Cultic Studies Journal, Vol. 6, No. 2, 1989, Page 43
defending Krishna beliefs, Ken was testing them against reality. He seemed to be giving the
deprogrammers ammunition. In this sense, Ken was very involved in the deprogramming
process. The alternative, to me, was silence, which deprogrammers often referred to as
“stonewalling” (when a deprogrammer is left to rattle off the cult's beliefs, along with the
refutations, in near-soliloquy). Clearly, this seemed less desirable than a cultist who was
talking, defending, arguing --and involved.
Science. As the talk continued, Sandy steered Ken into another discussion of what
constitutes science. He reiterated that the independent replication of discoveries was a
central validating process. As Ken again cited ISKCON doctrine, Sandy laughed, and
confronted Ken a bit. “Oh sure, it‟s like I have the truth, and if you don‟t believe me, just
ask me.” His point: Ken cannot use Vedic scripture to prove the validity of Vedic scripture.
The conversation turned to how reality is constructed, and how independently replicates
observations serve as the foundation of reality. “That's what science is,” Sandy repeated. To
illustrate how theories are constructed and modified Sandy discussed the validation of the
theory of gravity. We drop objects and observe them fall. Ken seemed interested now:
“What about helium balloons?” Sandy used Ken's question, along with airplanes, to illustrate
how theories are broadened and modified, how they withstand the test of time and how
theories eventually become facts, or “laws.” I found this discussion to be intellectual and
unemotional. Brian later explained this strategy, however, when he talked to me about
Ken's processing style, and how he engaged in the logical fallacy of making everyone “prove
the negative.” To illustrate, if John claims to Jack that the moon is made of green cheese,
normal logic would place the burden on John to prove his unorthodox (and in this example
spurious) belief. When forced to prove the negative, however, Jack's burden is to prove that
the moon is not made of green cheese. Moreover, if Jack proved his point yesterday, he
must now prove it for today. If our definition of reality were dependent in this manner on
proving every deviant belief to be false, independent consensual reality would be constantly
challenged to defend itself, and would in effect cease to exist.
There were times when it seemed as though Ken was uncomfortable with my silent
observation. On occasion, he seemed to want my active involvement he would directly ask
me questions. Whereas Ken's solicitations of my involvement seemed to bother Curt, Sandy
did not seem at all concerned. In this instance, Ken asked me “as a psychologist doing
research about the scientific method, and I answered with a reworded definition that was
essentially identical to the one offered by Sandy. As the discussion broadened to include the
issue of how science interfaces with religion, Ken disclosed his (ISKCON's) belief that all
scientists are atheists. Therefore, science and the scientific method are not to be trusted.
Brian's entrance. At 10:35 a.m., Brian entered the room and I left to get washed up from
my restless night before. With Brian's entrance, the conversation moved back onto Krishna
practices, corruption, and contradiction. Ken seemed to pick up where he left off last night.
“I can see where there's been a lot of cheating, a lot of bogus stuff ...which has led me to
doubt. His voice remained low, with an edge of what sounded, on tape, like shame and
remorse. Sandy seemed to pick up on Ken's feeling: “You see, doubt creates guilt if you're
not willing to consider that there may be some validity to the doubt. Rather than stay with
Ken's feeling, however, Sandy steered the conversation toward the topic of chanting, and
how chanting has not led to spiritual perfection and cannot possibly lead to spiritual
perfection. It is the wrong tool for an impossible task: “No matter how hard I try, I will not
be able to change a tire with a screwdriver.” Chanting is central to Krishna philosophy and
practice, and this frontal attack seemed to spark renewed defensiveness from Ken he
defended ISKCON vehemently, even while acknowledging “some” problems and
discrepancies between what is said, preached, and done. Again, the amount of integration
on Ken's part still seemed limited. Sandy would not let Ken's defense go unanswered. The
reality of the situation is that there was a promise that if you (obeyed the gurus and
defending Krishna beliefs, Ken was testing them against reality. He seemed to be giving the
deprogrammers ammunition. In this sense, Ken was very involved in the deprogramming
process. The alternative, to me, was silence, which deprogrammers often referred to as
“stonewalling” (when a deprogrammer is left to rattle off the cult's beliefs, along with the
refutations, in near-soliloquy). Clearly, this seemed less desirable than a cultist who was
talking, defending, arguing --and involved.
Science. As the talk continued, Sandy steered Ken into another discussion of what
constitutes science. He reiterated that the independent replication of discoveries was a
central validating process. As Ken again cited ISKCON doctrine, Sandy laughed, and
confronted Ken a bit. “Oh sure, it‟s like I have the truth, and if you don‟t believe me, just
ask me.” His point: Ken cannot use Vedic scripture to prove the validity of Vedic scripture.
The conversation turned to how reality is constructed, and how independently replicates
observations serve as the foundation of reality. “That's what science is,” Sandy repeated. To
illustrate how theories are constructed and modified Sandy discussed the validation of the
theory of gravity. We drop objects and observe them fall. Ken seemed interested now:
“What about helium balloons?” Sandy used Ken's question, along with airplanes, to illustrate
how theories are broadened and modified, how they withstand the test of time and how
theories eventually become facts, or “laws.” I found this discussion to be intellectual and
unemotional. Brian later explained this strategy, however, when he talked to me about
Ken's processing style, and how he engaged in the logical fallacy of making everyone “prove
the negative.” To illustrate, if John claims to Jack that the moon is made of green cheese,
normal logic would place the burden on John to prove his unorthodox (and in this example
spurious) belief. When forced to prove the negative, however, Jack's burden is to prove that
the moon is not made of green cheese. Moreover, if Jack proved his point yesterday, he
must now prove it for today. If our definition of reality were dependent in this manner on
proving every deviant belief to be false, independent consensual reality would be constantly
challenged to defend itself, and would in effect cease to exist.
There were times when it seemed as though Ken was uncomfortable with my silent
observation. On occasion, he seemed to want my active involvement he would directly ask
me questions. Whereas Ken's solicitations of my involvement seemed to bother Curt, Sandy
did not seem at all concerned. In this instance, Ken asked me “as a psychologist doing
research about the scientific method, and I answered with a reworded definition that was
essentially identical to the one offered by Sandy. As the discussion broadened to include the
issue of how science interfaces with religion, Ken disclosed his (ISKCON's) belief that all
scientists are atheists. Therefore, science and the scientific method are not to be trusted.
Brian's entrance. At 10:35 a.m., Brian entered the room and I left to get washed up from
my restless night before. With Brian's entrance, the conversation moved back onto Krishna
practices, corruption, and contradiction. Ken seemed to pick up where he left off last night.
“I can see where there's been a lot of cheating, a lot of bogus stuff ...which has led me to
doubt. His voice remained low, with an edge of what sounded, on tape, like shame and
remorse. Sandy seemed to pick up on Ken's feeling: “You see, doubt creates guilt if you're
not willing to consider that there may be some validity to the doubt. Rather than stay with
Ken's feeling, however, Sandy steered the conversation toward the topic of chanting, and
how chanting has not led to spiritual perfection and cannot possibly lead to spiritual
perfection. It is the wrong tool for an impossible task: “No matter how hard I try, I will not
be able to change a tire with a screwdriver.” Chanting is central to Krishna philosophy and
practice, and this frontal attack seemed to spark renewed defensiveness from Ken he
defended ISKCON vehemently, even while acknowledging “some” problems and
discrepancies between what is said, preached, and done. Again, the amount of integration
on Ken's part still seemed limited. Sandy would not let Ken's defense go unanswered. The
reality of the situation is that there was a promise that if you (obeyed the gurus and
