“Any person desiring to learn how to heal the sick can receive on the underside instruction
that will enable them to commence healing on a principle of science with a success far
beyond any of the present modes.
No medicine, electricity, physiology, or hygiene required for unparallel success in the most
difficult cases.”
I’ve lived in the south of England all my life – first on the Isle of Wight, then
in Southampton, then Fareham, and now Portsmouth, and in every location I’ve noticed at least
one “Christian Science Reading Room”.
Here’s one in Portsmouth… it sells such books as The Christian Science Journal, which
claims that evolution and creationism are, “properly conceived, identical”.
Now because of the presence of said books, and, of course, the word “science” in
their name, I always assumed that Christian Science is essentially a synonym of creationism
– you know, a library of “alternative facts” where facts that can’t be forced
into the biblical narrative are discarded… but evidently, it’s not... well, it kind
of is… but it’s more of an alternative medicine than an alternative science, and
you know thing about alternative medicine, right?
“By definition, I begin, alternative medicine, I continue, has either not been proved to
work, or proved not to work; do you know what they call alternative medicine that's been
proved to work?
Medicine.”
This is “Christian Science – Debunked”.
So what exactly is Christian Science?
That’s a good question, loyal subscriber – allow me to provide the answer; Christian
Science is simply a set of beliefs and practices belonging to a denomination of Christianity
(just like, say, Jehovah's Witnesses, or Latter Day Saints), and it was developed in the 19th
century by Mary Baker Eddy.
Now Mary made some outrageous claims… but before I get to them, I want to reiterate
a point I’ve already made – Christian Science has absolutely nothing to do with
science!
In fact, it’s the rejection of medical science!
“Critics often say that it’s neither Christian nor science… the Christian is the easy part
– she clearly was a Christian, and very much out of Christian tradition – there’s
no problem there.
Oh… the science part… if you want to be narrow about what science is, and you begin
to place it in specific disciplines it doesn’t seem like science, but if we’re talking
about an inquiry – if we’re talking about a quest to solve problems and to deal with
scientific problems – uhm, it does make sense.”
You know, I wonder, is this man Jordan Peterson’s sensei?
I mean, redefining ‘science’ in order to call Christianity science seems well up
Jordan’s street!
“It depends on what you mean by you!”
Jokes aside, and as the sensei implicitly admitted, Mary’s Christian Science has about
as much to do with science as Deepak Chopra’s Quantum Consciousness has to do with quantum
mechanics… none!
But just as Chopra’s cult insists the contrary, so too do Christian Scientists (such as this
preacher): “Science is the study of something.
Christian Science is the study of Christ - the study of applying the teaching of Christ Jesus.”
Now notice how loose-weave this definition is… using it, we could say that Buddhism
is Buddhist Science, since it’s the study of Buddha.
Or, indeed, that those who study the Loch Ness Monster are Loch Ness Scientists, couldn’t
we?
In fact, using this definition, flat earthers could call themselves Flat Earth Scientists…
because they are, after all, ‘studying’ the flatness of the earth, aren’t they?
My point being, of course, is that this trick can be played by any cult or pseudoscience
(and, indeed, often is).
“Science is a system of knowledge, covering general truths, for the operation of general
laws, especially as attained and tested through the use of the scientific method.”
And now notice the move to a more formal definition of science.
This trick (which is a form of equivocation fallacy) is unremitting in religious reasoning;
in this case the preacher uses one definition of science in order to call Christianity science,
and then uses another definition of science in order to substantiate the value of science,
and her flock simply and erroneously equates the two.
Anyhow, since such people claim that Christian Science is science, let’s look at the peer-reviewed,
empirical data, shall we?
Let’s ask, do the tenets of Christian Science hold up to scrutiny?
Are they really substantiated by science?
So, Christian Science makes three primary assertions (on top of Christianity) – that
being; 1) prayer is more effective at healing than conventional medicine (“No medicine,
electricity, physiology, or hygiene required for unparallel success in the most difficult
cases”; 2) disease is entirely caused by our cognition (“Matter and disease are like
dreams – having no existence”); and 3) nothing material exists… everything is a
projection of god’s mind (“For god is all in all.
Spirit is immortal truth, matter is mortal error.
Spirit is the real and eternal, matter is the unreal and temporal.
Spirit is god, and man is his image and likeness.
Therefore man is not material… he is spiritual”).
Let’s start with prayer… now I plan to dedicate and entire video to the alleged efficacy
of prayer, in which I’ll directly address the most controversial studies and reveal
their atrocious methodology, but for now I’ll keep it brief.
Studies have yielded a mixture of results, most showing no effect whatsoever, some showing
a benefit, and some actually showing a negative.
Now the fact that some studies show a benefit might well intrigue you (as it did me, upon
a time), but once you realise that their methodology was flawed, that many have been proven to
be fraudulent, and that similarly flawed studies have found benefit with other types of alternative
medicine (such as praying to other gods, blood-letting, astrology, and homeopathy), your intrigue
will likely dissipate.
The truth is that humans are incredibly impressionable creatures, and as such placebo, confirmation
bias, and again, straight-up fraud, are ever-present.
One of the best criticisms of prayer I’ve ever heard of comes from Sam Harris, and I’ll
paraphrase it now; don’t you find it telling that prayer studies are always conducted in
relation to unmiraculous events, such as recovery from heart surgery, rather than miraculous
events, such as the rejuvenation of lost limbs, or even the restoration of blindness (as Jesus
apparently achieved)?
You see, it should be trivially easy to prove the efficacy of prayer, and yet advocates
tether their assertions to ambiguous cases…
I, like Sam Harris, think this is telling.
Moving on, let’s look at the claim that disease is entirely caused by our minds (“Matter
and disease are like dreams – having no existence”).
To anyone outside of the cult Christian Science, this is an insane assertion (and, ironically,
profoundly antiscientific).
For one, animals without a brain (and thus without a mind), such as Jellyfish, can and
do develop diseases, such as cancer, and so this fact alone dispenses with this absurd
claim.
But as if that wasn’t enough, humans have known for eons that while a healthy attitude
can help prevent and fight against certain diseases, disease itself is not depend on
the mind.
People have, and still do, confront disease with admirable positivity and determination
(some truly believing that they’re well), and yet, in most cases, their disease remained
/ remains, and either has or will contribute to their death.
What’s more, Mary herself evidently suffered from disease (and an addiction to morphine)
throughout her whole life, and the man who introduced her to spiritual healing, Phineas
P Quimby, died from an abdominal tumour… a disease!
“In January of 1866, Phineas P Quimby died from an abdominal tumour.
He remained convinced to the end of truth of his mind-healing theory”.
And last but not least, let’s address the assertion that everything (including you and
I) are projections of god’s mind (“Spirit is god, and man is his image and likeness.
Therefore man is not material… he is spiritual”).
So the first thing to be said is that one ought to prove the existence of a god before
insisting that everyone’s a product of that god’s mind; the second thing to be said
is that the concept of the Christian god is largely unfalsifiable (which, ironically,
is a big “no-no” in science!); and the third thing to be said is that, other than
interpretation of scripture, no evidence or argument seems to be given to substantiate
this ridiculous claim!
Like… really… none!
Now, this reminds me of some wisdom from Carl Sagan, who once said that “Extraordinary
claims require extraordinary evidence”, and that if it’s not given, then we’re
left with little choice but to simply walk away.
Or as Christopher Hitchens would’ve put it, “That which is asserted without evidence
can be dismissed without evidence” Anyhow, before wrapping up, I want to state what I
often state when speaking about alternative medicine – it’s dangerous.
“Beliefs inform actions, and actions have consequences”, and the consequences of rejecting
medical science for Christian Science (or indeed any “alternative medicine”) is
devastating.
In the last century at least 100 adults and (very sadly) children have died of treatable
illnesses directly because of the preachings of Christian Science.
As always, thank you kindly for the view, and an extra special thank you to my wonderful
patrons and those of you who’ve donated via PayPal.
As of late most of my videos are being demonetized, and so you alone are keeping me afloat.
I won’t forget your kindness.