the point of view of their implications for survival.

84. The second, the "reactive" mind is a 'rogue' bank containing perceptions experienced at moments of pain, painful emotion or unconsciousness when the analytical mind 'cuts out' anterior analytical attenuation. These perceptions form a complete record of experience at these moments, with pain and distress built in: such a record is called an "engram".

85. There is also a "somatic" mind, 'the genetic entity plus the brain system of the body'. This is often at the mercy of the reactive mind and is responsible for most psychosomatic diseases. It does not seem to play much part in current Scientology theory.

86. When the analytical mind consciously experiences some perception which is linked. by some perhaps incidental common factor, with an engram,

(68) The Character of Scientology, p. 14.
(69) Dianetics: MSMH (1969), p. 44


"some analytical power turns off, the organ or organs which are the analyser are fused out of circuit in some degree" (70). The reactive mind steps into the breach. Its rational powers are nil: its logic is that of stimulus / response and all stimuli associated with the original engram are identified with one another and equally capable of prompting the response. As an example -
"here's how an engram can be established: Mary, aged 2, knocked out by dog, dog bites. Content of engram: Anaten, age 2 (physical structure); smell of environment and dog; sight of dog jaws gaping and white teeth; organic sensation of pain in back of head (hit pavement), pain in posterior; dog bite in cheek; tactile of dog fur, concrete (elbows on pavement), hot dog breath; emotion; physical pain plus endocrine response, audio of dog growl and passing car . . . Then at age 10 similar circumstances, no great anaten, the engram is restimulated. After this she has headaches when dogs bark or when cars pass that sound like that car, but only respond to the engram when she is tired or harassed otherwise" (71).

The original unconscious experience may well be misinterpreted: engrams arising from pre-natal experience are particularly liable to be misinterpreted by the reactive mind and to be "permanently fused into any and all body circuits" (72). As a result, the analytical mind loses control in certain sensitive areas, and so engrams which are fused in in this way may affect the entire development of an individual's personality. For example: -

"The only reason anybody 'wanted' to 'return to the womb' was because someone hit mother and yelled 'come back here!' So the person does" (73).

87. The technique of Dianetics seeks, one by one, to reduce the store of engrams in the reactive mind by bringing the individual to recall, and in fact re-live, the original moment of pain, emotion or unconsciousness which had given rise to the engram until he can do this unmoved. Most individuals have hundreds of engrams, and by the time they are adults many of them will have been restimulated ("keyed-in") thousands of times, and each time their hold over the individual's behaviour becomes stronger or, in Mr. Hubbard's technology, a new 'lock' is formed. Psychoanalysis tries to break these locks without being able to deal with the engram itself and is therefore a far less economic technique.

Summarising Dianetics in Mr. Hubbard's own words: -

"In Dianetics it was found that the mind was subdivided into two parts. The first was the analytical mind which did the actual thinking and computing for the individual but which, in the present civilised state of Man, was almost submerged. The second was the reactive mind. The reactive mind was considered to be a stimulus response mechanism which derived and acted upon the data of experience without thought. The content of the reactive mind was found to be the accumulated bad experiences of the organism not only in its current lifetime but in the other lifetimes which it apparently had led in order to accomplish the task of evolution and

(70) Dianetics: MSMH (1968).
(71) Dianetics: ES, pp. 75-76.
(72) Dianetics: MSMH (1968), p. 60.
(73) ibid, p.321


to arrive at its present state of structural beingness. The reactive mind was the blue print but it was also the stimulus response dictator of action. The formula which described the reactive mind was that everything is identified with everything. Dianetics accomplished a great deal in the elevation of beingness by reducing the most violent incident in the reactive mind by a process known as the erasure of engrams. An engram was a period of momentary or long pain and unconsciousness such as would occur in an injury, operation or illness. Such incidents could be reduced simply by "returning" the individual to the moment of the accident and then going over the accident step by step, perceptic by perceptic, as though it was happening again. After this had been done several times the accident was found to have no more command value upon he individual. The reduction of the command value of the reactive mind was found to be necessary to a proper resolution of aberration." (74)
88. Scientology departs from the mechanistic psychology of Dianetics by introducing a new causative agent. In some places this is spoken of still in mechanistic terms as the "awareness of awareness unit", a form of creative consciousness. More usually, however, and especially in recent works where Scientology's religious aspect is put uppermost, it is called the "spirit" or "thetan". The personality and beingness which actually is the individual and is aware of being aware, and is ordinarily and normally the "person" and who the individual thinks he is, is the "thetan" (75). The thetan is immortal, is reincarnated again and again. Great store is set by its separability from the body - "probably the greatest discovery of Scientology and its most forceful contribution to the knowledge of mankind has been the isolation, description and handling of the human spirit. Accomplished in July 1951 in Phoenix Arizona he (LRH) established along scientific lines that the thing which is the person, the personality is separable from the body and the mind at will and without causing bodily death or mental derangement." (76) The awareness which is the thetan "can continue, is clarified and is not interrupted by a detachment from the body", all of which is accomplished by standard processing. Among the goals of Scientology processing are to increase the beingness of the thetan and thus increase the creative potential of the individual personality, and its analytical mind until it can command and handle its reactive mind with ease, and exercise, unfettered, all the powers of which it may, in its ideal state, be capable.

89. There is a wide range of different Scientology techniques designed to develop the higher or creative functions of the mind and, through auditing by trained Scientologists (and, at a yet later stage, self-auditing techniques), bring the individual to the ideal condition of operating Thetan where his powers over his own mind and over material things are virtually without restriction. The different routes to this goal are listed in paragraph 147 below.

90. Whereas in Dianetics it is held that the individual's behaviour may be the result of experiences or remarks overheard early in his life, or even

(74) Scientology 8-8008, p. 10.
(75) ibid, p. 9.
(76) The Fundamentals of Thought, p. 58.


before birth, and he is thus barely responsible for his defects, in Scientology the separate existence of the spirit or thetan means that the individual is treated as responsible for his own actions. The preclear is held responsible for his own mistakes, for his problems, and for his progress in Scientology training. Failure to make progress indicates that the individual is either under the influence of some external factor hostile to Scientology, or is himself guilty in his attitude towards it. HCO Bulletin of November 23rd l962 argues that slow students and those who do not gain from processing are always "Rockslammers". Rockslammers, typically, show suppressed hostility or reservations about Scientology in one or other of its aspects: the condition is located, 'analysed', and resolved by a technique called routine 2-l2 which it is worth quoting in full: -

l. Make or use a list of Scientology Items. This includes Scientology, Scientology Organizations, An Auditor, clearing, auditing, Scientologists, a session, an E-Meter, A practitioner, the auditor's name, Ron, other Scientology persons, parts of Scientology, past auditors, etc. (See HCO Bulletin November 23, Issue II and subsequent HCO Bulletins for "Scientology Lists".) The list need not be endless as it will be easy to catch a trace of the GPM if the person is a Rockslammer. The list is composed by the auditor, not the pc.

2. Assess the list, calling each item once (or until auditor is sure of the read). Eliminate down to the last 3 or 4 items.

3. Tiger Drill the Items still in. Select the one with the biggest dirty read or the last one to go out or the one that went out hardest. No matter how faintly or sporadically the Item found now reads, if the last one in stayed in at all, use it for Step 4 below. If, however, the Item found in this step produced a good Rock Slam (Reliable Item) omit Steps 4, 5 and 6 below and do the tests in Step 7 and continue with the remaining steps. If two R.I's are found in this first step, oppose each one as in Steps 7 onward.

4. Using the Item selected list a list from the line question "Who or what does ... (the Item found in 3) represent to you." It can happen that steps 4, 5 and 6 are unnecessary. If the Item in Step 3 consistently Rock Slammed a third of a dial to a dial wide and kept on doing it when the auditor said "Consider committing overts against ..." (the Item found) use it instead of doing the Step 4 List. If this Rock Slam is on and then vanishes even with "Suppress" clean, do Step 4, using the Item that so slammed but vanished. In doing listing beware of stopping listing while the needle is still dirty or stopping just because the pc says the last item was it. (The real RS Item you want usually comes after the pc says the last one he put on was IT. (If the pc stops or refuses to go on, get in your Mid-Ruds and continue to list until there is no dirty needle or RS when pc thinks of Items before saying them to the auditor.) Mark every Item that RSed or DRed on Listing. While listing keep the meter at about Sens 8 and keep an eye on it to note RSs and DRs.

5. Nul the list, saying each Item on it once (or more if the auditor didn't catch the read.) Be sure the Mid Ruds are in. If a dirty needle turns on while nulling, add to the list, get the Mid Ruds in and test the question for


reactions. If needle reacts to question the list is incomplete or the pc is protesting the question. Leave any Item in that reacts. Eliminate all but the last 3 or 4 Items.

6. Tiger Drill the last Items in. Select one Item with the biggest needle reaction or Rock Slam. (Two Items can appear on any list. If they both Rock Slam equality and neither goes out, you have found two Items, in which case you must do the following steps to each.)

7. Find out if Item turned on Pain or Sensation when being Tiger Drilled, or say it to the pc and find out. If pain, say to pc "Consider ... (Item) committing overts." If sensation say "Consider committing overts against ..." This should turn on a Rock Slam if it isn't on already whenever the Item was said or Tiger Drilled. This is called a Reliable Item if it Rock Slammed. The Rock Slam is very touchy sometimes and has to be Tiger Drilled back on. If an Item slammed while being nulled it is probably it. Those that RS while being listed do not have to RS flicker at all while being nulled, and usually don't.

8. If the Reliable Item found turned on Pain, list "Who or what would ... (the Reliable Item) oppose." If it turned on Sensation, list "Who or What would oppose ... (the Reliable Item)." Complete the list as in any listing. Don't stop just because the pc nattered or wept. Get the Mid Ruds in and get a list which gives no dirty needle (not dirty reads, there's a difference) while nulling. In case of a Coterm, test to see if there's more Pn than Sen or Sen than Pn and classify accordingly. It you can't decide, listing both as opposed and oppose and nul as one list.

9. Nul the list saying each Item once. Down to 3 or 4 Items.

10. Tiger Drill the last 3 or 4 that were left in. Select the last one left in.

11. Test and turn on the Rock Slam on the last one in (as in Step 7 above). Be sure to properly determine which is Term and which is Oppterm.

Get pc to examine and align the package for correctness (and any Bonus Package) and put on the pc's Line Plot.

12. Go over the list used in Step 1 to see if there are any more Dirty reads or traces of reads on the Scientology List. If so, repeat the above Eleven Steps on the pc. If not make a list for the step 1A etc., using questions given further on in this HCO Bulletin. Note: Only the Scientology list is tested again. Other lists for Step 1 are used only once.


This is the only action known in auditing which will undercut the bank of a slow moving or non-gain pc. Every such pc is a Rockslammer."

It is not clear whether routine 2-12 is still in use: it bears some resemblance to the technique of security checking which, I am told by the Scientologists, was given up in the policy changes of October 1968.

91. Other concepts of importance in Scientology are Affinity, Communication and Reality (ARC) which together form a tone scale running from -8.0 to 40.0 on which the level of functioning of an individual as human


organism, and as a spirit or thetan, can be assessed. Affinity is a range or degree of human emotion, ranging for the human from rejection of human relationship (death, apathy) to acceptance (enthusiasm). "Communication is an interchange of energy from one beingness to another" (77) and includes all types of perception. Reality in essence is agreement or disagreement. The material (MEST = matter, energy, space and time) universe is real at a low level of reality: at a higher level the Scientologist can "break this flow of agreement and establish his own flows and thus create his own universe" (78). Creative processing may bring about the rehabilitation of one's own universe.

92. Since the MEST universe is the result of agreement between observers, an observer who disagrees can influence the behaviour of matter, energy, space and time, without physical intention.

(b) Classification

93. This, then is an outline of the theorise of Scientology, as they appear from the Scientologists' own literature. There has been much dispute about the correct classification of these theories, especially during and since the Anderson Enquiry. For example:-
"Scientology is a religious philosophy of the spirit" (79),

"Scientology is not, and does not claim to be, a religion" (80),

"Scientology is the science of knowing sciences" (81),

"Scientology cannot be studied as an abstract subject. It is essential to get involved in it." (82),

"Scientology is agnostic faith in that it knows it knows" (83),

"[Through Dianetics] all data needful to the solution of mental action and Man's endeavour can be measured, sensed and experienced as scientific truths independent of mysticism or metaphysics. The various axioms are not assumptions or theories - the case of past ideas about the mind - but are laws which can be subjected to the most rigorous laboratory and clinical tests" (84)

"Scientology is an exact science of the human mind and spirit" (85).

"Scientology is applied philosophy" (85).

"Scientology is my religion" - a statement which recurs in many of the favourable testimonials which Scientologists have sent to me.

94. Scientology has thus claimed, at one time or another to be
(i) a philosophy; (ii) a science; (iii) a religion.


(77) Scientology 8-8008, p. 21.
(78) ibid, p. 23.
(79) Kangaroo Court, p. 26.
(80) Anderson Report, p. 2.
(81) Scientology 8-8008, p. 11.
(82) Kangaroo Court, p. 26.
(83) Anderson Report, p. 16.
(84) Dianetics: MSMH (1968), p. x.
(85) Anderson Report, p. 16.
(86) Passim.


For myself, I would not have thought that it mattered a great deal one way or the other whether any of these claims are well-founded. In a country such as ours which subscribes to the principles of freedom of thought, belief, worship and expression, everyone is free to believe in any theory, however one classifies it. However, the dispute about the proper classification of scientological theories has been so acrimonious and confusing that I feel it necessary to deal with it on that ground alone.

95. Besides, a belief founded on scientific evidence is regarded by many people today as superior to one which is not, and is therefore more likely to be accepted; again, people who undergo training in Scientology are thereby involved in substantial expense, which they may be readier to incur if they believe that what they are learning is based on scientific evidence. Accordingly it may be useful to see whether Scientology can properly be called a science. In addition, religions still occupy a privileged place in our society: for example, their civil embodiments are exempt from many taxes which the rest of us have to pay.

96. I do not aim to determine conclusively where Scientology is a science, philosophy or a religion (or more than one of these), but rather to propose what I conceive to be useful ways of examining this kind of question, and to summarise the evidence on them as it appears to me.

97. The theoretical aspects of science, philosophy and religion all have one thing in common: each of them is - at least in part - a system of thought which on analysis, can be reduced to statements which have some kind of meaning within the system. Following what is today the generally accepted usage, I propose to distinguish them as follows: -

(a) Scientific statements are those which are capable of verification or disproof by observation or experiment in the material universe as we perceive it at any given time.

(b) Philosophical statements lie within the field of speculative thought about fundamental questions which may not be verifiable or rebuttable by observation or experiment in the material universe, but which do not seek recourse to divine authority in support of their claims to validity.

(c) Religious statements rest on the authority of divine revelation or dogma, and claim to be eternal truths beyond refutation.

(i) Is Scientology a philosophy ?

98. The passages which I have quoted earlier appear to me to provide ample evidence that Scientology is a philosophy in this sense. Indeed, much of the content of books like "Scientology 8-8008" is composed of discussion about the nature of the universe, the nature of man, and the relationship between the two, matter which have been central to philosophy since time immemorial. Whether Scientology is "good" philosophy or "bad" philosophy is another question, with which this Enquiry is not concerned. Many philosophers require that any systematic philosophy should be both internally consistent and not in conflict with the world of our experience, but others who regard all experience as subjective anyway may not insist on the latter requirement.


99. If it be held that Scientology is a philosophy this does not conclude the question of whether it is also a science or a religion. Science is one way of seeking to discover the nature of the world, and for many centuries it was known as "natural philosophy". Again, every religion contains some statements of a philosophical character. In essence, science restricts itself to statements of the kind which are verifiable by observation and experiment, while religion finds an additional source of truth in divine revelation. It remains. therefore, to see what evidence there is in support of the proposition that the theories of Scientology fall into either of these classes.

(ii) Is Scientology a science?

100. For any intellectual system to lay a valid claim to being a science (otherwise than by distorting the meaning which that word bears today in universal usage) it must, as it seems to me, adopt what is called the "scientific method" in its investigations and conclusions. There is today no significant dispute about the scope and extent of that method: it is accepted throughout the world as the distinguishing feature of any scientific - as opposed to a speculative - system of thought. Without claiming to be exhaustive, the scientific method appears to me to include at least the following requirements: -

(a) All statements claiming to be scientific must be consistent with observation and, where these are possible, with the results of controlled experiments;

(b) The methods and results of all experiments must be reported in sufficient detail to enable them to be repeated by others, so that they can be confirmed or refuted;

(c) The quality of scientific statements can never be more than those of a hypothesis or a theory, open to disproof by later observation or experiment. A scientific theory can never be affirmatively proved: the most that can ever be said for it is that it is consistent with all observations made so far, and thus has not been disproved.

101. I have been unable to discover any evidence which would support Scientology's claim to be a science if these criteria are applied. Some of Scientology's theories are, of their nature, unverifiable either by observation or experiment, If any experiments are conducted, they are not reported in any form which would enable others to repeat them. Nor do Scientology's theories appear to me to be put forward as hypotheses subject to disproof: on the contrary, they appear to be put forward in the form of unqualified assertions of truth. (87)

102. Another point arises in this connexion. In some branches of science - and above all in the biological ones--the range of variation between the


(87) They are not, on the other hand, for that reason immune to disproof by empirical methods, for example, the proposition that words spoken to an unconscious pre-clear (e.g. before he is born or while he is under an anaesthetic) wil1 be recorded in the reactive mind as an engram is central to the whole theory of Dianetics. But the only independent attempt so far reported to verify it experimentally proved a failure: when a passage from a physics text was read to a subject anaesthetised with pentothal, no trace of it could be found through Dianetic auditing. even though "processing" in an attempt to recover it went on for nearly six months. See Fox, J. et al, "Experimental Investigation of Hubbard's Engram Hypothesis", Psychological Abstracts, no. 1475, 1960.


individuals who form the subject-matter of the study is such that all statements must be statistical in kind. Now statistics can be notoriously misleading and scientists therefore recognise that in these branches it is especially important to be both cautious and precise in the reporting of experimental methods and results, and in the hypotheses which are postulated from them. I find no evidence of such caution or precision in Scientology. Were it a science in accordance with the criteria which I have mentioned, I would expect to see reports specifying clearly what procedures have been carried out on what kinds of individual (classified by age, sex, occupation and relevant history), what control groups have been selected and whether these were matched or unmatched, what precautions had been taken to exclude extraneous factors, how the results had been observed or measured, what correlations had been established and what were their levels of statistical significance. I have found no evidence of any of this in any of the Scientologists' published literature.

103 There is one other aspect of the scientific method which deserves mention, and here I quote Sir Peter Medawar, one of our most distinguished scientists: -

"Hypotheses must be tested, that is criticised. These tests take the form of finding out whether or not the deductive consequences of the hypothesis or systems of hypotheses are statements that correspond to reality. As the very least we expect of a hypothesis is that it should account for the phenomena already before us, its "extra-mural" indications, its predictions about what is not yet known to be the case, are of special and perhaps crucial importance. If the predictions are false, the hypothesis is wrong or in need of modification; i.e. they are true we gain confidence in it, and can, so to speak, enter it for a higher examination; but if it is of such a kind that it cannot be falsified even in principle, then the hypothesis belongs to some realm of discourse other than science. Certainty can be aspired to, but a "rightness" that lies beyond the possibility of future criticism cannot be achieved by any scientific theory". (88)
104. Here again, I have found no evidence to suggest that, when Scientology or its Founder propound a new hypothesis, it is subjected to this kind of testing or criticism. Quite the contrary: -
"When somebody enrols, consider he or she has joined up for the duration of the universe - never permit an "open minded" approach. If they're going to quit let them quit fast. If they enrolled, they're aboard, and if they're aboard, they're here on the same terms as the rest of us--win or die in the attempt. Never let them be half-minded about being Scientologists The finest organizations in history have been tough, dedicated organizations. Not one namby-pamby bunch of panty-waist dilettantes have ever made anything. It's a tough universe. The social veneer makes it seem mild. But only the tigers survive - and even they have a


(88) "Hypothesis and Imagination", pp. 164-165.


hard time. We'll survive because we are tough and are dedicated. When we do instruct somebody properly he becomes more and more tiger. When we instruct half-mindedly and are afraid to offend, scared to enforce, we don't make students into good Scientologists and that lets everybody down. When Mrs. Pattycake comes to us to be taught, turn that wandering doubt in her eyes into a fixed, dedicated glare and she'll win and we'll all win. Humour her and we all die a little. The proper instruction attitude is, "you're here so you're a Scientologist. Now we're going to make you into an expert auditor no matter what happens. We'd rather have you dead than incapable." (89)
105. In these circumstances, it is perhaps not surprising that the Anderson Board, having heard the evidence of a number of distinguished scientists, found that Scientology was not a science. It is clear that, at the beginning of that Enquiry, Scientology had claimed that it was, and the first few weeks of the hearings were devoted very largely to that issue. But by the time "Kangaroo Court" was written in 1967, the Scientology leadership seems tacitly to have abandoned this position. Again, I quote: -
"Scientology is a religious philosophy of the spirit. It aims at developing the awareness of the being where he can become increasingly more certain of things. It is a subjective philosophy and it orients the physical universe from the viewpoint of the individual as a being (i.e., as immortal spirit). In the early days. this was only a working hypothesis, but it has long since proven its basic assumptions. Let anyone who cares to disprove this study of Scientology in a systematic manner." (90)

"New processes are developed in Scientology on the basis of greater workability. It discovers facts which are of a subjective nature in that they are within the awareness of the person. Material facts in the physical universe are not used to invalidate the being. When subjective awareness conflicts with observable facts in the physical universe the person, in an auditing session, is never told that he is wrong. He is allowed to increase his OWN awareness until he can comprehend greater truth, at which time he recognises things for what they are, because he knows what they are. They are no longer things that everybody else says are so, and accepts under social duress, whilst protesting all the time. This is the road to insanity, criminality, unethical behaviour, and war." (9l)

Nor do "The Character of Scientology" or the "Report to Members of Parliament" - both first published in 1968 - contain any suggestion that Scientology claims to be a science: on the contrary, the burden of the argument in those documents is that it is a "body of religious thought".

106. I therefore asked the Scientologists whether they still claimed that Dianetics or Scientology was a science, and to give me a bibliography of the


(89) HCO PL of 7th February 1965, re-issued 15th June 1970
(90) p. 26.
(91) p 27.


published experimental or other evidence on which they based such a claim. Their answer, so far as relevant, was this:-
"Dianetics is a science. Our claims are not based on acceptability but on workability. Since both Dianetics, which deals with the mind, and Scientology which deals with the spirit, are broadly subjective, we feel that workability is a most valid criterion in these fields.


"Dianetics was and is the modern science of mental health. It is a science in the sense defined in the second, third and fourth definitions in Webster's New 20th Century Dictionary; that is:-

2. Systematized knowledge derived from observation, study and experimentation carried on in order to determine the nature or principles of what is being studied.

3. A branch of knowledge or study, especially one concerned with establishing and systematizing facts, principles and methods, as by experiments and hypothesis.

4.(a) The systematized knowledge of nature and the physical world;
(b) any branch of this.


Dianetics is, broadly speaking, an explanation of the nature of the human mind, what it consists of, how it functions, and of human behaviour. The science of Dianetics is proved by the technology by which it is applied.


Scientology is a religion. It has also been described as science, religious philosophy, philosophy and psychology.


Scientology is a science in the sense of the 1st definition of the word given in Webster's New 20th Century Dictionary.

1. Originally, state or fact of knowing knowledge, often as opposed to intuition, belief etc.


Scientology may properly be described as psychology in its original, precise meaning - study of the soul.


It would be fair to say that we use the word Science to cover the broad field of human knowledge, and concerning facts or data held together by principles or rules tested by the scientific method, involving, in other words, inductive and deductive logic.

Inductive logic, of course, requires repeated observations from which to draw a general conclusion. Deductive logic lays down principles or rules from which conclusions can be drawn."

No bibliography was supplied.


107. The scientific claims continue to be made in current Scientology literature. The following are some quotations: -
"Cancer has been eradicated by auditing out conception and mitosis." (92)

"The creation of dianetics is a milestone for man comparable to his discovery of fire and superior to his inventions of the wheel and arch.

"Dianetics (Gr., dianoua - thought) is the science of mind. Far simpler than physics or chemistry, it compares with them in the exactness of its axioms and is on a considerably higher echelon of usefulness. The hidden source of psychosomatic ills and human aberration has been discovered and skills have been developed for their invariable cure.

Dianetics is actually a family of sciences embracing the various humanities and translating them into usefully precise definitions.


Dianetics is an exact science and its application is of the order of, but simpler than, engineering. Its axioms should not be confused with theories since they demonstrably exist as natural laws hitherto undiscovered" (93).

"The problem of psycho-somatic illness is entirely embraced by dianetics, and by dianetic technique such illness has been eradicated entirely in every case.

About seventy per cent of the physician's current roster of diseases fall into the category of psycho-somatic illness. How many more can be so classified after dianetics has been in practice for a few years is difficult to predict, but it is certain that more illnesses are psycho-somatic than have been so classified to date. That all illnesses are psycho-somatic is, of course, absurd, for there exist, after all, life forms called germs which have survival as their goals.

The work of Louis Pasteur formulated the germ theory of disease, with dianetics is gained the non-germ theory of disease. These two, with bio-chemistry, complement each other to form the whole field of pathology so far as can be determined at this time, providing of course that the virus is included under the germ theory" (94).

"There are no tenets in Scientology which cannot be demonstrated with entirely scientific procedures" (95).

"Scientology applies modern scientific methodology to resolve the problems posed by philosophy, and has come up with the answers" (96)

(iii) Is Scientology a religion?

108. This question is distinctly more difficult than the other two. Almost any system of thought, however speculative, can be called a philosophy without inviting too much disagreement: again, the boundaries of the concept of a


(92) Scientology: A History of Man, p. 20.
(93) Dianetics: MSMH (1968), p. ix.
(94) ibid, p. 91.
(95) Freedom Scientology No. 8,1969.
(96) Dianetics: ES, p. 1.


"science" are so clearly drawn today that it is not too difficult to decide, in a given case, whether a system of thought falls within them. The concept of religion, on the other hand, is more diffuse. The great traditional religions were all founded at times in the remote past when the spiritual and intellectual aspects of the human experience were far less compartmentalised than they are today, and therefore present an amalgam of what we would now classify as theology, metaphysics, cosmology, ethics, law, ritual, history and myth. Some of these have since become disciplines in their own right and can be pursued independently of each other, and independently of any specifically "religious" beliefs, while others can not.

109. It appears to me that there is a strong case for saying that the main thing which distinguishes a religion from other systems of thought or belief is that the former includes belief in one or more divine beings, while the latter do not. It is from the divine godhead that religious statements derive their quality of authoritative revelation - independently of the use of logic, observation or experiment - and the mandatory quality of their moral code. In the face of modern scientific discoveries, it would be impossible for an intelligent man to believe seriously that the world and all its creatures were created in seven days unless he also believed that the Book of Genesis derived its truth from divine authority: again, it is perfectly possible to lead a socially useful and good life without believing in any God, but only a believer in the divinity of Christ would devote every Sunday to His worship.

110. The definitions of "Religion" in the standard dictionaries on the whole support this view. For example, the Shorter Oxford Dictionary gives: -

"3. Action or conduct indicating a belief in, reverence for, and desire to please, a divine ruling power; the exercise or practice of rites or observances implying this. Now rare, except as implied in 5.

4. A particular system of faith and worship.

5. Recognition on the part of man of some higher unseen power as having control of his destiny, and as being entitled to obedience, reverence and worship; the general mental and moral attitude resulting from this belief, with reference to its effect upon the individual or the community; personal or general acceptance of this feeling as a standard of spiritual and practical life."


The opening sentence of the relevant article in Chambers' Encyclopedia says:-

"Religion is the word generally used to describe man's relation to divine or superhuman powers and the various organised systems of belief and worship in which these relations have been expressed".
In "Kangaroo Court" the Scientologists quote and adopt the definition of "Religion" appearing in Webster's New 20th Century Dictionary, as follows:-
"1. Belief in divine or superhuman power or powers to be obeyed and worshipped as the creator and ruler of the universe.


2. Expression of this belief in conduct and ritual.

3. (a) Any specific system of belief, worship, conduct, etc. often involving a code of ethics and a philosophy; as a Christian religion; the Buddhist religion;

(b) Loosely, any system of beliefs, practices, ethical values, etc. resembling, suggestive of, or likeness to such a system, as humanism is a religion.

4. A state of mind or way of life expressing love for and trust in God, and one's will of God, especially within a monastic order or community, to experience religion; to have personal conscious evidence of the favour of God - the forgiveness of sin and a chance of health."

I am content, as they are, to adopt this definition for my purposes. It will be seen that, in anything other than a loose sense, it includes both belief in a divinity, and worship of that divinity, as necessary ingredients.

111. I turn to summarise the evidence on this question, again largely in the form of quotations from Scientology documents:-

"That is not to say that Dianetics is a religion. It is not. It is a science, but it has a religious use - to free the spirit from bodily considerations. Such problems of the spirit are not the function of the medical doctor, nor the concern of the medical practice laws. A proper adherence to the distinction between promoting Dianetics the science taught on the Dianetics Course, and Dianetics the pastoral counselling technology practised by Minister of religion, will resolve any problems posed by medical practice laws." (97)

Do not engage in any rite, ceremony, practice, exercise, meditation, diet, food therapy or any similar occult, mystical, religious, naturopathic, homeopathic, chiropractic treatment or any other healing or mental therapy while on course without the express permission of the D of T / Ethics Officer." (98)

"Except for the purpose of deceit, Scientology has not been practised in Victoria on the basis that it even remotely resembles a religion." (99)

"Scientology is a religion. It has been a religion since its inception as an enquiry into the human condition." (100)

"Combining an engineering-like precision and the depth of all religious philosophy, Scientology is a religion of outstanding vitality." (101)


Scientology is a religion in the oldest sense of the word, a study of wisdom. Scientology is a study of man as a spirit, in his relationship to life and the physical universe.


(97) HCO PL of 3rd June 1969, Issue II.
(98) HCO PL of 7th May 1969, Issue II.
(99) Anderson Report, p. 149.
(100) Kangaroo Court, p. 7
(101) The Character of Scientology, p. 17


It is non-denominational. By that is meant that Scientology is open to people of all religious beliefs and in no way tries to persuade a person from his religion. but assists him to better understand that he is a spiritual being..." (102)


Mr. David Gaiman, spokesman for the much criticised scientology movement in this country, is a member of an old Portsmouth Orthodox family. But he sees nothing paradoxical in this fact.

'I am a practising Jew and we keep a kosher home', he told me. 'I am not a renegade because my belief in scientology in no way conflicts with my religious beliefs'. Scientology, he claims, is not a religion. 'We study through various techniques in order to improve the ability to communicate'. " (103)


In a Scientology Church Service we do not use prayers, attitudes of piety, or threats of damnation. We use the facts, the truths, the understandings that have been discovered in the science of Scientology. We do not read from the Bible (or the Koran or the Torah or the Vedic Hymns, for that matter) and say to the people assembled there - "Now this is something you have got to believe". There would be nothing wrong with quoting from the Bible or any other book as an illustration of man's continued search for truth to live by or as a contrast to some point that was being brought out in the sermon, but there is certainly no necessity to quote from any other source in a Scientology Church Service.

A Scientology Church Service should be conducted with dignity and order, but it need not he solemn and "reverent". The Minister should dress in a way that does not upset the accepted stable data of what a minister looks like.

Music may, if desired, be played before and after the service. Suitable music is pleasant to listen to and not strongly associated with the wrath of the gods on helpless dependence on the whim of an unknown being. The music could come from tapes, records, piano or organ. Or no music at all may be used at the discretion of the minister.

The Church Service shall consist of the following:

The Minister confronts the people and says hello to them.

A Sermon - This is ALWAYS on some phase of Scientology and on how it can be of use to those present. The sermon should be KEPT SIMPLE. ONE stable datum should be given, amplified, repeated and shown how it applies to living." (104)


(102) Scientology and the Bible. p. 2.
(103) Jewish Chronicle, September 13th 1968.
(104) Taken from Ceremonies, pp. 7/8.


"Examples of stable data for sermons:
l. What a person is - mind, body, spirit (see sample outline).

2. What is a mind? - reactive and analytical minds.

3. The Eight Dynamics. Any one of the 8 Dynamics could be used for the subject of one sermon.

4. Gradient Scales.

5. One of the Axioms could be a sermon topic.

6. The Codes of Scientology.

If you've got a good regular attendance - or to build one - take something such as the 8 Dynamics or the Codes and build a series of sermons on them. A taped lecture of L. Ron Hubbard can be included as part of the service. A Q. and A. period can be held after the sermon or after the tape, during which the Minister can clear up any mis-duplication anyone has on what he has heard and can help the people increase their understanding of Scientology. The Minister may make announcements of special activities or of other services offered by the Organization - or the local group of auditors. The Minister thanks the people for coming and invites them to return. He may ask them to try out something they have learned here as they go about living during the week." (104)

"INFORMAL CHRISTENING Transcription of an informal christening performed by L. Ron Hubbard

at the


To be used as a guide

O.K. The parents of these children will bring them front and centre. (Speaking to the child): This is Mr .... and this is Mrs .... I'm introducing to the audience right now. And .... and .... have decided to be godfather and godmother, so we're all set.

Here we go. (To the child): How are you? All right. Now your name is .... You got that? Good. There you are. Did that upset you? Now, do you realize that you're a member of the HASI? Pretty good, huh?

All right. Now, I want to introduce you to your father. This is Mr .... (To the parent): Come over here. (To the child): And here's your mother.

And now, in case you get into trouble and want to borrow some quarters here's Mr .... See him? He's your godfather. Now, take a look at him. That's right.

And here's ...., in case you want some real good auditing; she's your godmother. Got it?

Now you are suitably christened. Don't worry about it, it could be worse. O.K. Thank you very much. They'll treat you all right." (105)


(104) Taken from Ceremonies, pp. 7/8.
(105) Ceremonies, pp. 47/8.



We of the Church believe:

That all men of whatever race, colour or creed were created with equal rights.

That all men have inalienable rights to their own religious practices and their performance.

That all men have inalienable rights to their own lives.

That all men have inalienable rights to their sanity.

That all men have inalienable rights to their own defence.

That all men have inalienable rights to conceive, choose, assist and support their own organizations, churches and governments.

That all men have inalienable rights to think freely, to talk freely, to write freely their own opinions and to counter or utter or write upon the opinions of others.

That all men have inalienable rights to the creation of their own kind.

That the souls of men have the right of men.

That the study of the mind and the healing of mentally caused ills should not be alienated from religion or condoned in non-religious fields.

And that no agency less than God has the power to suspend or set aside these rights, overtly or covertly.

And we of the Church believe:

That man is basically good

That he is seeking to survive

That his survival depends upon himself and upon his fellows and his attainment of brotherhood with the universe.

And we of the Church believe that the laws of God forbid Man:

To destroy his own kind

To destroy the sanity of another

To destroy or enslave another's soul

To destroy or reduce the survival of one's companions or one's group.

And we of the Church believe

That the spirit can be sacred and that the spirit alone may save or heal the body." (106)


1. To keep Scientologists, the public, and the press accurately informed concerning Scientology, the world of mental health, and society.

2. To use the best I know of Scientology to the best of my ability to help my family, friends, groups, and the world.


(106) Ceremonies, pp. 73/5


3. To refuse to accept for processing and to refuse to accept money from any preclear or group I feel I cannot honestly help.

4. To decry and do all l can to abolish any and all abuses against life and mankind.

5. To expose and help abolish any and all physically damaging practices in the field of mental health.

6. To help clean up and keep clean the field of mental health.

7. To bring about an atmosphere of safety and security in the field of mental health by eradicating its abuses and brutality.

8. To support true humanitarian endeavours in the fields of human rights.

9. To embrace the policy of equal justice for all.

10. To work for freedom of speech in the world.

11. To actively decry the suppression of knowledge, wisdom, philosophy, or data which would help mankind.

12. To support the freedom of religion.

13. To help Scientology orgs and groups ally themselves with public groups.

14. To teach Scientology at a level it can be understood and used by the recipients.

15. To stress the freedom to use Scientology as a philosophy in all its applications and variations in the humanities.

16. To insist upon standard and unvaried Scientology as an applied activity in ethics, processing, and administration in Scientology organisations.

17. To take my share of responsibility for the impact of Scientology upon the world.

18. To increase the numbers and strength of Scientology over the world.

19. To set an example of the effectiveness and wisdom of Scientology.

20. To make this world a saner, better place." (107)

"None of the points in this code seem to make any claim, or even give any imp1ication, that Scientology activities are religious in purpose. However, the commission concluded that the question of whether Scientology is a religion or whether a Scientology organisation is a church was irrelevant to the purposes of its inquiry. Within our New Zealand constitutional framework a religion as such or a church has no specific liberty or immunity to indulge in practices or activities which are otherwise improper or contrary to law." (108)

112. Although more than one "Church of Scientology" was incorporated in the United States in the l950s, it is clear that no serious attempt was made to present Scientology as a religion until after the publication of the Anderson Report. In that context, the HCO Policy Letter of 12th March 1966, which


(107) Taken from HCO PL of 5th February, 1969.
(108) New Zealand Enquiry Report, p. 18.


appears at paragraph 68 above, may also be instructive, especially its penultimate paragraph:-
"Of course anything is a religion that treats the human spirit. And also parliaments don't attack religions. But that isn't our real reason - it's been a long hard task to make a good corporate structure in the UK and Commonwealth so the assets could be transferred."
Since that time, there has been abundant evidence of a shift in the presentation of Scientology by its leadership towards a religious image. For example, a booklet entitled "The Character of Scientology", first published in 1968, depicts a choirboy on its front cover and describes Scientology as an applied "religious" philosophy, processing as a "religious" technology, auditors as "Scientology Ministers", auditing as "Confessionals", and so on. Again, "Scientology and the Bible" was first published in 1967.

113. Professor Lee appears to have come to the same conclusion:-

"Evaluation of the right of Scientology to claim exemption as a "religion" may be made on the same criteria as those applied to Christian Science, with this distinction: Christian Science leaders have never cynically announced that it is better to be a religion than a healing practice. Christian Science took a religious form from its beginning; Scientology took on a religious form after it suffered severe setbacks as a "science of mental health". (109)
114 Some people may also find it novel to discover a religion which recruits new members by the methods of salesmanship and a "free personality test" described in paragraphs 129 to 134 below (none of which mention that the subject is being recruited into a religion), requires its adherents to sign a contract containing exemption clauses of the type quoted in paragraph 135 below, and charges the members professional fees in the range of 4 to 5 per hour for indoctrination in its mysteries. Again, Mr. Hubbard's views on promotion and affluence, quoted in paragraph 185 below, may not accord with everyone's ideas of religious zeal.

115. Whether Scientology is a religion as a matter of law will of course depend on the particular branch of the law under which the question falls to be determined. I know of only three occasions when the matter has come before the Courts, and the following are brief summaries of the relevant events.

116. Some time after the publication of the Anderson Report, the Scientology leadership applied to the Registrar-General in England for registration of the chapel at Saint Hill Manor as a "place of meeting for religious worship" under the Places of Worship Registration Act 1855. After some correspondence, the Registrar-General refused, and the Scientology leadership (by that time in the form of The Church of Scientology of California) moved the Queen's Bench Divisional Court for an order of mandamus to compel him to register, supporting the motion with affidavit evidence of the religious nature of Scientology and its services. The motion


(109) Lee, p. 88.


failed, and the following extracts from the judgment of Ashworth, J. will show why:-
" ... for worship to take place there must be both a worshipper and an object of his worship.

" ... while Scientology may be wholly admirable, I find it difficult to reach the conclusion that it is a religion.

"Dealing . .. with the service .. . described I can find nothing whatever to indicate that it is a service of religious worship.

" ... There is no profession in the Creed [of Scientology] of any belief in God or indeed any deity. Nor is there anything in the Creed of what may be called a worshipful character, for example stating an object of the worship which is said to take place".

The Scientologists appealed against this decision, but their appeal was dismissed on 7th July 1970. The following passages from the judgments of the Court of Appeal are relevant:-
"Religious worship means reverence or veneration of God or of a Supreme Being. I do not find any such reverence or veneration in the Creed of this Church ... When I look through the ceremonies and affidavits, I am left with the feeling that there is nothing in it of reverence for God or a deity, but simply instruction in a philosophy. There may be belief in a spirit of man but this is no belief in a spirit of God".

(per Lord Denning, M.R.)

"Worship I take to be something which must have some at least of the following characteristics: submission to the object worshipped, veneration of that object, praise, thanksgiving, prayer or intercession ... I do not say that you would need to find every element in every act which could properly be described as worship, but when you find an act which contains none of those elements, in my judgment, it cannot answer to the description of an act of worship ".

(per Buckley, L.J.)

Leave to appeal to the House of Lords was refused.

117. On January 4th l963, the United States Food and Drug Administration (a federal Government Agency), under a warrant issued by a Federal Judge, raided the premises of the Founding Church of Scientology of Washington, DC., and seized a number of E-meters (110) and literature. Subsequently, the Administration applied to the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia for condemnation and destruction of the seized material, on the grounds that the E-meters were "devices" with accompanying "false and misleading labelling " and lacking "adequate directions for use contrary to the Food Drug and Cosmetics Act 1964. The Scientologists opted for trial by jury. They led evidence to the effect that they were a religion, and that auditing and the E-meters were all part of their religious practices. The Administration called no evidence to rebut this, but the jury nonetheless found for the Government.


(110) See Chapter 5, post.


The Scientologists appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia, claming inter alia that the proceedings interfered with their right to the free exercise of their religion under the First Amendment to the American Constitution. The appeal, decided on 5th February 1969, succeeded by a majority of two to one, and a new trial was allowed. Having commented that the Scientologists' representations concerning the auditing process appeared "to be general come-ons, designed to bring in the curious or the gullible", the majority summarised their reasoning as follows:-
"(1) On the basis of the record before us, the Founding Church of Scientology has made out a prima facie case that it is a bona fide religion and, since no rebuttal has been offered, it must be regarded as a religion for purposes of this case.

(2) On the record before us, a prima facie case exists that auditing is a practice of Scientology, and that accounts of auditing integrated into the general theory of Scientology are religious doctrines. Since no rebuttal has been offered, we must take the point as proven.


On the other hand, the following should be noted:

(1) We do not hold that the Founding Church is for all legal purposes a religion. Any prima facie case made out for religious status is subject to contradiction by a showing that the beliefs asserted to be religious are not held in good faith by those asserting them, and that forms of religious organisation were erected for sole purpose of cloaking a secular enterprise with the legal protections of religion".

On 18th April 1969, the majority delivered clarifying observations on the Administration's petition, which included the following passages:-
"We did not find insufficient competent evidence to support a verdict, nor did we find that all literature submitted to the jury as "false labelling" was religious doctrine. Rather we found that some of that literature was at least prima facie religious doctrine, and that the jury, as it was instructed, could have found against the E-meter by finding false statements in "labelling" which was at the same time religious doctrine . . . And, of course, where a jury's general verdict may have rested upon grounds improper for First Amendment reasons, a reviewing court will not pause to speculate whether the jury's verdict was actually reached on other, and permissible, grounds.


Finally, it should be noted that the Government up to this time . . . has not challenged the bona fides of appellants' claim of religion. In the event of any new trial . . . it would be open to the Government to make this challenge. If the challenge is made successfully, the First Amendment question would, of course, disappear from this case."

The new trial has not yet been held.


113. The third lawsuit also took place in the United States, this time before the Court of Claims. Here, the Founding Church of Scientology of Washington, D.C. claimed to be exempt from Federal income tax on the grounds that it was "a corporation organised and operated exclusively for religious purposes, no part of the earnings of which inures to any individual".

The U.S. Department of Justice contested the claim, on the grounds that the taxpayer's "most extensive and significant activities are directed towards the earnings of substantial fees from the "auditing" of persons to alleviate a wide variety of physical and emotional problems", and that "the founder of the organisation remains in complete control and receives substantial remuneration and perquisites both from the taxpayer and a network of affiliates".

The Founding Church's claim failed. because the Court (in a judgment delivered on 16th July 1969) held

"that plaintiff has failed to prove that no part of the corporation's net earnings inured to the benefit of private individuals, and plaintiff is not entitled to recover. The court finds it unnecessary to decide whether plaintiff is a religious or educational organization as alleged, since, regardless of its character, plaintiff has not met the statutory conditions for exemption from income taxation. In any event, the Government has not raised this issue. Because of the manner in which the second question framed by the parties is resolved, we need not and do not determine whether plaintiff's operations were exclusively for religious or educational purposes."
That holding was based on the following findings of fact:-
"According to the trial commissioner's findings, L. Ron Hubbard received over $108,000 from plaintiff and related Scientology sources during the 4-year period June 1955 through June 1959. This figure represents $77,460 in fees, commissions, royalties, and compensation for services, plus $13,538 in payment for expenses incurred in connection with his services, as well as a total of $17,586 in reimbursement for expenditures made in plaintiff's behalf, in repayment of loans made to plaintiff and the New York organization, and as a loan from plaintiff to Hubbard. As the commissioner found, and we agree, the precise nature of the loans and reimbursed expenditures does not appear in the record. Nor do we find any explanation for most of the expenses paid. The portion of the $17,460 actually paid by plaintiff amounted to approximately $6,000 in 1955 56, more than $11,500 in 1956-57, approximately $18,000 in 1957-58, and over $22,000 in 1958-59.

Hubbard also had the use of an automobile at plaintiff's expense. During plaintiff's taxable years ending in 1958 and 1959, the organization provided and maintained a personal residence for Hubbard and his family. Moreover, in addition to all the foregoing, Hubbard received a percentage (usually 10 per cent) of the gross income of affiliated Scientology organizations."


"Mary Sue Hubbard, the wife of plaintiff's founder, had income from September 1955 through December 1958 by virtue of renting property owned by her to plaintiff. Her total receipts from this venture were $10,685. Payments amounting to $l,450, attributable to the debts of her son, were made in 1956 and 1957. A completely unexplained figure of $250 and loans of $800 were received in 1958-59.

L. Ron Hubbard. Jr., was the recipient of loans in 1955-56 and 1958-59 totalling $1,226. He was reimbursed for expenditures of approximately $200 in behalf of plaintiff in 1957-58 and 1958-59.

In fiscal years 1957-58 and 1958-59, Kay Hubbard, the daughter, received payments, generally designated as salary or wages, totalling $3,242. The record is devoid of any evidence showing services performed by Miss Hubbard for plaintiff. This amount includes loans of $550 made in 1953.

What emerges from these facts is the inference that the Hubbard family was entitled to make ready personal use of the corporate earnings."

A subsequent attempt by the Scientologists to have this decision reviewed by the U.S. Supreme Court failed on 8th December 1969.


Previous chapter Next chapter

Back to start

Last updated 21 February 1997

Page maintained by Martin Poulter (