[sidewndr46]

people believe in scientology as much as they believe in a literature club. If you listen to someone like Tom Cruise's statements he says "I have gotten to where I am today because of Scientology". He doesn't name off specific procedures, treatments, practices, etc. Partially because they are barred from naming them.

But if you're looking for a club you can advance it, I highly suspect Scientology is as quid pro quo as anything else out there. In other words, it's more of a social function than a religion.

[loeg]

You get or used to get true believers working in hellish conditions[1] on the boats, paid ~nothing. It might be a quid pro quo convenience for the Tom Cruises, but there are also some suckers.

[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sea_Org#Lawsuits

[saghm]

Having a few famous Tom Cruises claiming it helped them is almost certainly part of the strategy for hooking in the dubious.

[sidewndr46]

Cruise's contribution is influence due to his status and likely money given his income. Other's contribution is going to be much simpler, as you pointed out.

[loeg]

I'm saying, Cruise gets more out of it. Others get nothing. They're in it as believers, not a "literature club."

[psychoslave]

Religion is all about social function, at least from social science perceptives I guess.

[sidewndr46]

sure, but that is reductive. From a theological perspective it's entirely about salvation if you're Christian. Judaism, isn't so clear.

[psychoslave]

Reducing theological perspectives to judeo-christian views is also very narrow.

That said, focusing on some narrow topic is also totally legitimate, as human being we can’t encompass everything and the rest in our tight attention window.

[sysguest]

well even if it's "social function", do want to be labeled as retarded?

I just can't imagine tainting my name by joining those scientology retards...

[psychoslave]

Well, fear of being labeled retarded leverage on common mechanisms with fear of missing out which is one of the main engine for religious groups (or any social group really). Or said otherwise, people tend to want to be accepted in the group and will consider how to not be rejected.

Only when looking at "other" groups one generally starts to activate critical thoughts on the down sides of being part of that group.

A name in western culture is often not even chosen by the carrier, so any concern about what could be attached to the name is already part of this wanna show group value adhesion.

[modo_mario]

Religion is ultimately for a great part a matter of identity and they sure don't think of themselves as retards.

People think it's doctrine, scripture and proseltysing that sustains it and anyone looking into those first 2 at least would think they're idiots but mostly it's things like CREDs (credibility enhancing displays) and group ties that contribute to believers selfidentity which calcifies the belief.

Looking at their or a different religion for what it is would challenge their sense of self and as humans we really don't like that kind of cognitive dissonance.

[hydrogen7800]

This is an interesting way of putting it, but matches my thoughts. I think most such organizations (political parties, religions, businesses, large organizations of many types) consist of true believers at the bottom of the pyramid, and moving up the ranks are folks who recognize that they can advance by understanding the game and utilizing the group mind to maintain credibility among the true believers, while displaying ambition to elites to advance the groups goals. At some point in the hierarchy are folks whose primary or only function is to advance the groups goals using middle ranks to maintain legitimacy with the believers.

[opo]

This is sometimes referred to as Pournelle's Iron Law of Bureaucracy:

>Pournelle's Iron Law of Bureaucracy states that in any bureaucratic organization there will be two kinds of people":

>First, there will be those who are devoted to the goals of the organization. Examples are dedicated classroom teachers in an educational bureaucracy, many of the engineers and launch technicians and scientists at NASA, even some agricultural scientists and advisors in the former Soviet Union collective farming administration.

>Secondly, there will be those dedicated to the organization itself. Examples are many of the administrators in the education system, many professors of education, many teachers union officials, much of the NASA headquarters staff, etc.

>The Iron Law states that in every case the second group will gain and keep control of the organization. It will write the rules, and control promotions within the organization.

https://www.jerrypournelle.com/reports/jerryp/iron.html