Valid Objections to So-called Christian Science/Chapter 3
Christian Science has laid claim to being scientific. Is it so? The definition of science is: "Knowledge gained by systematic observation, experiment and reasoning; knowledge, co-ordinated, arranged, and systematized." Does Christian Science, as shown in its theory and practice, come within the scope of this definition? Let us see.
First of all, the foundation of this so-called science is a sweeping assumption, not a deduction from facts gathered and systematized; and it is an assumption that appears on the face of it to be contrary to the common experience and universal beliefs of mankind. An assumption, in the face of what appear to be contrary facts, must, if it shall bear the scientific test, be upheld by proofs which possess more weight than theseeming contradictions. But Christian Science brings forward none of these. Its basic doctrine, that the universe is entirely subjective, that mind is its only constituent, and that there is no such thing as matter objectively considered, the Christian Scientists themselves do not attempt to justify, except by assuming it, and by pointing to the fact of certain cures accomplished without the aid of drugs.
Then, by a curious fallacy of reasoning, they proceed, by teaching that because some cases of disease are perceived to get well without the use of drugs, therefore all cases may be thus cured; since the reality of mind and the unreality of matter are demonstrated in the instances where such recoveries have taken place. But, on the other hand, they involve themselves in a very curious inconsistency, when, by denying the efficacy of medicines to heal, they cannot escape the surety that in certain doses drugs which are poisons, in every instance without exception, if partaken of, whether consciously or unconsciously, will surely kill.
Are these drugs then, manifestations of mind? Or will the Christian Scientists confess that they are simply matter? Again, in proof of their theories, they are not willing to submit to any test of their science which shall be scientific and acceptable to all men. The person whose science tells him that two parts of hydrogen and one of oxygen mingled together constitute what is known as water, is willing upon all occasions, and in every situation, to put it to the test; and if there were any case in which the truth of his proposition were denied by the circumstances, he would think it time to revise or modify his theory.
Not so the Christian Scientist, who thinks his own imperfect intuitions have reached the absolute standard of truth. If you ask him to make fair trial of the efficacy of his practice, in cases where the injury or lesion is seen to have been produced by some mechanical agency, he will refuse to submit to such a test in his own person, or he will beg the question in the case of a fatality, by simply saying that the thought of the injured person was in some way defective, and therefore no cure could ensue. He will not admit, although by actual experience in millions of cases, and by knowledge gained through systematic observation he is constantly instructed of the fact, that the body and physical pain are realities whose treatment must be pursued with real and physical remedies, as well as with suggestions that stimulate the mind. Nor will he perceive that disease and pain may proceed from external material causes over which the mind does not, and cannot possibly have, any appreciable control.
He is like a person who would weigh all the water in the world, and because there is so much of it would assume that there cannot possibly be any land. He has apprehended in a dim way a certain part of the truth; but, by assuming that he has apprehended it all, he is led into the gravest and most serious errors. Having attempted to go one step on the road, and assuming that his science is complete, he discards the scientific habit, and hence he finds no further entrance into the realms of knowledge than the distance penetrated in his a priori assumption.
But this assumption is scientifically fallacious, as may be readily seen. To conceive that all perceptions and objective phenomena are the creations and products of mind, is to assume that consciousness and idealization are states existing prior in time to the objective phenomena supposed to surround us. If mind in the world and in the human being is the all, then it must have within it, ready made, the ideal conceptions of each of the so-called material forms of nature from the beginning. Mind, then, within itself, must be the perfect embodiment of all facts and all possibilities of the universe. It precedes all things that seem; and from it all things are projected. It apprehends them subjectively before it creates them objectively.
But is this true? The facts we are able to glean show us that the very reverse is the case. Ideas do not appear in our consciousness until extraneous things have produced upon us sensations which in their turn give rise to the intellectual conceptions of the objects that produce them. No human mind can conceive of a flame, for instance, until the sensation of light from without has been produced upon it. Nor can any conception of darkness dwell in our consciousness until the outward senses have experienced the actual absence of light.
The growth of perception in infants will very soon show how the development of the mind takes place through sensations from without—that the intellectual faculties are not the force from which all things have their being, but that they are the product of growth, produced to a large extent by the environment in which God has set them. In children a day or more old the mind can hardly be said to have dawned. These beings cannot think; they simply feel and in a dim way receive sensations. Their motions do not even have the power of co-ordination. The instinct for food, which is even present in the very lowest forms of life, is the only marked development.
It is only as the experiences the infant has been subjected to accumulate, and the sensations it has received have been recorded in memory, that the apprehension even of its own identity, the realization of self, at length ensues. It may well be remembered that very young children but seldom, in the beginning, refer to themselves as "I," even though they see the example set to them by their parents. They usually speak of themselves in the third person, that is—objectively; as, for example, "Baby wants this," or "Tommy sees that."
The conscious subjective mind is a late development resulting from the feelings aroused by impulses from without. The mind can conceive no abstract ideas until many concrete actualities have made their impression upon it. For instance, the concept of space cannot be imagined without reference to some actual unit of measurement, as a foot, a yard, a mile. A child's mind has no abstract notion of color in the beginning. It is only when the sensations of many colors have been felt, and the differences in these sensations have gradually been perceived, that the intellectual conception of the different shades, as ideas, is at last attained. It is well known that a child must have lived a number of months before it can distinguish the most diverse shades.
This process of impression and sensation, with the establishment of the intellectual images these feelings give rise to, and the emotions of pleasure or pain that ensue, followed by a determination to perform some act in accordance with the pleasure or the pain—produces the development of the mind. There are four constituents: Perception or Sensation; Intellect, or the creation of the mind-image suggested by the sensation; Emotion, or the reflex feeling occasioned by the image; and Will, or the resolve to act. As Dr. Hammond puts the illustration: "A person walking in the street sees a man on the opposite side of the way—this is Perception; he recognizes him as a friend—Intellect; he feels joy at the encounter—Emotion; he determines to go across and speak to him—Will."
If the Christian Science position were true, the whole sequence of mind development as we actually know it, would be absolutely reversed, which is contrary to the facts—and therefore absurd. A person, in order to experience each sensation, would have to exert will in order to do so; and no sensation could be received without the exertion of the will. Our own knowledge will tell us how silly is such a notion; for many sensations come to us aside from our own volition; as, for instance, the heat and cold that are due to the weather; the painful feelings we possess through the unkindness of our fellow men; the comfort or discomfort that is present on account of our surroundings; the pain of diseases which ensue from the presence of some specific germ which causes irritation in the tissues; and so on.
While the Will, the conscious and sub-conscious Mind, may do much to call up or to banish the ideas and emotions resultant from sensations, or combinations of sensations, already once felt, they cannot, in the beginning, produce these primary feelings. And, while the Will and the conscious and sub-conscious Mind may produce, or allay symptoms of disorder in the human body which fall under a certain category, they themselves are not responsible for all disorders, nor is disorder in itself a mere condition of the mind. It is a physical state produced by a physical derangement.
It is well known that sudden or continued emotions produce a decided effect upon the body. Anger causes us to tremble and to experience unwonted sense of heat. Fear makes the extremities to grow cold. Shame causes us to blush. Merriment brings about a certain physical convulsion called laughter. Worry causes a general depletion of the vitality. But none of these things produce typhoid fever, or diphtheria, or small-pox, or a broken leg, or the wound from a sword thrust or a Mauser bullet. And none of these will effect a cure of such specific injuries; although our state of mind, by rendering the functions of our organism harmonious, may do much to assist such a cure.
The point where Christian Science has duped its votaries is this: It has confused the category of diseases that are present through an emotional or nerve-disturbing cause with the category of diseases that are present through external causes; and it has placed all manifestations of pain and sickness under the former.
Physicians recognize the effect of the mental state upon the development of illness; and, like true scientists, they give it its value and relegate it to its proper place. They, furthermore, classify certain affections under the head of mental, emotional, nervous, hysterical, etc.; and in their practice they treat such disorders, when recognized, by a method of moral suasion, nervous shock, and hypnotic suggestion.
The mind is known to have an effect on the nerves; for they are each a part of the same sensory process; and the vaso-motor system of nerves is known to surround the muscular tissue of the blood vessels and to control the supply of blood throughout the whole human organism. Hence, if the nervous system be disorganized through emotion, worry, hysteria, the normal flow of the nourishing blood to the various parts of the body is disturbed, and we get the phenomena of congestion or anzmia, either an inflammation or a starving of a part. A contented mind, therefore, induces health; while a discontented mind is more likely to produce the opposite. Emotional and hysterical natures are more prone to disease than those that are rational. And under hysteria as a cause we may find symptoms which for a time simulate the likeness of many known diseases that spring from external agents.
But so deceptive are these symptoms, sometimes, that frequently the physician is misled, and attributes them to the disease which they merely bear likeness to.
It is the patients suffering from this class of diseases, whose cases have been misapprehended by the doctor (for our medical men are sometimes fallible), who make the chief capital in trade for the Christian Scientists. One cure of a hysteric will outweigh a hundred failures of their mummery in organic ailments; and people flock to the quack because of the wonder of his miraculous power. Yet reputable physicians are accomplishing these same cures day by day in their practice; and because they make no mystery of them, and refuse to call them save by their rational name, no alarming wonder ensues.
The objection to the Christian Science practitioner is that he is uneducated in the laws of physiology, pathology,—and the diagnosis of disease. He refuses to gather, compare, systematize and analyze facts, or to deduce any system of knowledge from them. His is the same diagnosis and the same remedy for all ailments, no matter what their source or present development; and, therefore, his pseudo-science is based on the deification of ignorance. His attitude reminds one somewhat of our dear old friend, Gil Blas, who practiced the system of medicine taught by his famous master, Dr. Sangrado. Each patient was copiously bled and deluged with draughts of hot water, no matter what the nature of his disease. If he recovered, in spite of this heroic treatment, master and disciple extolled the wonderful efficacy of their system. But if he died, the friends and relatives were suavely told that the fatality was due to the fact that the sufferer had not been bled enough, and that the quantity of hot water swallowed should have been considerably increased. This method would seem to have been no more scientific than that of Christain Science.
The whole progress of the world has been accomplished by patient and unceasing endeavor, by study, and comparison, and sifting, and selecting. When the world has departed fram these methods, the result has always been disaster, suffering, and anguish. Sober judgment in all the affairs of life leads to contentment and happiness; while unbridled emotion and imagination, unrestrained by the appreciation of realities, lead to the very opposite. It is in this latter direction that Christian Science tends; for it is the product of a misdirected emotional state. It is not even remotely scientific; and it is devoid of common sense.