Talk:Christian Science/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Christian Scientists who are not members to the Church of Christ, Scientist

"Christian Science is a religion founded by Mary Baker Eddy in 1866 and practiced by members of The First Church of Christ, Scientist as well as some others who are non-members."

Thank you to ever wrote this. It is true you can be a Christian Scientist and not be a member of the Church of Christ, Scientist. Over the last 20 years there has been a huge fall in members to the Church of Christ, Scientist. This is becuase the Church of Christ, Scientist no longer are teaching Christian Science the way Mary Baker Eddy taught it. They are watering down Mary Baker Eddy's metaphysics and are mixing it with materialism and other modern day theories. The Church of Christ, Scientist have support the theory of darwinian evolution when Mrs Eddy heavly rejected the theory of evolution. Mrs Eddy also supported British Israelism that the true israel were the Anglo American and British peoples and that they were in bible propecy, the Church of Christ, Scientist rejects this. The modern day Church of Christ, Scientist have completely altered, ignored and changed some of Mrs Eddy's teachings. Christian Science practitioners who are members of the Church of Christ, Scientist also charge up to 300$ to there patients or more. Mrs Eddy would not be impressed if she could see this type of materialistic ignorance!! Christian Science is not about making money!!

86.10.119.131 (talk) 19:57, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

If this is the case, then sections of this article must be rewritten by someone with familiarity with this subject. For instance, from the Medicine section: "The Christian Science Church does not forbid the use of medicine by its members." Now, there may be a mystical sense of unity among all those who practice Christian Science, but similar references to the "Christian Science Church," especially those that imply doctrinal unity, intimate incorrectly at a single, unified institutional organization to which all, or nearly all, Christian Scientists belong. Please note that I'm just using the above quote as an example and am NOT implying in anyway that Christian Scientists do by in large completely forbid conventional medicine. Even if the above statement were correct, the error within it is the implication of an institutional unity.--Scyldscefing (talk) 20:42, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

The original post (and the author of a following post) is a bit of a troll so I don't want to give this too much space. I think within any organization based on belief there are those who are formal members of the organization and those who accept and practice the organizational belief set without being formal members. This is true whether you're Christian Scientists, Catholics or Republicans. Within those two groups there's a large panoply of beliefs, and sets of people who have a particular set of beliefs who claim that anyone not adhering is not "really" a member of the organization.

With respect to Christian Science, the formal set of beliefs are defined as well as they are going to be defined by Science and Health, The tenets of the Christian Science church and the church by-laws. None of these speak to either Darwinian Evolution or British Israelism. What Mary Baker Eddy actually thought about these is irrelevant. She may not have liked okra either, but that doesn't mean that Christian Scientists can't like okra.

As has been stated elsewhere, there is no formal proscription of traditional medicine in Christian Science. There's a great deal of advisement against it that plays out in social and sometimes institutional sanctions against its use, but that's a sociological rather than church trait. Digitalican (talk) 13:20, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Christian Scientists in bible prophecy

Mary Baker Eddy the founder of Christian Science was a supporter of British Israelism she believed she was a descendant of King David, she wrote a poem about British Israelism in one of her books supporting the Anglo and American peoples are the true Israel and are in bible prophecy.

Our nation is a nation of prophecy, according to the Anglo-Israel studies accepted by Mrs. Eddy where she refers to the United States and Great Britain as "Anglo-Israel," and our "brother," Great Britain, as "Judah's sceptred race".

Her poem " The United States To Great Britain " can be read here:

http://www.readbookonline.net/readOnLine/49020/

86.10.119.131 (talk) 19:10, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Defining CS Terms - Christian Science Concepts of Spiritual Reality and Material UN-reality

This whole discussion of whether a CSst believes or does not believe in contagious diseases displays a profound lack of understanding of one of its most important doctrinal concepts, "The Absolute and the Relative." Let me explain:

The Absolute

The Absolute is the Christian Science concept of perfect spiritual reality, of God and his creation untouched by sin, sickness, disease and death. A parallel would be the concept of the mathematic idea of numbers in that numbers, as ideas can NOT be touched or reached by any material influences. As ideas, they remain forever untouched by matter or physical or finite causation. In the same sense, CSist believe that mathematics is but one part of a wider divinely mental or spiritual univesise and that this universe is spiritual, tangible (to spiritual sense) and real, but untouched by material causation. This, then, is the concept of the Absolute - absolute divinely mental/spiritual reality. It makes sense to say, that there is NOT sin, sickeness, disease nor death or evil in this "place." So, in this place, there also is no such thing as contagious diseases, virulent bacteria, viruses, ect - diseased matter, ect.. In other words, in this world of infinite Spirit, there simply IS no matter at all.

COMMENTS

OK - so that this "world" or universe is NON-material and NON-finite and like numbers, beyond the reach of matter. It is THIS world that, to the Christian Scientist, is the ultimate real, eternal and intact "reality. In this world or universe of spiritual good, the only reality is infinite Spirit or Mind and its infinite idea, spiritual (NOT material) Man and the (spiritual) universe.

RELATIVE (finite/material) Existence

So what of all the nasty stuff in the material world that plagues humanity? To the Christian Science thought, this world of material causation is a hypothetical anti-spiritual illusion, seemingly real only to its own limited finite false sense of itself. It is like the material world in the movie, The Matrix in that it is NOT an absolute reality, but a illusory, hypnotic or mesmeric self-decieved finite/material sense of existence. OK, so in this material world we have both so-called good and also so-called evil, sin, sickness, disease and death, contagious and infectious diseases, flesh-eating bacteria and virulent viruses, ect. blah blah blah.

COMMENT

It's NOT that Christian Science takes NO notice of the relative. It does. Any Christian Scientist is as aware of all these nasty forces in the material world as is anyone else. BUT - and this is a BIG BUT! HIS/HER approach is that when he sees evidences of all this nasty material stuff, he turns away from it as "reality" and, instead, declares that there is a spiritual reality right in place of where all the nasty stuff appears (to finite material sense - the 5 senses) to be going on. He/she declares that in GOD's divinely mental/spiritual universe, there is NO such thing going on and that there is spiritual law or causation behind his/her declaration of this divine reality. And that THIS law operates to remove the false (to that spiritual sense of absolute spiritual good) sense impressions/beliefs of the presence of evil which operate as dense material blindness or illusive/false belief acting on human consciousness and manifesting itself as (moral/physical/social/mental evil) and in its place (in human thought) be removed and replaced instead by a "true" divinely mental/spiritual idea - and that THIS idea, in Mary Baker Eddy's words, "Healed the sick" in Jesus Christ's age as well as this age.

HUMAN CONSCIOUSNESS and HUMAN PROGRESS

Another idea that has to be understood is so-called human consciousness. This is a transitional sense of reality that has both spiritual light or good or true ideas as well as apparent (to material sense) finite material and limited or self-disceptive "false" beliefs as well. To Christian Science, this is where human beings exist and it is here that the battle is fought agains false material beliefs disguised as so-called physical/material "reality." Progress consists in letting in more spiritual light into human consciousness such that areas of darkness - finite material beliefs are displaced by the irrisistable Christ light.

CONCLUSION.

Unless the reader understands these basic concepts, then Christian Science seems to be a lot of gobbly goop and appears to be totally delusional.

Still seems that way to me. 76.105.254.23 (talk) 09:26, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

>>This is a great definition of their philosophy. Which, by the way, is decidedly NOT Biblical Christianity. This is one of the many flavors of Gnosticism. This, as well as every form of Gnosticism, denigrates the reality of matter, as somehow less "real" than the spiritual. And this is a philosophy foreign to Christianity. It's more like the Greek (and, more specifically, neo-platonic) philosophical concept of Emanation. Christianity quashed these heresies pretty solidly ages ago; look up "Marcion" for a good example of the church rejecting such anti-materialism. So, why is this a part of the Christianity portal? 66.30.45.40 (talk) 02:06, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

>>added: If no one can answer this question appropriately some time soon, I will go ahead and make the change66.30.45.40 (talk) 02:26, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Just because the Apostolic church declared the Marcionites to be heretics does not make them non-Christian, it merely makes them non-Apostolic. The same test might apply to most modern protestant denominations. (We are, after all, all good Gnostics nowadays.) I'm not going to answer your question, but object to your arbitrarily narrow definition of Christianity. Digitalican (talk) 06:27, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

There isn't much more to Christian Science than the teaching that God is almighty and is wholly good. Consequently, God would not allow evil to exist. Either God is real or evil is real--you can't have both. CS draws the conclusion that God alone is real, consequently evil is unreal. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.101.253.73 (talk) 23:35, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Given this information, does this really belong on the "christianity" hub, given that it is obviously gnostic and perhaps should be in the "gnosticism" hub instead, or at least jointly? 172.190.75.132 (talk) 21:17, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

FOR THE SAKE OF READERS, LEAVE CHRISTIAN SCIENCE AS PART OF THE CHRISTIAN HUB

Surely the independent position must rely on the name by which Christian Science is most generally known. As long as the majority of readers (Christian and non-Christian) would expect to find Christian Science as part of the Christian Hub, it should remain as is. After all, if you heard the name but knew nothing about Christian Science and little about Christianity, wouldn't the Christian Hub be one of the obvious places to start your search? Before pushing their own agendas, I suggest that editors should ask what is encyclopedic, and what is in the best interests of persons looking for information on the topic. Michael J. Mullany (talk) 07:32, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Techically most major protestant denominations would be classified as Gnostic from the standpoint of Apostolic Christianity. To move it away from the Christian Hub means you'd have to move a whole bunch of other stuff away, like Presbyterianism, Methodism and Baptism. Digitalican (talk) 15:48, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Apostolic Christianity is what? Christianity that counts the apostles as emissaries of Jesus Christ? That is the entire Christianity and some others. Rursus dixit. (^mbork³!) 12:06, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Mark Twain

According to a youtube by Val Kilmer Twain changed his line on MBE and became positive towards her. One of the comments on the you tube video states:

To his publisher, Mark Twain remarked, "Christian Science is humanity's boon. Mother Eddy deserves a place in the Trinity as much as any member of it. She has organized and made available a healing principle that for two thousand years has never been employed, except as the merest guesswork. She is the benefactor of the age." — Mark Twain, A Biography, by Albert B. Paine, Vol. III, p. 1271.

Can anyone confirm or refute this? WilliamKF (talk) 05:22, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I found it on project Guttenberg:

I was at this period interested a good deal in mental healing, and had been treated for neurasthenia with gratifying results. Like most of the world, I had assumed, from his published articles, that he condemned Christian Science and its related practices out of hand. When I confessed, rather reluctantly, one day, the benefit I had received, he surprised me by answering:

"Of course you have been benefited. Christian Science is humanity's boon. Mother Eddy deserves a place in the Trinity as much as any member of it. She has organized and made available a healing principle that for two thousand years has never been employed, except as the merest kind of guesswork. She is the benefactor of the age."

It seemed strange, at the time, to hear him speak in this way concerning a practice of which he was generally regarded as the chief public antagonist. It was another angle of his many-sided character.

Title: Mark Twain, A Biography, 1835-1910, Complete

Author: Albert Bigelow Paine —Preceding unsigned comment added by Low Sea (talk • contribs) 17:47, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

WilliamKF (talk) 16:47, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm afraid the situation is more complex. As Twain fell into manic depression toward the end of his life, his attitudes toward Eddy and Christian Science (and many other, unrelated subjects) became extremely erratic. There was no "final refutation" of his earlier criticism, no death-bed conversion, only a lot of extreme and contradictory statements.

It's not really contradictory. Twain made clear in Christian Science that he believed that Christian Science could help people free themselves of psychosomatic illnesses, and that this was a good thing and a benefit to humanity. Here's the opening of Chapter 8:

The power which a man's imagination has over his body to heal it or make it sick is a force which none of us is born without. The first man had it, the last one will possess it. If left to himself, a man is most likely to use only the mischievous half of the force—the half which invents imaginary ailments for him and cultivates them; and if he is one of these—very wise people, he is quite likely to scoff at the beneficent half of the force and deny its existence. And so, to heal or help that man, two imaginations are required: his own and some outsider's. The outsider, B, must imagine that his incantations are the healing-power that is curing A, and A must imagine that this is so. I think it is not so, at all; but no matter, the cure is effected, and that is the main thing. The outsider's work is unquestionably valuable; so valuable that it may fairly be likened to the essential work performed by the engineer when he handles the throttle and turns on the steam; the actual power is lodged exclusively in the engine, but if the engine were left alone it would never start of itself. Whether the engineer be named Jim, or Bob, or Tom, it is all one—his services are necessary, and he is entitled to such wage as he can get you to pay. Whether he be named Christian Scientist, or Mental Scientist, or Mind Curist, or King's-Evil Expert, or Hypnotist, it is all one; he is merely the Engineer; he simply turns on the same old steam and the engine does the whole work. The Christian-Scientist engineer drives exactly the same trade as the other engineers, yet he out-prospers the whole of them put together.

And from the end of Chapter 8:

The Christian Scientist has taken a force which has been lying idle in every member of the human race since time began, and has organized it, and backed the business with capital, and concentrated it at Boston headquarters in the hands of a small and very competent Trust, and there are results.

It's obvious that Twain never "changed his mind" about CS or Mary Baker Eddy. He believed that their faith-healing helped a lot of people and that this was a good thing; and he also believed that Eddy and her organization were greedy money-grubbers who falsely elevated Eddy to near-divine status, and that this was a bad thing. His statement to Paine does not contradict that. Fumblebruschi (talk) 22:38, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Why is it that in the "criticism" section there is primarily a quote from Mark Twain supporting Christian science and only a brief note saying that metal bands wrote some songs that criticized CS. Shouldn't that section actually involve what criticism there is, who made it, and why?? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 155.97.220.48 (talk) 15:43, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Restored "Non Affiliated Organizations" section

According to this diff[1] the removed text and accompanying citations were removed by IP user 89.100.129.144 with an edit summary of "Removed inaccurate item which repeated information already given)".

1. As for the "information already given" I assume you are refering to the similar text in the introductory paragraph. That paragraph summarizes the article and does not contain significant citations. This section adds greater detail and required wp:reliable sources. Further, as this is the section with citations, if any "redundant" text is removed, it should be that uncited summary found in the introductory paragraph.
2. The "inaccurate item" you refer to I will assume is the comment about "common roots". It is a well documented fact that Eddy studied under Quimby who is generally considered to be the "father" of New Thought teachings. Eddy and Quimby eventually went their separate ways but the common root is still a fact that is more than well documented.

It is against several WP guidelines to deleted citations that support the article statements. If you disagree with any citations then present your arguments here rather than deleting them without clear discussion. Thank you. -- Low Sea (talk) 22:26, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Comparison to Teilhard de chardin

A slight comparison might be made, I guess though that a major difference in one defining reality as always spiritual, but then again a movement towards a spiritual reality...Domsta333 (talk) 06:28, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

There really is nothing similar in Christian Science to Teilhard de Chardin works. Teilhard de Chardin was an evolutionist, he rejected most of the bible and he supported a type of materialism. Christian science rejects evolution, and Christian Science is opposed to materialism. 86.10.119.131 (talk) 22:05, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Introduction, and the "discovery" of Christian Science

This article requires major clean-up and rebalancing.

As I found it, the article had no introduction , and its first section opened with the arbitrary POV statement that "Christian Science was discovered by Mary Baker Eddy in the 19th century". There was no qualifier for the assertion that she "discovered" Christian Science (which would imply its pre-existence) rather than founding the religion herself.

There is a separate Wikipedia article for the Church of Christ, Scientist, but astonishingly there was no link to it in the Christian Science article. I don't know why these articles aren't merged, or at least trimmed down heavily to avoid overlap, since they both contain a lot of the same informnation about theology, healing, beliefs, etc.

For now, I have removed the statement that Mary Eddy "discovered" Christian Science, and added the following introduction. I'm no kind of expert on the subject, so somebody with more knowledge of Christian Science may wish to ammend or flesh out the introduction. (Please keep it balanced, not POV. Thanks.)

"Christian Science is a religious belief system developed by Mary Baker Eddy during the 19th century, and practised most prominently by members of the Church of Christ, Scientist, which she founded. Christian Science asserts that humanity is primarily spiritual, rather than material, and that truth and healing can be achieved through faith and prayer."

If anybody reverts, or reinstates the "discovery" statement, please qualify it and justify your changes here. Thank you. Weasel Fetlocks (talk) 11:57, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

--note added 11/30/09 - Mrs Eddy was very clear that the human was not spiritual, so to say that humanity is spiritual is incorrect. Man is spiritual. There are 459 instances of "human" in Science and Health. I can't go thru them all now, but p.43:27, p. 99:14 pp 115-116 are some that confirm this. I've changed the word from "humanity" to "Man". see S&H p. 114:27 there appears to be a problem with Wikipedia's gender-neutral language policy, but the Bible, Mrs Eddy, and many other sources use "man" as a generic, gender neutral term. Human has a different definition than Man, they are not interchangable. The "humanity" in this sentance is an incorrect statement as far as Christian Science is defined. Many of the words in the intro are not correct and are misleading, like "tangible" which implies touch/feel, it should be "substance" or "substantial".

Hi--I changed "developed" to "established": this would overcome the "developed / discovered" dichotomy, I think. It would also take some cognizance of the "institutional" side of Christian Science, though I believe Mary Baker Eddy to have been somewhat ambiguous towards that aspect. BTW could you put in the link to "Church of Christ, Scientist"? My wiki skills are a bit rusty. Thanks :-) 79.97.246.219 (talk) 21:32, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Please note that MBE used the word "discovery" when referring to the principle of Christian Science. For example in S&H on page 107 lines 1-6 it reads: "In the year 1866, I discovered the Christ Science or divine laws of Life, Truth, and Love, and named my discovery Christian Science. God had been graciously preparing me during many years for the reception of this final revelation of the absolute divine Principle of scientific mental healing." And the marginal heading states: "Christian Science Discovered". So I'm not sure it is arbitrary POV to say that MBE discovered CS. The founding of the Church of Christ Scientist was a different event that followed many years later when she found that her discovery was not accepted by existing religions. "Christian Science" is not the religion as MBE defined it, hence she discovered it and founded the religion later. For example, MBE states in S&H on page 482:27-29 "Christian Science is the law of Truth, which heals the sick on the basis of the one Mind or God." WilliamKF (talk) 01:20, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

If for some reason someone feels that the word "discovered" should be used then qualify it by saying "Mary Baker Eddy claimed to have discovered the belief of..." or something like that. Basic point, I think discovered could be used if explaining who thinks they 'discovered' it. (Meanwhile I'm trying to figure out what 'it' is. ;) ) Strawberry Island (talk) 14:51, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

General comment for the intro: It seems to be a bit hard to read and more importantly understand. I don't know enough about the topic to be pro or anti... this is just a general observance of trying to understand the basics of it (and I mean the very basics). I've done a couple things just to help the readability of it (at least from my standpoint). The intent of the intro is still the same though. Strawberry Island (talk) 14:48, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Working on the intro, just trying to wikify it. I've noticed that the edit wars seem to be over some statements in the intro (I know there appears to be editing going on all over the article but I'm focusing on the intro here...).

So why has the intro been changed from the this earlier one to the more current one (major changes happening in this edit)? http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Christian_Science&diff=prev&oldid=228253841

First of all isn't Christian Science a religious belief system? What else can we take from the above linked intro and add back into the existing intro? All comments and discussion welcome! :) Strawberry Island (talk) 15:14, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Ok, so maybe religious belief system isn't as popular of a term as I thought. Still I understand what it's saying if it's used. But when the term system of spiritually scientific truths is used, I'm not sure what that means. Someone want to write an article on that? Strawberry Island (talk) 15:19, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

The intro as I found it, containing the "system of spiritually scientific truths" phrase, is absurdly POV and obviously written by an adherent. I object to the use of "scientific truths" in reference to ANY religion, which are inherently unscientific by any sensible definition of the term, and calling any particular system of religious beliefs "truth" is obviously POV. The whole intro paragraph was gobbledygook. I have restored the proposed intro found above. It is a system of religious beliefs. If you want to use a different phrase to describe it, fine, but please keep in NPOV. Egomaniac (talk) 12:07, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Wording of this sentence

I'm rather puzzled by the idea that it's practised most prominently by the members etc.: who practises it but the members? Why would you practise it if you weren't a member? To me, this sounds like saying "Islam...is practised most prominently by Muslims..." I skimmed the article and didn't find an explanation, so perhaps I missed it; but even if I msised the proper explanation, I think that the wording should be changed to sound less odd. Nyttend (talk) 04:05, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

This may be splitting hairs, but there is a stratification of Christian Scientists into non-members (those who have not joined the church,) members (those who have joined the church, a bureaucratic exercise,) and "class taught" Christian Scientists (those who have undergone a specified educational program.)

In this sense it is entirely possible to practice Christian Science but not be a member of the Church. Digitalican (talk) 19:46, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Many people practise Christian Science to some degree or another who are not members of the Christian Science church. They may be members of another church or no church at all. Some have organizational issues concerning the Christian Science church, some have not got around to joining the organization and some have left for whatever reasons. (The analogy with Islam does not stand up--Muslims do not join a religious organization at all, as far as I know.)79.97.246.219 (talk) 21:57, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Hi, I am brand new to this and I hope I don't mess things up.. But I am a Christian Scientist. I remember reading this a couple of years ago and it was more accurate then than it is now. Mrs. Eddy is widely known and recognized as "The Discoverer and Founder of Christian Science." Christian Science is a lot of things though, a method of healing, a "religion", an applied science based on what its adherents regard as divine Principle, or absolute Truth (which is infinite and cannot be stereotyped). I can see why the one guy here has a problem with the term discover, because it implies that the thing that was discovered actually is true. What about saying "is regarded by it's adherents to be the discovery of the same method employed by Jesus and his early followers" and that it was introduced by or developed by or something to that affect. It would be helpful for anyone trying to explain this, to go back to some of Mrs. Eddy's own statements on the subject. Here is one example, "The terms Divine Science, Spiritual Science, Christ Science or Christian Science, or Science alone, she employs interchangeably, according to the requirements of the context. These synonymous terms stand for everything relating to God, the infinite, supreme, eternal Mind. It may be said, however, that the term Christian Science relates especially to Science as applied to humanity." My sense of this is that there is really one absolute Principle of Science that governs all reality, and that the "Christian" part of Christian Science is how that Principle relates to humanity specifically. In other words, in the healing of human problems through this method, the infinite Principle (God or infinite Mind) is never stereotyped, but is demonstrated in each and every unique case, much like a basic principle in mathematics can have infinite applications and expressions and can meet the need of whatever problem it is being employed for to resolve. This is what we believe Jesus was doing was practicing this divine Principle, which by the way is also divine Love (there are 7 synonyms for God in Christian Science teachings - Mind, Principle, Soul, Spirit, Life, Truth, and Love. This is deep so it is not easy to define it in such a short way, but some encyclopedias from the 1960's had it pretty right. I hope this makes sense to someone! If anyone has questions, please feel free to ask. It is going to take a lot of care to get this right. Sorry if I am not very wiki-savvy. C.S. Erik —Preceding unsigned comment added by C.S. Erik (talk • contribs) 07:12, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

My hat is off to Crusin TT

Wikipedia is amazing. Even if Wikipedia's rules are not followed, we still can find people who give a professional and unbiased article. The particular Christian Science article, attempting to bury the Science of Truth in Mary Baker Eddy, Church, or words, rightly has 3 red flags at the top from Wikipedia. That version needs cleaning up, and its disputes need to be dealt with. Fortunately, I dug up, with a little sleuthing, on the "history" page, an outstanding performance by Crusin TT. Thank you for the Introduction to Christian Science and the clear, simple facts distinguishing between Christian Science, Mary Baker Eddy, Church, and Scientists. The law of Love, Truth, is NOT practiced prominently by people who call themselves Christian Scientists. Love embraces all people whether they know the words Christian Science or not. No worries on the "Digit.." who is unwilling to work with improved change. (It is almost a joke at how quickly the new article was undid) Consensus will win. I will replace the new article and we all can continue in the cleanup process. (TreasureStriker (talk) 17:20, 19 July 2008 (UTC))

Sorry, guys, what you have done may or may not be truth but it does fall under the "original research" areas of wikipedia. What I feel about it is not relevant (I'm not arguing a political point here) but rather it's not sustainable beyond conjecture and belief. Digitalican (talk) 19:30, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Time for the edit war to end?

Hasn't the "It is difficult to estimate the number of Christian Scientists..." edit war gone past its three reverts? Its become boring. --Do go be man (talk) 01:23, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Posted the 3rr warning template to the talk pages of the two most obvious editors engaged in the edit war. --Do go be man (talk) 02:21, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

References in this article

Could someone with the time, skill and interest go through this article and rationalize the references? At the moment they are a jumble of different styles, which is not recommended by Wikipedia. Thanks.79.97.235.67 (talk) 10:38, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Some of the references (and referenced statements) in this article are horrible examples of wrong sourcing. AFAIK, sources are supposed to be secondary sources, not books written by believers. This content should be cleaned out. --DustWolf (talk) 00:21, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

I disagree, and a brief look at some other entries will show that that is wrong. For example, the entry on "Darwin" gives numerous references to Darwin's published writings as well as to the writings of Darwinists.79.97.228.17 (talk) 21:17, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Life and Death

I Think that there should be a topic/new section on "Life and Death" because that is another important factor in Christian Science, and we don't have a specific section on that. ~Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.20.88.22 (talk) 01:24, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Us and we?

Anything with those words that is not in attributed quotes needs to go. •Jim62sch•^dissera! 13:17, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Which information belongs where?

Should this page be merged with the info on the "Church of Christ, Scientist" page? I started editing this page, but I'm having trouble figuring out which information belongs under "Christian Science" and which belongs under "Church of Christ, Scientist." Is there a general principle to follow in such cases? Surely wikipedia doesn't want two identical pages? If the pages should be merged, which one should be kept? The "Church of Christ, Scientist" seems to primarily present the official church view; this page seems to give a more balanced account of controversies, etc.

Pauldom (talk) 04:48, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

The current situation doesn't reflect this, but in my opinion the Church of Christ Scientist page should reflect the church as an organization without respect to the beliefs of the religion. The Christian Science page should probably be more inclusive of the beliefs and less about the structure of the church.

It's really not right to misrepresent or draw conclusions from studies that aren't reported in the studies themselves. That is, as they say, "original research."

Digitalican (talk) 17:02, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Hi Digitalican,

I don't have time to go back through the article again right now, but you removed info that IS reported in the studies themselves. e.g., you removed info about potentially biasing study assumptions (here is the copy/paste): "Although these findings are consistent with a previous report (15), they may be subject to at least two biases. First, the assumption that PC graduates who were lost to follow-up were alive and that LLU graduates who were also lost to follow-up had the same risk for death as other graduates may have reduced the differences in mortality for the two groups. Second, because the dietary habits of Seventh-day Adventists are associated with lower risks for several chronic diseases, mortality related to chronic diseases was probably lower among LLU graduates than it would have been in other comparison populations. http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/00015022.htm" Similar text is present in the JAMA article (the full text, that I realize now is not free online), etc.

I don't mind being edited. In fact, your edits made the article better. But I do want to correct your claim that I misrepresented or drew conclusions that weren't reported in the studies themselves, because I did not.

Your take on the difference b/w the two pages makes sense; thanks.

132.170.48.163 (talk) 22:07, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

You are correct and I apologize. I got carried away. My objective (here and elsewhere) is to reduce the length and complexity of articles to make them more encyclopedic. I don't have time to do a complete rewrite and separation of these two articles but it seems to me they ought to make strong points only and allow the readers to go to the original sources if they are interested.

Digitalican (talk) 00:04, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Proposed work group

There is currently discussion regarding the creation of a work group specifically to deal with articles dealing with this subject, among others, here. Any parties interested in working in such a group are welcome to indicate their interest there. Thank you. John Carter (talk) 17:30, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

controversy sections

the whole controversy sections needs a npov rewrite - it sounds like an apologist defense of christian healing

something i found especially idiotic

"The appellation "Christian Science" predates modern considerations of scientific method" as if by predating the scientific method, christian science is somehow irreproachable and then goes on to state "the efficacy of Christian Science has been demonstrated for over a century by over 50,000 documented healings with signed witnesses" citing a questionable source with only a title —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.231.243.94 (talk) 16:45, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Please do not use insulting terms like "idiotic." No-one has claimed that CS is "irreproachable" as a result of predating the scientific method--this is your own inference which you set up to shoot down. Bad debating tactics.79.97.245.169 (talk) 20:33, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

No one claimed it was "irreproachable", but the statement implies that the use of the word "science" is justified because it predates the modern definition. The origins of physics come from something called "natural philosophy", but you'll be pretty hard-pressed to find someone that calls physics "philosophy" nowadays. 2crudedudes (talk) 13:20, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Well, you could imagine a venerable scientific society founded in eg the 18th century called the "Natural Philosophy Society" (I don't know if such a thing exists or not btw). It would make little sense to argue that the society is illegitimate because it actually does physics, not philosophy, as stated in the name. Everyone who did a little research would know that it was a scientific society, not a philosophical society. Similarly, Christian Science does not do science as it is currently defined, so it should not be judged by contemporary definitions of science.89.100.37.108 (talk) 02:04, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

The comparison of the mortality of graduates of the Christian Science college with graduates of the Seventh Day Adventist college is not an evaluation of the efficacy of Christian Science healing per se, but a comparison of the success-rate of CS healing with whatever healing methods were employed by graduates of the other college (presumably traditional medicine in most cases).

have you ever heard of the placebo effect? 2crudedudes (talk) 13:20, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Sure I have. So?89.100.37.108 (talk) 02:04, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Another drawback is that there seems to be an assumption that the graduates of the Christian Science college used Christian Science healing, but this assumption is not necessarily correct in all cases. I wonder if anyone knows of any studies that evaluate the efficacy of Christian Science healing per se, rather than comparing it to conventional medical healing. If so, this could improve the scientificity of this section. (For example, when the automobile was first invented, presumably they didn't test it against a train to see whether it could go or not. If it could move by itself, that would surely have been enough! Whether it could outpace a train--or whether Christian Science could outpace conventional medicine--is surely a separate question entirely.)

there is nothing scientific about this religion. It accepts certain scientific principles, but the conclusions it reaches defy logic. 2crudedudes (talk) 13:20, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Would you like to elaborate on that? The teaching that matter is unreal is found in the philosopher Berkeley. The teaching that the universe is fundamentally mental is a mainstay of contemporary philosophical idealism, not to mention Buddhism. Prominent philosophers from Plato to Leibniz to Schopenhauer have taught something similar. The main difference is in the practical application to healing, which Mary Baker Eddy taught. Where, though, does it defy logic (as distinct from the evidence of the senses, which is a different thing from logic)?89.100.37.108 (talk) 02:04, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Article needs reworking

This could be a great article if it had better sourcing, organization, and better prose. I am going to be reading the article all the way through today, making edits as I see them, and assessing it. After that I will attempt a reoganization of the article that makes it simpler to find infomation. Feel free to help me.

P.S. I have no views on Christian Science one way or other. I came to this article to get information and, well, just have to help contribute to it. It really could be really good. Ltwin (talk) 06:31, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Pointing out POV edits

The following was written in response to Digger2009 edits on May 8, 2009:

"Based on my own understanding" - while I respect your knowledge I must make you aware that Wikipedia is not based on original research (WP:NOR). It is based on existing knowledge from reliable sources (WP:RS). I've only been working on this article for a few days as well and I know there is much unsourced information, but if you question something you can place a fact tag, such as this - {{fact}} - which produces this - - or you could delete it if it is clearly off the wall.

Now about what you wrote. In the introduction you placed qoutation marks around certain words, such as "Science of Healing". This implies that this is untrue. Wikipedia doesn't decide what is true, we use only what is verifiable (WP:V). If Christian Scientist call thier religion a Science of Healing why should we characterize it as false or misleading. The article can include, and if I remember correctly in certain places it does mention this, that this is not a science but a religion. However, I would agree that calling it a Science of Healing isn't necessary in the lead where no context is given, so I would be fine if the phrase were taken out, but not placed in qoutation marks.

"but it is unclear how many adherants to the Christian Science faith are to be be found beyond the church's membership. In any event, that number appears to be quite small. The church is secretive about its membership numbers, although it claims approximately 1,700 branch congregations throughout the world. Reportedly, the majority of these congregations are comprised of a dozen or fewer congregants." [letters in bold added for emphasis]

Why are you commentating about how "secretive" and small the church is when it comes to membership? Why are you characterizing it without a source to verify it? And even if reliable sources say the church is "secretive" or something similar, why does it need to be in the introduction? There is a whole article where you can flesh out these details. Or better yet on the Church of Christ, Scientist article! This is called undo weight (WP:Due):"Undue weight applies to more than just viewpoints. Just as giving undue weight to a viewpoint is not neutral, so is giving undue weight to other verifiable and sourced statements. An article should not give undue weight to any aspects of the subject, but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to its significance to the subject. Note that undue weight can be given in several ways, including, but not limited to, depth of detail, quantity of text, prominence of placement, and juxtaposition of statements." Also, why does the congregation size need to be in the introduction or this article? As stated above there is an article on the CS Church, but statistical information like this should really be sourced - either from the church itself but more desirably from a 3rd party reliable source.

Ok about the CS Journal and Sentinal, I can see your point about pov, but instead of slanting it to another pov it would have been better if you removed mention of these from the introduction to another part of the article and treat it something like this (in the absence of sources) -"The Christian Science Journal and the Christian Science Sentinel document what Christian Scientists believe are instances of healing through the use of Christian Science prayer." As the last sentence is very pov and unsourced I would delete it. If you there really is criticism of the methods of verification then a sentence noting this and sourced would be appropriate.

Now for the paragraph on Eddy and the beginning of CS. Why did you change it from "Eddy developed this method of healing when she recovered from an injury in 1866 after rereading a passage describing one of Jesus' healings," to "Eddy claimed to have discovered' Christian Science after her recovery from what she characterized as life-threatening injuries sustained from a fall on the ice in 1866"?[letters in bold added for emphasis] Again why qoutation marks? If there is criticism or alternative versions of the story then they can be presented in a more appropriate section but not in the lead (remember WP:Undue). Your further edits to this paragraph are also questionable, but they mainly repeat what has already been addressed.

Ltwin (talk) 22:59, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Hi--I'm not at all sure that changing the name "Mary Baker Eddy" to "Eddy" (the surname of her third husband) adds anything to the article. In fact it arguably diminishes her by reducing her to a surname acquired by marriage (in later life). I suggest that the name "Mary Baker Eddy" be reinstated.79.97.245.169 (talk) 18:36, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Its normal for a person's whole name to be used when it is first used. After that the last name is used only. Ltwin (talk) 19:52, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Christian Science and Christianity

"Far from an actually form of Christianity, Christian Science is something completely different and bears some similarity to the teachings of Abelard, Origen and Meister Eckhart."

Citation for this ? Could be quite confusing for most Christian Scientists, who would put themselves squarely in the camp of the Protestant Reformation. --InnocentsAbroad2 (talk) 22:35, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Just a random quote from C and H

"The atonement of Christ reconciles man to God, not

    	God to man; for the divine Principle of Christ is God,
 15  	and how can God propitiate Himself?""

Pretty darn orthodox Christianity -- surprised myself, on review. --InnocentsAbroad2 (talk) 23:07, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

The edits I believe you're referring to have been reverted. I did not (and never would) add anything like that. Ltwin (talk) 01:22, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Not full name

Not sure where the notion of not giving religious leaders their full name falls in -- but here is an example (and there are many others) --

"The Sikhs revere Guru Granth Sahib as their supreme teacher, as it is a literal transcript of the teachings of the Sikh Gurus. The tenth Guru appointed Guru Granth Sahib as his successor. Compiled by the Sikh Gurus, and maintained in its original form, Sikhs revere Guru Granth Sahib as their supreme guide. Non-Sikhs can partake fully in Sikh prayer meetings and social functions. Their daily prayers include the well being of all of mankind.[30]" --InnocentsAbroad2 (talk) 22:39, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

It has nothing to do with "religious leaders". Once someone is mentioned once in an article, its usual for their last name to be used only after that, unless by using that name you confuse readers like if two people with the name Eddy were mentioned in the article. Since Mary Baker is mentioned more than once in the article, her last name alone is used. That's my reasoning. Ltwin (talk) 01:16, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

It would be more respectful (not to mention "politically correct") to give her her full name, rather than referring to her by the surname of her third husband. Her first husband died when she was young, her second husband she divorced for his admitted adultery, and her third husband (Eddy) predeceased her. Mary Baker Eddy is a more accurate name than Eddy.79.97.245.169 (talk) 22:24, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Informal Pressure to Eschew Medicine

The statements regarding informal pressure on Christian Scientists to eschew medicine are problematic in the wikiverse. Those of us who have lived it, know the pressures to avoid medicine at all costs including death. The church formally claims otherwise. To document our own experiences regarding the pressures to refuse medical treatment conflict with the wikiban on original research. It will be interesting to see if the current edits on the subject degrade into an edit war or resolve the issue. Do go be man (talk) 13:04, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

In my personal experience, the truth is somewhere in the middle. For the lay Christian Scientist, depending on the particular church or community, there may be little or no social pressure to avoid medical treatment. For practitioners, "class taught" scientists, readers or others the social pressures to eschew medical treatment may be extreme and may come from functionaries of the church itself. I suspect my experience, like that of many, is anecdotal and would qualify as "original research" so I'll take a wait-and-see attitude with respect to the article itself. Digitalican (talk) 16:41, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

I am not a Christian Scientist, but from reading the section, it seems that both the previous and current versions use original research and unverified claims. Ltwin (talk) 04:42, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Medical/Academic controversy merge.

I have merged the academic controversy section into the medical controversy. This is due to the small length of both sections and the view that studies of epidemiological most certainly fall under the broad banner of medicine. All text is retained and I have simply slightly restructured the order with mild tweaks to alter flow.

The only section of text that is new is the following "and argue that it is ineffective in the treatment of disease. Critics point to epidemiological studies showing higher mortality rates among Christian Scientists, and the a lack of evidence for the efficacy of Christian Science aside from anecdotal evidence.

I believe there can be zero controversy that the mainstream scientific view of Christian science is that it is largely ineffective and a lack of rigorous evidence. I'm simply pointing this all out here before someone shouts POV and deletes it. These are the two main criticism by the medical profession and we cannot have a medical controversy section without including them.

--122.57.89.90 (122.57.89.90) 08:22, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Redirecting_Christian Scientist_ to _Church of Christ, Scientist_ rather than here.

Whether you feel its is logically justified to have "Christian Scientist" redirect to “Church of Christ, Scientist”, or not, when someone types in "Christian Scientist" they are wondering what a Christian Scientist believes, not what are the historical and organizational matters of the religion he adheres to. However since the page Church of Christ, Scientist immediately gets into the theology of Christian Science the reader thinks he as found the page he is looking for. It's actually an interesting question... Is a Christian Scientist defined more by the religion he belongs to or by his beliefs. One position is the material position while the other is the spiritual position.
If you do not change the redirect, I would suggest that you make an explicit statement on the Church of Christ, Scientist page that there exits an entirely separate article on the beliefs of a Christian Scientist. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.26.109.198 (talk) 23:41, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

I've changed the redirect. Ltwin (talk) 00:32, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Good call. While I'm not a Christian Scientist, or even religious, I do feel it is the most spiritual religion out there. Society is slowly warming up to the none reality of matter. The success of the New York Times Best Seller, "The Power of Now" is a good case in point. (40 million sold, 33 languages). The metaphysics of Christian Science will be proven out. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.26.24.56 (talk) 00:55, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

You should really be a Christian Scientist then. Funny how much you sound like one already. What does "The Power of Now" (a sleazy self-help book of no real consequence) have to do with C. Science? How can metaphysics be "proven"? "Agreed upon", maybe, but never "proven". Rather than warming up, society views CS is a cult (which it is, with 100,000 adherents at best and the charismatic and controlling characteristics) with a particularly high turnover rate. Even other Christians view it as loony and heretical. It only gets in the news when a follower's kid dies from something easily curable. CS had its salad days pre-handwashing and is rapidly dying out. The study center in downtown Portland must be kept afloat by donations (or more likely the wills of elderly members.) Never see anybody in there. 76.105.254.23 (talk) 10:00, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

I believe s/he said that society was slowly warming to the ideas represented by C.S, rather than the organized religious representation of those ideas, as advocated by the Church of Christ, Scientist. It's an irony that books like "The Secret" dominate best seller lists, while Christian Science, per se, withers on the vine, but that's the way it goes, I guess.Contextmatters (talk) 13:11, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Christian Science and British Israelism

A section on British Israelism should be added to the Christian Science article becuase Mary Baker Eddy was a supporter of British Israelism until her death and many early members of the Christian Science church accepted the message and studies of Anglo Israelism. Many Christian Scienists believed that the american and English Christian Scientists represent the true Israel, it has been well documentated and is a proven fact. 212.219.116.229 (talk) 13:26, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Yes it is a fact that Mary Baker Eddy was a supporter of British Israelism, this has been put on the British Israelism article. 86.10.119.131 (talk) 20:38, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Einstein relationship to CS

There have been many claims about CS and Einstein, here is the first place where there seems to be some attempt at scholarly attribution. You can view it for free at:

http://www.amazon.com/gp/reader/1410752178/ref=sib_dp_srch_pop?v=search-inside&keywords=einstein&go.x=0&go.y=0&go=Go!#reader_1410752178 (Go to page 220)

It cites the following source that I'd like to see, but it requires subscription:

http://www.sciencemag.org/content/284/5418/1257.summary

How do these hold up in the view of others as reliable sources? WilliamKF (talk) 16:49, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

I don't get a subscription request to view that article. Try this link:

http://www.sciencemag.org/content/284/5418/1257.full

The article is an opinion/news piece, and makes no mention of Einstein or Christian Science. 128.249.1.202 (talk) 15:54, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Here is another interesting source:

http://www.mbeinstitute.org/Quotes/Einstein.pdf

WilliamKF (talk) 13:21, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Unsubstantiated hearsay recollections from sources who require anonymity - hardly reliable — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.16.130.17 (talk) 12:27, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Poor cite to blog - not NPOV

In the article, there is a cite to a blog titled "Prayer is another insanity in ObamaCare" to support the sentence "The news of the provision stirred criticism from both pro- and anti-healthcare reform commentators, including those who may possess religious inclinations,³⁴". The title alone to me says this is not a NPOV citation, looking at the page, I see it is an opinion piece that appears to lack scholarly feel and instead feels more like someone pontificating with little knowledge about the issues in play here. Is anyone with a blog a commentator worth citing? I hope we can get a better cite for this. Does anyone have a better one? WilliamKF (talk) 14:48, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Blogs are not reliable sources. The sentence should either be deleted or tagged with "citation needed". Ltwin (talk) 22:02, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Clean-up, 19th May, 2011

I have attempted a full clean-up of this article, and have either found and inserted references which were lacking, or removed statements that were unreferenced. The only matter of contraversy remaining, is the large number of hyperlinks to material outside of Wikipedia. On examination of some of these, however, I found that the links were either to online Bibles or to organisations opposed to Chritian Science which have no significant printed material. Removing such links could result in a biased article. Michael J. Mullany (talk) 04:06, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm a long-standing contributor to this article. You did a great job on editing. However, I think some of the material could be arranged in a more logical order. I'll have a go at that if/when I get some time. 89.100.37.108 (talk) 17:40, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Great. You might like to contact me via my talk page or by email: mmullany@northtec.ac.nz . I don't know whether you are for or against Christian Science, but either way we all want the public to hear the unbiased truth about the subject. In the past, things have been posted which simply could not be verified from credible literary sources. One, for example, which I removed is that healings may occur even when practitioners have not met patients, and even when they are separated by great distances. I know that this claim is frequently made, but could find no credible reference to support it. I therefore believed that I had no option but to delete it. If you can cite a source, preferably a printed source that verifies this, it could be put back. Both regular and non-sectarian Christian Scientists need to cite material from their printed resources rather than by links to web sites. The Wiki editors quite rightly object to too many on-line links, since these can change or disappear, much to the irritation of the reading public. I look forward to more healthy and unbiased discussion here, via email or via my talk page. Michael J. Mullany (talk) 22:05, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

One place to look for such accounts would be Peel's book:

http://www.amazon.com/Spiritual-Healing-Scientific-Robert-Peel/dp/0060664851

http://books.google.com/books?id=ZNfI5qVmNNoC

Peel is known for being the most scholarly of the supportive biographers of MBE and this book contains healings documented by medical professionals with affidavits. I do not know, but imagine within there there is at least one where the practitioner was at a distance. FWIW (i.e. OR) violation etc.), I personally have worked successfully with practitioners at a distance with whom I have not previously met in person. WilliamKF (talk) 13:28, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Further edits and clean-ups July, 2011

I have just removed a short insert by an unregistered editor from the section on theology as it was neither relevant nor referenced. Was the insert a biblical quote? If so, from where? Why do you think that the insert adds anything at all to the rest of the section? Michael J. Mullany (talk) 21:06, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

The recent edit from an IP address is interesting and informative. However, I think that it is a pity that he/she doesn't register as an editor so that we can be more interactive. If you read this, why not give it some thought? You can remain annonymous by using a pseudonym and registration is free.Michael J. Mullany (talk) 00:35, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Question about Science

A contributor seems to be eager to get across the argument that Christian Science is not "science" as the latter term is normally understood today. However, the material is unsourced, appears to comprise "original research," and is patently POV. Consequently it will be reverted whenever it appears. He/she is wasting his/her time on this one (and also the time of people who have to revert it whenever it appears). However, that's a pity because there is an interesting account to be given of the issues re the use of the term "science" in Christian Science. Such an account needs to be sourced however, with appropriate references to published material. I suggest the contributor start with a book like Robert Peel's *Spiritual Healing in a Scientific Age* for the pro-CS argument, and then use whatever opposing material may be found for the counter-argument. Experience shows that pro-CS contributors are quite content to allow anti-CS material to remain in the Wikipedia entry on Christian Science, provided the material fulfills the criteria of Wikipedicity (to coin a word). BTW, it should be noted that the term "science" as used by Mary Baker Eddy preceded modern discussions in the philosophy of science, a la Kuhn, Feyerabend, Popper et al. Clearly, the term "science" as used in CS does not fulfill (eg) the criterion of "falsifiability" as used by Popper to denote scientificity, and in those terms Christian Science would join Marxism, psychoanalysis and astrology in the outer darkness of pseudo-scientificity from a Popperian perspective--which is by no means the definitive perspective in the philosophy of science by the way. One could, in fact, argue in favour of the use of "science" in Christian Science by reference to e.g. meteorites. For a long time their existence was dismissed, since it was held as axiomatic that stones do not fall from the sky. Nor could one conceive of an experiment that could be set up to prove (or rather falsify) the claim that they did. Nevertheless, stones do in fact fall from the sky, as is now widely accepted. A similar argument could be made for CS healing. If even one healing can be shown to occur by purely spiritual means, that shows that spiritual healing is possible (since it happened). You don't have to set up a double-blind repeatable experiment to prove (or disprove) it.89.100.37.108 (talk) 23:22, 19 July 2011 (UTC) Whaddya know. I looked up "Wikipedicity" on Google and it's already out there. Another attempt at immortality foiled :-(89.100.37.108 (talk) 11:51, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

I believe the use of the word "Science" in Christian Science relates to the word's etymology:

From Old French science, from Latin scientia (“knowledge”), from sciens, the present participle stem of scire (“know”).

I believe MBE is talking about knowledge when she uses Science. WilliamKF (talk) 13:37, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

I Really Don't Like that Picture

It makes Jesus look like a weak, anemic, milk-toast kind of person. I'm sure he was quite the opposite. Does anyone know how to change it for something more...dynamic or something? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.100.37.108 (talk) 21:41, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Ask here: Template talk:Christianity. Good luck! Rursus dixit. (^mbork³!) 12:14, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Recent edits by 'Everything Else is Taken'

While I have little difficulty with recent edits made by Everything Else is Taken, it does appear that (s)he has a history of vandalising articles, for which (s)he was deleted as a user. Okay for now, but I'm watching. Michael J. Mullany (talk) 09:57, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

The Hereafter and Moody's Book

An editor is insisting the following statement be in this section: "The modern public interest in near death experiences really only started with Raymond Moody's 1975 book Life After Life."

It seems to me that, even with the references provided, a sweeping assertion about "modern public interest" and "really only started" cannot be supported. The paragraph seems fine without this sentence and I think it should be pulled.

Failing that, I'm in favor of taking the issue to the Reliable Source noticeboard because this sort of thing diminishes the quality of the page and can adversely affect its Good Article status. I don't want to see that happen.

Anyone have any thoughts? — UncleBubba ^{( T @ C )} 08:35, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

To me, the question is, 'Did Christian Scientists, particularly their practitioners, know of NDEs well before they became public knowledge?' Wiki's own article on NDEs states: "Popular interest in near-death experiences was initially sparked by Raymond Moody's 1975 book Life After Life[8] and the founding of the International Association for Near-Death Studies (IANDS) in 1981.[9]". Do we say that the NDE article also committs the same fault as suggested by UncleBubba, or are we satisfied that there the editors got it right? Michael J. Mullany (talk) 08:59, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

(Michael, I indented your comments, per Talk page conventions. Hope you don't mind.)

This also begs the question of relevance: The paragraph works well as it is, mentioning how long Christian Scientists have known of NDEs. A claim of "sparking popular interest" is sweeping, and requires extraordinary sourcing. Remember, too, that WP cannot be cited as a source for itself (see WP:RS and WP:OSE).

We should also, I suppose, ask the purpose of the paragraph. Is it to inform, or to compare? Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and should present facts to the reader, without alteration or embellishment. Without the controversial verbiage, the the paragraph sounds great; with it, it sounds like hype or taunting, something it should not be.

Often, it is true that, "just because you can do something doesn't mean you should do it". — UncleBubba ^{( T @ C )} 13:37, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

As I've put on Michael J. Mullany's talk page I agree with UncleBubba ^{( T @ C )}. The reference adds nothing to information about Christian Science and is a digression from the intent of the section. I also dispute the assertion of Christian Scientists believing in the hereafter (there's a logical inconsistency between CS doctrine and that) but that's not what this is about. Digitalican (talk) 15:25, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

I think that it is time to find an alternative to the mention of Moody's book. Two sincere editors are of the opinion that this is too off-the-topic. My case to keep it is that it places the CS view in a world context. What about a simple reference to the NDE article instead? Replace the reference to Moody with something like, As is suggested in the Wiki article on NDEs, . . . ? Michael J. Mullany (talk) 19:43, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

I agree that the Moody book has no place in this context, unless a citation can be provided that shows Moody's perspective as relevant or connected to the Christian Science perspective. Do go be man (talk) 22:38, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Okay guys, please comment on my efforts now that I've editing Moody's book out of the article. Michael J. Mullany (talk) 06:21, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

"Compulsion"

This is likely a controversial issue not readily understood by those lacking direct experience with Christian Science. Some may make a point that the edit indicates original research, from either point of view:

• "... there is no compulsion on them to do so..."
• "... it is not required..."

Here is my two cents on the differences and why I feel the original form, "required", is more appropriate (though still not exactly accurate). I may not be "wiki correct", but it does explain my edit.

As a former Christian Scientist who lived in that culture for more than 30 years, I understood that we were not technically "required" to limit our healthcare to Christian Science. We were and Christian Scientists are, however, certainly "compelled" to do so based on the writings of the faith and cultural compulsions.

I would prefer the paragraph drop the requirement/compulsion issue altogether: "Many Christian Scientists use their healing system as their first choice for treatment over drugs and surgery."

Yes, I could be bold and make the edit. I choose, however, to select only one controversy for now. The issue of compulsion is itself worth addressing, not merely as a side thought and not yet sure how to do so within wiki guidelines.

Do go be man (talk) 22:28, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

I am aware that in some branch churches and possibly previously in The Mother Church, there was social pressure on members not to use conventional medicine at all. Happily I think that the movement has eased up somewhat on this position. Michael J. Mullany (talk) 06:25, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

I too am aware that some elements of the Christian Science movement claim less social pressure on members to avoid use of medicine. Not currently attending any Christian Science church or other activities, I can only hope that is true. The reports that I have from Christian Scientists do not, however, indicate less pressure. What appears to be happening is certain Christian Scientists are moving away from the orthodox teachings of Christian Science and practicing a hybrid faith resulting in the appearance of less pressure. Do go be man (talk) 17:13, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Technically the position of the CS Church (whatever any of us thinks it may or may not be) has not changed. I'm one of those (Do go be man's position notwithstanding) who has always interpreted it as more liberal than most. My grandfather, who was a CS Practitioner and chairman of the board of lectureship of the CS Church for a time, had surgical treatment for hiatal hernia and remained in good standing with the church. Later he was treated for a heart attack and had his Practitioner's card pulled from the CS Journal, so the evidence -- at least in my case -- is ambiguous. I do, however, agree that "required" is a better word than compulsion which is truly an odd word in the Christian Science context. Digitalican (talk) 16:36, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Digitalican makes the distinction quite well, as well as the need to make it. There are at least two perspectives to consider: what the church requires and what the culture compels. The church has never "required" abstaining from medical care, just withdrawn support from those who do not. The culture, however, does compel it even though providing an academic citation to support that is not easily accomplished. A story told about an editor-in-chief of the Christian Science Monitor comes to mind. Keep in mind that Christian Scientists also do not use tobacco. The editor-in-chief was to be interviewed in his office by a reporter from another paper. As the reporter sat down he asked, "Mind if I smoke?" The editor-in-chief replied, "No... of course, no one ever has." By the way, my Christian Science teacher was considered disobedient because he accepted medical care. He died in a hospital. I was informed I could apply to take the one-time class in Christian Science again because of his disobedience. Do go be man (talk) 17:44, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

I think we need to make a distinction between any religion and extremists in that religion. With extremism comes both hypocracy and danger. Most Muslims, for example, are as horrified by the terrorist acts of Al Qaeda as everyone else. I think that similar is evident in the examples given by Do go be man and Digitalican above. Unfortunately, examples of this can be found in almost every religious movement on the planet. However, I do wonder how the CS church officials involved explain away Eddy's own extensive resort to the medical as revealed by Robert Peel. Michael J. Mullany (talk) 03:52, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry. The whole notions of an extremist Christian Scientist got me giggling. :) I think there are various interpretations of Christian Science and that (as Do go be man (talk)) has pointed out those can be associated with particular cults of personality in the church heirarchy, that's not really the subject of an encyclopedia article. Digitalican (talk) 13:54, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Medicine

The section on Medicine needs improvement. Medicine represents one of the most important controversies regarding Christian Science and should thereby recognized as such in context.

Deleted "Although it is not required," as it is redundant to the beginning of the paragraph which follows.

Deleted the exception as it weakened the rest of the paragraph. Perhaps someone could reintroduce it in an appropriate context, "An exception is the case of Christian Science Centers which may require certain employees to sign a statement of principles." As noted elsewhere, it is difficult for those lacking direct experience with Christian Science to appreciate the distinctions represented by these edits and need to improve this section.

Do go be man (talk) 17:05, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

It seems that the medical perspective has polarised views to an extent among some editors. I have not attempted to re-edit any of this, but would suggest that both sides guard against being defensive on the one hand, or overdoing the attack on the other. I am aware that some adherents to this religion have felt social pressure to avoid materia medica beyond those stipulated either by MB Eddy or the current official position of the church. Eddy herself resorted to the medical in her later years, as is well documented by Robert Peel. The fact that this was an official publication of the church hardly suggests that the modern movement insists on fanatical adherence to CS prayer alone. Michael J. Mullany (talk) 09:23, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

My only dog in this fight is over the use of weasel words to dilute either side of the argument. There is abundant evidence on both sides of the argument on Christian Science healing. There is abundant evidence on both sides of any argument on the healing powers of traditional western medicine. I reject the use of words like apparent, seeming, supposed etc on the basis that they force a side on issues that are ambiguous at best. I think it is very important that we all keep a finger on our pulse and recognize when we're promoting our own personal points of view through this forum. I respect people who disagree with me, but only up to the point where they become disingenuous. I trust fellow editors will call me on it if I overstep that bound. Digitalican (talk) 16:42, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Categorize as Pseudoscience?

Wouldn't it be appropriate to categorize Category:Christian Science under Category:Pseudoscience? (See article Pseudoscience for definition of term/scope.) - Soulkeeper (talk) 12:20, 2 January 2012 (UTC).

I find some difficulties with this. First, as is evident from the article on pseudoscience, it is somewhat difficult to define what a pseudoscience is. One of the criteria is that claims are not scientifically observable or demonstrable. In the light of the still large number of testimonies by people that they have been healed through Christian Science prayer, it is difficult to say this. By the same token, you could label any religion which offers healing through prayer as a pseudoscience. Second, the article on pseudoscience categorises usage of the MBTI as a pseudoscience, despite its still wide use in psychology. This highlights further the difficulty of defining something as a pseudoscience; unless of course you want to label the whole of psychology as a pseudoscience. Michael J. Mullany (talk) 21:24, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

A lot of testemonies for something do not make it science; the requirements are much higher than that (see article on scientific method). "The plural of anecdote is not data." Other religions which offer healing through prayer may or may not be pseudoscience, depending on whether or not they portray themselves as scientific. "Christian Science" obviously does try to portray itself as scientific, it's even got the word "Science" in the name. Labeling the MBTI test as pseudoscience is much more problematic than labeling "Christian Science" as pseudoscience, as the former may actually have some scientific merit, at least according to some scientific papers. As far as I can see, the same cannot be said for the latter. - Soulkeeper (talk) 13:03, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

No, but they certainly don't support the opposite either. I have read the article you refer to on the scientific method, and I would say that in its light, it is very difficult indeed to rule any genuine human effort at understanding as non-scientific. In fact, what exactly do you mean by the terms, 'scientific' and 'not scientific'? You sound to me to be an empiricist, and that would certainly imply the scientific method in a very restricted sense. What about the great value to social science of the case study; a well-respected methodology used by Piaget? or do we also call social science a pseudoscience because it seldom uses empiricism today and yet has 'science' in its name?

First I think it's important to define what is considered "real science" (or "hard" science) and what is not. "Hard" science is considered that which can be established and proven through quantification, that is, mathematically. Social sciences such as clinical psychology fail this test and thus are considered "soft" science by physical and natural scientists. Anything less than this would be considered "pseudoscience". CS falls into this category.2crudedudes (talk) 13:32, 10 January 2012 (UTC). So which category do you think CS falls into, soft science or pseudoscience? Michael J. Mullany (talk) 02:23, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

When it comes to Christian Science, there is little doubt (empirically demonstrable, if you like) that there are four classes of person;

• Those who have tried Christian Science and believe that it has helped them;
• Those who have tried Christian Science and believe that it has helped them on some occasions and not on others;
• Those who have tried Christian Science and believe that it has not helped them; possibly with serious consequences;
• Those who have never tried Christian Science treatment.

What is the scientific response to people in the first two categories?

'Christian Science is a pseudoscience which never works and it only appeared to help you because you were lucky'?

If so, I would really like to see the rigorously scientific support for making that statement.

On the other side of the coin, I do believe that certain Christian Scientists have gone far beyond the intentions of Eddy and the CS Church in coersing family and fellow members not to use materia medica. Eddy herself used extensive medical help in the form of pain control during the last years of her life; a fact that certain Christian Scientists would do well to remember. Michael J. Mullany (talk) 04:23, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

As much as I want people to be cautious of Christian Science, I also have difficulties classifying it as a pseudoscience. In so many ways, the Pseudoscience article accurately describes Christian Science from my perspective. The context, however, does not seem to fit within the intentions of Wiki. Do go be man (talk) 21:32, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

From the Christian Science article: "The claim of Christian Science to be scientific is based on induction [...]" - in other words, the spokespersons of "Christian Science" claims that it is scientific. Still it does not fit the modern criteria for science. Isn't that the definition of pseudoscience? From the Pseudoscience article: "The term pseudoscience is often considered inherently pejorative, because it suggests that something is being inaccurately or even deceptively portrayed as science. Accordingly, those labeled as practicing or advocating pseudoscience normally dispute the characterization." - I am not saying that CS is deceptively portrayed as science, because they're probably using the word "Science" in the antique sense of the word. But it is inaccurately being portrayed as science, for the exact same reason. - Soulkeeper (talk) 13:03, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Soulkeeper, it's very good that you're using Talk for this. as I indicated, there is likely a good case to be made for characterizing Christian Science as pseudoscience. You could be bold and make the connection. Be prepared, however, for disagreement from Christian Scientists and those that support Christian Science. As a former Christian Scientist and co-moderator of www.christianway.org/forums, I often encounter such discussion. My guess is that in this context, the Wiki moderators would opt to avoid the anticipated resulting edit war and delete the apparent pejorative. Do go be man (talk) 13:34, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Throwing in my two cents I want to stay somewhere in the middle. I think a proper response to this, which should be followed in editing, is to not portray Christian Science as in any way conforming to a modern definition of "science." The apparent oxymoronic use of the term science, confusing to many, is due to the antique usage of science as a synonym for a body of knowledge, which Christian Science certainly is (modulo your definition of knowledge.) This is the way the term Science of Philosophy was used in the nineteenth century.

The point about anecdotal knowledge not being "evidence" in a scientific sense is well taken. Christian science is simply not a testable or disprovable science in the modern sense of the word and the main article on Christian Science needs to be reworded to make this clear. None of the systems of believe we refer to as religions can be tested scientifically (adherents claims to the contrary) and classifying Christian Science as pseudoscience because of the antique use of a word is dangerous as it opens the door to many of the more militant atheists out there classifying all religions as myths or hoaxes, which is not what we're about. It behooves all of us to think about the unintended consequences here (and elsewhere) of following our personal agendas. Digitalican (talk) 13:50, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

No religion is scientific (as far as I know), but only some religions are pseudoscientific, and I believe this to be an encyclopedically relevant distinction. Unless you're making a slippery slope argument wrt. an invasion of "militant atheists", I fail to see the problem with labeling the pseudoscientific ones as such. - Soulkeeper (talk) 16:11, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

First of all, what's a "militant atheist"? Second of all, the classification of CS as a pseudoscience has nothing to do with other religions. CS CLAIMS to be scientific by using an archaic meaning of the word. While the church has used the word before the scientific method was formalized, the word is extremely misleading now since the church has simply updated their meaning of the word to the current meaning, but kept the original usage (which is wrong). 2crudedudes (talk) 13:32, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Again, read the whole argument not just the part you disagree with. As Do go be man points out that classification probably won't stand (It would fail the No Original Research metric, at least.) It's been tried before, and it hasn't. There are, however, improvements that can be made which might address some of your complaints. If you're unwilling to compromise, so be it. Digitalican (talk) 18:32, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

It would certainly not fail the NOR metric. Here are some sources for "Christian Science" being described as pseudoscience:

• Michael Shermer's The Skeptic Encyclopedia of Pseudoscience has five pages about the topic of Christian Science as pseudoscience, written by Robert Miller, Professor of Religious Studies at Juniata College in Pennsylvania. The article also provides several sources which may be interesting to follow.

The view that Christian Science is pseudoscience is also explicitely expressed, although discussed in less depth, by the following notable persons, among others:

• James Randi: Commentary Science Pseudoscience: the Differences
• John Thomas Sladek: Science Fiction and Pseudoscience
• Joe Nickell: Christian Science Maneuvering
• V. L. Jupp via Royal Institute of Philosophy: Freud and Pseudo-Science

And even less explicitely; still the association is clear from the context:

• Walter C. Kraatz via The Ohio Journal of Science: Pseudoscience And Antiscience In An Age Of Science (1958)
• Gale's Encyclopedia of Science, Technology, and Ethics: Pseudoscience
• John Searle: "Science has become something of an honorific term, and all sorts of disciplines that are quite unlike physics and chemistry are eager to call themselves ‘sciences’. A good rule of thumb to keep in mind is that anything that calls itself ‘science’ probably isn’t — for example, Christian science [...]"

I decided to "be bold", and added a new section, with some of these links as references, to the article. - Soulkeeper (talk) 15:07, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

I agree with the addition of this new section. You may also want to add it to list of topics characterized as pseudoscience. --McSly (talk) 15:36, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Soulkeeper, I keep wondering why this issue is important to you. That could shed some light on your decision to make the edit or not. On the one hand, I fully agree that Christian Science merely masquerades as science and is thereby worthy of being categorized as pseudoscience (an opinion that I would not share in the article itself). In spite of my personal feelings and experience, however, I'm not convinced that it falls into the same category as other pseudosciences such as astrology, numerology, wizardry, and economics. I'm especially not convinced that doing so will stand the Wiki tests. If you are convicted to do so, I think the admonition to be bold in your editing may be the only way to move forward. I will not be one of those arguing for or against its categorization in spite of and because of my bias. I think the facts should be made available to enable people to judge for themselves. Do go be man (talk) 16:28, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

It's important to me because I believe a skeptic viewpoint is necessary to maintain objectivity, and pseudoscientific notions should therefore be indentified as pseudoscientific when we write about them. - Soulkeeper (talk) 20:51, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

I think the question of whether Christian Science masquerades as a science depends upon the definition of science you use. Is it scientific under the modern, post-Kuhnian definition of science? Most likely not. Does it qualify as a science under the 19th century definition of science? Possibly so. There's no clear cut answer here. At any rate I'm starting to fold the argumentation in (as I have previously) to make the whole article a little less like a battlefield. (Note that I've removed no substantive material.) Digitalican (talk) 16:52, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm not saying that Christian Science claims to have a (modern) scientific basis for their claims, at least not explicitely. But one important hallmark of pseudoscience is "Use of obscurantist language, and use of apparently technical jargon in an effort to give claims the superficial trappings of science." Apart from the follwing quote from the article itself, "In the textbook, she [Mary Baker Eddy] describes the teachings and healings of Jesus as a complete and coherent science [...]", Christian Science does use many "modern science-y" terms:

• The Christian Science Journal has a name that gives the impression of it being a scientific journal.
• There's a "Christian Science Board of Education".
• The Christian Science Journal offers "Class Instruction From a Christian Science Teacher (CSB)"[2]

I think the above is a a bit disingenuous. The name of the religion is Christian Science. It (and the body of belief it represents) were named in the 19th century, including the Christian Science Journal, The Christian Science Sentinel and the Christian Science Board of Education. Of course Christian Science teachers teach about Christian Science. This is nothing but an extension of the argument against the name Christian Science itself, which is inappropriate here. Digitalican (talk) 22:20, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

• The official website states that "Christian Science is more than theory".[3]

It seems to me it is more than a theory, it's a religion. It's your own interpretation that you're objecting to here. Digitalican (talk) 22:20, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

The Christian Science Sentinel also seems to have a number of articles where modern science is discussed within a "Christian Science" framework:

...and this is not allowable because? If a Baptist periodical discusses evolution does that qualify it as pseudoscience. Trust me, such journals do. Digitalican (talk) 22:20, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

If they call themselves Christian Evolution, then maybe yes. - Soulkeeper (talk) 00:18, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

• (quantum) physics: Time Masters
• geology, biology, cosmology: Creation controversy: taking the questions deeper - "Christian Science is the ultimate answer to finding science and religion [...]"
• quantum physics: Beyond the limited view - "Ever since Young’s Double Slit Experiment [...] the concept of “observer-created reality” has been inescapable, and has taken its place in the lexicon of quantum physics. [...] Christian Science maintains that the one true observer is God [...]"
• quantum physics: Is what you see really what you get? - "Indeed, an emerging school of scientific thought says the “fundamental building block of the universe is not atoms or even quarks, but rather information itself” ([...]). If information is the building block, then the builder would have to be consciousness, or mind—or the Mind that is God."

And again, I do not say that Christian Science claims to have scientific (in a modern sense) knowledge or methods, so it would be unreasonable to expect it to adhere to a valid scientific method. But they borrow so many terms from real science and academia, and sometimes seem to try to shoehorn real science into their worldview through obscurantist musings like quantum mysticism, that it may well be enough for it to qualify as pseudoscience. See also Pseudoscience#Identifying pseudoscience. - Soulkeeper (talk) 20:51, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

I suspect they discuss topics covered by science, which is well within their purview to give their own perspective. I read similar tracts by the Jehovah's Witnesses all the time. I would note than in no case that I've seen does Christian Science venture into scientific prediction (the acid test of theory) or pretend to. I feel strongly that what you're objecting to is the name Christian Science then stretching that objection into everything that Christian Scientists do that other religions also do. I do agree that there is plenty to be skeptical about with respect to Christian Science but I feel like your criticisms here are a bit misguided though you're doing an interesting job of marshaling data. Digitalican (talk) 22:20, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Gathering the data has been part of my learning about Christian Science. I've found it to be much less pseudoscientific than their choice of terminology initially made me believe. Still, most other religions don't adorn themselves with scientific-sounding terms, and most other religions don't use quantum mysticism to justify their views. Both these practices are pseudoscientific. I'm not saying that this makes Christian Science as a whole pseudoscientific, not in the same sense or degree that homeopathy and "creation science" are pseudoscientific, but it does explain why some skeptics regard it as pseudoscientific. I concur that categorizing the article in Category:Pseudoscience may be too much. This aspect being mentioned in the "Science" paragraph seems fair enough. - Soulkeeper (talk) 00:18, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

I absolutely agree that the pseudoscience aspect should be included in the section on science. I'm glad we can come to common ground. :) Digitalican (talk) 01:08, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

This is an interesting discussion. Here are my two cents worth. As a Christian Scientist myself, I actually think it's an unfortunate name, albeit one that was chosen before modern discussions about scientific method. Christian Science clearly doesn't conform to the criteria of Popperian falsifiability, (albeit the latter has been undermined by post-modernists like Feyerabend). Furthermore, while the term "Science" may claim too much, the term "Christian" claims too little, and narrows the potentially universal appeal of the teaching (eg the CS Bible Lessons regularly recount healings that took place in pre-Christian Jewish culture). If I were Mary Baker Eddy and with the benefit of hindsight from the 21st century, I would have called it not "Christian Science" but something like Spiritual Metaphysics, Divine Healing or whatever. In fact the teaching known as Christian Science conforms more to the criteria of a metaphysical system rather than to a science (albeit metaphysical systems have themselves come under attack in the twentieth century, not least by Popper himself). Having said that, the claim by Mary Baker Eddy of CS to scientificity on account of induction is not completely without merit. For example, scientists for a long time disbelieved in meteorites, since it was claimed that stones do not fall from the sky. Furthermore, no conceivable experiment could be set up to test the hypothesis that they do. Nevertheless, by induction it was observed that stones do indeed fall from the sky. The same might be said of the claims of Christian Science: if even one healing takes place and is otherwise inexplicable, this may be regarded as evidence (though not proof) of the claims of Christian Science. And while I don't wish to bandy about populist views of quantum theory, the CS teaching (originating in the nineteenth century) that there is one Mind and that "reality" as experienced by human beings is a manifestation of individual and collective consciousness, is at least suggestive given the more bizarre speculations of contemporary physics.89.100.37.108 (talk) 18:27, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

I think that the recent insertion by Digitalican is fair and square, because (s)he accurately gives the names of present-day thinkers who have classified CS as a pseudoscience without agreement or disagreement, thus preserving a NPOV. I also agree with you that MBEddy might with hindsight have chosen a different name for the religion she founded. I further agree with the shift of the new insertion to the contoversies section (which I think you did), as the issue is otherwise disproportionately represented. By this I mean that all sorts have been classified as 'pseudoscience', some of which are respectable procedures that certainly would not universally be accepted as pseudoscience. In the end, the classification of what is science or pseudoscience could probably itself be called a pseudoscience! In short, I think the article as it now stands is fine, and fairly addresses the concerns of all parties. Michael J. Mullany (talk) 02:33, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Cost of Medical Care

This source places the annual cost of medical care in the US at over one trillion dollars: http://aspe.hhs.gov/health/costgrowth/ "In the latest year for which data is available (2003) total national spending on health rose to $1.7 trillion, or $5,670 per person (Table 1). By 2013, national health expenditures are projected to reach $3.4 trillion, or $10,709 per person. As a share of GDP, health spending is projected to reach 18.4 percent by 2013, up from its 2003 level of 15.3 percent." It would be useful to know if there is any research comparing the average amount spent by Christian Scientists on health care, to the amount spent per capita on conventional medical care. (It could then perhaps feed into the Medical Controversies section.) As someone who has relied almost completely on Christian Science health care for 35 years or so, it seems that I would spend nowhere near the amount indicated in the linked article that is spent per individual on medical care. (I would say, in my case, a few hundred dollars per year at most on practitioners' fees.)89.100.37.108 (talk) 22:16, 22 January 2012 (UTC) I should add that I've never been in hospital as an in-patient, or in a Christian Science care facility (except for a couple of times on a kind of retreat to catch up on my spiritual study). Obviously if I had been an in-patient, that would have added to the cost of my health care. Also, I haven't included dental care in the above estimate of my expenses. I don't live in the US so dental care is much cheaper than it would be there. However, I often use US-based practitioners whose fees are comparable to those in other First-world countries, so it should be possible to extrapolate from my experience to get a general estimate of how much Christian Scientists in the US spend on health care--a small fraction of the normal expenditure it would appear.89.100.37.108 (talk) 23:16, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Titled or Entitled?

Someone "corrected" "entitled" to "titled". Actually both usages are correct, according to Webster. I've let the "correction" stand, but it's no more or less correct than the original. Just saying.89.100.37.108 (talk) 23:36, 4 March 2012 (UTC) Though according to the OED they are not both correct - also just saying — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.16.130.17 (talk) 12:19, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

HALF OF ALL PRESCRIBED MEDICINES SAID TO BE USELESS OR DANGEROUS

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2012/09/14/french-doctors-half-of-all-prescribed-medicines-are-useless-or-dangerous/

Is there a way of integrating this with the article?89.100.155.6 (talk) 19:31, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Not really. First, this has nothing to do with the current article so any inclusion would be original research. Second, the statement itself fails WP:MEDRS so it cannot be used anyway and lastly (and I'm not saying that it is your intent) trying point out any perceived shortcoming of modern science as a way to promote an alternative point of view is a logical fallacy so an inclusion here would be non neutral.--McSly (talk) 22:26, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

CAN ANYTHING BE DONE ABOUT THAT DREADFUL PICTURE?

It makes Jesus look effeminate. I am sure he was anything but that.89.100.37.108 (talk) 09:19, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

You've got real photographs of Jesus not looking effeminate, or u juz trollin'? - Soulkeeper (talk) 12:38, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

The problem, too, is that the picture is not part of the Christian Science page but rather of rhw Christianity box. Editors here have no control. It's sometimes useful to understand how Wikipedia works before displaying ignorance. ..and I aggree with Soulkeeper, personal conviction is not a good basis for a system of government. :) Digitalican (talk) 18:43, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

@Soulkeeper: There must be many thousands of reproductions of art works depicting the artist's visual concept of Jesus that don't make him look effeminate (not to mention the Turin Shroud which may, or may not, be a true image). @Digitalican: I'm totally aware that the image is not part of the CS page. However, it's not impossible that it could be edited outside of this particular entry on CS, or at least that the CS entry could be detached from the overall category to which the picture is attached. (I tried to find out how to go about this, but it looked rather complicated so I gave up for the time being.) BTW Digitalican, people who misspell "agree" shouldn't say that others are displaying ignorance!89.100.37.108 (talk) 21:08, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

To rephrase my question: How can you be sure that Jesus was not effeminate looking? Unless you've got reliable external sources for that claim, it is merely your personal opinion, and thus completely irrelevant to Wikipedia's choice of image. - Soulkeeper (talk) 08:46, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Well, I suppose I can't be sure that he didn't look like a flying spaghetti monster either. But I'm fairly sure from the tone of his sayings, his action in kicking out the moneylenders (wish we could have him back for that one lol) and his heroic human end, that he wasn't of an effeminate nature, and thus that he probably didn't look effeminate, because people usually reflect their nature in their looks.89.100.37.108 (talk) 20:43, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

The simple truth is that we have little idea as to what Jesus really did look like, and I wonder why people think that this is so important. Jewish and other Mediterranean peoples of Jesus’ day tended to be broad-headed and to have curly black hair; an entire possibility also for Jesus. In fact, if we are to believe Isaiah (53:2), then the Messiah was prophesied to be an ugly man. Neither the early Christians nor Mary Baker Eddy appear to have given any importance at all to Jesus’ appearance: so why should we? From the readers’ perspective, my only question is, would the current image of Jesus be generally recognised as a symbol of Christianity? If so, it should stay. If not, would someone please suggest a better alternative, well motivated?Michael J. Mullany (talk) 07:48, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Here are a few suggestions: http://adamandeveseedgatheringministry.com/yahoo_site_admin/assets/images/christ-knocking-holman-hunt-19th-cent.248130612_std.jpg http://www.lessing-photo.com/p2/401301/40130130.jpg http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-tEeOUDwq-z0/TiLlNYTs0nI/AAAAAAAACho/osheLZFEH_Y/s1600/Jesus-Christ-Ravenna-Mosaic-6C.jpg In fact one could go through the whole of western art history. The vast majority of the images would be superior to that effete picture.89.100.37.108 (talk) 18:46, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Hello, this is not really the right place to discuss this. The image is part of the Christianity template which is used by dozen of articles. So any change of image will be reflected on all those articles. I suggest you discuss any update to the template either on the template page itself or on the Project Christianity page.--McSly (talk) 19:09, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

OK, I did. The same point had already been made by someone else on the template page. Unfortunately, persistence seems to have won out over aesthetics, as it usually does over most other things on Wikipedia :-< 89.100.37.108 (talk) 21:24, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Ask here: Template talk:Christianity. I agree the pic makes Jesus look sissy! It is a ridiculous silly picture. If Jesus was a "sissy" he was an angry "sissy" daring to disturb the order in the temple by kicking the salesmongers' tables and whipping up the salesmongers ...paying the price in blood! Rursus dixit. (^mbork³!) 12:19, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Titled or Entitled?

Someone "corrected" "entitled" to "titled". Actually both usages are correct, according to Webster. I've let the "correction" stand, but it's no more or less correct than the original. Just saying.89.100.37.108 (talk) 23:36, 4 March 2012 (UTC) Though according to the OED they are not both correct - also just saying — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.16.130.17 (talk) 12:19, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Trinity and Holy Spirit

So how is the Holy Spirit not mentioned at all in this article? Is this the Divine Science, if so, it should be articulated how they differ, or if they do. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.111.220.69 (talk) 03:34, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Neutrality

There are many deviations from the neutral point of view in this article.

Firstly, I understand that Christian Science is not science, and that, as many have said, is more of a theological current. (Per the pseudoscience discussion above) However, the section on "science" heavily implies that it is a science.

With that being said, the statement "Christian Science must be accepted at this point by induction. We admit the whole, because a part is proved and that part illustrates and proves the entire Principle." is directly opposite to the Scientific Method, and if it came close to being science, it would likely be regarded as pseudoscience. But as editors have pointed out above, it is not science and it has no influence on scientific realms.

The sentence "However, Mary Baker Eddy also believed that the theory of evolution wrongly portrayed man as mortal rather than spiritual." implies that Christian Science is a science that has legitimate scientific arguments against evolution, which it does not.

It also comes to the conclusion of "Thus, from a spiritual point of view according to Christian Science, both creationism and evolution are false as they both proceed from a belief in the reality of a material universe", which again leads to believe that Christian science is in fact science.

So my question is here : is it a theological current, or pseudoscience, and why do what is written on the article and what is written on the talk page different?

Likewise, the lead should include a statement that clearly reflects what it actually is. Acebulf (talk) 22:37, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Also, see the above discussion "Questions about Science" Acebulf (talk) 22:41, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Hi :-) Christian Science is clearly not science according to one prevalent, contemporary definition that goes back to Karl Popper with his concept of "falsifiability". However, Popper's viewpoint is not universally accepted and indeed is influentially disputed by (eg) Paul Feyerabend (in his book *Against Method*) where he argues, to the best of my remembrance, that there is no ultimately convincing distinction between "science" and "non-science." (You say "heavily implies" but you give no example.)

In terms of CS not conforming to scientific method, take the example of meteorites. For a long time no respectable scientist believed in them, because it was considered impossible for stones to fall from the sky. Yet stones clearly do fall from the sky, though it would be impossible for someone to set up an experiment to prove that they do (or indeed that they don't). Similarly, if even one healing takes place through Christian Science, that shows that such healings are possible, even though they may not be replicable through the accepted channels of scientific experimentation. That's what Mary Baker Eddy means by induction. She is not claiming that Christian Science conforms to the requirements of modern scientific method, and indeed she could hardly have done so, because these requirements were formulated and specified (by Popper and others) long after she had passed on. You write: 'The sentence "However, Mary Baker Eddy also believed that the theory of evolution wrongly portrayed man as mortal rather than spiritual." implies that Christian Science is a science that has legitimate scientific arguments against evolution, which it does not.' I don't believe it implies anything of the kind. You need to understand that Christian Science is more accurately described as a metaphysical system than as a science per se. From the "absolute" standpoint of a metaphysical system which teaches that matter and time are illusions, anything (whether creationism or evolution) that teaches that anything at all happened in the past, is false. However, from a "relative" standpoint it is quite consistent to believe, as Mary Baker Eddy did, that Darwin's Theory of Evolution is more consistent than most theories in explaining what appears to happen in the realm of illusion, albeit from an ultimately illusory standpoint. (Similarly, while in an absolute sense I don't believe that anything at all happened to me in the past--since time is an illusion as CS teaches--I still pay my taxes every year, since the Revenue authorities are unlikely to take my metaphysical beliefs as an excuse for non-payment!)

Christian Science is a (practical) metaphysical system rather than a science per se (at least according to contemporary definitions of science). Its usage of "science" in its title refers to nineteenth-century concepts of science that go back to (eg) Francis Bacon and induction. (Terminology changes over the centuries btw--what is now called "science" used to be called "philosophy."89.100.155.133 (talk) 23:50, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Arising from the above, there's an interesting debate (interesting for Christian Scientists anyway) to be had about the relative status of truth and falsity in regard to issues in material history. For example, if time is an illusion, did Jesus really exist 2,000 years ago? Come to think of it, did Mary Baker Eddy exist 150 years ago? The answer to both questions is "yes" (speaking in the relative sense) and "no" speaking in the absolute sense (since time is unreal). However, the answer to the question whether God created woman from the rib of Adam six thousand years ago is "no" in both the relative and absolute sense--the story is an allegory, and not to be taken as literal truth. Darwinian evolution, on the other hand, may or may not be true in the relative sense, depending on whether it can be substantiated by evidence according to the normal scientific process. I suspect this is something like how Mary Baker Eddy would have explicated her philosophical position.89.100.155.133 (talk) 11:42, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

I like you guys' explanations, and they are very concrete, although there is a need to reflect that viewpoint in the article itself, rather than leaving it on the talk page. Acebulf (talk) 04:14, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, I just did (or tried to!)89.100.155.133 (talk) 10:00, 11 July 2012 (UTC)