|On the fly-leaf of Mrs. Eddy's now "famous" book appears this quotation
from Shakespeare: "There is nothing either good or bad but thinking
makes it so." This is given a place of honour in her book because it is
supposed to prove the truth of Christian Science. But a wee bit of clear
thinking or of the power of analysis would have helped Mrs. Eddy to see
that her opening quotation completely destroys all that she advocates in
the rest of her book. The doctrine of Mrs. Eddy is that all is God; that
God or the good alone exists, and that evil, etc., is mere illusion.
According to her teaching, sickness, sin, and death do not exist except
for those who believe in them. The only reality is God or goodness. But
the text from Shakespeare which she so prominently displays upon her
banners denies God or goodness, just as effectually as it does evil
and the devil. "There is nothing--," says the great poet. Mark that,
Christian Scientists! Is that any text to quote to prove that there is
truth, and there is goodness, and there is God? "There is nothing either
good"--Pause again: Are Mrs. Eddy's troops of voiceless followers willing
to subscribe to that statement? If Shakespeare, Mrs. Eddy's authority,
is right, the good is as illusory as the bad, for he says plainly that
"there is nothing either good or bad but thinking makes it so," which
should make God, goodness, health, and truth as much an unreality as
sickness or sin.
Moreover, the Shakespearean argument makes man the creator of both
the good and the evil in the world, since it is his _thinking_ which
determines the nature of things. Mrs. Eddy, on the contrary, maintains
that man is merely a reflection of the Deity, who alone exists and is
the only reality. It must have been the greatness of Shakespeare's name
which tempted Mrs. Eddy to quote from him on the very first page of her
book. But metaphysical arguments are like balloons: the bladders burst,
and nothing remains.
In order to prove that all disease is mental, the following argument
is frequently used. I shall give it precisely as I find it in Christian
Science: Its Results (p. 14; copyright, 1918, by the Christian Science
Publication Society):--_If, then, it is considered that the state of
mind may disturb the secretions, causing the tears to flow; or that the
state of mind may quicken the action of the heart, causing the blood to
rush to the face or away from it; or if the state of mind can affect the
organs of the throat, causing huskiness, then it is plain that the state
of mind may be held accountable for other derangements of the organs of
secretion, of circulation, and of speech. And if of these, why not of
other organs of the body?_
It is not denied that mental conditions often become manifest in
their effects upon the body. But, first, what produces these mental
conditions? The Eddyites do not seem to care to penetrate into that
question at all. Is it not true that in the majority of cases it is some
physical or material cause which has either depressed or exalted the
mind--brought tears to the eyes or dried them? The sight of a sudden
and terrible accident to a child while crossing the street will, for the
moment, rob onlookers of their power of speech, blanch their cheeks and
daze them beyond the ability to move or to think. In the same way, the
news that a dear son has been gassed or killed in battle will change a
happy home into a house of mourning, depriving its inmates of sleep and
appetite. On the other hand, the unexpected discovery of a vein of gold
on one's farm will exhilarate the mind and banish a hundred fears. These
mental moods have physical causes. Just as heat passes into motion and
motion again into heat, material events produce mental moods; and these
mental moods resolve themselves once more into physical manifestations,
such as laughter or tears.
The Christian Scientist observes accurately enough that depression and
discouragement cause sickness, but he is too impatient to learn
that these mental states are often the result of bad circulation or
mal-assimilation of food. Lack of fresh air, defective vision, or a dull
but constant physical pain very often lowers the mental tone, proving
thereby the interdependence of mind and matter.
The lecturer from whose pamphlet I have quoted realizes "that salt water
will flow from the eyes if he is subjected to great grief," and "that
the state of mind may disturb the secretions, causing the tears to
flow," and concludes therefrom that "dyspepsia and all other bodily
diseases and derangements" should be treated "with truth rather than
with tabloids and powders." But what if the secretions are disturbed by
purely physical causes? A child cries for something to eat, and not from
unbelief or fear, which are supposed to be purely mental states; and a
piece of cake will relieve his hunger and dry his tears. A splinter in
the eye will provoke tears, as will also a sharp, cold wind; the removal
of the one, and protection from the other, will immediately dry the
eyes. Peeling onions starts the secretions. Do onions come under the
class of mental causes?
Let me give another illustration. Wishing to prove that the material
world is an illusion of the senses, Mrs. Eddy tells us that on a wet
day, when there is a downpour of rain, and when mist and fog shroud land
and sea, we can easily assure ourselves that our senses are not
telling us the truth, that the weather is really fine, by consulting a
barometer, which in the midst of cloud and rain points to clear weather.
What shall we think of the mentality of a woman who appeals to a
barometer to prove that matter does not exist? If Mrs. Eddy had not
suddenly stopped thinking, she would have seen that if our senses betray
us when they report wet weather, neither would we have any assurance
that what they say about the barometer is dependable. Does she think
that our senses are not trustworthy except when they refer us to the
barometer?
Inconsistent thinking is often also responsible for inconsistency in
conduct. The Christian Scientist, for example, objects to the physician,
but patronizes the dentist. Yet dental surgery is not different from
medicine, but is one of its many branches. It is by the science of
medicine that the trouble in the body is located, diagnosed, and
remedied by the knife, if it cannot be by medication. Besides, the wound
or incision is treated medicinally, which requires medical knowledge
on the part of the surgeon, just as it does on the part of the regular
physician. Can a dentist practise surgery without a knowledge of the
human anatomy--that is to say, of how many bones and muscles there are
in the body, where the nerves are located, to what sort of treatment
they will respond, and to what laws of growth and decay they are
subject? Does he not treat an abscess or receding gums with medicine?
And does this not require a knowledge of medicine which to Christian
Scientists is nothing but "error"? Why do not these people invite a
novice or their cooks or barbers to work on their teeth if a knowledge
of anatomy, physiology, and medicine is not necessary to make a man a
good dentist? The mere fact that Christian Scientists will not allow any
one but a man with a diploma from a dental college to attend to their
teeth proves conclusively that they regard a knowledge of medicine
just as necessary as we do--only we admit it frankly, and they deny it
foolishly. If the Christian Scientists have not progressed sufficiently
to demonstrate against surgery, they should at least be grateful to us
for taking care of their needs in the meantime, and help support the
physical sciences until they are able to dispense with them.
In her _Science and Health_ Mrs. Eddy ridicules those who think that
vegetation or flowers can cause sickness, or that there can be such a
thing as a "rose cold."
"The rose," she writes, "is the smile of God," and to accuse it of
producing fevers or colds is to make God the author of disease. This is
strange reasoning. If the rose represents "the smile of God," what do
the bugs and crawling insects on its petals represent? And whose smile
are its thorns which prick x and draw blood? Further, if a rose, a
material flower, can represent the "Divine" smile, why may not other
equally material things have a mission in life--such as representing and
imparting health? If the Deity can use the rose to reveal his smile, why
may he not use herbs or minerals for curative purposes? Why may not
soap and water, cleanliness, fresh air, temperance in food and drink and
exercise, have as useful a purpose in the "Divine" economy of things as
the rose?
On p. 488 of _Science and Health_ Mrs. Eddy writes:--Christian Science
sustains with immortal proof the impossibility of any material sense,
and defines these so-called senses as mortal beliefs, the testimony of
which cannot be true. Nerves have no more sensation, apart from what
belief bestows upon them, than the fibres of a plant.
In the above, as also in innumerable other passages, the founder of
Christian Science advises her readers to deny the testimony of their
senses. They are urged to deny "that matter can ache, swell, and be
inflamed." Never mind the witness of our senses; "bones cannot break,
nerves cannot feel, the nose cannot smell, and the eyes cannot see." But
did she stop to think where such advice would carry us?
I smell something burning in the kitchen or in the basement; but no, the
senses lie. There is nothing burning; there is nothing to burn. I feel
and see smoke filling the room. I can hardly breathe; but no, the senses
are "a fraud." There is no smoke in the room, and I am not choking; for
has not Mrs. Eddy demonstrated with "immortal proof" that "corporeal
senses defraud and lie," and that they are "the only source of evil or
error" (pp. 488 and 489)? If the infant is crying in the nursery because
it has fallen from its cradle, or because it has stumbled into the fire,
there is no need to rush for help, because the report of our senses that
the child is in danger is a lie. "Christian Science shows them [our
senses] to be false" (p. 489). Fortunate it is that not many parents are
consistent Christian Scientists.
It is said that Christian Science does not deal with man as he appears,
but man as he is--"unborn and undying." Very well; is what Mrs. Eddy and
her followers write or say about "man unborn and undying" debatable
or un-debatable? If debatable, we have a right to ask the Eddyites
to conform to the canons of human reason; but if Christian Science is
non-debatable--that is, if it cannot be understood by such minds as we
possess, then why write or talk about it at all?
Do Christian Scientists Practise what they Preach?
|Mrs. Eddy teaches that the material universe is an illusion. Do the
Christian Scientists try to live up to this? I say, do they try, because
to try is about all that any one can do, as it is an utter impossibility
to really live up to such a belief.
Let us see if there is any difference between the way we treat our
bodies and the way Mrs. Eddy's followers treat theirs. We believe the
body exists, and therefore we protect it with clothing. The Christian
Scientists do the same, although they should not believe such material
things as flesh and bone exist. We sleep to be refreshed; so do they.
We have a roof over our heads; so have they. We close our windows in the
winter and build a fire; they do the same. We are growing older; so are
they. Now and then we feel unwell, and apply to a helper of some kind
for treatment, when we cannot cope with the trouble ourselves; the
Christian Scientists do the same. We die from some cause or other; so do
they. If Christian Scientists never need any treatment, why are there
so many practitioners among them? How do they make a living if no one
of their circle is ever taken sick? I admit that we do not take the same
treatment, or go to the same helper, or call our troubles by the same
_name_; but, dear me! why make such an ado over mere names?
In what respect, then, do Christian Scientists, who do not believe in
the body, treat theirs differently from the way we treat ours? We have
to eat to keep ourselves alive; so do they. We have to take liquids with
our food; so do they. We bathe our bodies because to do so is refreshing
and cleanly. Why do they bathe theirs? We need fresh air; Mrs. Eddy rode
out every day for the same purpose. And does not the Eddyite, like every
one else, repair his house or weed his garden? Does he not Paris Green
his vegetables? Does he not screen his windows? Does he not scrub his
floors? Why may he not, with equal reason, resort to certain means to
protect his teeth, his eyes, or his digestive organs? If Mind is _All_,
Mrs. Eddy's disciples should dispense with the use of powders and
cosmetics, and their houses and gardens should be free from wear and
tear, as their persons are supposed to be. Are not tree and plant, house
and land, face and teeth, included in the _All_ which is _Mind?_ And
do Christian Scientists use "Divine" healing also for the horse and the
dog? Do they employ dressmakers to clothe their minds or their bodies?
If Mind is All, why do not our trains run without engineers, or our
ships sail without pilots? Are physicians the only people the Deity will
not tolerate? If engineers and pilots represent Mind, why not doctors?
It is admitted by leaders in Christian Science that many among their
followers insure, not only their buildings against fire, but also their
lives against accident, sickness, and death. Of course, death can be
caused only by sickness, accident, or old age. It follows that the
Christian Scientist takes thought of accident, sickness, and old age,
and guards against them precisely as non-Christian Scientists do. I
know also of Christian Scientists who are in the life insurance
business--that is to say, while they deny sickness and accident they
argue with their clients that it is the part of wisdom, as well as
a duty they owe their families, to buy insurance. Is that the way to
practise what one professes?
Let us continue. Mrs. Eddy declares there is no matter, and then she
proceeds to write a book. Why could not Mrs. Eddy communicate her
revelation to her pupils without the help of a book? Would not that have
been a real miracle? Why should Absolute Mind be dependent upon ink
and type? Is not a book--its paper, its cloth, its ink, its glue and
boards--as material as any drug which the chemist manufactures? If Mrs.
Eddy is not able to reach the minds of her disciples without appealing
to their senses of touch and sight, why condemn the doctors for using
equally material means to influence their patients?
But Mrs. Eddy goes beyond the physician in her materialism. A doctor,
for example, invents an instrument to render surgical operations less
painful, but he does not patent his idea to protect his profits.
Mrs. Eddy discovers "Divine healing" and copyrights it. Moreover, the
physician is the inventor of his own instrument. Mrs. Eddy declares
that her book is from God, and then proceeds to copyright what does not
belong to her.
The hosts of people who proclaim Mrs. Eddy's name and bend the knee
to her do not seem to reflect that to copyright God's thoughts is an
attempt to copyright the Deity. A New England woman plans to secure a
corner on the Divine mind for commercial purposes, else why does she
charge such high prices for her book? And yet not one of her admiring
followers breathes even a murmur against it. It has been said that the
lady copyrighted her books and asked a big price for them, netting her
nearly five hundred per cent, profit, not because she wanted the money,
but to make the buyers appreciate the book. But what becomes of "Divine"
science if it must count on money to make people appreciate its merits?
If the Eddyites may use money to influence minds, why may not a doctor
use drugs to get results?
Really the metaphysical fraternity, instead of being sufficiently
advanced in "Divine" science to dispense with medical help, are often
compelled to employ the services of more than one doctor. The devout
follower of Mrs. Eddy, if he has a tooth to be extracted or a decayed
root to be removed, or an abscess in the ear to be treated, engages,
besides the services of an expert physician, also some metaphysical
practitioner. Thus, while the non-Christian Scientist employs only
one kind of doctor, the believer in "Divine" mind employs two. When a
Christian Scientist goes to a hospital for an operation, he either
takes a practitioner of his own faith with him and instals him in a room
near-by to give him "Divine" treatment while the surgeon is operating
on him, or he goes to the phone just before going under the knife to ask
his favourite practitioner for absent treatment. Two doctors instead
of one--that is how Christian Science has done away with doctors. Of
course, it is true that only in serious cases do Christian Scientists
call upon outside help; but, then, in cases not serious anybody can get
along without expert assistance.
In _Science and Health_ (p. 463) Mrs. Eddy gives the following
explanation of her seclusion from the world: "It has been said to
the author: 'The world has been benefited by you, but it feels your
influence without seeing you. Why do you not make yourself more widely
known?' Could her friends know how little time the author has had in
which to make herself outwardly known except through her laborious
publications--and how much time and thought are still required to
establish the stately operations of Christian Science--they would
understand why she is so secluded." Is not this an admission of her
limitations? And can a woman, claiming to be one with God, "unborn
and undying," afford to confess that she has neither the time nor the
ability to do all that is required of her?
On p. 464 of her book Mrs. Eddy advises her followers to let a surgeon
give them a hypodermic injection to relieve their pain, and a few
sentences after she writes: "Adulterating Christian Science makes
it void. Falsity has no foundation," She advises her followers, when
"Divine" science fails, to take a hypodermic for help, and then she
tells them that "adulterating Christian Science makes it void," which
leaves her disciples between "the devil and the deep sea."
And what if there were no hypodermics to relieve the pain which Mrs.
Eddy's doctrine had failed to cope with? What if there were no surgeons
to administer the drug? Under Christian Science all these material means
are to be abolished, leaving the whole field to Mrs. Eddy. To whom,
then, will "a Christian Scientist, seized with pain so violent that he
cannot treat himself mentally," go for relief?
Mrs. Eddy knows very well that physicians and not surgeons give
hypodermic injections; but she has not the courage, nor, I regret to
say, the honesty, to say anything good of a physician. Is not such a
mind as Mrs. Eddy's a menace?
Observe again that when a Christian Scientist is in intense pain he must
not seek instant relief by an appeal to real science, but must first try
Mrs. Eddy's remedy; only when that fails may he resort to a hypodermic
injection. How long a trial should the sufferer of intense pain give
to Mrs. Eddy's remedy is not stated; but this much is certain, he is
to suffer the intense pain as long as he can bear it before trying any
other remedy. Knowing very well that a hypodermic might give instant
relief to a patient in intense agony, Mrs. Eddy nevertheless insists
that the patient shall try her uncertain remedy first.
But what follows is really debasing: "When the belief of pain is lulled
[by the hypodermic] he, the sufferer, can handle his own case mentally.
Thus it is that we 'prove all things and hold fast that which is good.'"
Could there be anything more hypocritical than such reasoning? After
the pain has been relieved by a physician, the Christian Scientist will
treat himself mentally--for what? It is very much like saying that after
a starving man has been fed let him proceed to demonstrate that food
is not necessary for the relief of hunger. But the real motive for
demanding that mental treatment should follow the hypodermic injection
is to be able to claim that the cure, after all, was not effected by the
physician, but by Mrs. Eddy's remedy.
Moreover, if hypodermic injections are permitted for the relief of
intense pain, why may not antiseptics be allowed for protection against
germs, anæsthetics to deaden sensation, and antidotes to counteract
poisons? After the antidote has killed the effects of the poison, the
Christian Scientist, following Mrs. Eddy's instructions, may treat
himself mentally and deny the reality of both poison and antidote.
Instead of recommending the services of a surgeon, would it not have
been better for Mrs. Eddy to have advised her followers to go about
equipped, not only with her _Science and Health_, but also with a pocket
apparatus or instrument for giving to one's self or others hypodermic
injections in cases where Christian Science failed them?
Really, when Mrs. Eddy says, "If from an injury, or from any cause, a
Christian Scientist were seized with pain so violent that he could
not treat himself mentally--and the Christian Scientist had failed to
relieve him--the sufferer could call a surgeon, who would give him a
hypodermic injection," she surrenders everything, and her metaphysics
collapses like a bubble. It goes to prove that, despite her many bizarre
somersaults in the air, she cannot avoid landing upon matter.
When Christian Science fails, there is still the surgeon with his
"hypodermic injection." What an anti-climax! Like all metaphysicians,
Mrs. Eddy emerges from the same door wherein she entered.
Again Mrs. Eddy practically overthrows the foundations of her faith when
she writes: "If a dose of poison is swallowed through mistake, and the
patient dies... does human belief, you ask, cause this death? Even so,
and as directly as if the poison had been intentionally taken. In such
cases a few persons believe the potion swallowed by the patient to be
harmless; but the vast majority of mankind, though they know nothing
of this particular case and this special person, believe the arsenic,
strychnine, or whatever the drug used, to be poisonous, for it is set
down as a poison by mortal mind. Consequently the result is controlled
by the majority of opinions, not by the infinitesimal minority of
opinions in the sick chamber" (pp. 177-78). With that statement it may
be said that Christian Science commits suicide. Only a logic-proof mind
could fail to see that to admit the helplessness of Christian Science
when in the minority against "the majority of opinions," as Mrs. Eddy
does in the above passage, is tantamount to saying that at present, at
least, no patient can be healed by Christian Science, since "the result
is controlled by the majority of opinions, not by the infinitesimal
minority of opinions in the sick chamber." Not only does the statement
quoted deny to Christian Science the power to cope successfully
with "the majority of opinions," but it also destroys faith in the
testimonials from patients who claim to have been cured by Mrs. Eddy's
discovery. So long as the four hundred millions of China, the three
hundred millions of India, and the hosts of Africa, to which should
be added the multitudes in Europe and America, "believe the potion
swallowed to be poisonous," or the sickness complained of to be real,
"for it is set down as a poison," or as sickness "by mortal mind," a
handful of Eddyites representing "an infinitesimal minority" can effect
no cures, seeing that "_the result is controlled by the majority of
opinions_." On page 162 of her book Mrs. Eddy writes: "I have restored
what is called the lost substance of lungs......Christian Science heals
organic disease as surely as it does what is called functional." She
also claims to have "elongated shortened limbs," etc.
But how could she perform the latter miracle against the opinion held
by the majority that shortened limbs cannot be elongated, and after
admitting, as she does, that in the sick chamber "the result is
controlled by the majority of opinions, and not by the infinitesimal
minority of opinions"? In her attempt to answer the question, why
Christian Science fails to cure the patient who has accidentally
swallowed a deadly drug, Mrs. Eddy strips her "discovery" of all its
power to heal and makes "the majority of opinions the controlling
factor." In one and the same breath she announces the supremacy of
Infinite Mind, "who never endowed matter with power to disable life, or
to chill harmony......since such a power without the Divine permission
is inconceivable," and admits the helplessness of this "Infinite Mind"
against "the majority of opinions dictated by mortal mind." And the
same woman writes: "In this volume of mine there are no contradictory
statements" (p. 345).