Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology
From: lachman@parc.xerox.com (Hans Lachman)
Subject: Re: Some views on Scientology
Message-ID: <1991Jul28.044350.12908@parc.xerox.com>
Sender: news@parc.xerox.com
Organization: Xerox
References: <17184@life.ai.mit.edu> <1991Jul24.140607.32251@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu> <1991Jul24.233541.27713@math.ufl.edu>
Date: Sun, 28 Jul 1991 04:43:50 GMT

In article <1991Jul24.233541.27713@math.ufl.edu> sgc@math.ufl.edu (Scott G. Chastain) writes:
>-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.

Each religion offers a model of the truth.  Just as in physics, the
nature of light can be said to be particle or wave, and we accept both
models, we can also accept both models of the innate nature of Man
(unless one chooses not to).

>-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.
>Scott

Liekwise, western academic discussion does not seem willing to enter
into areas such as Scientology, or eastern thought, for that matter.
So you are choosing sides.  In case you don't know, western science,
while it is incredibly good in some areas (physiology, chemistry, etc.),
is just getting off the ground in areas like psychology.  Meditation,
for example, has been a common practice in eastern cultures for thousands
of years, but western science has just gotten around to recognizing it
as valid in the last couple decades.

Since our "scientific method" relies heavily on clear observable results,
we will make progress more slowly in areas where the results are less
directly observable.  So be patient.

Hans Lachman
lachman@arisia.xerox.com