Part 3

|On the fly-leaf of Mrs. Eddy's now "famous" book appears this quotation from Shakespeare: "There is nothing either good or bad but thinking makes it so." This is given a place of honour in her book because it is supposed to prove the truth of Christian Science. But a wee bit of clear thinking or of the power of analysis would have helped Mrs. Eddy to see that her opening quotation completely destroys all that she advocates in the rest of her book. The doctrine of Mrs. Eddy is that all is God; that God or the good alone exists, and that evil, etc., is mere illusion. According to her teaching, sickness, sin, and death do not exist except for those who believe in them. The only reality is God or goodness. But the text from Shakespeare which she so prominently displays upon her banners denies God or goodness, just as effectually as it does evil and the devil. "There is nothing--," says the great poet. Mark that, Christian Scientists! Is that any text to quote to prove that there is truth, and there is goodness, and there is God? "There is nothing either good"--Pause again: Are Mrs. Eddy's troops of voiceless followers willing to subscribe to that statement? If Shakespeare, Mrs. Eddy's authority, is right, the good is as illusory as the bad, for he says plainly that "there is nothing either good or bad but thinking makes it so," which should make God, goodness, health, and truth as much an unreality as sickness or sin.

Moreover, the Shakespearean argument makes man the creator of both the good and the evil in the world, since it is his _thinking_ which determines the nature of things. Mrs. Eddy, on the contrary, maintains that man is merely a reflection of the Deity, who alone exists and is the only reality. It must have been the greatness of Shakespeare's name which tempted Mrs. Eddy to quote from him on the very first page of her book. But metaphysical arguments are like balloons: the bladders burst, and nothing remains.

In order to prove that all disease is mental, the following argument is frequently used. I shall give it precisely as I find it in Christian Science: Its Results (p. 14; copyright, 1918, by the Christian Science Publication Society):--_If, then, it is considered that the state of mind may disturb the secretions, causing the tears to flow; or that the state of mind may quicken the action of the heart, causing the blood to rush to the face or away from it; or if the state of mind can affect the organs of the throat, causing huskiness, then it is plain that the state of mind may be held accountable for other derangements of the organs of secretion, of circulation, and of speech. And if of these, why not of other organs of the body?_

It is not denied that mental conditions often become manifest in their effects upon the body. But, first, what produces these mental conditions? The Eddyites do not seem to care to penetrate into that question at all. Is it not true that in the majority of cases it is some physical or material cause which has either depressed or exalted the mind--brought tears to the eyes or dried them? The sight of a sudden and terrible accident to a child while crossing the street will, for the moment, rob onlookers of their power of speech, blanch their cheeks and daze them beyond the ability to move or to think. In the same way, the news that a dear son has been gassed or killed in battle will change a happy home into a house of mourning, depriving its inmates of sleep and appetite. On the other hand, the unexpected discovery of a vein of gold on one's farm will exhilarate the mind and banish a hundred fears. These mental moods have physical causes. Just as heat passes into motion and motion again into heat, material events produce mental moods; and these mental moods resolve themselves once more into physical manifestations, such as laughter or tears.

The Christian Scientist observes accurately enough that depression and discouragement cause sickness, but he is too impatient to learn that these mental states are often the result of bad circulation or mal-assimilation of food. Lack of fresh air, defective vision, or a dull but constant physical pain very often lowers the mental tone, proving thereby the interdependence of mind and matter.

The lecturer from whose pamphlet I have quoted realizes "that salt water will flow from the eyes if he is subjected to great grief," and "that the state of mind may disturb the secretions, causing the tears to flow," and concludes therefrom that "dyspepsia and all other bodily diseases and derangements" should be treated "with truth rather than with tabloids and powders." But what if the secretions are disturbed by purely physical causes? A child cries for something to eat, and not from unbelief or fear, which are supposed to be purely mental states; and a piece of cake will relieve his hunger and dry his tears. A splinter in the eye will provoke tears, as will also a sharp, cold wind; the removal of the one, and protection from the other, will immediately dry the eyes. Peeling onions starts the secretions. Do onions come under the class of mental causes?

Let me give another illustration. Wishing to prove that the material world is an illusion of the senses, Mrs. Eddy tells us that on a wet day, when there is a downpour of rain, and when mist and fog shroud land and sea, we can easily assure ourselves that our senses are not telling us the truth, that the weather is really fine, by consulting a barometer, which in the midst of cloud and rain points to clear weather. What shall we think of the mentality of a woman who appeals to a barometer to prove that matter does not exist? If Mrs. Eddy had not suddenly stopped thinking, she would have seen that if our senses betray us when they report wet weather, neither would we have any assurance that what they say about the barometer is dependable. Does she think that our senses are not trustworthy except when they refer us to the barometer?

Inconsistent thinking is often also responsible for inconsistency in conduct. The Christian Scientist, for example, objects to the physician, but patronizes the dentist. Yet dental surgery is not different from medicine, but is one of its many branches. It is by the science of medicine that the trouble in the body is located, diagnosed, and remedied by the knife, if it cannot be by medication. Besides, the wound or incision is treated medicinally, which requires medical knowledge on the part of the surgeon, just as it does on the part of the regular physician. Can a dentist practise surgery without a knowledge of the human anatomy--that is to say, of how many bones and muscles there are in the body, where the nerves are located, to what sort of treatment they will respond, and to what laws of growth and decay they are subject? Does he not treat an abscess or receding gums with medicine? And does this not require a knowledge of medicine which to Christian Scientists is nothing but "error"? Why do not these people invite a novice or their cooks or barbers to work on their teeth if a knowledge of anatomy, physiology, and medicine is not necessary to make a man a good dentist? The mere fact that Christian Scientists will not allow any one but a man with a diploma from a dental college to attend to their teeth proves conclusively that they regard a knowledge of medicine just as necessary as we do--only we admit it frankly, and they deny it foolishly. If the Christian Scientists have not progressed sufficiently to demonstrate against surgery, they should at least be grateful to us for taking care of their needs in the meantime, and help support the physical sciences until they are able to dispense with them.

In her _Science and Health_ Mrs. Eddy ridicules those who think that vegetation or flowers can cause sickness, or that there can be such a thing as a "rose cold."

"The rose," she writes, "is the smile of God," and to accuse it of producing fevers or colds is to make God the author of disease. This is strange reasoning. If the rose represents "the smile of God," what do the bugs and crawling insects on its petals represent? And whose smile are its thorns which prick x and draw blood? Further, if a rose, a material flower, can represent the "Divine" smile, why may not other equally material things have a mission in life--such as representing and imparting health? If the Deity can use the rose to reveal his smile, why may he not use herbs or minerals for curative purposes? Why may not soap and water, cleanliness, fresh air, temperance in food and drink and exercise, have as useful a purpose in the "Divine" economy of things as the rose?

On p. 488 of _Science and Health_ Mrs. Eddy writes:--Christian Science sustains with immortal proof the impossibility of any material sense, and defines these so-called senses as mortal beliefs, the testimony of which cannot be true. Nerves have no more sensation, apart from what belief bestows upon them, than the fibres of a plant.

In the above, as also in innumerable other passages, the founder of Christian Science advises her readers to deny the testimony of their senses. They are urged to deny "that matter can ache, swell, and be inflamed." Never mind the witness of our senses; "bones cannot break, nerves cannot feel, the nose cannot smell, and the eyes cannot see." But did she stop to think where such advice would carry us?

I smell something burning in the kitchen or in the basement; but no, the senses lie. There is nothing burning; there is nothing to burn. I feel and see smoke filling the room. I can hardly breathe; but no, the senses are "a fraud." There is no smoke in the room, and I am not choking; for has not Mrs. Eddy demonstrated with "immortal proof" that "corporeal senses defraud and lie," and that they are "the only source of evil or error" (pp. 488 and 489)? If the infant is crying in the nursery because it has fallen from its cradle, or because it has stumbled into the fire, there is no need to rush for help, because the report of our senses that the child is in danger is a lie. "Christian Science shows them [our senses] to be false" (p. 489). Fortunate it is that not many parents are consistent Christian Scientists.

It is said that Christian Science does not deal with man as he appears, but man as he is--"unborn and undying." Very well; is what Mrs. Eddy and her followers write or say about "man unborn and undying" debatable or un-debatable? If debatable, we have a right to ask the Eddyites to conform to the canons of human reason; but if Christian Science is non-debatable--that is, if it cannot be understood by such minds as we possess, then why write or talk about it at all?

Do Christian Scientists Practise what they Preach?

|Mrs. Eddy teaches that the material universe is an illusion. Do the Christian Scientists try to live up to this? I say, do they try, because to try is about all that any one can do, as it is an utter impossibility to really live up to such a belief.

Let us see if there is any difference between the way we treat our bodies and the way Mrs. Eddy's followers treat theirs. We believe the body exists, and therefore we protect it with clothing. The Christian Scientists do the same, although they should not believe such material things as flesh and bone exist. We sleep to be refreshed; so do they. We have a roof over our heads; so have they. We close our windows in the winter and build a fire; they do the same. We are growing older; so are they. Now and then we feel unwell, and apply to a helper of some kind for treatment, when we cannot cope with the trouble ourselves; the Christian Scientists do the same. We die from some cause or other; so do they. If Christian Scientists never need any treatment, why are there so many practitioners among them? How do they make a living if no one of their circle is ever taken sick? I admit that we do not take the same treatment, or go to the same helper, or call our troubles by the same _name_; but, dear me! why make such an ado over mere names?

In what respect, then, do Christian Scientists, who do not believe in the body, treat theirs differently from the way we treat ours? We have to eat to keep ourselves alive; so do they. We have to take liquids with our food; so do they. We bathe our bodies because to do so is refreshing and cleanly. Why do they bathe theirs? We need fresh air; Mrs. Eddy rode out every day for the same purpose. And does not the Eddyite, like every one else, repair his house or weed his garden? Does he not Paris Green his vegetables? Does he not screen his windows? Does he not scrub his floors? Why may he not, with equal reason, resort to certain means to protect his teeth, his eyes, or his digestive organs? If Mind is _All_, Mrs. Eddy's disciples should dispense with the use of powders and cosmetics, and their houses and gardens should be free from wear and tear, as their persons are supposed to be. Are not tree and plant, house and land, face and teeth, included in the _All_ which is _Mind?_ And do Christian Scientists use "Divine" healing also for the horse and the dog? Do they employ dressmakers to clothe their minds or their bodies? If Mind is All, why do not our trains run without engineers, or our ships sail without pilots? Are physicians the only people the Deity will not tolerate? If engineers and pilots represent Mind, why not doctors?

It is admitted by leaders in Christian Science that many among their followers insure, not only their buildings against fire, but also their lives against accident, sickness, and death. Of course, death can be caused only by sickness, accident, or old age. It follows that the Christian Scientist takes thought of accident, sickness, and old age, and guards against them precisely as non-Christian Scientists do. I know also of Christian Scientists who are in the life insurance business--that is to say, while they deny sickness and accident they argue with their clients that it is the part of wisdom, as well as a duty they owe their families, to buy insurance. Is that the way to practise what one professes?

Let us continue. Mrs. Eddy declares there is no matter, and then she proceeds to write a book. Why could not Mrs. Eddy communicate her revelation to her pupils without the help of a book? Would not that have been a real miracle? Why should Absolute Mind be dependent upon ink and type? Is not a book--its paper, its cloth, its ink, its glue and boards--as material as any drug which the chemist manufactures? If Mrs. Eddy is not able to reach the minds of her disciples without appealing to their senses of touch and sight, why condemn the doctors for using equally material means to influence their patients?

But Mrs. Eddy goes beyond the physician in her materialism. A doctor, for example, invents an instrument to render surgical operations less painful, but he does not patent his idea to protect his profits. Mrs. Eddy discovers "Divine healing" and copyrights it. Moreover, the physician is the inventor of his own instrument. Mrs. Eddy declares that her book is from God, and then proceeds to copyright what does not belong to her.

The hosts of people who proclaim Mrs. Eddy's name and bend the knee to her do not seem to reflect that to copyright God's thoughts is an attempt to copyright the Deity. A New England woman plans to secure a corner on the Divine mind for commercial purposes, else why does she charge such high prices for her book? And yet not one of her admiring followers breathes even a murmur against it. It has been said that the lady copyrighted her books and asked a big price for them, netting her nearly five hundred per cent, profit, not because she wanted the money, but to make the buyers appreciate the book. But what becomes of "Divine" science if it must count on money to make people appreciate its merits? If the Eddyites may use money to influence minds, why may not a doctor use drugs to get results?

Really the metaphysical fraternity, instead of being sufficiently advanced in "Divine" science to dispense with medical help, are often compelled to employ the services of more than one doctor. The devout follower of Mrs. Eddy, if he has a tooth to be extracted or a decayed root to be removed, or an abscess in the ear to be treated, engages, besides the services of an expert physician, also some metaphysical practitioner. Thus, while the non-Christian Scientist employs only one kind of doctor, the believer in "Divine" mind employs two. When a Christian Scientist goes to a hospital for an operation, he either takes a practitioner of his own faith with him and instals him in a room near-by to give him "Divine" treatment while the surgeon is operating on him, or he goes to the phone just before going under the knife to ask his favourite practitioner for absent treatment. Two doctors instead of one--that is how Christian Science has done away with doctors. Of course, it is true that only in serious cases do Christian Scientists call upon outside help; but, then, in cases not serious anybody can get along without expert assistance.

In _Science and Health_ (p. 463) Mrs. Eddy gives the following explanation of her seclusion from the world: "It has been said to the author: 'The world has been benefited by you, but it feels your influence without seeing you. Why do you not make yourself more widely known?' Could her friends know how little time the author has had in which to make herself outwardly known except through her laborious publications--and how much time and thought are still required to establish the stately operations of Christian Science--they would understand why she is so secluded." Is not this an admission of her limitations? And can a woman, claiming to be one with God, "unborn and undying," afford to confess that she has neither the time nor the ability to do all that is required of her?

On p. 464 of her book Mrs. Eddy advises her followers to let a surgeon give them a hypodermic injection to relieve their pain, and a few sentences after she writes: "Adulterating Christian Science makes it void. Falsity has no foundation," She advises her followers, when "Divine" science fails, to take a hypodermic for help, and then she tells them that "adulterating Christian Science makes it void," which leaves her disciples between "the devil and the deep sea."

And what if there were no hypodermics to relieve the pain which Mrs. Eddy's doctrine had failed to cope with? What if there were no surgeons to administer the drug? Under Christian Science all these material means are to be abolished, leaving the whole field to Mrs. Eddy. To whom, then, will "a Christian Scientist, seized with pain so violent that he cannot treat himself mentally," go for relief?

Mrs. Eddy knows very well that physicians and not surgeons give hypodermic injections; but she has not the courage, nor, I regret to say, the honesty, to say anything good of a physician. Is not such a mind as Mrs. Eddy's a menace?

Observe again that when a Christian Scientist is in intense pain he must not seek instant relief by an appeal to real science, but must first try Mrs. Eddy's remedy; only when that fails may he resort to a hypodermic injection. How long a trial should the sufferer of intense pain give to Mrs. Eddy's remedy is not stated; but this much is certain, he is to suffer the intense pain as long as he can bear it before trying any other remedy. Knowing very well that a hypodermic might give instant relief to a patient in intense agony, Mrs. Eddy nevertheless insists that the patient shall try her uncertain remedy first.

But what follows is really debasing: "When the belief of pain is lulled [by the hypodermic] he, the sufferer, can handle his own case mentally. Thus it is that we 'prove all things and hold fast that which is good.'" Could there be anything more hypocritical than such reasoning? After the pain has been relieved by a physician, the Christian Scientist will treat himself mentally--for what? It is very much like saying that after a starving man has been fed let him proceed to demonstrate that food is not necessary for the relief of hunger. But the real motive for demanding that mental treatment should follow the hypodermic injection is to be able to claim that the cure, after all, was not effected by the physician, but by Mrs. Eddy's remedy.

Moreover, if hypodermic injections are permitted for the relief of intense pain, why may not antiseptics be allowed for protection against germs, anæsthetics to deaden sensation, and antidotes to counteract poisons? After the antidote has killed the effects of the poison, the Christian Scientist, following Mrs. Eddy's instructions, may treat himself mentally and deny the reality of both poison and antidote.

Instead of recommending the services of a surgeon, would it not have been better for Mrs. Eddy to have advised her followers to go about equipped, not only with her _Science and Health_, but also with a pocket apparatus or instrument for giving to one's self or others hypodermic injections in cases where Christian Science failed them?

Really, when Mrs. Eddy says, "If from an injury, or from any cause, a Christian Scientist were seized with pain so violent that he could not treat himself mentally--and the Christian Scientist had failed to relieve him--the sufferer could call a surgeon, who would give him a hypodermic injection," she surrenders everything, and her metaphysics collapses like a bubble. It goes to prove that, despite her many bizarre somersaults in the air, she cannot avoid landing upon matter.

When Christian Science fails, there is still the surgeon with his "hypodermic injection." What an anti-climax! Like all metaphysicians, Mrs. Eddy emerges from the same door wherein she entered.

Again Mrs. Eddy practically overthrows the foundations of her faith when she writes: "If a dose of poison is swallowed through mistake, and the patient dies... does human belief, you ask, cause this death? Even so, and as directly as if the poison had been intentionally taken. In such cases a few persons believe the potion swallowed by the patient to be harmless; but the vast majority of mankind, though they know nothing of this particular case and this special person, believe the arsenic, strychnine, or whatever the drug used, to be poisonous, for it is set down as a poison by mortal mind. Consequently the result is controlled by the majority of opinions, not by the infinitesimal minority of opinions in the sick chamber" (pp. 177-78). With that statement it may be said that Christian Science commits suicide. Only a logic-proof mind could fail to see that to admit the helplessness of Christian Science when in the minority against "the majority of opinions," as Mrs. Eddy does in the above passage, is tantamount to saying that at present, at least, no patient can be healed by Christian Science, since "the result is controlled by the majority of opinions, not by the infinitesimal minority of opinions in the sick chamber." Not only does the statement quoted deny to Christian Science the power to cope successfully with "the majority of opinions," but it also destroys faith in the testimonials from patients who claim to have been cured by Mrs. Eddy's discovery. So long as the four hundred millions of China, the three hundred millions of India, and the hosts of Africa, to which should be added the multitudes in Europe and America, "believe the potion swallowed to be poisonous," or the sickness complained of to be real, "for it is set down as a poison," or as sickness "by mortal mind," a handful of Eddyites representing "an infinitesimal minority" can effect no cures, seeing that "_the result is controlled by the majority of opinions_." On page 162 of her book Mrs. Eddy writes: "I have restored what is called the lost substance of lungs......Christian Science heals organic disease as surely as it does what is called functional." She also claims to have "elongated shortened limbs," etc.