From: pae@teal.csn.org (Phil Earnhardt)
Subject: Re: A Question for Critics.
Organization: Colorado SuperNet, Inc.
Date: Sat, 10 Oct 1992 17:28:30 GMT

In article <1992Oct10.111142.3605@memstvx1.memst.edu> isds11990012@memstvx1.memst.edu writes:
>[...]  So I just want to know what is their motivation for doing this.  I
>mean, "Do they just enjoy suppressing religion, or do they have some other
>vested interest that we don't know about?"  It doesn't make sense to think
>that professional scientists don't have SOMETHING more important to do than
>this.

Thanks for responding, John.

What 1 class of "critics" are doing is inviting critical discussion on this
group. On this group, Scientologists are either claiming that Scientology
is a science, or that "It is a science, just not in the sense that you're
thinking." The latter, as Heinlein would say, is a null statement -- something
either is or ain't a science.

>At least once a month, certain people will be challenging Scientology
>to produce "proof" of its claims.

That's what will happen in our society when there is an activity that claims
to be a science. If there's a building that has the markings of a Post Office,
I expect that I'll be able to mail letters and buy stamps there.

*Of course* there will be people challenging Scientology! Other religions
don't claim that they are a science! 

>In actual truth, something like that would be the easiest thing to fake, and
>would have been done a long time ago if Scientology was the "ruthless global
>scam" they try to make it out to be.

This sounds like a red herring. Try out this reason instead: if Scientology
actually attempted to "prove" itself scientifically, the public would start
holding Scientology to scientific standards.

When Scientology claims to be a science, it is not attacking the Church to
ask for proof. What branches of science take personal offense when people
start examing their foundations? Why should anyone who claims to be presenting
science be held to any other standard? Why would they *want* to be held
to any other standard?

>Also, if you know anything about the subject at all, you will see
>that the skeptics and critics don't know even the most basic principles
>of the science of Scientology.

*That's what the "critics" are asking for, John!* Tell us these scientific
principles. Give us a foundation of rigor in examining them on our own.
That's what comes with the territory when Scientology is claimed to be a
science.

>Anyone who investigates Scientology for himself will find that it is a
>completely workable technology.

We're asking how one examines Scientology in the domain of science.

>     Which of these is easier to believe?

You're setting up a straw man. I'll give you a third option:

3. LRH founded a religion called Scientology. He had a brilliant insight: by
calling a religion a science, he would lend a different kind of credibility to
it. When people ask for scientific proof, ignore their requests, or claim that
they're "persecuiting a religion" or claim that such things are "proven every
day."

>If it was, Scientology could never survive but that is just what the critics
>have in mind.

Where did you come up with this from?

People who are asking how Scientology is a science are doing just that --
nothing more, and nothing less. They are asking what it is that makes it
valid to call Scientology a science.

>Scientology services are the most valuable things in existence at this time,
>and would be worth the money if the donation was 10x higher.

It is absolutely fine for Scientology to claim this. That's perfectly
appropriate in the domain of religion. What's not appropriate is to claim that
Scientology is based on scientific principles, *unless you're able to
demonstrate those principles in the scientific domain*.

>For reasons unknown, these people are opposed to the Church of Scientology as
>they would be to any group who was effectively handling suppression on planet
>Earth.

There's no great mystery here. There are people here who would be opposed to
any organization that claims to be both a science and a religion and then
provides no scientific basis for its claims.

>     Scientology is about freedom.  TOTAL FREEDOM.  Existance without
>barriers.  Scientology's critics care only about their continued freedom
>to lie, destroy, or make slaves.  The thought that you might decide to
>check out Scientology for yourself makes them panic.

Whether or not we ever "check out" Scientology is immaterial. As long as
Scientology claims to be a science, the onus is on Scientology to demonstrate
that Scientology is a science. If you'd like to silence a large class of
critics, address this issue.

This is where it looks like you're just uttering rhetoric, John. Do you
understand what I've been saying in this posting? If Scientology either
demonstrated itself as a science, or dropped the pretense that it *was* a
science, then there wouldn't be any need for this discussion.

>My advice to anyone who wants to learn more is to read lots of 
>Scientology books and get trained. [...]

We've come full circle. In your posting, you've again claimed that the critics
are attacking Scientology for no reason.

Do you understand what one of those reasons is now?

Do you believe that these people are attacking Scientology without foundation?

Do you feel that such people are evil?

>John Holifield

--phil
Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology