That seems like a reasonable guess. Also, if anyone did question it, there’s always the implication that things will be explained at higher OT levels, or however it works. You’ll find out the truth for only $1MM more in auditing to get to OT level VIII! And BTW, if you tell anyone, we’ll sue the hell out of you!
I guess the ridiculous shit like four quadrillion years and evil psychologists is what gets me (what about stellar evolution/inflation/the whole of astrophysics/etc.?), even though I realize the creation myths of most modern religions aren’t more realistic, if taken literally. Scientology doesn’t have the benefit of age to lend credibility, of course.
*even though I realize the creation myths of most modern religions aren’t more realistic, *
Creation myths??? Surely you haven’t forgotten about that little known fellow by the name of Jesus Christ that wandered around healing the sick and raising the dead. And to show His love for His children He spoke of His own death from which He would arise. Then, much to the surprise of the Roman guards and many other citizens, He again walked the earth and talked with His followers and some doubters.
Say what you like, myth doesn’t have this strong of credentials. You must be aware of how well the Romans kept records. Myths my eye.
Phu Cat, Christianity has, for present purposes, two aspects that are challenged - its story about the origin of the world (its creation myth), and its story about the divinity of Jesus.
Whether the Romans kept good records or not, those are two different things.
I’m reminded of a Mitchell and Webb sketch about the “Laboratoire Garnier”, in which it is pointed out that the term “Nutrisse” sounds like “nutritious” but makes no claims whatsoever and thus can’t run afoul of false advertising laws.
One of the things that people writing about Scientology and Hubbard seem to have overlooked is that stories about people creating religions as a cover for a scientific society were surprisingly common among that bunch in the Golden Age of SF. John Campbell did it in his novel All, which was probably written in the 30s, before he became editor of Astounding (but not published until five years after his death, in 1976). It’s damned near unreadable, but is notable because Campbell made a gift of the plot to Robert Heinlein during one of his dry stretches, and Heinlein rewrote it as Fifth Column. It’s still in print, as The Day After Tomorrow. The centerpiece is a revolt organized using super-science under the guise of a religion.
Isaac Asimov, of course, had the citizens of the Foundation cloaking their science in the form of a religion, as well, in the stories that made up what became his original Foundation trilogy. the Foundation members use that religion to maintain political control.
Hubbard knew all these guys. Campbell frequently published his stuff. It’s inconceivable that Hubbard wouldn’t have been familiar with Sixth Column and the Foundation stories, and there’s a good chance he would’ve known about All. All these stories were written and, with the exception of All, printed long before Hubbard marketed either his Dianetics or his Scientology.
From which we can conclude that people writing about Hubbard don’t read much science fiction. I don’t even think they read much of Hubbard’s fiction – there are interesting parallels between things in his early fiction and his later “religion” that I’ve never seen pointed out.