A second letter of opposition to Christian Science recently...

New Bedford (Mass.) Standard

A second letter of opposition to Christian Science recently published in your paper, presented two points which furnish occasion for helpful explanations. At one of these points our critic said, "Mrs. Eddy imagined that when she said sickness is not real, that, somehow, ought to change the experience." The fact is that the spiritual understanding of reality, which Mrs. Eddy found in the Bible and restated with a new emphasis, has changed and is changing the experience of innumerable people. This change, however, has not occurred in precisely the manner indicated by the statement just quoted. As Mrs. Eddy has said in "Science and Health with Key to the Scriptures" (p. 447), "The sick are not healed merely by declaring there is no sickness, but by knowing that there is none." The sick are healed through Christian Science, she has further explained on page 495, by "the life-giving power of Truth acting on human belief."

At the other point to which reference has been made our critic insisted that "the things of the world of sense are real," and declared that this teaching is accepted "by every educated mind." The teaching actually accepted by at least some educated minds is that the senses do not perceive or report reality at all. For instance, Bertram Russell, M.A., F.R.S., lecturer of Trinity college, Cambridge University, would be generally regarded as an educated mind. Yet in one of his books he referred to one of the things of the world of sense (a common table), and said: "The one thing we know about it is that it is not what it seems. Beyond this modest result, so far, we have the most complete liberty of conjecture." Again in the same book Professor Russell said, "If, then, we cannot trust what we see with the naked eye, why should we trust what we see through a microscope?"

March 15, 1919
Contents

We'd love to hear from you!

Easily submit your testimonies, articles, and poems online.

Submit