Article August 2, 1913 Issue

In a recent review, in the Republican, of Edouard LeRoy's...

Ezra W. Palmer

Denver (Col.) Republican

In a recent review, in the Republican, of Edouard LeRoy's book, "The New Philosophy of Henri Bergson," mention was made that there is a similarity between the ideas of Bergson and those of Mrs. Eddy. Perhaps some brief comment will show that the Bergson philosophy, as set forth in LeRoy's book, is wholly unlike Christian Science. Bergson's philosophy does not postulate God as the basis of all reality, as does Christian Science, for Bergson bases his reasoning on an introspective study of the human mind, and from this inner view attempts to evolve a solution of life and the relation of mind to matter. His book throughout confuses mind and matter, and attempts in a vague way to make them both a part of reality. Nowhere in his book does LeRoy show that the Bergson philosophy even attempts to draw a line of demarcation between matter and spirit, and his philosophy is merely an attempt at the impossible—to bridge over the gulf between matter and spirit and to make God the creator of both.

This has been the crux of the contest between the idealists and the materialists in all ages, and will doubtless continue to be until men see more clearly the meaning of the omnipotence, omniscience, and omnipresence of Spirit, which necessarily precludes matter, a material universe, and a material creation. The dual character of Bergson's philosophy is aptly illustrated by his definition of God as "a free and creating God, producing life and matter at once" (p. 225), a statement utterly contrary to the teachings of Christian Science, which hold that God is Spirit, and that, therefore, God is not the creator of His unlikeness, matter. The whole teaching of Jesus and his wonderful works rests on the supremacy of Spirit, God, and the annulment of the claims that life and intelligence inhere in matter. Defining her views of matter, Mrs. Eddy writes, "My conscientious position, in the denial of matter, rests on the fact that matter usurps the authority of God, Spirit; and the nature and character of matter, the antipode of Spirit, include all that denies and defies Spirit, in quantity or quality" (Unity of Good, p. 31).

This confusion of mind and matter is observable all through the LeRoy volume, and utterly differentiates it from Christian Science, which rests on a purely monotheistic basis. On page 109 the writer vaguely defines mind and matter as "not two things opposed to each other, but rather as two universe directions of movement," whatever that may mean. On page 229 he attempts to coalesce matter with life, and this again is foreign to Christian Science, which teaches that God alone creates man, but not matter. Christian Science teaches the unreality of evil, because evil is contrary to the nature of God, whom St. John defines as Love. Yet, LeRoy's book defines both evil and good as real, and says that "memory makes a persistent reality of evil, as of good" (p. 123), thus setting up a dual universe and making God responsible for all the disasters and disasters which afflict mankind. Christian Science repudiates the doctrine of the reality of evil and holds with Habakkuk, that God is "of purer eyes than to behold evil."

Send a comment to the editors

We'd love to hear from you!

Easily submit your testimonies, articles, and poems online.

Submit

In a recent review, in the Republican, of Edouard LeRoy's...

We'd love to hear from you!

Sign up for unlimited access