Christian Science
Today's post is quite different in that I have absolutely no words. I'm stunned, shocked and absolutely terrified. I don't know if I'm angry or upset, or both. Please take 30 minutes of your time and listen to this latest Podcast from the Freedom From Religion Foundation (FFRF) about child abuse:
http://media.libsyn.com/media/ffrf/FTRadio_49_033107.mp3
http://media.libsyn.com/media/ffrf/FTRadio_49_033107.mp3
Religious Dogma that Kills Kids
Rita Swan, founder of Children's Healthcare Is a Legal Duty, grants a powerful interview about losing a baby to Christian Science anti-medicine tenets, and her subsequent activism to repeal religious exemptions in laws governing healthcare for children.
Labels: children, Christian Science, Christianity, FFRF, Rita Swan
posted by Evgueni Naverniouk | 8:30 PM
30 Comments:
FTR? Weird. How do they expect peole to take them seriously?: "beware of dogma...", "Worship at the alter of my pillow!" Why would anyone listen to that? If your christian, you probably find it insulting and if you're atheist, it's a waste of your time because they're talking about religion and denouncing religion all the time.
Now to the topic at hand: It's simply outrageous! SOME PEOPLE ARE SO FUCKED UP! It's such a heart-breaking and scary wake-up call to learn about ignorant, selfish, deceitful, EVIL people living among us. And they're not only in a position of influence, but also exempt from procecution? WHAT THE FUCK ARE THEY THINKING? WHY ARE PEOPLE SO STUPID? Ignorance is bliss, but knowing you keeps me informed.
Precisely the type of "I have no words" I was talking about.
I've been listening to FTR for quite some time now and it's very informative and very interesting. Plus Dan Barker is a highly respected and popular atheist, so he's always got too things to add. I just wish they didn't play his crappy music on the show.
Hello - I am a longtime student of Christian Science.
Rita Swan's tragedy is terrible, but it is pretty obvious that this makes her position very biased.
No Christian Scientist is forced to continue with a practitioner if they are not satisfied with the results. It is the responsibility of each individual, and the parents in the case of small children, to take the appropriate measures they feel most suitable.
many many children and adults are HEALED through Christian Science on a daily basis.
Evgueni, at our church we have a Russian who was a medical doctor in Russia, and finally turned to Christian Science because he found he could help better that way.
Now he is a full-time Christian Science Practitioner here in Canada.
If you would like to talk to him, he could explain clearly to you the basis of Christian Science, and how and why it heals.
regards,
Verndigger
Hello Verndigger,
Thank you so much for commenting.
"Rita Swan's tragedy is terrible, but it is pretty obvious that this makes her position very biased."
This is absolutely true. However, I still think that the research that she put into Christian Science and her organization there-after is proof that her case is surely not a single incident. These tragedies are happening continuously, throughout Christian Science facilities. So yes, even though her position is biased, her points are absolutely valid and the situation is just as grave as she describes it.
"No Christian Scientist is forced to continue with a practitioner if they are not satisfied with the results..."
But apparently a lot do. I'll be honest and say that my knowledge of Christian Science is scarce if anything, but from what I've heard and read it seems like these are not isolated cases.
"It is the responsibility of each individual, and the parents in the case of small children, to take the appropriate measures they feel most suitable."
This is absolutely true. However, a lot of parents in this case believe that they are doing the right thing. The people responsible are telling them what they need to do and that everything will be in their best wishes and from their point-of-view they have no reason to doubt it (of course they should). Certainly someone who has been "brainwashed" to believe that this 'faith-healing' truly works cannot make a rational and clear decision about the well-being of their child. I surely believe that if the parent is a good parent they will be gravely concerned about their child and will only want the best for them, so what they are doing must mean that they believe that they are doing the right thing by going to a Christian Science facility rather than a hospital.
"many many children and adults are HEALED through Christian Science on a daily basis."
Out of my personal curiously, do you have any popular cases I could research? Do you know if there have been any statistics or particular studies done on this that I could take a look at? From what I've heard the only cases that have been confirmed are illness' which had a significant chance of going away by themselves. But perhaps I'm wrong.
"Now he is a full-time Christian Science Practitioner here in Canada. "
Do you happened to know what in particular made him think that "he could help better that way"?
"If you would like to talk to him, he could explain clearly to you the basis of Christian Science, and how and why it heals. "
Sure, do you know how I can contact him?
Thanks again.
- Evgueni
"No Christian Scientist is forced to continue with a practitioner if they are not satisfied with the results..."
But apparently a lot do. I'll be honest and say that my knowledge of Christian Science is scarce if anything, but from what I've heard and read it seems like these are not isolated cases.
Hello again, Evgueni; you make reasoned observations, based on your knowledge, so I am happy to continue the discussion.
I do not have statistics, but I do know that there are a LOT of healings in CS, and of children as well.
My sister and I were raised in CS from babyhood, never had any innoculations, went through all the normal childhood problems, and are still going strong 7 decades or so later. I was in hospital once when I was 11 years old, had to have a broken extra bone on my knee removed.
Other than that I have never been to a doctor.
"It is the responsibility of each individual, and the parents in the case of small children, to take the appropriate measures they feel most suitable."
This is absolutely true. However, a lot of parents in this case believe that they are doing the right thing. The people responsible are telling them what they need to do and that everything will be in their best wishes and from their point-of-view they have no reason to doubt it (of course they should). Certainly someone who has been "brainwashed" to believe that this 'faith-healing' truly works cannot make a rational and clear decision about the well-being of their child. I surely believe that if the parent is a good parent they will be gravely concerned about their child and will only want the best for them, so what they are doing must mean that they believe that they are doing the right thing by going to a Christian Science facility rather than a hospital.
Focusing particularly on the sentences I italicized: Christian Science practitioners DO NOT ‘tell their patients what they need to do’. They may ask the patient to think about specific Bible verses, or statements from Science & Health with Key to the Scriptures, but other than that, what they do is to PRAY. – incidentally, there is a lot of research these days on the power of prayer.
Larry Dossey, a medical doctor, has written several books on the subject. He is not connected with CS, so far as I know.
Next, if you get to know Christian Scientists, you will find they are generally successful, logical rational folks who live everyday lives. They are not ‘brainwashed’ or talked into ‘faith healing’. Christian Science is not ‘faith healing’, but healing through understanding the laws of God as demonstrated by Jesus. He healed every kind of disease, and told his followers to do the same. Christian Scientists take this seriously.
"many many children and adults are HEALED through Christian Science on a daily basis."
Out of my personal curiously, do you have any popular cases I could research? Do you know if there have been any statistics or particular studies done on this that I could take a look at? From what I've heard the only cases that have been confirmed are illness' which had a significant chance of going away by themselves. But perhaps I'm wrong.
I don’t have any right off-hand; but if you go to any local Christian Science Reading Room, you can ask the attendant to help you research the question.
Just about every Reading Room has a computer, and all the weekly and monthly Christian Science periodicals from the 1890’s to the present.
These periodicals are full of healing testimonies, verified, and some are even medically diagnosed. I have read many healings of serious diseases, automobile accidents, and much more.
There is a computer program which can help find whatever you’re looking for in these periodicals.
If you let me know the area you are in, I can let you know where you can find a Christian Science Reading Room.
as to your last sentence, that is what those opposed to Christian Science always say. but it is not true.
if you check at a Reading Room,
you will be able to find healings, often medically diagnosed, of the most serious maladies.
"Now he is a full-time Christian Science Practitioner here in Canada. "
Do you happened to know what in particular made him think that "he could help better that way"?
If I remember how his testimony went, he was practising medicine, and somehow got hold of a Science and Health and began using its ideas to work with his patients. Soon he found he was getting better results than he was using medical procedures.
This is because in a Christian Science healing, the physical change is a by-product, - the real healing is a mental change, a better understanding of God’s power in one’s life.
"If you would like to talk to him, he could explain clearly to you the basis of Christian Science, and how and why it heals. "
Sure, do you know how I can contact him? I have emailed him the url of your blog – I guess he will contact you if he thinks he can help.
The bottom line is that Christian Science is a life-system that works – not only in physical healings, but in every aspect of life.
If you want to find out more for yourself, you can read Science and Health online by clicking on the link I gave above.
In it you will find that in the preface Mary Baker Eddy says “the time for thinkers has come”, and that she “commits these pages to honest seekers for Truth.”
Regards,
Vern
P.S. - I meant to add when looking for Reading Rooms, you can check in the yellow pages under "Christian Science."
or even better, GOOGLE them!
:-))
Vern
Hello Verndigger,
Thanks for writing back.
"I do not have statistics, but I do know that there are a LOT of healings in CS, and of children as well."
and
"I don’t have any right off-hand; but if you go to any local Christian Science Reading Room, you can ask the attendant to help you research the question."
I am wondering what your belief that "there are a LOT of healings in CS" is based on? Is it purely on the materials of the Christian Science Reading Room? Don't you find that that material might be too biased to take as a single source of evidence? Do you know of any non-religious organizations that have done studies on CS with conclusive evidence?
A lot of people (Christians included) believe that Christianity (and religion in general) and science cannot co-exist together harmoniously. Why do you not find the term "Christian Science" to be an oxymoron? What part of CS do you believe is scientific and what part of it is based on faith?
I ask this because most studies that I am familiar with say that the more scientifically and academically established you are - the less religious you are. I shall quote a passage out of Professor Dawkins' book,
"The efforts of apologists to find genuinely distinguished modern scientists who are religious have an air of desperation, generating
the unmistakably hollow sound of bottoms of barrels being scraped. The only website I could find that claimed to list 'Nobel Prize-winning Scientific Christians' came up with six, out of a total of several hundred scientific Nobelists. Of these six, it turned out that four were not Nobel Prize-winners at all; and at least one, to my certain knowledge, is a non-believer who attends church for purely social reasons. A more systematic study by Benjamin Beit-Hallahmi 'found that among Nobel Prize laureates in the sciences, as well as those in literature, there was a remarkable degree of irreligiosity, as compared to the populations they came from'.
A study in the leading journal Nature by Larson and Witham in
1998 showed that of those American scientists considered eminent
enough by their peers to have been elected to the National Academy
of Sciences (equivalent to being a Fellow of the Royal Society in
Britain) only about 7 per cent believe in a personal God. This
overwhelming preponderance of atheists is almost the exact
opposite of the profile of the American population at large, of
whom more than 90 per cent are believers in some sort of supernatural being. The figure for less eminent scientists, not elected to the National Academy, is intermediate. As with the more
distinguished sample, religious believers are in a minority, but a less dramatic minority of about 40 per cent. It is completely as I would expect that American scientists are less religious than the American public generally, and that the most distinguished scientists are the least religious of all. What is remarkable is the polar opposition between the religiosity of the American public at large and the atheism of the intellectual elite."
I am aware of the popular Christian counter-argument to Dawkins' work (http://www.csmonitor.com/2007/0104/p13s01-lire.html) but I find that those counter-arguments are often overly exaggerated because they assume things that Dawkins has stated that he does not believe in.
"I was in hospital once when I was 11 years old, had to have a broken extra bone on my knee removed. Other than that I have never been to a doctor."
Why do you believe that this is a good idea? Don't you think you might get a better (or at least a second) diagnosis from a non-religious (or agnostic) doctor? Am I correct in assuming that you are so confident in Christian Science that you are willing to put your life on the line? Also, why did you decide to go to the doctor when you had to get the bone removed, rather than having to see a Christian Scientist doctor for that particular case? Are there cases which CS simply cannot help?
"Christian Science practitioners DO NOT ‘tell their patients what they need to do’."
Well if I were to take the testimony of Rita Swan - we have one case already. And a case which lead to death. The "Children's Healthcare Is a Legal Duty" website (http://www.childrenshealthcare.org/) shows many more cases (with a bibliography and sources provided) where cases have really gone out of hand. What should we be doing about this?
"... what they do is to PRAY. – incidentally, there is a lot of research these days on the power of prayer."
The only research on prayer that I am familiar with is the 2001 study from Columbia University published in the NYT (http://www.nytimes.com/2004/10/10/health/10prayer.html?ex=1255233600&en=c43c27577195150c&ei=5088&partner=rssnyt) not too long ago. The conclusion there was that religious was out of reach of science (because no link has been found between prayer and health). This relates back to the question of "Christian Science" being an oxymoron.
"Next, if you get to know Christian Scientists, you will find they are generally successful, logical rational folks who live everyday lives."
I don't doubt that these people are generally good people who mean well, but I don't necessarily believe that they are logical and rational folks. I simply cannot (with my gut) have any respect for a person who would put someone's life into the hands of a belief or faith. That does not seem logical or rational to me.
As a child I believed in God and God has performed a miracle for me when my father had been hours late from work and everyone was getting worried. He came back minutes after I said a prayer. I was (at that point) convinced that God was there and that it was His work. I know better now. But, this just goes to show that I understand where you are coming from, I just don't understand how this can be called science or a rational decision.
"If I remember how his testimony went, he was practising medicine, and somehow got hold of a Science and Health and began using its ideas to work with his patients. Soon he found he was getting better results than he was using medical procedures."
The reason I asked is because in Canada most doctors coming out of Europe cannot begin practicing medicine. They have to go back to school and get their degrees all over again based on Canadian medicine in a North American school. Perhaps it was the only way for your friend to practice medicine without having to spend years back at school.
I hope to hear back from you soon.
Thank you.
I also wanted to add to your original comment:
"Rita Swan's tragedy is terrible, but it is pretty obvious that this makes her position very biased."
I don't believe that bias really plays a part in this. It is a tragedy and it happened because of people have been misinformed about medicine and made decision based on faith and not based on science. How many such incidents would we need to have in order for them to no longer be considered biased, but factual and relevant? How many children and people would die as a cause of it?
My main complaint is about the misuse of the words "science" and "treatment". Anyone who claims to be doing science must open a dictionary at least once in their life and look up what those words mean.
To do science means to invent theories, conduct experiments and modify those theories until they agree with the experiments. "Christian scientists" (whatever that means) do not do that. If a prayer does not work, they do not change the prayer. They do not measure success rates, and they do not publish papers in scientific journals, where their claims can be verified by other scientists.
The word treatment implies the use of medicine. Christian science is not medicine because, once again, medical doctors change their treatments when they do not work. They measure and quantify success rates in order to determine which treatments work and which ones don't.
"Christian science", "faith healing" and "intelligent design" are all fake terms made up by religious people who are not comfortable admitting that they believe in the impossible. If you are religious, be proud of it and admit that you believe in things that are hard to believe in. But don't pretend to be a scientist. It's disrespectful and offensive to the real scientists.
In the words of a great bumper sticker, Don't pray in my school, and I won't think in your church.
I'm just disappointed that verndigger is suggesting you go to all the trouble of tracking down a Christian Science Reading Room to find articles about Christian Science healing when he should really be telling you to check out spirituality.com.
You'll find hundreds of articles explaining how people have used their understanding of Christian Science to improve their relationships, overcome financial problems, recover from addictions and experience physical healing.
I hope to hear back from you soon.
Hi again, Evgueni - I would like to discuss further with you in more detail, but I feel an interim step is needed.
your questions are coming from your admittedly "scarce knowledge" of Christian Science, so I feel we would do much better if you first deepened that knowledge.
with this approach you would have a much better understanding of Christian Science, and would be able to ask more pertinent questions.
You can read Science and Health online at spirituality.com,
and also follow spirituality's excellent suggestion of checking the articles and testimonies there.
you can search for specific keywords, thus checking out what kinds of healings are possible.
also, I have a question as to from what point of view you are coming to this discussion - do you still believe in God as Creator of the universe, or are you an atheist, or what ?
and Spiritualy, thanks for the excellent suggestion.
in suggesting a Reading Room, I was thinking of the personal contact, and the greater quantity of testimonies available. as well as other texts, like "healing spiritually".
Evgueni, let me know what you think about this approach, OK ?
regards,
Vern
P.S. before I go, let me just briefly reply to some of your main concerns.
"Christian Science" is not an oxymoron.
from the American Heritage dictionary, one definition of 'science' is as follows:
2. Methodological activity, discipline, or study:
and the root meaining is given as "knowledge, learning."
Christian Science is scientific because it IS a methodical activity of applying the laws of God as demonstrated by Jesus, in their daily lives; and they find these laws *repeatable* on a consistent basis.
IMHO this is a pretty good definition of scientific practice.
Christian Scientists are not blindly faithful to some theory they read in a book. as I mentioned previously, the book says "the time for THINKERS has come", and Christian Scientists ARE thinkers.
they first read Science and Health, then they try its ideas out in practice, and they find it WORKS - so then they KEEP using it in daily life.
THAT is why CS parents choose CS over the medical for both themselves and their children, because they have had success using its rules.
and regarding the Russian m.d., his experience of using CS with his patients was while he was still in Russia.
so he did not come to Canada, find out he couldn't practice medicine, and take the practice of CS as a second-best alternative.
we will talk more later about all this, and your other thoughts - if you wish to continue that is.
v
Hello Verndigger,
"also, I have a question as to from what point of view you are coming to this discussion - do you still believe in God as Creator of the universe, or are you an atheist, or what?"
I do not believe God (Yahweh) or any other god or deity. I do not believe in any creator of the universe. I think that the origin of the universe has long been explained by Dr. Stephen Hawkins (with sufficient evidence, of course). Even though there are still unanswered questions, I find them all to be irrelevant and of no concern to the way in which live our daily lives. Any further explanations about the origin of our universe will be purely scientific and for the purpose of information gathering, not for any person benefit or progress It will only be for the benefit of the human race as a whole.
I am an agnostic. I fall under the category of 'Temporary Agnosticism in Practice' which is the belief that there is essentially enough evidence out there to prove God's existence one way or the other but we simply do not have this evidence yet. The other type of agnosticism, of course, is PAP (which I strongly object to) which suggests that the answer to God's existence is one that we will never be able to answer because it is out of our reach as a human race.
My blog however comes out of a policy of personal education and progress. My goal here is not a part of any particular agenda or as part of any particular belief or movement. I am definitely not trying to convert anyone (although I encourage others to try and convert me). I am simply trying to understand different points of view on, what I think, some very interesting and important questions and issues.
"Evgueni, let me know what you think about this approach, OK?"
I will gladly read the book you have been referring to and dive into a more thorough discussion with you, however this will take me some time (as I am in the process of reading another book on this particular subject) and in the meanwhile, if you have the chance, I'd love to hear your response to the comments Abednego and myself have left about Christian Science. I think we've raised some important questions that might help me understand your point of view a little bit better as I read through Science and Health.
Thank you.
In response to verndigger's "Christian Scientists ARE thinkers. they first read Science and Health, then they try its ideas out in practice, and they find it WORKS - so then they KEEP using it in daily life."
Are you claiming that the Christian Science methods work in practice, all the time, with no exceptions? Are you saying that no one who has read the book and tried its methods ever finds that they do not work? That doesn't seem probable to me. Medicine certainly doesn't work all the time. So I have two main questions:
1. What percentage of Christian Science treatments work? If it really is science, then there should be a scientific study of this imporant quantity, and this study should be published in a respectable, refereed scientific journal. So far, the only scientific paper mentioned in this discussion claims that there is no measurable effect prayer has on medical patients.
2. What do the practitioners of Christian Science do when a treatment fails? Do they simply repeat it, or do they modify the treatment? Do they attempt to find out why the treatment failed?
In other words, I think you missed a key word in your definition of "science". That word is learning. Learning does not mean memorization. At least that's a very primitive type of learning. Learning should be dynamic and participatory.
I don't believe that there are any absolute, unquestionable truths in this universe. Everything is up for debate and up to discussion. Out of debate comes the truth. Someone who reads a book and follows its teachings without asking any questions is not learning or doing science.
Hi guys; here is a site that may help you see a different perspective; new paradigm
check it out.
regards,
Vern
Any further explanations about the origin of our universe will be purely scientific and for the purpose of information gathering, not for any person benefit or progress It will only be for the benefit of the human race as a whole.
you're right, Evgueni.
for most of the 20th century, the human race has gradually been moving towards the once-radical perception(but much less so now, according to scientists in various disciplines) that we live in a mental(spiritual) universe, and not a "physical" one.
there is this radical change going on in human thought: and this is what Christian Science is all about.
I did not come here originally to try to defend Christian Science, for it needs no defence.
its practitioners use it because it works.
and students of this Science are of course CONSTANTLY learning, and growing spiritually. that is their purpose.
so I am not here to argue about or defend CS; only to point out that there is a different point of view than yours.
which I feel I have adequately done now.
regards,
Vern
Hello Verndigger,
I'm not sure where to start. But it seems as if either you are missing my point, or I am completely missing yours.
"here is a site that may help you see a different perspective; new paradigm"
Now I know you are not the author of that website, so you might not be able to directly defend his point-of-view, but I was stunned when I read this passage in there:
"To give up all for Christ means giving up ALL, including a world view that does not make a great deal of sense. The material world paradigm simply does not make sense. An eternal God would not create something the opposite in nature to itself, and the idea that matter becomes alive and grows into life is borderline insane. We need a new paradigm because the existing explanations make little sense."
The author has made a suggestion that a material world without a God doesn't "make sense" and that evolution is "borderline insane." That is quite fascinating to me considering I have spent a great deal of time suggesting that people who believe in any deity are "insane". What bothers me about your website is that the author makes no attempt to explain why a world without a God "doesn't make sense". In my point of view, God doesn't make sense and either does a world that He supposedly created. Now, I can begin to explain why such a world makes no sense to me (evolution, observations of the cosmos, freethought, etc...) but from what I've read on the website you provided there is absolutely no evidence or even though presented to defend the idea that a materialistic world is "insane".
One of the following statement took me by surprise yet again:
"It is this incorrect view of life that causes suffering, war, sickness, and all the ills that flesh is heir to."
The "incorrect view of life" that was referring to was again, the materialistic point-of-view. That statement seems completely absurd as it is common knowledge that religion and the worship of non-physical things is the number one cause of war and suffering. And it is a materialistic view of the world that correct any sicknesses and illnesses that come about (through medicine and science).
"The larger the gap between one’s perception and the reality of Love’s creating, the more difficult life becomes."
Again, this is a statement that has been throw in there by the author with absolutely no other reference or evidence or thought. On these terms, I completely disagree. It is much harder to live in a world where a God does exist, for me anyways. And again I can provide many examples for this (which God, war, conflict, rules, material evidence, etc...)
The only thing the author says over and over is:
"We know this because when the correct view is introduced and accepted, diseases deemed incurable have been healed, depression has dissolved, hatred is replaced by compassion, and anger is transformed into peace. Once the old paradigm is torn down and new one begins to blend in consciousness the happier and more satisfied one becomes."
The author throws around these statements like, "diseases deemed incurable have been healed, " (which you have stated yourself as well) but absolutely no evidence of this is presented. And "hatred is replaced by compassion." Well I can present hundreds of cases where this is simply not true, whereas the author states this as if it is fact.
You say that in the 20th century,
"the human race has gradually been moving towards the once-radical perception that we live in a mental(spiritual) universe, and not a "physical" one. "
I think that would be a very difficult argument to make. Surely there are cases where this is true, but on the whole (as a human race) I think we have been moving further and further away from a spiritual world. Largely due to the discovery of evolution by Darwin and further technological advancements in the last 20th century. I can't seem to come up with (off the top of my head) ANY major spiritual events or breakthroughs that have shifted the human thought towards a more spiritual world. Perhaps you could?
"I did not come here originally to try to defend Christian Science, for it needs no defence. Its practitioners use it because it works. "
So if CS is so flawless and impervious to argument, perhaps you could answer these questions for me:
- Is there any evidence outside of official CS documents and studies to support the claims made by CS healers?
- Do Christian Science methods work in practice, all the time, with no exceptions?
- What do the practitioners of Christian Science do when a treatment fails?
Thank you.
hi there - as I said I do not need to defend Christian Science.
I have been doing it for 70+years, and it has always worked for me.
you hold on to your materialist view as long as you can, just as the flat-earth folks held on to theirs.
the thought-world is changing, and I would have thought one as curious as you seem to be might have taken the hint, and begin to look into it.
I'm not interested in continuing this discussion, because it is becoming apparent that your only interest is to deny the validity of Christian Science.
enjoy your life,
vhd
Oh, dear, dear Verndigger (if you are still reading this). Thank you for participating in this discussion. That is quite brave of you, as most people in this world are afraid to face views that contradict their own. However, you are quite mistaken about two things:
1. Any use of the word science needs to be defended by the people who use it. Neither Christian Scientists nor Scientologists invented that word. Yet both groups of charlatans are using it. To me, as a scientist, that is inexcusable. It is a blatant and deliberate lie to use the word science in those contexts.
2. My criticism is harsh, and I am very biased about this issue. Evgueni, on the other hand, has shown a great deal of patience and has been extremely polite during this discussion. I believe that his main driving force is a desire for understanding rather than pushing any single point of view. It is unfair of you to accuse him of being closed-minded, since he has clearly read, analysed and successfully discredited all of the reading materials you had attempted to use in your defence of Christian Science. It seems to me that it was indeed you who came to this discussion with hopes of pushing the CS agenda rather than participating in a debate.
I am deeply disappointed by your choice to discontinue our discussion Verndigger, but I do respect your decision.
Upon a tad of further research of Christian Science (and a glance through Chapter 1 of Science and Health) I think Wikipedia has a pretty good report of Medical Controversies surrounding CS.
And as for CS being unscientific, Wikipedia says,
"In regard to the scientificity or otherwise of Christian Science healing, even if a change in thought seems to result in a change in human experience (like physical healing) there is no obvious means of connecting the supposed cause with the observed effect. According to Karl Popper a scientific theory must be falsifiable. There is no obvious way to set up an experiment whereby the claims of Christian Science could be falsified. In this sense any claim that Christian Science has to being scientific, except in the much looser sense of "science" as "knowing" (Latin "scio"), is questionable."
It took me some looking around, but I had finally found a critical examination of Christian Science by a university scientist (Jeffrey Shallit from the University of Waterloo). Shallit presents several cases where Christian Science did not prevent outbreaks and was (in fact) the result of several deseases spreading across the CS population. Leading him to conclude that "based on this evidence, there is currently no reason to believe that Christian Science treatment is effective, and reasonable evidence to believe it may actually be harmful." He goes on to provide some very critical statistical data and lists a dozen sources relating to the study.
I found the section titled " Mrs. Eddy's Checkered Career" quite interesting as it exposed some of Eddy's strange... conditions. Also the alleged 'Miracles' which Eddy talked about, she provided absolutely no references or documentation. Why am I not surprised...
As for the book Science and Health itself, it seems to me so far to be a modified version of the Bible. Not in the way it's written, but in the sort of things that it says.
If you are a scientist investigating a subject, you must investigate the pro as well as the con.
Hello Verndigger,
You're absolutely right. However, finding any studies of successful reports is proving to be quite difficult since Christian Science practitioners do not diagnose disease. In the words of Professor Shallit, "The Christian Science church is somewhat schizophrenic in its attitude towards verification of its doctrinal health claims." Most of the pro's of CS that are available are based purely on individual testimonies after the fact. There have been no studies done to track the health of the patient throughout the CS treatment to verify any physical evidences of cures.
This is understandable when it comes to curing mental illnesses (depression, etc...), but as far as physical illnesses go (cancer, etc...) there have been no verified cases. At least none that I can find. This is largely due to the fact that the Christian Science Church "ardently resists any attempt to test Christian Science in a scientific manner, involving blind studies and controls." This refusal for tests is apparently proclaimed without any justification what-so-ever. Which immediately makes me a skeptic, even before any research is done. If the treatment truly works, there should be absolutely no reason to try and conceal any tests. Perhaps this is because the patients themselves are refusing these tests? Even so, it doesn't seem to make much sense to me.
And because there is no absolutely no research done on CS patients, we (CS skeptics) cannot be certain whether or not it truly works, or if the alleged testimonies are a form of placebo effect.
Don't get me wrong. I'm trying really hard to find any kind of pro's here. How wonderful would it be if there really WAS a way to cure all forms of illnesses? Surely, even I would be incredibly excited about it and this sounds like a fascinating topic considering there are so many people involved in these "treatments". I just wish it was more open to study and to criticism and research. This again, goes back to Abednego's point that science is about putting your claims forward for anybody to take up for further testing and research.
hello again Evgueni; your latest post encourages me, you do seem to be sincere. I googled "medically diagnosed christian science healings"
and found some good stuff, along with some from CHILD and R. Swan.
first, here is a quote from "church of Christ, Scientist", in wikipedia:
"The Church also has a number of statements regarding diagnosed conditions accompanied by legal affidavits of authenticity signed by medical practitioners who witnessed a non-medical healing. A book entitled Spiritual Healing in a Scientific Age by Robert Peel chronicles many of these accounts and quotes from the affidavits. Peel is the most academic/scholarly writer of the church's published biographers of Mary Baker Eddy."
the book mentioned is available at
abebooks
, for $1 plus shipping.
there is also a book which contains a lot of healings, some medically diagnosed, titled "Healing Spiritually". that's also available at Abebooks.
you could probably also get them at amazon.com, or perhaps even your local library.
or you could even go to a CS Reading Room, they would have them for sure, and you could talk to the attendant, and get a good feel for what CS is all about.
the third item down in my google search said the following:
"My family came into Christian Science through the healing of my young sister's polio, medically diagnosed with no cure offered; she was completely cured ..."
...unfortunately we can't read the whole article without subscribing to Atlantic monthly.
the argument about studies of CS healings doesn't seem valid to me.
what would be the involvement of the CS church if someone wanted to do a double blind study ? they would call for volunteers, and carry out their study.
however, the studies on the healing power of prayer (there is a doctor in Boston who did a very detailed one on heart attack patients, can't remember his name at the moment) have shown the extreme difficulties that arise with such studies. you ask people to pray for one group, and presumably the other group gets no prayer. - but how can you guarantee their families etc. are NOT praying for them?
and what KIND of prayer ?
studies have been done on directed and non-directed prayer.
get Dr. Larry Dossey's book "the power of prayer" I think,
he is a medical doctor who discovered one study that apparently showed the healing power of prayer, so started looking into it, and found all kinds of such studies had been done. he said that if there was such documentation on any other medical situation, it would have been a 'breakthrough'.
google him, and you will find lots of interesting stuff, though not specifically on CS.
in Science & Health with Key to the Scriptures, it says "whatever blesses one, blesses all."
thus you can see the difficulty of a so-called blind study - if CS are praying for healing, it is just as liable to bless others with the same problem, as those prayed for.
Don't get me wrong. I'm trying really hard to find any kind of pro's here. How wonderful would it be if there really WAS a way to cure all forms of illnesses? Surely, even I would be incredibly excited about it
those two books I mentioned will I'm sure get you excited!
there are healings of all kinds of disease, and other things, and as previously mentioned, including medically diagnosed ones.
the medically diagnosed ones don't occur that often, because whenever a CS'ist has a problem, they don't WANT to diagnose it, because this impresses the physical problem upon the thought.
well this is getting long, and it's time for bed.
hope you find those books!
regards,
Vern
Oh wow. I'm sorry. I was completely wrong. I thought CS people were charlatans pretending to do good and in fact doing nothing at all. It turns out, their treatment really works. Indeed, a blind study would be very hard to organize because there is a possibility that a prayer will cure all of the sick people at once, not just the ones who happen in the same room.
I bet CS practitioners go through a lot of training to ensure that they don't accidentally cure the whole world of all disease. They would be out of a job then.
Dear Abednego; since you escaped the burning fiery furnace, you seem to have gotten a little cynical about life.
know it or not, you are a child of Mind, the Creator, thus have the same capacity for understanding as anyone else.
warmest regards,
Vern :-))
Hello Verndigger,
I apologize for not responding sooner, I was finishing my exams at school.
"I googled 'medically diagnosed christian science healings' and found some good stuff, along with some from CHILD and R. Swan."
When I type in that exact phrase into Google the first website that comes up is MassKids.org and is titled "Evaluation of Christian Science Claims of Spiritual Healing" (which I would highly recommend for you as an afternoon reading, if you're not going to read any other sources I provide, at least read that one). It talks about the Christian Science study called "An Empirical Analysis of Medical Evidence in Christian Science Testimonies of Healing, 1969-1988." It criticized that study based on it's analysis through testimonies (which I'll get to a little later). And it provides some highly detailed statistics on Christian Science healing and it's failure (and it's successes, which tuns out to be not so successful in the end). It also brings up Rita Swan and her investigations.
I will begin with a list of my current problems with Christian Science and with the sources you have provided directly. It seems like a good way for me to show you where I am coming from and I would strongly encourage you to defend your claims, even though you have expressed that you believe Christian Science doesn't need any defense. I cannot understand your point-of-view on these issues unless I can hear your opinion on them. So far you have only pointed me in the direction of other sources (books, websites, etc...) and that's great. That helps corroborate your points, but it doesn't tell me what your personal opinion on the subject is. I am a scientist and I enjoy reading studies, and reports and books (and I understand the importance of providing corroboration evidence for any of your claims), but I am also a person and what I enjoy more than all of that is dealing with people directly. I'd like to understand why a person thinks in that way and why people believe in things that I don't. It's always more interesting to talk to people rather than read their books. Plus when you point me to sources and say, " ...unfortunately we can't read the whole article without subscribing to Atlantic monthly," that means that you haven't even read the article yourself. This means that the article clearly might not represent your own point of view.
One of my problems with Christian Science is that it tip-toes around medicine. It claims to be scientific, but tries really hard to be exempt from any laws. In March 1994, they tried to pass a law in Wisconsin that exempt parents from prosecution if children suffer as a result of withholding medical treatment for religious reasons. There is absolutely no possible explanation of this. Why would they need to pass such a law in they were practicing legitimate medicine? And it's not like Christian Scientists haven't tried to answer. George Jeffrey, from the Christian Science Committee on Publication, pointed out that the state is free to step in and rescue suffering children if there appears to be a problem. "Christian Scientists are law-abiding people," he said. They would not fight state intervention. But when asked how the state is supposed to learn of these dying children when the religion is very secretive, Jeffrey had no answer.
My second problem with Christian Science treatment is best represented by Jeffrey's answer to the question - "Do Christian Science practitioners ever suggest traditional medical treatment?" Jeffrey responded, "No." A person's life is too valuable, too important to be simply said - "No" - to. I understand that Christian Scientists believe that their methods work and that they do not advice from traditional medicine. But if a person's life is at stake, and if you truly DO know that your way works, why not recommend to get verification from another source - a doctor? It cannot possibly be bad for the person. What if a Christian Scientist missed something. Can a second opinion really be 'evil'?
My third problem is related to my second problem. It's the fact that there are many (far more than I previously thought) preventable deaths that have occurred as a result of poor Christian Science treatment. Just to name a few - Michael Schramm, 12, ruptured appendix (WA-1979); Amy Hermanson, 7, diabetes (FL-1986); Ian Burdick, 15, diabetes (CA-1987); Ian Lundman, 11, diabetes (MN-1989); Ronald Rowan, 11, aspiration asphyxiation (OH-1979); Kris Ann Lewin, 13, bone cancer (PA-1981); Shauntay Walker, 4, meningitis (CA-1984); Robyn Twitchell, 2, twisted bowel (MA-1986); and Natalie Rippberger, 8, meningitis (CA-1984). Margaret Lewis, (a Christian Scientist) asked for "religious freedom." Conceding that practitioners are not always 100% successful, she countered that there are "no guarantees with traditional medicine" either. But when a person dies as of a result of traditional Western medicine it is a grave problem. It means having to re-evaluate your treatment (unless the death was due to complications, or something unforseen), it means having to be up in front of a committee to explain what went wrong (doctors are held responsible) and it means to provide all known information about the event for further investigation. Christian Science practitioners are under no obligation (in most places) to do the same and it's simply inexcusable. As evidence of Christian Science effectiveness, Lewis also offered the book, Spiritual Healing in a Scientific Age, by Robert Peel, containing, she said, "hundreds of examples" of proof. But because I do not have access to this book, and simply cannot imagine myself buying it, perhaps you could provide me with some of your own research on the subject and your own thoughts and responses to my ideas (as I have done). Surely, I can also provide you with books that that contradict claims of healing in Christian Science, but I would never expect you to read them.
My fourth problem is the fact that any claim by most Christian Science studies (although not all) that it demonstrates the effectiveness of Christian Science healing is entirely nullified by the fact that the study lists only claimed successes in each diagnostic category. It does not provide the statistics of unsuccessful treatments. So we cannot evaluate how effective Christian Science methods really are. So, let's imagine there have been 100 miracles that have been confirmed. That's fantastic and I couldn't be more thrilled. But what if, as a result of poor, uneducated treatment there have been 10,000 deaths. Surely this would not hold well with the scientific community or with any caring, rational being. Does Robert Peel's book provide instances where Christian Science has failed? Does it provide explanations for why it hasn't worked. Which brings me to my fifth problem with Christian Science.
My fifth problem is that when Christian Science healing fails we do not get any explanations for why it has failed. The definition of healing by faith implies that ANY person under ANY circumstance can be healed. And the fact that Christians preach the existence of a caring, loving God leads me to assume that ALL cases should be successful. They aren't. And why certain times Christian Science fails baffles me. Because the only response I can give myself is that Christian Science must surely not be 100% successful. And if that is the case there is simply no reason for why it should hold of any value (also in reference to my second problem).
My sixth problem with Christian Science is the strong emphasis on using testimonies as evidence for successful healing. Sure, testimonies are great because you get to deal with the people directly, but they are not so great at providing ... well... evidence. Firstly, they might not even really know they were healed. There have been cases in my life where I've had serious pains in my knees (for example) and I didn't want to go to the doctor because I kept telling myself, "It's not serious, it'll go away". Well, eventually it did go away, but I still wonder, perhaps it WAS something serious that will come back to bite me in the ass when I'm older. So eventually I will go to the doctor to find out. But more than that, testimonies are not reliable on a grander scale. Let's imagine the unlikely scenario where a cancer patient gets treated with a brand new vaccine meant to cure cancer and afterwards the patient feels much better. There is a chance that the medicine acted like a drug or painkiller and that the cancer is still there. Thankfully for traditional medicine, we can verify the cancer's existence with CAT scans. In Christian Science however... we can't. The only thing we have is testimonies, and (I'm sorry), but that's simply not enough.
"studies have been done on directed and non-directed prayer. get Dr. Larry Dossey's book "the power of prayer" I think, he is a medical doctor who discovered one study that apparently showed the healing power of prayer, so started looking into it, and found all kinds of such studies had been done. he said that if there was such documentation on any other medical situation, it would have been a 'breakthrough'."
Well like you have said (and like I have said in my previous comments), studying prayer (the way we have been approaching it so far) doesn't seem to work. Because if God is indeed omnipotent, he'd see right through us and know that we were praying for the sake of a study not for the sake of the patient. But then again, looking at it from my perspective... what does it matter? If the prayer is legitimate and the victim is suffering, who cares if it's for a study or not. If God really does care, He would help and cure the sick. If prayer does work - it must work all the time. If it doesn't work all the time, then we cannot rely on prayer as a means of healing the sick. It's irrational. We live in the 21st century where we have cured an incredible range of diseases. There is simply no need left for us to rely on non-traditional methods of healing. I understand, back in the 1st century for instance, when people didn't have vaccinations, or medicine. People relied on other forms of healing to try and cure the sick. But really... that's all based on a form of coin-flipping and guessing. We just don't have any need for that kind of guess-work now-a-days.
"the medically diagnosed ones don't occur that often, because whenever a CS'ist has a problem, they don't WANT to diagnose it, because this impresses the physical problem upon the thought."
I have no idea what you're trying to say here. Why would a Christian Scientist EVER not want to diagnose a problem? Isn't that what healers and doctors supposed to do? What do you mean by "impresses the physical problem upon the thought" ?
Although Abednego is being quite cynical and sarcastic. His statement really emphases my problem (number 5). If prayer does work as a means of healing any sickness, why do we still have sick people? Why do we still have traditional hospitals that are crowded and, in some cases, overcrowded with patients? Why don't we have line-ups to Churches and CS hospitals? Why do we have children dying from mistreatment of CS? These are all valid questions, and as someone who ISN'T a Christian Scientist, I don't have the answer. I will copy my original request for you, Verndigger, here again.
I cannot understand your point-of-view on these issues unless I can hear your opinion on them. So far you have only pointed me in the direction of other sources (books, websites, etc...) and that's great. That helps corroborate your points, but it doesn't tell me what your personal opinion on the subject is. I am a scientist and I enjoy reading studies, and reports and books (and I understand the importance of providing corroboration evidence for any of your claims), but I am also a person and what I enjoy more than all of that is dealing with people directly. I'd like to understand why a person thinks in that way and why people believe in things that I don't. It's always more interesting to talk to people rather than read their books.
Evgueni; I said as a scientific researcher you needed to investigate the positive side as well as the negative. your reply: you're absolutely right
so I gave you some references, including a book which includes medically diagnosed healings, and affidavits to that effect.
healings of all kinds of the worst diseases - medically diagnosed, and with affidavits.
I pointed out where you could obtain this book for ONE DOLLAR U.S., plus shipment charges.
now however you seem to not be interested in the positive side, but merely wish to have a debate with me.
as I have told you several times now, for me
there is no debate
my life experience, that of family members, fellow church members, all point to the complete validity of Christian Science.
Go to a Reading Room and read current CS Sentinels, and see all the ways that CS works in people's lives. physical healing is just one small part of it.
CS is a way of life!
if you can't get to a Reading Room, you can order the Sentinel directly - you can also go to spirituality.com to find how people use CS in their daily lives.
in my working life I was a main-frame systems programmer and tech support - perhaps some evidence that I am capable of thinking logically.
my Dad was a complete atheist until through a friend he discovered CS. he told me that it was its sound logic that attracted him.
get Science and Health, read it, listen to what the lady is telling you; get a biography of Mary Baker Eddy, and find out just how CS was discovered, and the thousands of healings she did, and taught her students to do.
I recommend Peel's trilogy on her life, or Gillian Gill's 1998 book "Mary Baker Eddy" for a completely objective non-Scientist view.
if you are really interested in finding out more than the negative outlook about CS, you will do this!
so get the books I recommended, and your questions will be answered.
then call me ...
Vern
I think I understand a bit better now. It's all about what you want to base your life on. Some people value the truth and they strive to find the truth in everything.
Others don't care about it so much. They value peace of mind. If you want to live your live in peace, not worrying about much, it's very easy to fool yourself into serenity.
I'm not judging. Who am I to say what the correct way of life is? My view is just as valid as anyone else's.
Some people believe in God, and magic, and miracles. It makes living easier. The real world is scary. There are bad people in it. It's comforting to know that there is a God looking after us, and He has a plan for everything, and nothing happens without reason, and we will all go to a peaceful paradise after we die. And if the truth has to be sacrificed for this peace of mind, who cares?
Other people don't feel comfortable lying to themselves. They open their eyes and realise that this world is real. It's not a dream. We are not on this planet to be God's little puppets. We humans are all equal, and we are all there is. The universe belongs to us, not God, us. We are in charge, and we are responsible. These other people strive to figure out what kind of wonderful gift this world is. They strive to figure out how it works. They want to find out the truth at any cost, even if this truth is ugly and uncomfortable. Even if the truth is that there is no God and no plan. Even if there are maniacs who can fire a gun or crash a plane killing innocent people for no reason whatsoever. God didn't tell them to do it. Satan didn't tell them to do it. It just happens. There is no explanation. There is no big struggle between good and evil. There is no good and evil; it's all up to us to figure out. It's scary, and it's sad, but it's the truth. Some people find this search for the truth exciting and worth living for.
It's not for everybody. Most people are scared of this truth, and that's fine. Go on believing in God and magic. I have no objections to that. Just don't kill your children by asking an invisible man in the clouds to cure their asthma. Take'em to the damn doctor.
Hello Verndigger,
I obviously have a lot of reading to do. So I recommend postponing any future discussions on the matter until I read up some more on it. Thank you for participating in this discussion and I hope you come back again to partake in my future blog entries.
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home