From: kurtzman@pollux.usc.edu (Stephen Kurtzman)
Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology
Subject: Re: religion??
Message-ID: <34446@usc.edu>
Date: 21 Jul 91 05:25:05 GMT
References: <4621@beguine.UUCP> <46474@netnews.upenn.edu> <17112@life.ai.mit.edu>
Sender: news@usc.edu
Distribution: alt
Organization: University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA
Lines: 26
Nntp-Posting-Host: pollux.usc.edu

In article <17112@life.ai.mit.edu> whatis@wookumz.gnu.ai.mit.edu (....What Is?....) writes:

>I am a computer science major and an engineer, and the theory of the
>human mind laid out in Dianetics made sense from both an evolutionary
>and a systems designer's point of view.  That is, if I were designing
>a mind,d I would probably have designed it much like that, and if
>there was no designer, I can see how it would have evolved that way.

Plausibility does not equate to truth. The real question should be:
how have these theories fared under scientific investigation?

>Incidentally, I can personally attest that "blowing engrams" does in
>fact happen and you can leave an auditing session with an incredible
>sense of relief after blowing a few heavy engrams.  Dianetics describes
>such a phenomenon.

Neither does utility equate to truth. If you talk out some problems
with a therapist and you want to call it "auditing", or you call you
blame your problems on "engrams" then that is fine. If it helps you,
then that is also fine.  But don't mistake this stuff for Truth(tm).

-- 
Stephen Kurtzman          | "I would like to be a person who does not judge
kurtzman@pollux.usc.edu   |  Free to be me whatever that might be
                          |  I don't want to hold a position,
                          |  don't want to hold a grudge"    -- Terre Roche