The Science of Christian Science Laurance R. Doyle of Menlo Park, California A talk given at the Sunrise Haven Annual Meeting April 21, 2013 Thanks, everyone at Sunrise Haven, for inviting me to give this talk and the opportunity to visit all the great folks in Seattle. Today I thought I’d talk about the scientific method, especially as it applies to Christian Science. Also about Christ Jesus, whom Mary Baker Eddy termed “… the most scientific man… .” Science and Health with Key to the Scriptures 313:23) and about Mrs. Eddy’s scientific discovery of the scientific basis of his work. We’ll touch on what the scientific method is, especially what data may be acceptable to science. Is spiritual data scientific? Is it as reliable as so-called material sense data? Is it even more reliable than material sense data? Are we doing science when we accept the evidence of the material senses? Or are we doing science when we accept the evidence of the spiritual senses, or intelligence? “By their fruits ye shall know them” In the scientific community, if one makes a new discovery —whether theory, experiment, or observation—it is usually submitted for publication in a refereed scientific journal (or a book, if there is a lot to say). “Refereeing” in the scientific context means that colleagues, knowledgeable in the field of study you are submitting the paper in, have extensively reviewed the paper for correctness and originality. During this process, it is not unusual to get several-to-many pages of comments, corrections, even some edits, and often one may have to revise and clarify the paper. By no means are all papers accepted for publication. But when a paper appears in a scientific journal, it has then been OK’d by the scientific community as being original enough to be worth publishing and the results are deemed scientifically correct as far as the experts in the field can ascertain. A refereed paper in the scientific literature may be only a few pages, but may have taken years or decades to discover. And unlike, for example, newspapers, scientific papers are read, referenced, and built upon for decades or even centuries (if they are really good) after they have been published. As I work in the physics community—mostly in astrophysics, but also quantum physics—I have spent some time in the science community. In this community—no matter if you have a dozen Nobel Prizes—if your theory, for example, is not supported by the experimental results, then your theory is wrong. In other words, “by their fruits ye shall know them” (Matt 7:20) is a rule in science. Human authority is not sufficient to support a theory of reality. The nature of reality So, what do astrophysics and quantum physics have to do with Christian Science and, in particular, Christian Science healing? Why is an astrophysicist talking at the annual meeting of a Christian Science nursing facility? The reason is, one might say, Christian Science heals with reality. It is the very nature of reality—Truth itself—that characterizes Christian Science healing. To the Christian Scientist, a realization of the true nature of reality is what heals. One might say that scientific investigation into the nature of reality is not particularly associated with healing. But in Christian Science, a realization of the spiritual nature of reality is the very fundamental basis of healing. Perhaps one might think this process has to do with the human mind getting involved in some way to affect the body through positive thinking. However, in Science and Health, the textbook of Christian Science, we read of some books, “They regard the human mind as a healing agent, whereas this mind is not a factor in the Principle of Christian Science” (SH x:7). Being informed that the atom does not exist until it is observed—as modern quantum physics states it—makes one less fearful of matter’s claim of any dominance over the human body. Hmmm, if I can change my thinking, that will affect my body—the very atoms. That very elementary, beginning thought can have a very decided effect upon the body by removing fear. So far, I think I have not said anything that physicists, and even most medical people, would disagree with. Can a glimpse of reality heal? However, in Christian Science, we are not talking about the various manifestations of human thought on the human body. We are talking about the fundamental nature of creation as spiritual and perfect, and about a divine and perfect Principle, the infinite Mind and Source of the unfolding universe, that is perfect in harmony. Tuning in to the fact that you are already tuned into this infinite Mind, sets thought right—resulting in instantaneous and permanent healing. Every healing in Christian Science is instantaneous, by the way, because perfection is already true. Is there an infinitely powerful All and always loving Principle of the universe that wipes out false notions of mortality? That reveals a creation of such perfection that even a glimpse of it heals? Could it be that there was a man 2,000 years ago who knew this, and saw this Principle with such love that he called this divine Principle “Our Father?” And has the science—the practical application—of this Principle of infinite Love been rediscovered and put in terms that must be taken today as literally true about the nature of spiritual reality? The man 2,000 years ago is, of course, Christ Jesus and we’ll discuss a bit how his mission was not so much about founding a new religion as waking people up to the divine reality of perfect God and perfect creation. He gave us a benediction—“ye shall know the truth, …” and then he instructed us how to recognize that truth—“…and the truth shall make you free” (John 8:32). Reading his teachings carefully, we find that he very consistently said that if anything seems to limit you, make you sick, or sinning, or dying, then it is not the truth, because it is not making you free. Jesus spoke of the truth. He did not say “Become ye therefore perfect.” He said, “Be ye therefore perfect” in the present tense. Perhaps this was not so much an instruction as a statement of fact—If God, your Father/Mother that can only make you godlike in perfect godlikeness, then ye be perfect, too. The whole quotation is, “Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Parent which is in heaven, is perfect” (Matthew 5:48). Christ Jesus’ scientific approach Christ Jesus founded Christianity, but can he be thought of as a scientist? What if you lived 2,000 years ago and you wanted to teach the idea that experimental results are more reliable than human opinion? Say you want to get this idea across to your disciples? How might you put it? When Christ Jesus was asked who bore witness for him, he replied that it was not human authority that witnessed to the truth that he taught. He said, “If I bear witness of myself, my witness is not true. There is another that beareth witness of me; and I know that the witness which he witnesseth of me is true. Ye sent unto John [this is John the Baptist], and he bare witness unto the truth. But I receive not testimony from man: … . I have greater witness than that of John: for the works which the Father/Mother hath given me to finish, the same works that I do, bear witness of me, that the (Parent) Father hath sent me” (John 5: 31). So, Christ Jesus said that, rather than even the highest human authority, it was his healing works that were the true test of the truth he taught. This is a very scientific approach. How much of religion has historically rested upon human authority, and how much has rather rested upon following the works of Christ Jesus? Not theory, doctrine, or belief As I studied more about what Christ Jesus said regarding his mission, I again saw the emphasis on demonstration of the truth. Christ Jesus specifically stated, “If I do not the works of my Parent believe me not” (John 10:37). In modern scientific language, one might say, “You are not to blindly believe a theory without experimental verification.” This is a tenant of the natural science community. Christ Jesus said, “by their fruits ye shall know them” (Matt. 7: 20). Mary Baker Eddy writes of Jesus, “Our Master taught no mere theory, doctrine, or belief. It was the divine Principle of all real being which he taught and practiced. His proof of Christianity was no form or system of religion and worship, but Christian Science, working out the harmony of Life and Love“ (SH 26:28). We read, “Then came the Jews round about him, and said unto him, How long dost thou make us to doubt? If thou be the Christ, tell us plainly. Jesus answered them, I told you, and ye believed not: the works that I do in my Father’s name, they bear witness of me” (John 10: 24). Jesus summarized it for Pilate when he was asked if he were a king. Jesus said, “To this end was I born, and for this cause came I into the world, that I should bear witness unto the truth” (John 18:37). And the way he bore witness to the truth was by his healing works—overcoming limitation of any kind. So, if the Truth overcomes sickness, sin, and death, then these things must not be true. The scientific method Over 100 years ago, a New England lady named Mary Baker Eddy made a great scientific discovery—the greatest I think. Studying the processes of healing through various methods, she saw that they, one and all, boiled down to the thought of the patient. To her, the placebo effect was not something to just be named and then ignored—as is largely the practice of the medical community today. She wanted to actually apply the scientific method to find out the source of healing; she knew there had to be a Principle of healing and that this must be the Truth Christ Jesus was talking about, demonstrating, and teaching others—expecting them to demonstrate as well. “What if you lived 2,000 years ago and you wanted to teach the idea that experimental results are more reliable than human opinion?” Reality is perfect Hmmm, if others could be taught to heal in this way, it must not be the result of personal power but of a universal Principle. By studying the healings of Christ Jesus, and his instructions regarding them, she discovered for the modern age his healing method, and what it was based upon. In three words, Mary Baker Eddy discovered that what Christ Jesus had been teaching was that reality is perfect. Ah, “Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father … is perfect.” As an aside, I might point out that I have never met a real atheist—one who did not believe in some power outside of himself. Sometimes this god has been natural selection, or accident, but whatever you worship as having power over yourself, I think you still have to deal with the fundamental notion of the nature of God. So, is God good, but not all-powerful? Or, is He all-powerful, but both good and bad? Are these the only two choices? There is a hidden assumption here, but it requires a great humility to see. It requires a sacrifice of possibly long-held misconceptions. The alternative to the two limited choices is that God—the Creator, Source, and Principle of the universe, Truth itself—is all-powerful, and wholly good, and that any material sense evidence to the contrary is unreliable, inaccurate, and actually untrue. Hmmm,now the human “mind” may be shocked at this. “What? Are you challenging my own eyes? What do you mean by saying that the sin, sickness, and death in the world are not real? That evil is not real? That errors and limitations are not true? You expect me to give up my material sense evidence for something I can’t see? I only believe what I see. Only the material sense evidence of things is real. And, just for good measure, all the scientists would agree with me!” Really, would they? Science and religion essential to each other Real science actually starts when one begins to take the evidence of intelligence as superior to the evidence of the senses. Scientists argued, for example, that the Earth orbits the Sun in spite of the material sense evidence to the contrary. What has been called the Scientific Revolution actually began with this result. Albert Einstein once said, “Science without religion is lame. Religion without science is blind.” One of the definitions of “lame” is “disabled so that movement ... is impossible.” One of the definitions of “blind” is “unable to perceive or understand, not [being] based on reason or intelligence.” In some sense, then, we might paraphrase, “science without religion—a sense of the sacred or spirituality—cannot move forward. And religion, without science—without understanding—does not know where to go.” So, if they are essential to each other—Einstein obviously thought so—then why the common division? I have heard some scientists say that Einstein should have used another term when he talked about God, since he didn’t mean God. I’m not sure where this idea comes from, but Einstein’s name for God was the “illimitable superior Spirit” and this is the sense of God we shall use here. Einstein also said, “When the solution is simple, God is answering.” (By the way, all the quotations from scientists included here can be found on the Internet, if you want to “google” them.) Science and Christianity “alike in demonstration” The greatest scientists in history have been the unifiers. Isaac Newton united the terrestrial physics of Galileo and the celestial mechanics of Johannes Kepler in his theory of gravitation. Albert Einstein showed gravitation to be the result of the unity of space and time. Mary Baker Eddy, the Discoverer and Founder of Christian Science, discovered the great unity of Christianity and Science. She writes in the Christian Science textbook, Science and Health With Key to the Scriptures, “It has been said, and truly, that Christianity must be Science, and Science must be Christianity, else one or the other is false and useless; but neither is unimportant or untrue, and they are alike in demonstration. This proves the one to be identical with the other” (SH 135:21). Now, just to put this in context, Mrs. Eddy was writing in the latter part of the 19th Century and the early part of the 20th Century. The scientific background in which these words were written is Victorian science, where matter, for example, was thought to be much more substantial, objective, and real than it is today. To me it is also particularly interesting that her proof that Christianity and Science must be identical is that they are “alike in demonstration.” Demonstration, as we have discussed, is the fundamental basis of the scientific process. By the way, if you don’t know the outcome, then you do an “experiment.” If you already do know the outcome, then it is called a “demonstration.” In Christian Science, we call healings “demonstrations” because the Master, Christ Jesus, has already done all the experimental verifications for us. We acknowledge his teaching and works as “…the Way, the Truth, and the Life” (Mary Baker Eddy, First Church of Christ, Scientist, and Miscellany, 260:29). Miracles impossible in science I should point out, too, a scientist cannot believe in miracles if, by these, is meant the setting aside of the laws of the universe for some reason. And the teachings of Christian Science do not include miracles, but they certainly do include what have been called “miraculous” healings. Mrs. Eddy writes of these, “Nothing is more antagonistic to Christian Science than a blind belief without understanding, for such a belief hides Truth and builds on error. Miracles are impossible in Science, and here Science takes issue with popular religions. The scientific manifestation of power is from the divine nature and is not supernatural, since Science is an explication of nature. The belief that the universe, including man, is governed in general by material laws, but that occasionally Spirit sets aside these laws, — this belief belittles omnipotent wisdom, and gives to matter the precedence over Spirit” (SH 83:9-20). Mrs. Eddy goes on to define “Miracle” as: “That which is divinely natural, but must be learned humanly; a phenomenon of Science” (SH 591:21). To the Victorian scientist, it would be a miracle that we can, for example, fly from continent to continent in giant flying movie theaters, or send pictures across millions of miles of space with our robotic missions to the other planets. It would appear to be a miracle to them, but none of these things break any laws of the universe. What they do break is the human sense of limitation. I’m reminded of the story of the closing of the US patent office around the turn of the 19th Century because everything had essentially been invented. Well, bless their hearts, it’s just not time, even today, to take the attitude that we know it all. Discoveries in quantum physics I feel, at this point, that we should look at some of the things that are being discovered in quantum physics—for those who came to hear this aspect of our talk. I might add, quantum physics is considered so radically different in the physics community that everything before quantum physics—even back to discoveries thousands of years ago—is called “classical physics,” while everything after the discovery of quantum physics is now called “modern physics.” Mrs. Eddy, as you know, was big on the sciences. After listing astronomy, natural history, mathematics, chemistry, and music, she wrote, “Academics of the right sort are requisite. Observation, invention, study, and original thought are expansive and should promote the growth of mortal mind out of itself, out of all that is mortal” (SH 195:19). “Mortal,” of course, means “limited or dying.” One of the surprising results of experiments in quantum physics is that the elementary particles making up the supposed material structure of things can, apparently, no longer be regarded as an objective reality. Such terms emerge from quantum physics as “expectation value” and “probability distribution” for what used to be considered the elementary constituents of matter and material things. One physicist explained to the class that this means that matter is but “a tendency to exist” until it is observed or measured, at which time it then seems to actually become something like an electron, or photon, or such. And the debate is leaning, these days, toward consciousness as being necessary to constitute a measurement. So, consciousness (what that is still remains to be determined) is required for the constituents of things we see to exist as things. Isn’t that interesting. In biology, I’ve noticed it is largely claimed that consciousness comes from electrons in the synapses of the brain. But conscious observation actually has to precede the “creation” of an electron since—according to mainstream quantum physics—electrons do not exist until they are observed. So, we have a question, “Which comes first, the chicken-wave or the egg-particle?” Well, if the chicken is consciousness, then today’s quantum physics would argue for the chicken. Please don’t go out and tell your friends that I told you that quantum physics is all about chicken-consciousness though, OK? The nature of matter One of the founders of quantum physics was Werner Heisenberg. He discovered the Uncertainty Principle, which states that there is always going to be some uncertainty in the measurement of matter. Dr. Heisenberg writes about the reality he was discovering in quantum physics, “Some physicists would prefer to come back to the idea of an objective real world whose smallest parts exist objectively in the same sense as stones or trees exist independently of whether we observe them. This however is impossible.” So, there appears to be an inseparability of material sense observation and the very coming into existence of matter. How interesting then to read what Mrs. Eddy wrote over 100 years ago about the nature of matter. In the latter part of the 19th Century she wrote, “The material atom is an outlined falsity of consciousness, …” (Unity of Good 35: 26). Another of the founders of quantum physics, Erwin Schrödinger—whose equation is used to calculate the probability waves we talked about—indicated that physics may not, by itself, be up to overcoming the notion of the substantiality of matter. He wrote, “Discoveries in physics cannot, in themselves—so I believe—have the authority of forcing us to put an end to the habit of picturing the physical world as a reality.” So, picturing the physical world as reality was simply a habit, which apparently physics cannot, by itself, put an end to. Conscious observation required Twenty-first century physics has arrived at the point where it is saying, not just that matter is not substantial, but—according to the most popular interpretation of quantum physics (called the “Copenhagen Interpretation”)—that the elementary particles supposed to make up matter do not exist unless they are measured or consciously observed. I might add that there are other interpretations possible from the experiments, but this is considered the most conservative, which should give you an idea how interesting things are right now. But now the question arises, “What, then, constitutes an observer?” In a way this is asking, “Who, then, is the Creator?” Well, this also depends on what creation is, of course. The few physicists who do not try to avoid this question generally say that, at some level, consciousness has to be involved in the explanation of what a measurement is. I’ll just add a few more comments from scientists about reality in light of quantum physics. The famous astrophysicist, Sir Arthur Eddington—who, at a solar eclipse, was the first to experimentally confirm Einstein’s Theory of General Relativity, observed this about science: “It is difficult for the matter-of fact physicist to accept the view that the substratum of everything is of mental character. But no one can deny that mind is the first and most direct thing in our experience, and that everything else is remote inference … .” That’s a pretty metaphysically insightful statement. The astrophysicist Sir James Jeans stated, “The universe can best be pictured ... as consisting of pure thought.” The Observer-Creator Let’s go back to the question of “Who, then, is doing the observing? Who or what is the conscious observer that is essentially, creating the universe?” I have to point out; experiments presently underway are extending quantum effects to distances farther than the immediate human senses can perceive. In some sense these experiments are asking how far consciousness extends. We are perhaps used to being taught that the universe is mostly dead matter, with pockets of life here and there under the right conditions. It will be very interesting to find that consciousness extends beyond this notion. Mrs. Eddy writes much of interest with regard to this discussion. She states, “The fading forms of matter, the mortal body and material earth, are the fleeting concepts of the human mind. They have their day before the permanent facts and their perfection in Spirit appear. The crude creations of mortal thought must finally give place to the glorious forms which we sometimes behold in the camera of divine Mind, when the mental picture is spiritual and eternal. Mortals must look beyond fading, finite forms, if they would gain the true sense of things. Where shall the gaze rest but in the unsearchable realm of Mind? We must look where we would walk, and we must act as possessing all power from Him (Mind) in whom we have our being“ (SH 263:32). The word “Spirit” is capitalized here and, I would say, it has the same sense that Einstein’s term “illimitable superior Spirit” has. Remembering that Mrs. Eddy is writing more than 100 years ago, we read, “A material world implies a mortal mind and man a creator. The scientific divine creation declares immortal Mind and the universe created by God. Infinite Mind creates and governs all, from the mental molecule to infinity. This divine Principle of all expresses Science and art throughout (Minds) His creation, and the immortality of man and the universe” (SH 507:21). She is saying that the Observer-Creator is one infinite Mind, which she also states is another name for God. Jesus’ correct observation healed Now we talked about the importance of works, of demonstrations, to confirm our scientific theories about reality. The works Jesus did were healing, so healing must be more than temporarily fixing the human condition. It must be, in a deep sense, a demonstration of underlying reality. Mrs. Eddy writes of Jesus’ healing method, “Jesus beheld in Science the perfect man, who appeared to him where sinning mortal man appears to mortals. In this perfect man the Saviour saw God’s own likeness, and this correct view of man healed the sick. Thus Jesus taught that the kingdom of God is intact, universal, and that man is pure and holy” (SH 476:32). But Jesus said that he could of himself do nothing, and that his Father, God, doeth the works (Matt. 5:30 and John 14:10). So, seeing what God sees produces healing. But does God always see perfection? Is there a precedent for understanding this? Mathematics not in the chalk Let’s take a look at mathematics. When a mistake, say 2+2=5, is found written on the blackboard how do we approach it? Let’s ask some questions. Do we think right away that the principle of mathematics has made a mistake? No, that never changes; it’s always intact and universal. OK, do we think that we have made a mistake? Well, in some sense, it seems that we may have, but only if we can create something mathematics cannot. The mistake we made is not true, and that is why it is called an “error,” which is the opposite of truth. So, where is the mistake? If it is not in mathematics itself, then it must be in the chalk. Well, we know that mathematics is never in the chalk, although the chalk can express mathematics in a limited way, if the equation is written correctly. But the chalk is also the only place where a mistake seems to appear. Do we try to manipulate the chalk to fix the problem? The mistake only appears in the material sense chalk evidence. Perhaps this mistake is not in 2+2=5 being momentarily true, so we have to get rid of it. Perhaps the mistake is in believing that the chalk evidence is true. Perhaps we need to know that the mathematics was never in the chalk. But isn’t 2+2=5 some evil power that can mess up our checkbooks, and lots of other stuff? Only if we believe it to be true; if we know it to be false, it has no effect whatsoever. So, the mistake is corrected not by ignoring it, but by starting with the perfection of mathematics and plunging beneath the material chalk sense of things to find the perfect reality and order already right there where the mistake seems to be. Just to emphasize, the chalk did not make a mistake in mathematics because there is no mathematics in the chalk. The mistake is in thinking that there is mathematics in the chalk, and therefore this makes mathematics subject to mistakes But this never happened. “The works Jesus did were healing, so healing must be more than temporarily fixing the human condition. It must be, in a deep sense, a demonstration of underlying reality.” Man not in matter There is a lot of emphasis in Christian Science in seeing that the real man is not, and never could be, in matter. That the material sense testimony as to mistakes or errors—sin, sickness, death, anything that tries to limit the image and likeness of God—is not reliable. It only seems to have power when it is believed. Numbers are never confined to chalk, and the spiritual man of God’s creating is never confined to matter. Sometimes I’ve been asked, “Have you ever been there?” And I have to admit, “No, actually, I never have been there. I’ve only ever been here. Every time I have started to go there, by the time I get there it’s always changed to here. So, I’ve actually never been there; I’ve always only, been here. When people say, “You can’t get there from here,” they are right! Well, you know, there is no such thing as there to God. God is always, only, here because God is everywhere. There is no there to God because there is no outside of God possible. This is what the Science of Christianity reveals. You are already, and only, here and now in the perfection of God. Identity an impartation of the divine Mind In Science and Health Mrs. Eddy writes, “Christian Science presents unfoldment, not accretion; it manifests no material growth from molecule to mind, but an impartation of the divine Mind to man and the universe” (SH 68:27). So, healing in Christian Science is not so much accreting wisdom as it is letting go of whatever seems to be blocking the unfoldment of our true, spiritual, identity as the expression of God’s being. I can illustrate this with a healing experience I had a number of years ago. I was in great pain with an injured foot. Each time I called a Christian Science practitioner, the pain would go away. (By the way, Christian Science practitioners are folks who practice Christian Science healing full time, and are available to help anyone who needs help with any kind of problem.) In this case, within a day or two, pain seemed to return in my foot, keeping me immobile. One day I called the practitioner, and he said he would get to work as usual, and I decided to do something different. I decided to watch the pain. I was not especially resisting the healing, but I decided to see what would happen if, this time, I did not throw my faith into the healing but just watched the pain. I had certainly felt it was real before I had called the practitioner. But now, as I hung up, and looked at the “real” pain, it immediately, as before, started to dissipate. “But it was real,” I more or less said to myself, in an attempt to see if lack of faith could delay the healing. (Yes, I understand this is not being particularly helpful, but I was doing an experiment.) I wanted to see how much human cooperation is involved in this healing process. Well, this had a very interesting result. Christian Science treatment is demonstrable science No matter how I tried to not help, so to speak, the pain was going. It was disappearing by the second, and there was nothing anyone or anything could do about it. It was just going—of another world, totally no longer part of me—gone, gone, gone. This was extremely instructive to me, because it just so clearly, comprehendingly demonstrated to me that Christian Science treatment is science, not blind faith. It is not a belief system; it is the demonstration of the never changing perfection of the infinite Mind, expressed in the perfection of Mind’s creation—in this case me! It illustrated for me that the Principle of Christian Science healing is not based upon the human mind. Again, Mrs. Eddy writes, “Christian Science is natural, but not physical. The Science of God and man is no more supernatural than is the science of numbers, though departing from the realm of the physical, as the Science of God, Spirit, must, some may deny its right to the name of Science” (SH 111:6). The science of reality So, is Christian Science scientific? Mrs. Eddy writes of Christ Jesus, “Jesus of Nazareth was the most scientific man that ever trod the globe. He plunged beneath the material surface of things, and found the spiritual cause” (SH 313:23). To me this could be a working definition of both Christianity and Science—plunging beneath the material surface of things and finding the spiritual Cause. Christian Science healing is scientific, and based upon the infinite Principle of the universe—also known as Love, Spirit, Life, Soul, Mind, and Truth. The study of it unfolds the true nature of spirituality— the perfection of God, infinite Mind, and of creation as the expression of this one Mind. Christian Science is scientific. It is the most scientific because it only admits the evidence of intelligence and nullifies the so-called evidence of the material senses. It reveals that reality is the ongoing creation of perfect, infinite Mind thinking, of God thinking us up right now as His perfect expression. Right now God is saying of each of us, “Now isn’t that a great idea!” PO Box 6057, Kent WA 98064 253-813-2096 800-641-1718 sunrisehaven.org
Posted on: Wed, 17 Jul 2013 03:21:13 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015