Christian Science by Walter Clair Thompson

Pacific Press Publishing Association · Mountain View, California · Nov 28, 1911

FromSigns of the Times, Vol. 38, No. 47.

Christian Science

By Walter Clair Thompson

III—Its Philosophy in the Light of Reason and Revelation

I will praise Thee; for I am fearfully and wonderfully made: marvelous are Thy works; and that my soul knoweth right well. My substance was not hid from Thee, when I was made in secret, and curiously wrought in the lowest parts of the earth. — David.

Matter or body is but a false concept of mortal mind. This so-called mind builds its own superstructure, of which the mortal body is the grosser portion; but from first to last the body is a sensuous human concept.—Mrs. Eddy.

O the uninitiated, the greatest difficulty that presents itself in Christian Science is its antagonism to demonstrable science and the intelligence communicated through the instrumentality of the senses. It is essential, in accepting Christian Science, that the history of all material progress be repudiated, and that all the accredited experiences of man be stamped as false. To accept its philosophy is to admit that all knowledge which has been accredited in the past, is proved to be only an ignis fatuus, luring the world on into swamps of direst deception and fraud, from which entanglement the only emancipation is to disavow all the materialistic evidences of reality, and to accept the dogmatic theories of Christian Science.

Arbitrary Assumptions

The premises of Christian Science philosophy are based on the following hypotheses: God is all in all. God is good. Good is Mind. God, Spirit, being all, nothing is matter. Life, God, omnipotent Good, deny death, evil, sin, disease.—“Science and Health,” page 113.

These propositions Mrs. Eddy styles as the fundamentals of divine metaphysics. A little farther on she adds:

The divine metaphysics of Christian Science, like the method in mathematics, proves the rule by inversion. For example: There is no pain in Truth and no truth in pain; no nerve in Mind and no mind in nerve; no matter in Mind and no mind in matter; no matter in Life and no life in matter; no matter in Good and no good in matter.

Conclusions

From these arbitrary assumptions, are drawn the following conclusions: Matter is made up of suppositious mind force.—Id., page 310. The objects cognized by the physical senses have not the reality of substance.—Id., page 310. The science of Mind deals with disease as error and heals with Truth.—Id., page 318. The science of Mind disposes of sin.—Id., page 473. A sick body is devolved from sick thoughts believed.—Id., page 260. Disease and death proceed from fear and false beliefs.—Id., page 260. The senses are deceptive. Evidences received through these are not to be accepted. See pages 274, 275.

Concerning the enmity between such deductions and the senses, the following explanation is offered:

Divine Science reverses the false testimony of the material senses and thus tears away the foundations of error. Hence the enmity between Science and the senses, and the impossibility of attaining perfect understanding until the errors of sense are eliminated.—Id., page 273.

In carrying out these propositions to their logical conclusion, note the following: One disease is no more real than another. All disease is the result of education, and carries its effects no farther than mortal mind maps out the way.—Id., page 176. Heredity is not a law.—Id., page 178. If a dose of poison is swallowed through a mistake, and the patient dies, . . . does human belief, you ask, cause the death? Even so; and as directly as if the poison had been intentionally taken.—Id., page 277.

It would appear, from this admission, that Mrs. Eddy’s accepted adage, “Where ignorance is bliss it is folly to be wise,” will not apply to instances of taking poison unawares. But as Marsten observes, “No dilemma can be awkward to a Christian Scientist or in any way unsettle his equipoise;” for she explains in the next sentence, that it is the general evil reputation that poison has gained, or the preponderance of evil opinions prevailing concerning it, that causes the death.

Arbitrary Glossary

A very important adjunct to the book “Science and Health” is its glossary. It is undoubtedly furnished in anticipation of the needs of the uninitiated. As the words Mrs. Eddy is obliged to use do not, on account of the unconventionality of her vague and elusive philosophy, convey the thought she would express, the author of the book has been obliged to construct, or more correctly stated, conjure up a dictionary furnishing the “scientific” definition of many terms as used by her. And as she has the utmost contempt for reason, she also has very little regard for rules of etymology, and therefore uses the freest license in giving the meaning of many of these words. Here are a few samples of definitions as found in her book “Science and Health,” chosen from the glossary and other chapters: Matter; — sensation in the sensationless. Man; — an illusion. Death; — an illusion. Education; — a cause of disease. Knowledge; — the origin of sin, sickness and death. Hygiene; — ignorance of bliss.

But notwithstanding the material aid of this glossary and the resourcefulness of Mrs. Eddy, she is frequently hampered for the want of words which will both express her ideas in harmony with her philosophy and still be sufficiently intelligent to be grasped by the senses, which senses, she affirms, do not exist in reality. But far from despairing, the situation does not seem to perturb her, nor is she disconcerted by the many palpable contradictions occasioned by the conflict of her philosophy with the stern reality of things. Where the situation demands it, she simply “plays fast and loose” with language. At this she is an adept; for as Mark Twain observes, “Why should a prophetess take pains to be accurate?”

Her Use of Words

The following explanation concerning the use she makes of words is very interesting:

Usage classes both evil and good together as mind, therefore, to be understood, the author calls sick and sinful humanity “mortal mind,”—meaning by this term, the flesh opposed to spirit,—the human mind and evil in contradistinction to divine Mind, or Truth and good. The spiritually unscientific definition of mind is based on evidences of the physical senses, which makes minds many; and calls mind both human and divine. Mortal mind is a solecism in language and involves an improper use of the word mind. As mind is immortal the phrase, mortal mind, implies something untrue and therefore unreal; and as the phrase is used in teaching Christian Science it is meant to designate something which has no real existence.—“Science and Health,” page 114.

It is apparent that “mortal mind” is a much used and a very handy term in the vernacular of Christian Science. Sin and sickness, according to this philosophy, do not exist, therefore it will not do to call sin and sickness by such terms; but as sin and sickness must be dealt with, “mortal mind” is the term to use in designating them. It would seem that a very pertinent question that might be asked right here is, If sin and sickness do not exist, why use any term to designate them?

Christian Science Logic

Perhaps as good an illustration as can be furnished of Christian Science logic is found in the following anomalous reasoning:

Because the muscles of the blacksmith’s arm are strongly developed, it does not follow that exercise did it, or that an arm less used must be fragile. If matter were the cause of action, and muscles, without the coöperation of mortal mind, could lift the hammer and smite the nail, it might be thought true that the hammering enlarged the muscles. But the trip-hammer is not increased in size by exercising. Why not, since muscles are as material as wood and iron?

Another:

Gustatory pleasure is a sensuous illusion, an illusion that diminishes as we understand our spiritual being and ascend the ladder of life. This woman learned that food neither strengthens or weakens the body — that mind alone does this. . . . Teach them that their bodies are nourished more by Truth than by food.

Such reason is certainly climbing the heights of absurdity; and this philosophy Mrs. Eddy and her coreligionists are pleased to call science. “Metaphysics” is another term she employs to designate her philosophy. This latter term I would suggest as more fitting. If the author of such a burlesque on common sense as “Science and Health” presents had been content to employ the term “metaphysics” in designating her philosophy, many would not feel the provocation sufficient for contention. Metaphysics as a science has never had a very enviable reputation. But to call her reason-impeaching sophistry by the time-honored title of “science,” appears too much of an outrage upon an educated and enlightened world to allow to go unchallenged.