From: george@brooks.ics.uci.edu (George Herson)
Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology
Subject: Re: Perfectionism (was Re: L. Ron Hubbard was an egregious sexist.)
Message-ID: <28AF8836.21576@ics.uci.edu>
Date: 19 Aug 91 08:58:30 GMT
References: <1991Aug8.200303.22826@cadence.com> <28A1D783.13882@ics.uci.edu> <17563@life.ai.mit.edu>
Reply-To: george@ics.uci.edu (George Herson)
Organization: UC Irvine Department of ICS
Lines: 72
Nntp-Posting-Host: brooks.ics.uci.edu

In article <17563@life.ai.mit.edu> whatis@gnu.ai.mit.edu (....What Is?....) writes: >In article <28A1D783.13882@ics.uci.edu> george@ics.uci.edu (George Herson) writes: >>But doesn't this prove the possibility of other fundamental errors in >>Scientology, and the fragility of Scientology's "bald and basic fact"s >>in the face of changing political climes? LRH's works are beginning >>to sound less like gospel than PR for a money-grubbing brainwash >>organization. Or do you have a better explanation for the drastic >>change in attitude you claim? > >Can you name anything that DOESN'T do this? Was he supposed to just

I know of no other religion that admits to errors in its religious documents. At worst, religious "facts", such as geocentrism, or religous explanations, such as the six-day creation of the Old Testament, are non-literal allegory (that each day represents an age, for example). I may be wrong, but I don't think believers have found it necessary to update the Talmud, Koran, or Bible recently.

>hit it right the first time around? Do you expect this level of >perfectionism out of people? > >The Soviet Union, in a changing political clime, now doesn't think >that Communism is such a hot idea. The Catholic Church, in changing >political climes over the years, stopped believing the earth was the >center of the universe. How about you? Are you a programmer? Are >all your programs bug-free the first time around? Have you scored >100% on every test you've ever taken? >[...]

You don't need to convince me that L Ron was not perfect. On the contrary, it is well-documented that he was, at least in later years, a madman. Rather, I was reacting to the contradiction between the lack of ongoing "Scientological" research (as earlier attested to in a post by a Scientologist) for fear that LRH's work would be corrupted and recognition that it may already be fundamentally flawed. The lack of research was defended in the post by saying Scientology was backed by so much research that it was already perfect (or near perfect). Besides elevating Ron to, at minimum, a demi-god, and refuting claims for there being any science to Scientology, this contradicts your and my point that Scientology may have serious problems. If I haven't already answered this in my original post (above),=20how do you explain the lack of further research and subsequent corrections to the Modern Science of Mental Health (tm)?

Furthermore, it is claimed in the C of S manifesto (or whatever) that religious belief is necessary to investigate the mind. If Scientology was science this would clearly not be necessary.

But basically I'm just curious as to how believers such as yourself view all the damning evidence that shows Scientology as the evil nonsense it is. Are you really so paranoid as to think all such reports are baseless personal attacks? Do yourself a favor and T H I N K!!! you knucklehead

-- George Herson george@ics.uci.edu (714)856-5983 ()()()()()()()()()()()()()()()()()( UCalifornia Irvine, Info&CompSci REALITY IS INFINITELY PERFECTIBLE If it feels good--believe it. ()()()()()()()()()()()()()()()()()(

>-- >Steve Boswell | "Now drop and give me infinity pushups!" >whatis@ucsd.edu | -Bill & Ted's Bogus Journey >whatis@gnu.ai.mit.edu | ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

P.S. At last, real evidence of the intellectually fortifying :-) nature of $cientology. Ie., how in Hell did you manage to sit through that movie!?! I bailed out in <5 minutes in narrow avoidance of brain-death.

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