From: sgc@math.ufl.edu (Scott G. Chastain)
Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology
Subject: Re: Some views on Scientology
Message-ID: <1991Jul24.233541.27713@math.ufl.edu>
Date: 24 Jul 91 23:35:41 GMT
References: <h+9lzll@rpi.edu> <17184@life.ai.mit.edu> <1991Jul24.140607.32251@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu>
Sender: news@math.ufl.edu
Organization: Department of Mathematics at the University of Florida
Lines: 39

I would like to make a few comments but let me say at the onset to avoid
obvious flames that:1) I have read Dianetics, 2) I have read and used
Self Analysis, and 3) I have an open mind and would like to discuss
the issue in a reasonable way.

-I understand the criteria used by LRH, if it works accept it. But it
 seems that Dianetics was produced with much to little skepticism.
 Yes a person my feel better after Auditing, but a person my feel
 better after pcycoanalysis or after preyer. Making by your criterion
 these incompatible belief systems all true.

-Christianity and Scientology are not compatible. Christianity assumes
 all men are by nature evil and must be saved. Scientology assumes
 all men are good. You connot therefore be a true Christian Scientologist
 unless you alter one or the others beliefs.

-I believe scientology should be judged independent of LRH. I used to 
 spend time worrying about wether Jesus really believed himself to
 be the messiah, but finally decided Christianity should be judged on
 its principles not on the history of its founder. Note Christians would
 likely disagree with this. The same hold for Scientology.

-Why is all the scientology literature I have seen seem to be writen
 on a high-school level. I think this is a big reason people, like
 myself have trouble buying into it. Skeptical people 
 tend to disbelieve metterial that is so simplistic. For example
 saying that man consist of four things, mind, body, being etc. This
 looks like it was written in the middle ages. Western thought 
 finally rejected dualism, way should except this quadism.

-The heart of my objection is that Scientology is not compatible
 with modern western thought.  It is not written in the context of
 academic thought and does not seem willing to enter into
 academic discussion. Give me examples of positve discussion of the
 principles of Dianetics in a accepted scientific or philisophical
 publication please.

I welcome discussion and mail.
Scott