From: johnr@ee.uts.edu.au (John Reekie)
Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology
Subject: Re: Validity of Scn (LONG)
Date: 16 Nov 92 15:53:50 GMT
Organization: University of Technology, Sydney
NNTP-Posting-Host: rossi.ee.uts.edu.au

ph36@unixg.ubc.ca (Richard Nistuk) writes:

>In article <1992Nov15.043152.25227@lds-az.loral.com> jerry@lds-az.loral.com (J Barbera) writes:


>>Is this enough information yet?  After you've read these, I recommend
>>getting some free introductory auditing to see what it's like first-hand.


>	I don't know.  That may be a good idea, has any skeptic
>out there tried this?

I have. I was approached in the street by one wielding a clipboard
and then agreed to go to a free introductory session. Unless things
have changed in the last ten years, they get you to grab hold
of a galvanometer and try and think of a really hateful event
in your life. Since I was tired, I really couldn't be bothered,
which might also explain why I scored something like 20% on some
test that was supposed to measure how "alive" I was. (I was on
the way home from Uni after night lectures - maybe I _was_ 80% dead...)

I agreed to go back for a counselling session at $30
(remember this was a while ago), but never did. I decided
I didn't need counselling, especially not at $30 a go. On
reflection, I find it mildly surprising that I agreed to go back
in the first place. It's very hard to say no to friendly but
insistent people, I guess, especially when you're not aware of
their real intentions.

A few years later, Scientology officially became a religion in
Australia, which surprised me since the Scientologist had
told me it definitely wasn't one (I do not like conventional
religions either). TIME magazine confirmed what I thought
I knew obout Scientology with an article about maybe
two years ago. The journalist was not .. er... impressed with
Scientology: not its tenets, its finanical activities, nor
its actions against its critics and leavers. You might like
to try and find it for yourself, to counteract some of the
other fodder you seem to have taken it upon yourself to digest.
(I don't claim the article was 100% truth, but at least it
has some claim towards objectivity.) I won't repeat the exact
phrase used to describe the organization of Scientology.

As for doing a "free introductory audit." Well, it's up to you,
but read that TIME article first! In any case, I doubt you
would be convinced by their rather low-tech "tech" (oh, of
course, the _real_ "tech" is "out-gradient"..). Still,
I'd be inclined to give the whole place a very wide berth.
I mean, I don't need to do an "introductory confession", say, to know
that Catholicism is not my cup of tea. This invitation
alone is a warning sign -- what valid religion offers
"free introductory" sessions? This is not a religion. This
is not a science -- the discussion about units has pretty
well killed any faint inkling of that notion in anyone with
any scientific training whatsoever. Let's see now, not a
religion, not a science, that must make it a ......
 

Scientologists please note: You are entitled to your
beliefs and opinions. Richard has asked for the
opinion of a skeptic on this particular point, so here it is.
I expect someone will attempt to refute my observations
with a statement to the effect that, since I didn't go to
any more counselling and have not read any LRH books, I
do not have a clue what I am talking about. But consider
this: have _you_ read _all_ of the Bible? Thomas Aquinas?
The Koran? The major teachings of all other established
religions? Have you tried Yoga, Eastern mysticism, New-Age
whatevers. etc, etc? The argument that one must study a
belief system (yeah, sure, religion, science, whatever) in _depth_
to see whether it has any value only works for those who
already believe.

I think it goes without saying one won't fully _appreciate_ the depth
of one's chosen belief system until one gets right into it,
but the benefits of any valid system will be apparent in those
who _do_ practice it. (This is, of course, in addition to the
requirement (for a sceptical but interested person) that
the basic tenets and principles be made clear and comprehensible.)
Thus, one who may be interested in this system can not only
understand its essential ideas at an intellectual level, but
can also _see_  that this system is good by observing
its effects in its practitioners.

Scientology fulfils neither of these requirements. The first
(intellectual understanding) because attempts to achieve
intellectual understanding are thwarted by the refusal to
explain exactly _what_ scientology is and does. (The
"out-gradient" response encapsulates this attitude perfectly!)
I have, for example, a Catholic friend, who is perfectly willing to
answer my (very sceptical) questions about fundamental
aspects of his faith. He knows that I do not (and likely,
never will) believe in God, yet he explains the intellectual
basis of his faith, with assumptions of the arguments
(such as the existence of God) understood or clarified when
necessary. He does not tell me to go and read Aquinas or
catechisms.

The second requirement is not fulfilled either, because the supposed
benefits of Scientology are not apparent in its practitioners
(note I said "are not apparent," not "are not present"). Wild
claims about paranormal abilities would not, I suspect, count
as a beneficial effect, since one is more likely to question
that person's grasp on reality than be impressed by his or her
supposed new-found powers. Increased intelligence is another
claimed benefit, but the magnitude of these claims again
makes them completely untenable. The faculty of critical reasoning
is apparently atrophied by the practice of Scientology, which
cannot bear to be exposed to the glare of honest criticism. Are
any of these beneficial effects? I think not.

In summary, I think that two important attributes of a belief system to
which one might think of subscribing, are not possessed
by Scientology. Please do not take my arguments as personal
attacks.


John