Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology
From: sgc@math.ufl.edu (Scott G. Chastain)
Subject: Re: Some views on Scientology
Message-ID: <1991Aug1.164150.10796@math.ufl.edu>
Sender: news@math.ufl.edu
Organization: Department of Mathematics at the University of Florida
References: <1991Jul24.140607.32251@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu> <1991Jul24.233541.27713@math.ufl.edu> <1991Jul30.192744.32432@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu>
Date: Thu, 1 Aug 91 16:41:50 GMT

A week or so back I posted some comments on Scientology and Christianity
and also on Scientology and Western Thought. From the replies and mail
I have received I am afraid that people have decided that either I
am a Christian or a Scientologist depending on which way they read my
arguments. 

So let me go on the record as saying I am neither a Christian nor a
Scientologist. 

I would like to also say that upon going back and rereading parts of
Dianetics I found Hubbard did address some other areas of Western thought;
for example he goes into Christianity's suppression of pleasure and he
addresses those who say man is driven by sex alone, which I take to 
mean Freudians. 

To those who follow Dianetics, why do you find the engram theory more
compelling then say Freud struggling subconscious theory. I asked a
friend in the psychology department about pre-natal memories and they said
that they believed that the mind would not be developed enough to 
process memories. Is there any scientific evidence besides Hubbard of
pre-natal memories.

Scott