From: rbnstein@bucsf.bu.edu (Michael Rubinstein)
Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology
Subject: My opinion on Scientology (a serious post)
Message-ID: <RBNSTEIN.91Jul19165411@bucsf.bu.edu>
Date: 19 Jul 91 20:54:11 GMT
Sender: news@bu.edu
Reply-To: rbnstein@bucsf.bu.edu (Michael Rubinstein)
Distribution: alt
Organization: Boston University Department of Computer Science
Lines: 62

While I have not read "Dianetics" or attended any Scientology functions
myself, I have had an extensive involvement for half my life with
something alternately referred to as "est", "Werner Erhard's Curriculum
For Life" and "The Transformational Institute" (I think). While the
content of est and of Scientology are vastly different, there is, I
believe, a similarity of approach. I have also read the TIME article and
numerous essays by Martin Gardener (much more recent than 1950).

This similarity I see is that the INTENSITY of the approach, and the
structure in which one is indoctrinated, is much more directly
responsible for the curative or uplifting effects of the work than the
content itself. est seemed to show a greater recognition of this; they
would often deemphasize the content and focus on the process. Werner
Erhard once said he thought it should be possible to achieve the effects
of the Training if he just sat on the stage and read the contents of the
phone book to the audience for two days straight. Fortunately he never
went that far, but you get the idea.

Another similarity is in theme. Both Dianetics and est focus
particularly on the goal of freeing oneself from being dominated by
negative experiences in one's past. But believe it or not,
"transformational" organizations like these do not have an excluisive
claim on that theme. Most of modern popular psychology is based on the
same idea. In particular, John Bradshaw has helped many people, through
his books and seminars, overcome the hidden pain of childhood that turns
people into "adult children" who perpetuate this legacy in
"dysfunctional families."

What sets Scientology apart is that it adds to these valid theraputic
ideals a whole host of dogma and gobbledegook and "technology" designed
to attract and comfort those who don't like the fact that REAL science
doesn't provide ALL the answers. I am disturbed by the paradoxical way
in which it embraces the ideal of "science" and yet simultaneously
despises any application of the scientific method, or even that most
basic of scientific philosophies: Occam's Razor. I am also sickened by
the near-deification of L. Ron Hubbard (particularly typified in a huge
color insert in a recent USA Today). Do you see John Bradshaw or Leo
Buscalia (sp?) glorify themselves this way?

I think that Dianetics works for a lot of people for the same reason
that faith-healing works for so many: the placebo effect. The mind has
an incredible power to heal -- both itself and the rest of the body.
There is no empirical reason to invent metaphysical entities to explain
this, but doing so seems to help, since _strong belief_ seems to focus
the brain on the task.

I have no problem with Scientology as a religion. People are free to
believe what they like. I am concerned, however, about the ill will it
is spreading towards legitimate science. Certainly psychiatry could use
some reforms, but the solution is NOT the total abandonement of the
scientific method. With the enormous political and economic power the
Church of Scientology has amassed, it presents a serious threat to the
very important need for a worldwide increase in social awareness and
scientific literacy.

--
Michael Rubinstein
rbnstein@bucsf.bu.edu
DISCLAIMER: The opinions above are solely mine, and I refuse to mark
them with IMHO's. If you can't tell fact from opinion, you should be
running for office instead of reading news.