From: mauler@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu
Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology
Subject: Re: Re: Re: Psi and Scientology
Message-ID: <1991Jul24.195944.32269@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu>
Date: 24 Jul 91 19:59:44 CDT
References: <1991Jul22.203524.5493@cadence.com> <asbestos.22Jul91.123@midway.uchicago.edu> <1991Jul24.131318.32248@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu> <288DF164.2064@ics.uci.edu>
Organization: University of Kansas Academic Computing Services
Lines: 84

In article <288DF164.2064@ics.uci.edu>, george@brooks.ics.uci.edu (George Herson) writes: > In article <1991Jul24.131318.32248@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu> mauler@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu writes: >>In article <asbestos.22Jul91.123@midway.uchicago.edu>, asbestos@midway.uchicago.edu writes: >>> In article <1991Jul22.203524.5493@cadence.com> deej@cds8613.Cadence.COM (Jim Howard) writes: >>> >>>>In article <29880@uflorida.cis.ufl.EDU>, dirkct@pine.circa.ufl.edu >>>>(TERRELL) writes: >>>>> Sorry, I guess I should have been more clear. By "psi" I meant paranormal >>>>> phenomena such as ESP, remote viewing, telekinesis, etc. What does >>>>> scientology have to say about these things? >>> >>>> These are all powers of the "theta" - powers that in many of us >>>>have been "lost" or at least greatly supressed. The theta, in its >>>>purest form, has great power over the MEST universe (Matter, >>>>Energy, Space and Time). >>> >>> Howls of derisive laughter. >>> >>> How the hell can you believe this stuff? >>> >> >>God damn it, now I have to defend Scientology! You idiot! >> >>As Shakespeare once put it, "A rose by any other name would still smell as >>sweet." In this case, an ESP person by any other name, such as "increased >>theta capabilities", should still be capable of feats and ability beyond >>ordinary physical reality. In short, Scientology may have its bad points, but >>at least it does cover paranormal abilities in something other than, "demon >>possession," and "powers granted by the Lord of all that is Evil." >> >>And unfortunately, paranormal abilities exist. They may not be currently >>measurable directly, but they can be indirectly measured through what is >>commonly known in medical science as the placebo effect--because they, like >>the ancients who called it magic, have no idea how it happens--in patients who >>are given "sugar pills" as wonder drugs, and the patient's belief cures him or >>her; in the creative visualization clinics, where cancer patients visualize >>white knights attacking their tumor cells, and the tumors subside if the >>patient focuses enough "whatever-energy" onto the problem; and in the >>practitioners of Oriental mind-body martial arts, some who are capable of >>knocking down enemies who are some yards away without the use of standard >>projectile weapons or lackeys (through an "invisible" personal force, called >>"ki", "chi", etc., extended beyond the physical body). > > It is obviously unnecessary to "explain" the placebo effect as a psi > phenomenon. Haven't you ever felt physically better after hearing > good news? How about worse when upset? The mind and body, if not > one, are closely associated, no? >

You say to-MA-to, I say TO-ma-TO...

I say magic, you say "feelings", Scientology says "E-meters".

There isn't much we can argue about here. Personal Beliefs are notoriously hard to argue away. Out and out brainwashing is a different matter, but through argument a person's firm beliefs and principles are not so easily swayed.

> Your facts about "invisible" psychic forces knocking people down > should be of great interest over in sci.physics. Discovery of a new > force of nature would be worth a Nobel prize at least... >

Of course, nobody has actually stepped forward willing to be tested, partly because psi isn't always reliable to the standards of the scientific method, mostly because everyone who can wants to stay out of the tabloids...

Besides, any proof I can bring forth could possibly be duplicated by other means, and you would have every right to be skeptical. Whether or not you would end up right is a question that will probably be answered when we all stop calling it different names and name a new branch of science after it.

>>> asbestos@midway.uchicago.edu >>> >> >>Leo > > -- > George Herson

Leo (again)

P.S. Wow! A >>>> in a reply? Never seen that before!

The views and opinions stated within this web page are those of the author or authors which wrote them and may not reflect the views and opinions of the ISP or account user which hosts the web page. The opinions may or may not be those of the Chairman of The Skeptic Tank.

Return to The Skeptic Tank's main Index page.

E-Mail Fredric L. Rice / The Skeptic Tank