From: isds11990012@memstvx1.memst.edu
Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology
Subject: Re: A Question for Critics.
Date: 13 Oct 92 01:08:46 GMT
Organization: Memphis State University

In article <Bvx1vI.9IM@csn.org>, pae@teal.csn.org (Phil Earnhardt) writes:
> 
> 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?
> 

    Phil, I'm not saying that people are attacking the church by asking
for proof.  And I don't think that it is fair for you to say that the
church takes offense when people start examining its foundations.  In
actual fact, the church trys very, very hard to get people to examine
the foundations.  Anybody can examine the basic fundamentals (ARC, the
Tone Scale, etc..) and then they can find out for themselves if it works
or if it doesn't. 

    Typically what happens on this newsgroup is that someone critical
of Scientology posts that Scientologists committed a crime, or that 
Scientology is out to get your money.  They will post anything that seems
strange, or might scare someone away from finding out for themselves
what Scientology is about.  Then, after a Scientologist defends the
religion, the critics start to demand "proof" that Scientology is a 
science and act like that was all they wanted in the first place.

    The only standard I would like to see Scientology held to is "Does
it accomplish what it claims?"  I know that it does, but then I have
investigated it for myself and I know that I can apply the data and get
a result.  This is what Scientology means by calling itself a science.
I know that it works.

     The people who are critical of Scientology pretend to only want to
know if it works, but actually they will never study the material or
apply it.  Why?  Because they are only interested in proving to everyone
else that Scientology is a scam.  If they were sincere in wanting to know,
they could easily find out but that is not what they have in mind.  

>>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.
>

     Scientology books are available from every Scientology Org.  They
contain the data you need to examine the principles.  Those who are truly
interested in examining them will.

  
>>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.
>

     Start by reading the books and understanding the subject.  Learn
how to apply the data and get a result, then you can develop your own
experiments.
 
> [discussion of auditing prices and value deleted]
>>If it was [free], Scientology could never survive but that
>>is just what the critics have in mind.
> 
> Where did you come up with this from?
> 

    Perhaps you don't understand just how much time, and how many people
it takes to deliver an hour of auditing.  If auditing was free, there would
be no funds to pay staff, pay utilities, pay rent, advertise, train new
auditors, train other technical staff etc... 

    How would the org ever survive if auditing was free.  I'm going out
on a limb, but I would bet you anything that people who say on this 
newsgroup that Scientology should be free, would be very happy if the
Church didn't ever expand.

> 
> 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.
> 

    I disagree.  Scientology as a science works invaribly.  I can prove
that Scientology is a science at anytime that I choose.  I'm just
not interested in prooving myself and Scientology to people who have no
real interest or inclination to ever even look for themselves.

    I'm also not interested in silencing critics.  Mostly, the only
people who listen to them anyway are the other critics.  People who truly
want to find out about Scientology will, and everyone else will just
complain that I won't prove it to them.

    Anyone who wants to know about Scientology should read books and
get trained.

This is true.
John Holifield