---

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

---
The views and opinions stated within this web page are those of the author or authors which wrote them and may not reflect the views and opinions of the ISP or account user which hosts the web page. The opinions may or may not be those of the Chairman of The Skeptic Tank.

Return to The Skeptic Tank's main Index page.

E-Mail Fredric L. Rice / The Skeptic Tank