“Going Clear:” Scientology’s coverup efforts against the HBO documentary

[TM99]

159. No, and here is why.

That list was to give you and others an idea of how much different scholars/psychologists overlap or disagree in how they define a cult.

But, and this is why I don't like encyclopedia's, the context is missing.

Those in the field of psychology whether cultural/social, clinical, or organizations for example use different diagnostic tools. In the field we are taught to look at pervasive patterns that entail a certain percentage of positive hits on these lists as opposed to diagnosing and labeling someone or something as being a condition, pathology, or in this case a cult by only a few positive hits.

Someone may for example demonstrate several traits of a narcissist in a given time and circumstance. Is that person automatically diagnosed and labeled an Axis II Narcissistic Personality Disorder? No. They have to meet other criteria - 5 or more traits versus 3, a pervasive pattern of behavior over a longer period of time, etc.

Now let's look at some of your examples. Exclusivity? Yes, all Abrahamic religions say they are right and others are wrong. So do atheists. So do Democrats, Republicans, Feminists, Keynesian economists as well as Austrian economists. Are you familiar with EST? This is a human trait. Powerful leaders? The only people who attempt to compare the pope to Jim Jones are those who are anti-religion and have emotional investiture in being against the Catholic church. They may have legitimate reasons for their hurt & rage such as being gay, but that does not make their opinions on the topic of cults correct.

So as you can see, most every system created by us humans can have some traits that might be labeled cult-like but that does not mean the criterion of actually labelling them a cult always exists.

Scientology is an interesting case study. It meets requirements for being a new religious movement. But its actions can border very strongly on those of a cult. And like anyone in the fields of psychology there is disagreement, based on such lists as I provided, whether it is or isn't a cult. I have had some experience with them, their current members, and some former members. They are a religion, and I personally see them as a cult. But I acknowledge that it is an opinion and may not be yet factual.

The social sciences are like all sciences, we do work towards consensus when describing things, labelling things, diagnosing things. Second & third assessments are important to insure accuracy. A young woman recently was in my care who had been diagnosed and labelled a Borderline Personality Disorder by two different psychiatrists. I noticed things that just didn't fit with that diagnosis. She was under my care longer and I saw her for longer periods of time. Long story short, working with another psychiatrist, we correctly diagnosed her as paranoid schizophrenic, got her on the right drug protocol for her, and now she is once again quite high functioning. She was not a Borderline.

So we can agree given your last paragraph that the modern usage of cults is often inexact and clumsy. Modern social sciences are all like that at times. Hard sciences do not suffer from the problem because carbon and pi are far more simple than human beings. I would prefer to use the term as I learned it in my graduate studies of religion like a Cult of Isis. But if it is going to be used, no it can not be incorrectly used to call all religions that simply because certain people, aspects, sects, or denominations meet a few but not all the social psychology criteria set forth by numerous researchers who don't even all agree on what a modern definition of a cult should yet be.