Talk:Christian Science/Archive 4

This is an archive of past discussions about Christian Science. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Science, redux

The term science is either ambiguous, or used in multiple ways at the same time today, even on Wikipedia. Not only does Library Science not qualify as a science through the litmus of scientific method use, but there also exists Religious Science, Divine Science, and Jewish Science (none of which have been labelled pseudoscience). These last three are religions in the New Thought movement who assert a concept called Affirmative Prayer which is similar, if not identical, in concept and execution to Christian Science prayer. William James, in The Varieties of Religious Experience (certainly a reliable and verifiable source by Wikipedia standards) describes the benefits of such prayer, mentioning Christian Science specifically, despite its inability to heal disease. He also asserts that Christian Science is a religion, important in this discussion. Digitalican (talk) 02:55, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

What makes the "science" part of Christian Science is that it makes specific claims about what it can do. When tested, it does not fulfill said claims. Had Christian Science acknowledged that the original statements are wrong, they would fall under the heading of science. Since they don't, the correct label is "pseudoscience". I don't know if the other "scienceses" makes similar testable predictions, but even if they do, it would not in itself make Christian Science a proper science. Thimbleweed (talk) 08:07, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

"When tested, it does not fulfill said claims." Logically, this could indeed be a problem with Christian Science, or with the inability of scientific method to set up an experiment where the expectations of the experimenters did not influence the result, or with the fact that CS healing sometimes works and sometimes doesn't (because it depends inter alia on the mental state of the patient, which is difficult or impossible to measure). From personal experience--and this is admittedly "anecdotal" but it's my anecdote--I have relied on CS for most of my life without any medical intervention (except in the case of dental/optical work, compulsory medical examinations, and one other minor situation to do with an ear problem). I am in generally good health, and have sufficient experience of rapid healing after Christian Science treatment not to have any serious questions re its efficacy. (I've also saved a lot of money lol). However, I accept that it would be difficult or impossible for any of my experiences to feed into scientific experiments, not because they didn't happen (though logically it could indeed have been a remarkable chain of coincidences) but because the scientific method doesn't accommodate them. Consequently, I'm happy enough to admit that CS is not a science as science is presently defined. But it's not a pseudoscience either. It's a metaphysical system with (claimed) practical implications.GruessGott (talk) 08:49, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

I have no problem with CSists use the word "science", nor that they prefer to credit CS whenever they heal on their own. The only reason CS is a pseudoscience and should very clearly be labeled as such is because they make scientific claims about medicine. If they had not, I don't think anyone would care. Whether the claims rise from religious doctrine or something else is immaterial. Thimbleweed (talk) 09:25, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

You may also want to read Scientific control. This is not something that is excluded from science a priori. For example, anecdotal evidence is generally excluded because it is uncontrolled (plus no statistical power, etc), not due to a precondition against anecdotal evidence within science. Arc de Ciel (talk) 09:57, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Thimbleweed: I don't know what you mean by the phrase "because they make scientific claims about medicine." As a (practical) metaphysical system whose teachings fall within the category of philosophical idealism, Christian Science teaches that, in the last analysis, everything (including medicine) works mentally, because everything is mental. The claim is metaphysical rather than scientific, in the modern sense of the term anyway. It offers a meta-analysis of how the world works, rather than a series of hypotheses to be tested. It needs to be assessed, in consequence, in philosophical terms of logicality, coherence, consistency, explanatory ability (etc.), rather than in scientific terms of susceptibility to experimental proof (or disproof). According to its own teaching, Christian Science could not fall within the category of the natural sciences, which in practical terms operate on the basis that there is a world "out there" to be measured, on which the consciousness of those making the measurements can have no appreciable effect. Strictly within its own terms and in terms of what it claims, Christian Science does not, could not, and would not want to, fall within the category of the natural sciences, insofar as the latter are materialistic in both ontological and epistemological terms. (The above is of course a simplistic analysis of the natural sciences, since it says nothing about modern physics from Heisenberg onwards, which, in some interpretations at least, problematize materialism in either ontological or epistemological terms, or both. BTW I'm putting this comment in parentheses to avoid invoking the mantra of "quantum mysticism")GruessGott (talk) 10:10, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Additionally, the human fields of learning have largely abandonned empirical testing of hypotheses (namely, the scientific method) in favour of case studies; which are entirely anecdotal. Many of these fields call themselves sciences; social science, information science, management science, and so on. Should we brand all of these as pseudosciences as well? Michael J. Mullany (talk) 10:14, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

GruessGott, you are absolutely correct in CS not falling under natural science. Had they stuck to making claims about the afterlife or other metaphysical questions, no one would have have minded. The problem is that CS makes claims about the nature of deceases, and use the word "science" to add authority to their claims. When they do that, they will be judged by the same standards as others claiming things about e.g. gangrene using science. It really is that simple.

Mullany, that "the human fields of learning have largely abandonned empirical testing of hypotheses" is an extraordinary claim and requires proof. At least within any field relevant to this discussion (i.e medicine) rigorous scientific testing is very much the accepted standard. Thimbleweed (talk) 12:12, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

I don't find any of these defensible (or accurate) positions. I agree with IRWolfie and friends that Christian Science fails the litmus test of mainstream science as it is conducted today because it makes predictions about the real world which fail experimental tests. That is a matter of proven statistical fact. The pseudoscience appellation, however, requires more. Most (but certainly not all) religions (is anyone here arguing that Christian Science is not a religion?) predict real world effects from proper application of their methods. This ranges from praying for world peace, for the demise of political figures, for the defeat of nations in war or even for relief from plague. Some of these even include the term science in their names. The question to me is, does Christian Science explicitly claim to be a science in any sense beyond being a systemic approach to its own particular version of knowledge similar to Library Science or claiming that it's metaphysical methods work? Does it purposefully adopt the trappings of science to seem what it is not as does, for example, "The Law of Attraction". Is it, in that sense, "pseudoscience" or "fringe science" any more than any similar belief set?

The problem with this article as it is shaping up is that it is intemperate. It looks like no other tertiary source on Christian Science save those coming entirely out of the Skeptics corner or out of the Fundamentalist corner. It looks unencyclopedic. That, in itself, makes it a appear to be form of OR (though admittedly not WP:OR) and gives it the appearance of POV. Should the idea of Christian Science as pseudoscience be included? Absolutely. I would expect that is the mainstream scientific view. Is that the mainstream theologic view? Is that the mainstream philosophic view? It is certainly possible to find assertions of almost anything in secondary sources. (The use of an article on contrasting approaches to black social advancement from a social historian to prove that Christian Science considers itself a science is a bit flabbergasting and certainly disingenuous. Not encyclopedic.) The attempt to synthesize these various assertions into some kind of "mainstream" opinion is, I think, misbegotten. All of this does not make Wikipedia a better encylopedia. Digitalican (talk) 12:42, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Your thoughts goes to the heart of the question of what goes into this article. I am by no means an expert on CS, but from my understanding the major defining trait of CS as opposed to other branches of Christianity, is it's emphasis on health issues. If so, I find the current weight on the medical claims is warranted. If the medical views is but a minor part of what typifies CS relative to other Christian groups, then the "pseudoscience" part should be scaled down accordingly. Thimbleweed (talk) 13:58, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

See the article for where they explicitly claim to be a form of science. The claim that it has the trappings of science to give it extra legitimacy is hardly original, this is merely the clearest statement of it as it highlights the contrast between getting legitimacy by pretending to be a science whilst being opposed to science. (Oh look, here is a book of a Christian scientist, calling it science [1], I thought they didn't do it) IRWolfie- (talk) 15:10, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't think that article says what you say it says. She says "Christian Science has none of the trappings of Christian theology"...which does not mean it claims to be a science. (I assume good faith and that your reference may not be to what you thought it was) Digitalican (talk) 15:45, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

There's a conundrum here I don't know how to resolve within the context of Wikipedia policies and I would like constructive help rather than recitation of policy. I have read all of the Wikipedia policy pages that have been suggested to me, and more. I am not insensitive to the issues:

External views of Christian Science certainly focus on its relation to medicine. That is, and always has been, it's most salient characteristic to the general public. "Christian Scientists don't go to doctors" (not true, but that's the conventional wisdom.) That aspect may, in fact, be the dominant characteristic of religion and, if so, should be weighted as such -- but not to the exclusion of all else. At its heart Christian Science is a religion and -- it is my position -- needs to be treated in that context rather than in the context of a pretender to science. To the extent, and only to the extent and in the context of, Christian Science portraying itself as a scientific alternative to Medical Science, can it be called pseudoscience. Within that context I think categorizing it as such is entirely legitimate. What I need is a way, without referring to secondary sources published within the community of the Christian Science Church, to explicate -- without advocacy -- why Christian Scientists believe what they do and what they think. That tempers the article and makes it more informative in an encyclopedic sense.

I categorically reject Dr. Cynthia Shrager (see the article) as a legitimate source documenting Christian Sciences assertions that it is a science (in the modern sense.) She is not an expert on Christian Science, science, medicine or pseudoscience and the quote is taken from an incidental aside in the article. Whatever we do here, I would like it to reflect a more scholarly approach to research, not simply cherry-picking quotes obtained through search engine of your choice. It isn't just verifiability and reliability to be used as yardsticks, it's also relevance and expertise. These too need to be considered in supporting Wikipedia as an encyclopedia. Digitalican (talk) 15:32, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

There is no dichotomy in something being pseudoscience and a religion. It will receive scientific treatment and theological treatment in it's respective sections. And before you start with the "Science didn't exist back then", here is text from 1897 making the same argument that it is mistaken for calling itself science [2] IRWolfie- (talk) 15:43, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

I absolutely agree. I'm only asking that those differences be separated out. In other words, what I want is something like "With respect to modern medical science, Christian Science is a pseudoscience." That's accurate and not weaseling. I would also ask (and help with) finding legitimate sources for this assertion. Digitalican (talk) 15:54, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

What you want to do is add extra commentary that the sources don't have. IRWolfie- (talk) 15:56, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Possibly, but that restraint is what makes the article more encyclopedic. You and I disagree and that's not going to change, but we can work together to build an article which is both informative and reflects divirgent points of view. Digitalican (talk) 16:03, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Citing Sources in Text

This is a comment on a recent editorial difference of opinion. It's surely crucial to mention the sources in the article itself, not just to cite the comment as if it were "fact". For example, two equally authoritative sources might disagree. In that case one would need to cite them both, noting the disagreement, right?GruessGott (talk) 10:20, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Absolutely right. Michael J. Mullany (talk) 10:22, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

As has already been discussed, no. We don't things which can be regarded as facts. This isn't a postmodernist paper. There are things which are uncontroversially regarded as simple statements of facts from the sources and written in the wikipedia tone. "The sun is not the moon" is a fact, "I believe the sun is the moon" is an opinion. By saying "John says the sun is not the moon", you are casting doubt on the sun not being the moon. IRWolfie- (talk) 10:41, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

As I said before, Wolfie, you are confusing two kinds of statements. In the literature that I'm familiar with, there is a crucial distinction between "first order" statements and "second order" statements. A statement like "I have a pen in my hand" is a first order statement. It is uncontroversially true (ignoring some issues that I won't go into) because I can prove it by displaying the pen. Similarly, "the sun is not the moon" is a first order statement because we can validate it empirically through simple observation (though there may be occasions when we may mistake the one for the other; in which case, what we thought was the sun might, in fact, turn out to be the moon--nevertheless, it is true to say something like "the object to which the term 'sun' refers is a distinct object from the object to which the term "moon" refers" assuming we are agreed on what an "object" is, and on the relationship between the word "object" and whatever it may, or may not, refer to.) Anyway, these kinds of statements are quite different from statements such as "The Copenhagen Interpretation of quantum mechanics is correct" or "we live in one of a multitude of parallel worlds" or "scientific materialism is correct" or "the nineteenth century was a highly civilized era" or of "God exists/does not exist" or whatever. To make the point more specifically, it would not be appropriate to say that the CI interpretation of quantum mechanics is correct (unless one proposed to demonstrate how it was correct, in which case that would be OR, surely). It would, however, be correct to say that it is the predominant contemporary consensus as to how QM should be interpreted, (assuming that that is the case, which I believe it is at the moment).GruessGott (talk) 11:23, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Why are you talking about quantum mechanics? It's a secondary source statement of fact, this isn't your research paper so stop treating it like it is. IRWolfie- (talk) 11:54, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

IRWolfie, could I suggest you acquaint yourself with the *fact* that the term "fact" is deeply problematic in contemporary academic discourse? But I'll compress what I was trying to say (admittedly in a long-winded way) as follows. To say that "the sun is not the moon" is a different kind of statement from the statement "The CI interpretation of QM is correct" (or from the statement "Christian Science is a pseudoscience"). The first fact is simple, obvious, and more-or-less universally agreed. The latter "facts" are none of these thingsGruessGott (talk) 12:23, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

If I may: When two authorities say the opposite, and where it would be WP:OR to favour the one over the other, both should be cited and the scientific disagreement shown. Where a small minority maintain a position in the face of overwhelming scientific consensus, the minority view can be mentioned where relevant, but giving it equal weight goes against WP:FRINGE. In this case, giving CS equal weight in cases regarding natural science (medicine), would go against WP:FRINGE, WP:SOAP and WP:ADVOCACY, i.e. it's not done. Thimbleweed (talk) 11:56, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Yes, that seems about right. Agreed. But one would still mention the fact that it's the consensus, or the overwhelming consensus, or whatever. (Not that its a "fact" like the fact that the sun is not the moon.)GruessGott (talk) 12:23, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

That sounds a lot like special pleading. IRWolfie- (talk) 12:28, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

I'm sure it does--to you.GruessGott (talk) 12:47, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

In regard to your message on the Revision History page IRWolfie, I only see one poster resisting a consensus on this. And that's you.GruessGott (talk) 12:56, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

I believe personal attacks are uncalled for. Thimbleweed (talk) 13:49, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

I agree, Thimbleweed, but this whole discussion has had a history of personal attacks, derision and innuendo from the beginning -- on both sides (I am not free of guilt in this respect, but have since calmed down.) I deeply respect Wikipedia's spirit of cooperation and collaboration which has yet to be evidenced here. I'm seriously hoping that those of you from the Fringe Theories noticeboard can add some new perspective to this. Digitalican (talk) 14:05, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

OK, thanks for the reminder on etiquette, Thimbleweed. You are, of course, right. I apologize if I've stepped on anyone's toes--or paws ;-) At this point, unfortunately, I'm going to have to clear off the editing page and this discussion, because my commitments in RL are pressing at the moment, and I've been spending too much time discussing things on these pages, interesting though the discussion has often been. Whatever our differences, you all seem to be highly intelligent and well-informed people, and you are all committed to your viewpoints, as am I, and that's fair enough. So I wish everyone "auf Wiedersehen" until the next time--and it won't be for a while unfortunately--that I wish you "Gruess Gott." All the best--GruessGott (talk) 19:05, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Es tut mir leid, GruessGott. We haven't always agreed, but it's been fun and a pleasure dealing with you. :) Digitalican (talk) 19:17, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Edit warring...

Maybe...instead...of continuing this slow-moving edit war...people should discuss what's going on here...may...be...zzzzzzzzzzzz. --Τασουλα (talk) 18:09, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

If people wish, they can ask for a second opinion at WP:FTN. IRWolfie- (talk) 19:02, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

I'll comment here because I have a theory - the mentioning of James Randi as a Sceptic is an obvious attempt to bypass the fact the vast majority of scientific analysis of CS classes it as Pseudo-science. Using Randi is deceptive because although he is someone commonly involved with critical analysis of stuff like this, he is generally classed as a Sceptic rather than a scientist. Wholly inappropriate. --Τασουλα (talk) 19:23, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

As a scientist myself, I have a problem with the continued suggestion that the 'scientific community' would find CS to be a pseudoscience: as though this is some kind of 'universal truth' and scientists who don't go along with this hypothesis are somehow not proper scientists. In fact, science seldom deals in universal truths, or it would hardly be continuously and skeptically trying to disprove its theories and replacing them with others. People contributing are in fact masquerading as scientists and spokespersons for the pseudopersonality 'the scientific community', when they really have very little claim to the name 'scientist' themselves and have few (if any) publications in credible scientific literature. Of course the opinion that CS is a pseudoscience is a valid opinion; but as pointed out by Τασουλα, it is only the opinion of some skeptics, and this should be stated in the article. The reader then has the option of going with the skeptics or formulating some other opinion: an entirely academically acceptable process. Michael J. Mullany (talk) 19:38, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

It should be obvious that CS in itself is not a pseudoscience. It is of course a religion (or a sect or a cult, depending on how one define these), and religions are by their nature not sciences, pseudo- or otherwise. The views of the CS can on the other hand be classified as pseudoscience, as long as the CS claims these views represent actual, verifiable facts. I think we would be hard pressed to find people in the medical community that would support any of the CS faith healing claims as scientific. Thimbleweed (talk) 08:10, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

On the whole, I agree with this point of view, although we would not be hard-pressed to find doctors who refer patients to CS for treatment. From time to time, medical doctors recommend 'alternative' cures when they can offer the patient nothing more; as for instance once a patient is found to be terminally ill. They may recommend special diets, acupuncture, etc. etc., and so much so that such treatments are even mentioned in the Merck Manual of Medical Information (see 2003 edition, pp 1704-1707). A lot of what they mention could be classed as pseudoscience, and it does not include CS. However, I can vouch for the fact that some doctors have recommended Christian Science treatment in similar vein, and may actually have copies of Science and Health in their waiting rooms. Michael J. Mullany (talk) 11:29, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

It depends a bit on where you are I suppose. In my neck of the world (I'm not American) referring patients to CS or any other religious group is unheard of. I think it would get you fired as a doctor if you did such a thing. Thimbleweed (talk) 12:24, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

I grew up in South Africa and now live in New Zealand. I have family in both Australia and the UK. In all these countries as well as the US, doctors may recommend a recourse to alternatives, including prayer, after they are sure they can help a patient no further. May I ask where you are located? Michael J. Mullany (talk) 08:42, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

Theology

In response to [3] (this should have gone on my talk page which you can find here: User_talk:IRWolfie- not my editor review page. The comment was:

"The trouble with the article on Christian Science is that it gives little idea to the reader as to what Christian Science is really about, what it's theology is, what it's Christology is, what it's eschatology is, what it's view of atonement really is, how the word "science" is used in Christian Science (this alone would eliminate the need to call it a pseudoscience). It seems to me that in the case of religion, since "faith" is a departure from standard material reasoning, some basic reliable primary sources should be tolerated in order to give the reader an accurate idea of what Christian Science actually says. I placed the tenets under the theology section because they explain exactly what Christian Scientists actually believe. It seems to me that this could be tolerated in order to be fair to the reader. The article is so unbalanced the way it is, and seems to give only the negative opinions. Is it proper or fair to the reader to only reference negative sources? Does it raise the standard of Wikipedia to use the rules of Wikipedia to prevent any clear idea of the subject of the article to come forth when people are willing to make edits to contribute to the fairness and balance, and frankly, intelligence of the article? I would be willing to make edits, and to use secondary reliable sources, but I have to make sure that you do not have an ax to grind, because I don't want to waste my time. But honestly, this article is one of the worst things I have ever seen on Wikipedia. I truly believe it lowers the standard of Wikipedia in it's present form because it mostly reads as an attack on Christian Science instead of an enlightened explanation. My opinion is that if you tell the truth about something, it will stand on it's own merits, or fall by it's own demerits. But that opportunity is not being given here."

This is something you can freely write about in the theology section. Just make sure to use reliable secondary sources to source the material. This is an encyclopedia, write a good summary of Christian Science theology and source it to some secondary sources. Try to avoid copying and pasting large lists of tenents etc from primary sources, because it's missing the kind of analysis that secondary sources can give and it has the potential for original research which isn't what we want on wikipedia. I did request help from wikiproject christianity in trying to flesh out the theology section with reliable secondary sources. The first three paragraphs are not critical of christian science. IRWolfie- (talk) 15:51, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

The article as it stands is seriously flawed (that's putting it politely). It was a reasonably informative and well-balanced article until a couple of months ago. BTW, it's not true that a Wikipedia article cannot have primary sources - there is nothing in the policies that prohibits them (though they say, rightly, that they should be used with care.)89.100.155.6 (talk) 18:31, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Primary sources should be used with care, not as the basis for an entire article. The article as it stands now is much closer to the actual secondary sources than the previous wording. The article is as it is now is actually in a fairly decent state, though the theology section falls short. IRWolfie- (talk) 19:08, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

The article gives a staccato impression. It features passages with no apparent connection to the preceding text. In parts, it is theologically inaccurate. It is one-sided and dogmatic. It is singularly uninformative about Christian Science itself, as distinct from what its enemies think it is. It contains errors of syntax. There are citation deficiencies. It might pass as a first year undergraduate term paper (just about). And I didn't even get as far as the section on the Church of Christ Scientist.89.100.155.6 (talk) 01:12, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

This is also my impression. However, if you are a Christian Scientist, perhaps you can explain something to me: why do you think that so few Christian Scientists are participating in the editing discussion? Michael J. Mullany (talk) 07:43, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

There are not many Christian Scientists, IRWolfie- (talk) 16:17, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Then I suggest improving the theology section with secondary sources; unless you cite specifics the section can't be improved. IRWolfie- (talk) 16:17, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

As much as I find CS comical, I have to say that its primary book is a primary source, when it comes to direct religious quotations? That's about as far as I can see it going - anything else would need neutral, well-rounded sources.--Τασουλα (talk) 16:27, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

CS has few secondary sources when it comes to details of its theology, except what has been written by obviously biased anti-sources. One secondary source is Beasley's 'The cross and the crown' written at the time that CS was emerging. Michael J. Mullany (talk) 19:43, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

If something is not covered by recent reliable independent secondary sources, it probably means that it is not particularly noteworthy, at least to people outside the movement. Beasley may be problematic, both because it is dated and because he was a Christian Scientist himself. I'd have to take a closer look to see whether he is reliable or not. Take a look at this addendum to Schoepflin's book and see if you can find anything unbiased and up to date: [4]. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 20:17, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

I haven't been able to verify whether Beasley ever became a Christian Scientist or not. However, his book is obviously in favour of the religion. I have also uncovered a number of recent secondary sources which outline the teachings of CS. When I find time, I'll do something about it. Michael J. Mullany (talk) 22:01, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

I was primarily concerned about the age of the source. I don't know about Christian Science, but there have been significant changes in other religious movements since 1952, such as with the Roman Catholic Church after Vatican II, among others. I hope that Schoepflins's bibliography helps. Good luck! Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 22:09, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

I have read the blurb and ordered the book. It certainly looks like an interesting reference.Michael J. Mullany (talk) 11:36, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Glad you liked it. Happy reading! Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 19:00, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

I have now acquired and read the book. Many thanks for the recommendation. It indeed provides very fair views on Christian Science and its place in modern US society; and evidently by an historian; not a person steeped in CS doctrine. It certainly is a recent secondary source. What I particularly liked was its bold impartiality but that it refrains from using provocative or emotive terms. It does not brand CS as a pseudoscience because this flies in the face of what it claims: a resurgence of interest and belief in spiritual healing. If this is true, then readers who believe in spiritual healing (whether CS or not) are likely to reject our CS article as 'not the truth'. I still vote that we should qualify the pseudoscience statement. After all, the Roman Catholic practice of miracle verification before declaring a dead person a saint, is pseudoscience for similar reasons. However, so as not to put off billions of readers interested in Roman Catholicism, I would avoid the use of the term in that article also. What do you think? Michael J. Mullany (talk) 09:26, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

The difference is that rejecting medical treatment for "spiritual science" healing is pseudoscience. Also it's choice of name was to take from the respect for science. It's not really comparable to the concept of miracles, which does not involve rejecting science or medicine generally, but rather purporting that specific cases of healing that they were unwilling or unable to find an explanation for was caused by God intervening. IRWolfie- (talk) 10:33, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

"Pseudo-science" issue.

The WP policies clearly state that when describing something as "pseudo" there should be in-text attribution when in doubt. Clearly, from the discussion in the Talk section, there is no consensus as to whether CS should, or should not, be described as a pseudoscience. Consequently there should be an in-text attribution for the assertion. The assertion needs to be qualified in accordance with WP policies89.100.155.6 (talk) 09:04, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

Do you have any mainstream sources opinions in reliable mainstream sources that would give us reason to doubt the statement? That fringe proponents doubt it is irrelevant. Otherwise, saying that the opinion that CS is peudoscience is the opinion of "mainstream commentators" is a banal tautology. Sorry, looks like your trying to downplay the mainstream view and give equal footing to a self-serving fringe view, which would violate WP:GEVAL. Do you have relaible mainstram opinions in reliable independent mainstream sources that demonstrate that the opinion that CS is not PS is a significant view within the mainstream community, and not a fringe view itself? What fringe proponents think about themselves is irrelevant. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 09:47, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

"[L]ooks like your trying to downplay the mainstream view and give equal footing to a self-serving fringe view..." I have no idea how you came to that conclusion. A mainstream view, by definition, cannot have something that is on equal footing to it, as otherwise there would be two mainstream views.89.100.155.6 (talk) 09:19, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

The relevant part of the guidelines is: WP:FRINGE/PS: "Theories which

have a following, such as astrology, but which are generally considered pseudoscience by the scientific community may properly contain that information and may be categorized as pseudoscience." IRWolfie- (talk) 12:09, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

There's no dispute about the "categorization" of CS as "pseudoscience." The qualifier proposed simply denotes that it's the mainstream viewpoint, not a universally-agreed fact.89.100.155.6 (talk) 09:19, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

Quite. The medical claims of the CS is more or less universally seen as pseudoscience by the medical community. There really shouldn't be any doubts there. Text can always be improved, but the two resent reverted edits did not. Thimbleweed (talk) 21:16, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

[NB Thimbleweed's comment referred to IRWorlfie's, not to mine]. This seems like OR on your part, Thimbleweed. Christian Science is the name of a religion. It does not claim to be a science in the sense of today's natural sciences. It's no more a pseudoscience than is library science, domestic science, or economics. There seems to be an entirely unwarranted attempt here to force things into the straitjacket of the methodologies of the natural sciences. (Actually, it's possible that economics is indeed a pseudoscience according to natural science descriptors, but see how long such a definition would last on the Wikipedia page! Let's face it guys, this is about numbers, not "truth".)89.100.155.6 (talk) 09:19, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

There is no OR in the article in relation to this. This is what the sources say. IRWolfie- (talk) 10:26, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

Small comment: IP's comment that economics would be a pseudoscience is derailing. The CS is not making statements of economics, but it does about a natural science (medicine). In medical science "the straitjacket of the methodologies of the natural sciences" as IP puts it, reign supreme. Thimbleweed (talk) 10:37, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

I doubt if medicine is a natural science in the same way as (eg) biology or physics. (For one thing, the medical title "Doctor" is simply a courtesy title, as physicians do not normally do a PhD. And many physicians will tell you that medicine is more an art than a science.) In any case, the main purpose of Christian Science is moral healing rather than physical healing, as anyone who was familiar with the writings of its founder would tell you. The point about economics is that, like the other social sciences, it doesn't follow the methodology of the natural sciences. So to follow the logic of the argument that is going on here, any discipline or branch of learning that has a claim to being scientific but doesn't follow the methodology of the natural sciences, should be categorized as a pseudo-science. Why is Christian Science being singled out, since (like library science or domestic science) it is neither a natural science, nor has it any claim to be one?89.100.155.6 (talk) 09:05, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

Yawn. I'm not going to waste my time explaining the details behind why it is a pseudoscience, I'm fairly sure I've already done that earlier on this page, and because this isn't a forum. The sources call it pseudoscience matter of factly, so we call it pseudoscience. This satisfies WP:FRINGE, that is all. See False equivalence while you are here. IRWolfie- (talk) 12:30, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

Yes. Discussing the matter further is fruitless. We have enough reliable sources to justify the sentence, and quibbling definitions of science belongs on some forum, not here. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 13:15, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

I'm Getting Bewildered

There was a consensus on this Talk page that the negative criticism of CS needed to be balanced by more positive sources, but that--in accordance with Wikipedia policies--these should (preferably) not be primary sources. When I duly cited a secondary and a tertiary source (both from respected publishers) these were removed. (Admittedly, one of the writers was a Christian Scientist, but I don't see what difference that should make. Presumably Muslims are allowed to be cited on the page on Islam?) Also, it seems that it's OK for others to revert material on the CS article, but not for someone (like me) who is trying to balance the article, on terms that were previously agreed. Can someone please explain what's going on?89.100.155.6 (talk) 10:00, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Eddy is described as a "devout Christian" who would have rejected any attempt to characterize Christian Science as a cult.

This adds balance? Really? Sounds totally inane to me. TippyGoomba (talk) 16:30, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

@IP: You would be a lot less bewildered if you would finally take the time to read our policies and guidelines carefully and thoroughly. Practically everything you need to know is explained there. Right now, it looks like you don't have the slightest clue what WP is and how it works. You're going to have a very frustrating time editing on controversial articles such as this without having a very firm grasp of the following policies and guidelines: WP:V, WP:RS, WP:NPOV, WP:FRINGE, WP:NOR and WP:NOT. Your changes will continue to be reverted for reasons you cannot understand, and your input will continue to be ignored if it does not conform to our policies and guidelines. No one is going to feel obligated to explain things to you if you haven't made the effort to figure them out for yourself. You've been editing for three months already, so it's high time you "hit the books". It's also far better to build up experience making non-controversial edits to non-controversial articles and spend some time reading the talk page archives of controversial articles before diving in. And it's better to propose your changes on the article talk page first and gain consensus before you make a change. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 18:03, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

I suggest looking at the relevant policies and guidelines as Dominus highlighted. In particular WP:NOR which would highlight the issue with the synthesis you made, IRWolfie- (talk) 18:17, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

In fact we have a policy specifically for that WP:SYNTH. He iro 18:48, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

SYN is part of NOR, :) IRWolfie- (talk) 18:59, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

The proof of the pudding is in the eating, i.e. whether an article gives a fair and informative view of its subject. This one, in its present state, arguably does not. And I don't appreciate being talked down to.89.100.155.6 (talk) 21:24, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

You can argue until you're blue in the face, but if your arguments are not based reliable sources and do not conform to WP policies and guidelines, you'll just be farting in the wind. And if you "don't appreciate being talked down to", the solution is simple: bring yourself up! Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 22:25, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

You are making very non-specific complaints. What do you want people to say in reply? IRWolfie- (talk) 23:53, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Dominus, please note http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia: "Civility is part of Wikipedia's code of conduct and one of Wikipedia's five pillars. The civility policy is a standard of conduct that sets out how Wikipedia editors should interact. Stated simply, editors should always treat each other with consideration and respect. In order to keep the focus on improving the encyclopedia and to help maintain a pleasant editing environment, editors should behave politely, calmly and reasonably, even during heated debates." Please note that the Wikipedia policies, such as this one, apply to you as well as to everyone else.89.100.155.6 (talk) 07:18, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Sources Suspect in this Article

Why is Walter Martin being used as a source for information on this article? There is an obvious conflict of interest. He was an extremely conservative commentator, referring to Eddy as "an arrogant member of the female race" in his book Kingdom of the Cults. This is not a voice of objectivity. Why has an atheist agnostic skeptic assumed almost exclusive charge of editing an article that has to do with a religious belief system, to the exclusion of others who have an understanding of the subject and have sources which speak intelligibly on the subject? This article is a victim of religious discrimination. Credible secondary sources which properly explain Christian Science concepts are mostly missing from this article. One of them is present, but it is misquoted and taken out of context, as are the primary sources. The article is misleading to any reader coming to it to find information on Christian Science. Many statements lack any sources at all, and just hang there with nothing to support them, yet our skeptic editor leaves those statements in and finds them acceptable. Could this be because they are unfavorable towards Christian Science? Someone needs to come in who knows this subject, and present the religious views of Christian Science accurately and source them properly, and those edits be allowed to stand on the basis that this is a religion, and religion by nature deals with faith. At present, this article on religion is being filtered through the lens of agnosticism, skepticism, atheism, and Christian fundamentalism. Readers of this article, no matter of what faith, or no faith, should object to this, and demand an article that expresses more integrity than what is presently showing here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.228.27.166 (talk) 14:14, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

The only "faith" required to edit a Wikipedia article is WP:FAITH, everything else is subject to WP:NPOV. He iro 19:41, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

If you think "credible secondary sources which properly explain Christian Science concepts are mostly missing from this article", then show them. Otherwise stop wasting time with non-specific complaints and ad hominem attacks. IRWolfie- (talk) 00:47, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

I have a very serious question for you, before I spend time building intelligent content for this article... Would you object to a physicist or a physics student referencing a published physicist (secondary source) in editing a Wikipedia article on physical science? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.228.19.65 (talk) 01:36, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

By "serious question", you obviously mean "loaded question". Yeah, I would object if the publication was not peer-reviewed. Do you have a reference from peer-reviewed theological scholarship to share? Because that would be great. TippyGoomba (talk) 01:51, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

If by "intelligent content" you mean self-serving self-description and apologetics based on in-universe sources, then you should consider finding another outlet for such content, as there is no place in WP for that. Furthermore, if you want to contribute productively, I'd advise you to read our policies and guidelines, as proposals that do not conform to them are generally rejected or just plain ignored, as are proposals not backed up by reliable independent sources. The relevant policies and guidelines here are WP:V, WP:RS, WP:NPOV WP:NOR, WP:FRINGE and WP:NOT. That said, I do agree that the Martin source is unreliable, non-scholarly and biased, and have removed it from the article myself. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 07:31, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for taking that out. This is encouraging. I am new to Wikipedia (and might add that this place already feels like somewhat of a bullying forum...) but I am learning the rules and have been reading the policies, and I see a lot wrong with this article based on the very guidelines you all have been talking about. There is very little factual information on what Christian Science is and a whole lot of personal points of view, and also sources that seem to me to be breaking the Wikipedia rules for reliable sources, that is if I am reading the same guidelines you are. The controversial content in the article is mixed in with sections which pretend to be explaining Christian Science. Take a look at the response above where someone says that my question is "loaded" and that assumes that I must mean "self-serving self-description" by intelligent content. Is this adhering to the "good faith" guideline? I see double standards running all over the place here. What I mean by intelligent content is simply content that presents what Christian Science is from secondary sources written by people who know what they are talking about, and which have been published by university presses and other publishers outside of the church. Now, if we could just all get to where we are playing by the same rules, this process could be a lot more pleasant, and we could wind up with a very strong and fair article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.228.22.125 (talk) 08:40, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

"very little factual information on what Christian Science is ": then add content sourced to secondary sources, what more do you want us to say? If you're adding SYN and OR it's just going to end up being removed, IRWolfie- (talk) 10:15, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Glad to hear that you are reading our policies. It would also help if you started a WP account with a WP user name. Right now, your IP number keeps changing. Details here: WP:ACCOUNT. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 12:19, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

What on earth is this supposed to mean?

"Eddy regarded Christian Science much like science, except she viewed its creation as a spiritual rather than a physical discovery, with herself as the divinely chosen discover.[6]:28 Christian Science regards science as not important and an illusion, while the text by Eddy, Science and Health with Key to the Scriptures is promoted by the Church as "a pioneer in the science of the mind body connection". Eddy viewed herself as similar to Copernicus.[16]:317"

Apparently Eddy regarded CS much like science, though she regarded science as not important and an illusion. However she viewed herself as similar to Copernicus. This is garbled nonsense. (If the intention is to imply that CS is in fact garbled nonsense, then that is surely OR--a source should be found for such suggestions/assertions.)89.100.155.6 (talk) 08:29, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

The sources point out this very contradiction. It doesn't make sense, but that isn't our fault. IRWolfie- (talk) 10:17, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

I've clarified it a little, IRWolfie- (talk) 10:21, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

You haven't addressed his/her concern. The IP editor is trying to point out that some secondary sources, whoever has published them, can still write nonsense: and I must say, the statement about Copernicus is one I haven't been able to verify at all. However many barnstars you have, IRWolfie, you do not in the opinion of many authors behave like a man of learning: just a stubborn man who believes he's right. Michael J. Mullany (talk) 11:47, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

It's not our job to try and verify the secondary sources as long as they have a reputation for fact checking in the area we are concerned with. IRWolfie- (talk) 19:06, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

It certainly is our job not to cite from so-called secondary sources which write nonsense. The writing itself must be free of bias. Also when we summarize such sources, we must not change the direction of intent or spirit of such sources. I find that you frequently do this; and in a way that shouts your very anti-CS POV opinion.

I try to edit from a NPOV on CS and anything else. Of course CS has its faults and short-comings, as does any other faith I am aware of. But these need to be explored in a neutral way. For example, I have very strong personal views about aspects of the Catholic faith, which have allowed the wide-spread molestation of children by priests. I can quote heaps of secondary sources on this. I could make Catholics feel particularly uncomfortable by citing them while vastly expanding the section on child abuse already in the article on Catholicism. However, considering my views, I would find it unethical to do so, as my POV would become evident. I think you are making precisely this type of error in your editing of the CS article. Michael J. Mullany (talk) 09:50, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

The comparison to the catholic church isn't a great one since it wouldn't be reflective of the sources. You won't find Catholicism appearing in encyclopaedias/dictionaries of pseudoscience as an entry as being pseudoscience. The rejection of medicine and science is something which the reliable sources do devote space to with regards to Christian Science, particularly in relation to vaccines etc. I don't see any discussion on this talk page which you have started on any misrepresentation. It's likely there may be mistakes in my edits since I'm not perfect, but I can only address them when you highlight them to me. IRWolfie- (talk) 11:40, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

You did a quick survey around your office about whether I'm a man of learning? IRWolfie- (talk) 19:30, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

No, I think you aspire to be a person of learning through interests expressed on your user page as well as your vast editing on Wikipedia. In my efforts to help you in this direction, I suggest that a little less dogma (Catholic or ex-Catholic) would suit you better. Also, that you devote yourself less to all of this and a bit more to some genuine scientific pursuits, such as getting yourself through a Ph.D. and indeed more widely published in a few reliable {secondary} sources! Michael J. Mullany (talk) 09:50, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

That's enough of the personal comments. Focus on content, please. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 10:45, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Misinterpreting guidelines

You are quoting the text, but missing all that it says [[5]]: "From Wikipedia policies: "Theories which have a following... but which are generally considered pseudoscience by the scientific community may properly contain that information and may be categorized as pseudoscience." We categorize it as pseudoscience. No issue. IRWolfie- (talk) 18:56, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

The issue is not the categorization of Christian Science as pseudoscience, but the need to qualify the location and boundaries of the categorization. CS would probably be a pseudoscience from the point of view of most conventional scientists (if they have given it any thought or even heard of it) and certainly from the POV of skeptics, but not necessarily from the POV of theologians or philosophers of religion, or indeed from the POV of some philosophers of science. Consequently the categorization needs some qualification. There is nothing in the Wikipedia policies or guidelines that would preclude such a qualification. (While I'm at it, the following text is in fact incorrect in several ways: "Its claim that sickness can be healed through prayer rather than medicine, its rejection of science as illusory, and its attempts to present itself as science make Christian Science a pseudoscience." CS does not claim "that sickness can be healed through prayer rather than medicine." This would imply that it claims that medicine does not heal, which CS does not claim. Nor does it reject science as illusory--it rejects materialism as illusory, and in doing so is in accord with a whole tradition of Western (and Eastern) philosophy going back millennia.)89.100.155.6 (talk) 22:15, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

You have no sources to back that position up, you are trying to disagree based on your own personal opinions. I will say this simply; the sources disagree with you. IRWolfie- (talk) 10:23, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

In that case the sources are wrong. I could easily cite primary sources on the above, but such sources have been arbitrarily removed from the article despite being allowed (in moderation) by the Wikipedia policies, as has been pointed out before. How on earth can some throw-away remark, in a different context, by some "secondary" source who may not have any understanding of the teachings of Christian Science be the basis of key points in an article, while primary sources have been excised?89.100.155.6 (talk) 06:20, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

We would be pleased to evaluate peer-reviewed scholarship on the matter. Please provide it. TippyGoomba (talk) 07:32, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Who are "we"?? And why is a tertiary source written from a specific (skeptical) POV preferable to primary sources?89.100.155.6 (talk) 22:13, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia Policies

Doing some research on Wikipedia policies, as recommended by another contributor to this page, I came across this one, which is intriguing (not to say internally contradictory--should the rule to ignore all rules be ignored as well?) Anyway, it seems to indicate that the spirit of building a good encyclopedia trumps written policies, unless I'm overlooking something: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Ignore_all_rules — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.100.155.6 (talk) 09:36, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

No Wikipedia:What_"Ignore_all_rules"_means#What_.22Ignore_all_rules.22_does_not_mean, it's highlighting that the intentions of the policies that matter, not the specific wording. It's to prevent, for example, wikilawyering by POV pushers choosing bits they like out of policies so they can push a POV and try and dress it up as policy based. IRWolfie- (talk) 10:20, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

That bit about "POV pushers" also applies to editors who constantly seek to impose their personal bias, ignorance and prejudices ~ all in the name of "objective science" of course ~ on any articles that they consider to be on "fringe theories" or "pseudoscience" and refuse to allow balanced and neutral wording which is meant to be a non-negotiable policy. Anglicanus (talk) 13:56, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Balance? Wikipedia doesn't aim to treat two viewpoints as equal to each other see WP:DUE, rather it assigns weight to viewpoints in accordance with the sources. IRWolfie- (talk) 17:36, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

I would have thought this text is clear enough:

"You are not required to learn the rules before contributing. Yes, we already said that, but it is worth repeating. Don't follow written instructions mindlessly, but rather, consider how the encyclopedia is improved or damaged by each edit (see also Use common sense, below). Rules derive their power to compel not from being written down on a page labeled "guideline" or "policy", but from being a reflection of the shared opinions and practices of many editors (see also Wikipedia:Consensus). Most rules are ultimately descriptive, not prescriptive; they describe existing current practice. They sometimes lag behind the practices they describe (see also Wikipedia:Product, process, policy). Wikilawyering doesn't work. Loopholes and technicalities do not exist on the Wiki. Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy; nor moot court, nor nomic, nor Mao. The spirit of the rule trumps the letter of the rule. The common purpose of building a free encyclopedia trumps both. If this common purpose is better served by ignoring the letter of a particular rule, then that rule should be ignored (see also Wikipedia:The rules are principles). Following the rules is less important than using good judgment and being thoughtful and considerate, always bearing in mind that good judgment is not displayed only by those who agree with you (see also Wikipedia:Civility)."

There seems to be a view taken on this page that there is only one reasonable take on the meaning/intention of Wikipedia policies/guidelines and that everything else must by definition be in error. I can think of only one word to describe that, and its "fundamentalism.' (Not unlike Biblical fundamentalism, in fact.) In any case, such a viewpoint would receive short shrift in any of the various branches of enquiry concerned with the meaning of language. Indeed, there is a whole field of enquiry concerned with the meaning of "intention", from Wimsatt and Beardsley in lit theory to legal debates about the intentions of the Founding Fathers of the US. (Did they "intend" the gun laws to refer just to the musket over the fireplace? Would they have extended them to AK47s? Etc etc.) Anyway, the point I'm making is that meaning, intention etc are not clear and obvious concepts193.1.217.20 (talk) 15:57, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Are you suggesting and edit? What's the point of this? TippyGoomba (talk) 16:21, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Read back through the Talk page. A lot of discussion re editing this article hinges on the interpretation of the Wikipedia policies and guidelines.193.1.217.20 (talk) 17:28, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Before you continue your rant about fundamentalism and founding fathers, read WP:FRINGE. Actually read the stuff and stop trying to twist it to suit your arguments. IRWolfie- (talk) 17:36, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Check this out (the Wikipedia policies apply to you as well): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Assume_good_faith 193.1.217.20 (talk) 17:31, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

I just read WP:FRINGE and it is not being followed in this article at all. What's happening is that the POV that Christian Science is not a subject of significant importance is held as a premise by certain editors along with a misconception that Christian Science presents itself as a mainstream idea. It doesn't. It is definitely not mainstream, and is not trying to be physical science. I wish these editors would grasp this point, because they might feel relieved. Basing edits on these false premises lowers the standard and breaks the rules, both letter and spirit, of Wikipedia. Even if it really irritates some people that Mary Baker Eddy chose to use the word "science" to describe her theological reasoning, the best way to approach editing this article is to recognize that Christian Science is a religion, and therefore needs to be explained on the basis of it's theology, instead of coming right out of the gate claiming that it is trying to be science but is a pseudoscience. It is not trying to be physics. These editors are hung up on this. It's too late to rewrite history. Eddy named it Christian Science, and established that title legally in her day. Starting this article off with a misapprehension of what she meant by the word "science" is not serving anyone, least of all someone coming to the page to learn something about Christian Science. We need some editors that understand the subject, have good sources, and are willing and able to write. How about some WP:FAITH collaboration between skeptics, adherents, and anyone in between who really wants to be objective??? Can I get a witness??? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.228.23.67 (talk) 17:50, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Again, the sources do not agree with what you are saying; check them out. I'm fully open to any actual collaborative effort to work on the article when you are ready. IRWolfie- (talk) 22:31, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

My, my, IRWolfie, you do get around. I see you've been active in editing the WP:FRINGE page as well. (You're not just firing the ideological bullets, you're helping to make them as well.) Let's face it, the way Wikipedia works has a lot to do with the time and energy that some people seem to have to devote to these issues. Unfortunately, not all of us are so blessed with those resources.89.100.155.6 (talk) 22:44, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

IRWolfie the majority of sources in this article are written by individuals who have made it their mission to attack and debunk Christian Science because of their own personal views of it. Honestly, is it because you are gullible that you accept these sources, or is it because you aim to make Christian Science look ridiculous to the public? That is an honest question so please don't cite WP:Faith. Swan, Asser, any mainstream fundamentalist Christian sources suggesting that Christian Science is "heresy" etc. - these are all written by vehement opponents to Christian Science, and none of these shed any light on what Christian Science is about. What I would do if I were going to edit this article, is that I would present Christian Science in a historical context using general statements which are objective. I would take all the controversy (which is most of what this article is, starting with the lead piece) and just take all of that and put it in a section called "controversy". If you read encyclopedia Britannica or World Book, they simply state what Christian Science is historically. They don't try to get into it's theology too far by pulling ideas totally out of context, something this Wikipedia article does over and over. A problem I see happening in this article is something that I have seen in conservative Christian literature, which is this: say whatever is necessary to make Christian Science look heretical and outrageous even if it means you have to mislead your reader, because the ends justify the means. So the skeptic physicists are acting just like fundamentalists on here. Nevermind telling the truth about the subject at hand. If we can make it look ridiculous, then we have succeeded. But do those "scientists" ever stop to think that real science is based on truth? Science is when you are trying to get at the truth, to understand reality and the way things really ARE. So tell the truth about the subject in a balanced way, in an intelligent way. Go ahead and put the negative things in, but do it in a way that is not misleading the general public. Stop insulting their intelligence. There is too much good information already out there about Christian Science, for this article to have any credibility in it's present state. It's just a total embarrassment to Wikipedia in my opinion. It makes a joke out of Wikipedia. I would challenge these self proclaimed scientists to put their money where their mouth is, and start with the truth. Not the truth as you see it, or as an antagonist sees it, or as a Christian Scientist sees it, but what about how history sees it? There are basic facts out there about Christian Science. But you won't find very many of them in this article. Again, let's present it objectively, and then later, in appropriate sections, explore the positives and negatives in a fair way. Doesn't anyone want to do this? The trouble I have is that I don't want to have my time wasted if mischief makers are going to keep on doing stupid stuff on this article. I would like to work with some people who really want to get it right. I am not going to write text, source it all, and have someone with a personal agenda come along and reverse my conscientious efforts, and hypocritically cite Wikipedia rules for why I can't place valid content into this article, and even take utter garbage out of it, without someone preaching "Sources" that are no sources at all! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.228.20.127 (talk) 09:14, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

You have made specific assertions that "the majority of sources in this article are written by individuals who have made it their mission to attack and debunk Christian Science because of their own personal views of it", I personally find this doubtful for the sources I have added, so I would ask you to justify it. If the theology section is underdeveloped, and you are unwilling to improve the theology section with secondary sources that is not my issue. IRWolfie- (talk) 18:23, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Now, I have made a few small edits, which I believe IMPROVE the article. Is not that what we want? I have not injected any opinion into the article. Go ahead and take a look at my edits. Can you honestly say that they are not improvements? I looked up the Gottschalk reference in the one about whether Christian Science can accurately be described as "Philisophical Idealism" and I conscientiously added that Christian Science is better understood in a theological context rather than a philosophical. And that is from a reliable secondary source. The other edits, I did not add content or sources. I either took out biased edits, or I improved wording. In the case of the Theology and the claim that Eddy regarded the Scientific Statement of Being as the "core" of Christian Science. The trouble with that was that she never said that. And so I left the source the same, changed the page, and said that she explained the basic religious points in the Tenets, but I did not paste in the Tenets. I am curious what will happen here, because that fuzzy statement about the "core" was left in there for a long time with a primary source, but it was not accurate. Let's see if we can use a primary source in this instance, but have an accurate statement attached to it, without it being reversed because it is a primary source. I think you will find that it is a very fair edit. I can assure you IRWolfie, that it is accurate. And if you want it sourced from a secondary source, give me the opportunity please, and place "citation needed" or something in there, instead of reversing a very good edit. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.228.20.127 (talk) 11:22, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Lede too short?

Why so tagged? Looks about right to me ... Alexbrn (talk) 09:59, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. It has been removed. TippyGoomba (talk) 05:00, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

It could do with a paragraph about the Church Christ, scientist. IRWolfie- (talk) 18:24, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Pseudoreligion ?

66.228.20.127 has removed [6] this term from the lede. I oppose this edit. The term is both apt and well-sourced – and so better than the unsourced text the IP editor is proposing. Alexbrn (talk) 10:35, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Totally absurd. Who is to decide what is or is not a pseudo religion. That is totally subjective. And the definition given in Wikipedia even says that it is a derogatory term. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.228.20.127 (talk) 11:27, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

If it's well-sourced, it's good to have. Alexbrn (talk) 11:30, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Suggestion: Place a citation needed after my edit. Give people an opportunity to improve and not vandalize further this article. You do the public no service by injecting POV, no matter how you source it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.228.20.127 (talk) 11:31, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

No, it's not good to have. What constitutes a good source? I have read the reliable page in Wikipedia. The spirit of the rule is abused all throughout this article. We need to resolve that problem, and not add to it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.228.20.127 (talk) 11:33, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Unsourced material should be sourced or removed. Sourced material should be used: it's good stuff. I see no valid reason for your edit. Alexbrn (talk) 11:37, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

In the absence of a valid reason for its removal, I have replaced the sourced text. Alexbrn (talk) 11:42, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

The IP used has again removed the content, with no real justification. I have replaced it, with 3 supporting references for the term "pseudoreligion". We must used verified material. Alexbrn (talk) 12:03, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

I placed 3 reliable sources in there that cannot be construed as biased. Also, what kind of an edit is "Christian Scientists have sacrificed children to their false pseudo religion. This guy is not serious. Is this not going to be considered vandalism of this poor article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.228.20.127 (talk) 12:12, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

New approach. Have added extra information that qualifies pseudoreligion as "sect". This is sourced to a top-class CUP journal. With your sources joined, the lede is now getting much richer. How far we have come since this morning! However, I think your references need formatting/fixing. Alexbrn (talk) 12:43, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

See, I just hope people read this so that they can see what the people who want to improve this article are up against. Sooner or later, a majority of people who are conscientious and respectful have to weigh in, or else this is hopeless.

There needs to be consensus based on WP norms for progress. We must treat this topic impartially and attend to verifiability, not truth. To counter WP:V descriptions of CS as a "pseudoreligious" and a "sect", sources stating otherwise are needed. Edit warring, false accusations of vandalism (naughty!) and huffing and puffing will not help make progress. Alexbrn (talk) 12:53, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Anyway, I'm not going to edit war over this, but am concerned at the loss of good quality sourced information for no apparent justifiable reason. What do others think? Alexbrn (talk) 12:56, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

I provided a source which classifies Christian Science as a denomination of Christianity. I don't see how that can be congruent with it being a pseudo religion. Also, I stated earlier that part of the definition of Pseudo-religion given on Wikipedia is that it is most often used as a derogatory term. I find it offensive, and foolish to start an article off with that. I would find it offensive applied to any religion, because who am I to say whose religion is genuine or not? I mean, what kind of a source is that? I opened a thread further up on this page "Sources Suspect in this Article" and please, we need LESS of that, not more. This article contrary to what one person said, is NOT in a good state. But it could be. It needs help. Why chase away the people that genuinely want to help improve this thing? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.228.20.127 (talk) 13:31, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

I'm afraid your source looks suspiciously like some group's self-published web site. Is it? Alexbrn (talk) 16:36, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Personally I think calling it a pseudoreligion in the first line of the lead is unnecessary. The question is, for christian science, is being a pseudoreligion a distinguishing or major feature? IRWolfie- (talk) 18:19, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Okay, since there seems to be a lot of material offering categorizations (cult? sect? pseudoreligion?), how can we capture that? I'm keen to avoid a dumping ground "Controversy" section of course ... Alexbrn (talk) 18:24, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

I'd suggest Christian_Science#Theology or similar. If there is no content in the article about it, it doesn't really need to be in the lead. IRWolfie- (talk) 18:30, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Removal of content

66.228.20.127 has removed [7] a paragraph of content. I oppose this edit – the content is both sourced and pertinent. If the concern is that it is not specifically describing CS, but the mainstream reaction to it, I would not object to placing this paragraph in a "Mainstream reception" sub-section, or similar. Alexbrn (talk) 10:42, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Putting all the mainstream christian response into subsections is generally bad style. I would just try and have it as part of prose in the theology section in a way that makes sense, IRWolfie- (talk) 12:49, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

I am beginning to think this is hopeless. But I also am beginning to think that if this is the way that Wikipedia is heading, it may lose it's popularity.

I don't understand why IRWolfie in particular, would not object to the pseudo-religion label? If you are an atheist, then how would you distinguish a pseudo religion from a religion. Religion has to do with belief and faith. How can one say that one person's religious belief is not valid, and another person's belief is valid. Isn't this a slippery slope? IRWolfie, I keep waiting for you to stand up and have the courage to say, hey, that isn't right, even if it means that it will be fair to this particular religion. Should we go on all religious sites and call them pseudo if we can find a source to back it up? Where is the line drawn? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.228.20.127 (talk) 12:58, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

It's not a question of what editors think, it's a question of what sources state. Editors should seek those out and build an article around them. Sources state CS is a pseudoreligion, so we should say so (personally I think the term is slightly bonkers, but then I chant the mantra to myself: verifiability, not truth). Alexbrn (talk) 13:03, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

If a source says that Julia Child was a pseudo-chef, do we respect that, and place it the lead section in an article on French Cuisine, and not even qualify it by saying, some people think she was a pseudo-chef because she wasn't French? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.228.20.127 (talk) 13:12, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Silly question, because not equivalent in any way. But if three good sources said it, and "pseudo-chef" was a defined term with a Wikipedia entry (like Pseudoreligion is), and there were not sources that definitively contradicted it, then we could reasonably infer that the consensus opinion among chef categorizers was that she was, and we would be perfectly justified in putting it in the lede of the Julia Child article ... However, Julia child is a person and CS is not. We can describe CS as a pseudoreligion if that is the consensus among commentators on religion, just as other things are described as pseudoscience is that is the scientific consensus. Hmmm, reading the Pseudoreligion page it and looking at what CS is, I think the fit looks excellent, don't you? Alexbrn (talk) 13:27, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Silly question? Don't you see, you are just being disrespectful to me, to this article, to religion in general. It's not good... It's too bad. It could be such an interesting thing to contribute to this article, but it just feels like I am never going to get anywhere. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.228.20.127 (talk) 13:43, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Plain and simple, Christian Science is a religion. It is a simple fact. It may be a religion you don't care for, a religion you don't believe in, a religion you can find sources on that say it is this or that, but my impression from reading the guidelines of Wikipedia is that those types of personal viewpoints and sources don't belong in articles like this unless it is clear that it is a point of view. Of course I don't think CS is a pseudo-religion, and you know I don't, but that doesn't stop you from being provocative. People will come here and see exactly what is going on. I have already sent friends who are of other faiths or no faith to the site, and they just think it is a joke what's happening. I am brand new to Wikipedia, and so far, it's extremely difficult at least when it comes to this page, to have any good faith that anyone who is editing this thing is remotely interested in finding sources that get at what Christian Science is actually about, and what it is. There is a way to state all those things objectively. Instead what I see is what I said earlier, personal agendas with a knack for finding source materials to back up your POV and then cite the letter of the rule to justify your mischief. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.228.20.127 (talk) 13:57, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

You really need to take on board verifiability, not truth, or I can guarantee you will find Wikipedia a frustrating experience. Anyway, I think we are zeroing in on meaning ... I have come across yet another source describing CS as "pseudo-religious", and this is in the learned journal Anthropology Today [8]. In it, there is a description of how the Polish church categorizes CS as a "pseudo-religious movement". (The good news for 'real life' CS is that it is distinguished from "dangerous sects" like Satanism and Scientology). I think, based on the sources, it's looking increasingly like "pseudoreligious" is a very apt work for CS. Perhaps, if one had to choose, the best single word that could be applied. As an aside, in real life, why do you consider CS not pseudoreligion? It seems to tick all the boxes (belief system; founder; lack of distinctive theology; fringey; looked down on by mainstream religion, etc.). However, since it is clear "pseudoreligion" is not the only applicable term, I propose it is used in combination with other descriptive text. Alexbrn (talk) 14:44, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

"James Carmine, chair of Carlow University's philosophy department, proposes a three-pronged test to distinguish "authentic" religions from pseudoreligions:

       Any religion lacking a guiding coherent theology is a pseudo-religion.
       Any religion entirely self referential is a pseudo-religion.
       Any religion whose only fruit is adherence to itself is a pseudo-religion.[8]"

The above is a quote from the "Pseudoreligion" article in Wikipedia. From any perspective, Christian Science fulfills none of those criteria. It has a guiding coherent theology; it is not self referential (CS is based on the Bible); and adherence to itself is not its only fruit. As is clear elsewhere in the article, one does not need to be a member of the Christian Science church to practice its teachings: in fact the "fruit" of Christian Science is moral and physical healing, and indeed the CS textbook concludes with a chapter entitled "Fruitage" detailing such healings. If people would actually read the book, as well as things written about it by skeptics and others, it would help a lot89.100.155.6 (talk) 15:04, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Yes it doesn't seem to pass Carlow's 3 tests (which seem a little particular), but does pass others. Anyway, we must resist such original research and look to our sources. If they say CS is pseudoreligion, then so must we. It's looking like a solid case at the moment. Alexbrn (talk) 16:40, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

There is no rule against using primary material, if used with care. I could easily back this up with primary sources but as it goes against the interpretation of some of the most energetic contributors, it's a bit like hitting one's head against the wall. I'm beginning to realize why my academic colleagues effectively ban their students from using Wikipedia as a source for essays/theses.89.100.155.6 (talk) 16:45, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

No. Trying to counter multiple secondary sources with your OR is not acceptable. IRWolfie- (talk) 18:16, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Not acceptable to whom? And who defines the use of primary sources as OR? Primary sources are allowed in the Wikipedia policies.89.100.155.6 (talk) 08:59, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

A very careful and select use of primary sources is allowed so you can augment the secondary sources not counter them. Using your interpretation of primary sources is original research. IRWolfie- (talk) 10:53, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

The first sentence (re augmenting the secondary sources) is just your opinion. In regard to the second sentence, paraphrase or direct quotation is not original research: if it is, it applies just as much to the use of secondary sources.89.100.155.6 (talk) 13:28, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

I believe IRWolfie- represents WP policy correctly. From WP:PRIMARY: "primary sources that have been reliably published may be used in Wikipedia; but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them. Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation" Alexbrn (talk) 13:46, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Semi-protection

Watching a new IP user run amok on this article just now, I can't help feeling that this Article would be better off semi-protected. Does anyone agree? and if so what is the process by which protection can be requested? Alexbrn (talk) 17:55, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Objecting to your treatment of this section is hardly running amok. I appreciate the fact that you at least started a sub-section to place that opinion in. But I also think some religious people will take issue with this given time, because you are painting with a very broad brush as if to say that mainstream Christianity in general holds the view that you quoted. There are mainstream sects that are friendly towards Christian Science. If you will take a look at the other edits I have attempted to make, they are intended to improve the article, to make it more objective. Is this against the rules? I keep waiting for someone to stand up and be fair here. Can someone who is objective please stand up for the comments that I have made and the edits I have attempted? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.228.22.132 (talk) 18:08, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Err, I didn't think it was you – it seemed to be a different IP address. Or, are they all you? Alexbrn (talk) 18:20, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Wow. Talk about running amok... The thing about the Bliss Knapp book should be in the article, but not under the section you started, and it could be stated in a less scandalous manner for objectivity. Again, why don't we start a section to place all the hot button issues in, and let there be some room for a fair presentation of Christian Science first. This editor Alexbrn is muckraking and then using intimidation tactics to silence someone who is genuinely trying to improve the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.228.22.132 (talk) 18:27, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Actually, to be fair, the way Alexbrn presented the issue of the Bliss Knapp book is not too far off the mark, except for the part that claims that Knapp went so far as the claim that Eddy was a second Christ. He didn't do that in that book. I have read it. I would like to see the 1991 incident in a section on Controversy though. If you plug it into the section on the relationship with mainstream Christianity, it smacks of being used as support for conservative mainstream views against theological points of Christian Science, and I just don't think that belongs there. It would be so interesting to see some comparing and contrasting in that new section of how Christian Science explains certain theological points differently, and why orthodoxy objects to it. But this needs to be done with care, and not in a slanderous way. For instance the Christian Science view of atonement is unique, and could be compared and contrasted with mainstream views, so that both get a fair shake, and it can then be frankly stated that here is the crux of where mainstream and CS don't agree, do agree, etc. I have sources that would be awesome to use to develop this content. But if there is a tidal wave of stuff that is put it to further a conservative viewpoint, it makes it difficult if not impossible to come in and try to offer something that makes any sense. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.228.22.132 (talk) 18:39, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Err what? What's scandalous about this - it's in Time magazine and the content and presentational tone used in my edit is faithful to the original i.e. rather bland. Searching for "Christian Science," "Theology," "doctrine" and the like in a good library brings this stuff up. It's WP:V so it should be used. Anyhow, how is a "hot button issue" - isn't just an everyday tale of power and money? Alexbrn (talk) 18:44, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

I see your point, but as I said earlier to you when I reversed one of your edits, context is everything. As I said, I think it should be in this article. But there is such an overwhelming amount of biased content, that in the context of everything else that is on here, to keep lacing sections with things like this just makes the article unbalanced. I mean you took out a section related to the Board of Directors and the Manual of the Mother Church, which was perfectly correct, because you say it was unsourced. So why not say in good faith, "hey this section needs sources" I have a feeling that you know very well that the parts that you took out are accurate regarding the church government structure. So why take it out. Why not either help to source it, or request that someone else does? Why take it out. Someone worked to write that. It's disrespectful. I have read articles on physics written by some of the people editing this page, which have NO sources at all. But why would I go over and delete his entire article. He worked hard on it. Maybe he will add his sources later. Maybe someone will request that he does. It just feels to me like the your edits are pushing a conservative Christian agenda. Maybe I am wrong. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.228.22.132 (talk) 18:54, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Yes, you are wrong. As to removing unsourced content, in some circles it's considered good practice to remove unsourced content rather than leave it moldering in an article. And WP:V states it explicitly: "Any material that needs a source but does not have one may be removed". If editors want this material in the Article then of course they can put it back: but with a source! Alexbrn (talk) 20:45, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

How much weight do you think a section on the board of directors has? IRWolfie- (talk) 21:00, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Hello 66, keep up the good work. The article as it stands is totally unbalanced and a travesty. There are around 20 negative points concerning Christian Science, before one even gets to the section on the Church of Christ, Scientist. The article reads like an anti-CS diatribe.89.100.155.6 (talk) 20:17, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

As I've mentioned before, stop complaining and add more content already. You've complained that the theology section doesn't talk enough about Christian Science theology; well add the content and source it to secondary sources. IRWolfie- (talk) 20:59, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Agree. Semi-protect and start hatting the rants. TippyGoomba (talk) 00:44, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

What's the process to get it done? Alexbrn (talk) 10:01, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

WP:RFPP. IRWolfie- (talk) 10:46, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Protect it from whom, or what?! From individuals who are trying to clean it up? If this article gets "semi-protected" based on the attempts over the last few days to prevent further damage to it, then this sets a pathetic precedent. 66.228.23.49 (talk) 20:06, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

There is a problem in that you appear to be using an internet provider that provides dynamic IP addresses, and yours keep changing slightly. Yesterday I believe you performed 4 sequential reverts using two different IP addresses. That is normally a bannable offense. Semi-protection would prevent IP editors from editing the article, and so could protect against this kind of thing. Alexbrn (talk) 21:19, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Hopefully people will look at the content and the context of those edits to see whether such a restriction is really necessary. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.228.20.15 (talk) 23:27, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Homosexuality/synthesis

User:IRWolfie- has questioned whether the following falls foul of WP:SYN :

According to Bruce Stores, an advocate within the group, the church has quietly moved in recent times from its position of "blatant discrimination" and now treats sexual minorities with a degree of acceptance, although it may be that this "quiet movement" has been so quiet that most church members are unaware of it.

I don't think so. Although it appears to intermix two sources this is a consequence of one sources itself referring to the the other. If you look at the original [9] - particularly the text just before the heading, I think it's clear I'm faithfully representing the source's synthesis rather than making my own. Alexbrn (talk) 11:01, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

That's fine, I was just highlight it as a possible issue, IRWolfie- (talk) 11:05, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

I think one improvement I could make would be to remove the quotation marks around "quiet movement", as this is a self-reference rather than a ref to the source; I'll do that and rm the template. Alexbrn (talk) 11:11, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Did either of you know that there is no church doctrine on homosexuality in Christian Science. Are either of you interested in an enlightened understanding of what has taken place culturally inside the church? Christian Science is a lay church. And just as in our culture (I happen to an American) we have people with different views on things based on their cultural experience. I like to differentiate between the "culture" and the "teachings" of Christian Science. It is true that over the decades, cultural viewpoints have spilled over into some of the articles written in the periodicals (yet very few) and to be fair, just as our culture has evolved over time, so has the treatment of these cultural issues in the periodicals. But the hard cold fact is that Mary Baker Eddy never said one word about homosexuality, though she did speak of marriage, and in her era, the cultural assumption was that marriage was between a man and a woman. But she also wrote extensively about how individuals should be encouraged to follow "individual upward convictions" and to work out their own salvation. So, even though you have a source that says that it is part of the "doctrine" of Christian Science that homosexuality is a malady that needs healing or whatever, the fact is that it is not in the doctrine. Absolutely nowhere in the central texts of the church, nowhere in the teachings themselves. Is anyone interested in these facts? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.228.22.27 (talk) 15:52, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

The NYT has this: "Church doctrine holds that homosexuality is a "deviation from moral law" and requires members or employees to 'heal' themselves." That's unambiguous. Do you have a counter-source? Alexbrn (talk) 16:01, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

First of all, that NYT article is garbage, something that you wrap fish with or line your bird cage... I will work on producing secondary sources for this, but the problem that keeps arising with this article is CONTEXT. The POV is coming out of this article in the form of the context being used. It is anything but an objective voice that is emerging in this article. I am extremely busy, and can't afford to have my time wasted. I don't want to work on building text and sourcing it, if it is going to be reverted based on some technicality, or because someone else has three bad sources and I have two good sources, etc. What I am hoping is that some integrity will kick in and even the people who obviously don't care for Christian Science, will, for the sake of objectivity, take out of their own accord, things that are impertinent or one-sided. I am appealing to your honor and integrity. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.228.22.27 (talk) 16:22, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

When the CS church was firing their employee in 1984 for being a lesbian, Ted Dinsmore - the CS attorney - stated in court "Christian Science doctrine provides that homosexuality is immoral". I think this could usefully be added as a reinforcing source? Alexbrn (talk) 16:28, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Again, all heat, and NO LIGHT. Who cares what some guy said who has nothing to do with making church doctrine. The church doctrine was already established by Mary Baker Eddy. She never mentioned homosexuality. Period. Here is a source for you to research. http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_chsc.htm — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.228.22.27 (talk) 16:34, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

In many ways, the culture of Christian Science reflects to some extent the culture of America. And that makes sense when you consider the fact that the church is made of of individuals. So what is being done here, is that cultural views of individual Christian Scientists are being assigned to and interpreted as church doctrine by people who don't understand (or are ignoring the fact) that there is no clergy in the church, no official policy-making arm of the church. It simply doesn't exist. So the dynamics that you have seen play out through the decades is similar to what has happened in our culture as a nation. Here is the problem in this article. Culture and teachings are being confused, and perhaps not entirely without design it seems. I would challenge you to look deeper into this, and ask yourself - am I improving Wikipedia and this article, or am I just pushing an agenda of impertinence towards religion, and particularly this religion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.228.22.27 (talk) 16:41, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

(Off topic) Religions tend to invent doctrine without textual justification, and homosexuality is usually a favourite topic around which to invent stuff. The church gets to say what doctrine is, and we have to report what the church says, according to reliable sources. We have one source that says what its doctrine is directly; we have another which relates how the church's attorneys stated what its doctrine is (or are you saying there is perjury here?) Your individual exegeses don't figure. If you think it's wrong, then show me a better source. Alexbrn (talk) 16:55, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

I did show you a better source. So it will be interesting to see whether you change or add things once you read it since you seem energetic about contributing to this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.228.22.27 (talk) 17:06, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Do you mean religioustolerance.org? Isn't that just some group's self-published site? Hardly qualifying as a usable source. (Off topic) It would be reasonable to assume the Eddy and most CSers historically assumed that homosexuality was a disease (The World Health Organization listed it as a disease until 1990), and so it didn't need mentioning explicitly as it fell under the remit of "healing"; that would accord with the views presented in the court case. Also, please, would you be so kind as to indent your contributions properly and sign your name with four tildes? Alexbrn (talk) 17:19, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

The World Health Organization didn't exist during Eddy's lifetime. Aren't you making quite an assumption here and again painting with a very broad brush? I don't think you can know what "most" Protestants believe, or what "most" Christian Scientists believe. I think everything about the court case that you mention has interest to people, but it should be in a section that explores cultural conflicts or changes in the church over the years, instead of confusing it with the doctrine, which has been the same from the beginning, and never mentions homosexuality. It would add interest to the article to explore the relationship between the actual doctrine of Christian Science and how things have played out socially, but that needs to be done in a way that is contextually balanced. What is obvious to me is that facts are being used to push a POV. Again, context. I would be in favor of including all these controversies, but in a context that allows a more balanced article to emerge. The new edits you have added about Christian doctrinal viewpoints are really far off the mark, and it is very easy to find sources that are incorrect about CS teachings. But the ones I have seen have an inherent conflict of interest because they favor a particular doctrinal platform. Christian Science is doctrinally, a minority group within Christianity, and so that needs to be taken into consideration. For example, if I insert something that explains the fact that Christian Science DOES acknowledge that Christ is the Messiah, and that Jesus crucifixion, resurrection, and ascension were necessary for the redemption of mankind, and I source it well, is it going to be reverted because of what you placed in there previously? Clearly the viewpoints are opposite. So the reader is going, "what is going on here???" How can we have two totally opposing viewpoints which are presented as facts. The remedy to me is, let the section on Theology be developed so that it objectively explains what Christian Science actually teaches about these things, and then fairly and honestly in your section on Mainstream views, state why and how the mainstream view differs. Instead, what is happening is that you are saying, "Christian Scientists believe blah blah blah" and it isn't factually correct. This is not fair to the reader. By the way, none of what I have said is off topic. It has to do with context and content. 66.228.22.27 (talk) 17:52, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Are you proposing an edit, or arguing that Wikipedia shouldn't work the way it does? If you have well-sourced material, please say what it is. As a disinterested editor, all I have done is present, carefully, what I find searching journals and books, on topics which I think are notable. Alexbrn (talk) 18:01, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

I am not arguing that Wikipedia should not work the way it is designed to work, but I am saying that it isn't working that way in this particular article. And that is because of some shenanigans. And I have been reading the guidelines on a daily basis regarding NPOV, Reliable Sources, Conflict of Interest, etc., and I find along with others, that this article is a train wreck. I will write some things for the section on Theology when I have time, and I would appreciate it if you would consider some of the things I have pointed out. 66.228.22.27 (talk) 18:23, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

There seems to be a certain amount of confusion here between the teachings of Christian Science (which are found exclusively in the writings of Mary Baker Eddy and the Bible) and positions that the Christian Science church may have taken from time to time. Mary Baker Eddy never said anything about homosexuality (anywhere in her writings, which can be checked with concordances). A person does not have to be a member of the Christian Science church to be a Christian Scientist, and consequently what the church says or doesn't say about some political issue has no relevance to the teachings of Christian Science, except insofar as it can be corroborated by reference to the writings of Mary Baker Eddy. People who think otherwise are confusing Christian Science with some other religion like Roman Catholicism, which does indeed claim to be able to formulate religious doctrine. By and large, the Christian Science church takes a "hands off" position on political issues like abortion, gun control, homosexuality (etc.) though the Christian Science Monitor does take an editorial position from time to time, like any other newspaper.89.100.155.6 (talk) 18:38, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

As I said, the sources used here state what the doctrine is, based on what the church states doctrine is (they are the authority). Show me good sources that contradict what's in the article, and I'll be all ears. Alexbrn (talk) 18:46, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Again, you've got it wrong. The CS church is not the authority on Christian Science teaching. The authority is the CS textbook and the other writings of Mary Baker Eddy. I could show you good sources that contradict half of what is in the article, but as they are primary sources, they don't count (apparently). Weird, but there you are.89.100.155.6 (talk) 21:16, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

And your source is ... ? Alexbrn (talk) 21:20, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Well, here's one direct quote. The author was a Christian Scientist, but not actually a member of the CS church. (There is no contradiction between those two things by the way.) "Church zealots have never been able to give a rational explanation of how the church would have to be an integral part of Christian Science activity. The Founder of the Movement never said it was. Quite the contrary. She significantly chose the special Church Number of the Christian Science Journal in which to proclaim that organization is not indespensable [Journal, Vol. 9, p. 487, and Miscellaneous Writings, 90: 21-20] In this important article [...] she says we do not have to build buildings and ordain ministers, and that if we do this at all, it is strictly a temporary concession instead of a perpetual and unavoidable practice of Christian Science[....] Mrs Eddy did not herself attend church and although she lived in Boston for three years after the completion of the mammoth Mother Church Extension, she never visited it." (Arthur Corey, Christian Science Class Instruction, CA: Farallon/DeVorss, 1950, pp. 274-275.) (The bits in ellipsis have been omitted to cut down on length, but they are immaterial to the essential meaning.) The reference to the writings of Mary Baker Eddy given in the above includes the following passage by her: "It is not indispensable to organize materially Christ's church. It is not absolutely necessary to ordain pastors and to dedicate churches; but if this be done, let it be in concession to the period, and not as a perpetual or indispensable ceremonial of the church. If our church is organized, it is to meet the demand, 'Suffer it to be so now.' The real Christian compact is love for one another. This bond is wholly spiritual and inviolate.' (Mary Baker Eddy, "Questions and Answers," in Miscellaneous Writings, Prose Works Other than Science and Health, [Authorized Literature of The First Church of Christ, Scientist, in Boston, Massachusetts] Boston: Trustees under the Will of Mary Baker G. Eddy, 1925, p. 90.) Corey goes on (I'll paraphrase) to explain that Mary Baker Eddy did not require members of her household to attend church, and that she explained to them that it was a mistake for a mature student of Christian Science to want to attend church to obtain some good from it, since the work of advanced students was on a higher and broader level. (Corey, p. 275.) Corey was a dissident in organizational terms and I'm not, but the points he makes are correct89.100.155.6 (talk) 10:02, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

So you're saying that Christian Science has nothing (necessarily) to do with its church, and that this is a mainstream view? Is there a good source for this view (preferably something independent of both CS and its church) ? Alexbrn (talk) 10:11, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Yes, it's clearly mainstream. The passage from Mary Baker Eddy quoting "suffer it to be so now" is actually published by the church, so the church would have to agree that CS has nothing (necessarily) to do with the organization, whether they wanted to or not. I can't think of any other sources on this off the top of my head. But it should help to contextualize what is a good secondary source to use on political issues around homosexuality (etc.) and what isn't. At the very least, it should be made clear that any position taken on an issue such as homosexuality is (or was) a position of the Christian Science church and not necessarily of Christian Science itself, or of its founder. According to Wikipedia policies, the quality of the article is the premier concern, and supersedes issues about the status of sources (ie whether they are primary, secondary or whatever).89.100.155.6 (talk) 12:33, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

As a coda to the above, I suggest shifting some or all of the material on homosexuality to the section on the CS church (at the end of the article). Attitudes to such matters may be of interest in terms of church culture or politics, but are not of relevance to Christian Science itself, since Mary Baker Eddy said nothing about homosexuality in her writings.89.100.155.6 (talk) 12:43, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

I don't think so, since from the sources it appears attitudes to homosexuality are part of the CS doctrine. As I keep saying, we need well-sourced evidence to the contrary to move on this. I'm afraid your personal say-so and reasonings aren't sufficient. Alexbrn (talk) 12:48, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

So secondary/tertiary sources that get it wrong are to be preferred to primary sources that get it right? This is Alice in Wonderland stuff. According to Wikipedia policies, the prime aim is to produce a good article, not to quibble over primary or secondary sources. (Actually, Corey is probably a secondary source rather than a primary source.) If evolutionists are permitted to be cited in the article on evolution, why can't people who believe in Christian Science be cited on the article on Christian Science? There are double standards at work here. Part of the problem is that some of the editing is being done by people who seem to have little or no knowledge of what Christian Science is. Consequently, they are simply unable to tell what is accurate secondary material and what is not. (For example, I wouldn't try to edit the article on evolution simply because I don't know enough about it to be able to choose appropriate secondary material on the subject.)89.100.155.6 (talk) 13:59, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

I think WP:VNT answers the questions underlying what you say. And yes, it can be frustrating especially if you choose to edit an article on something you care about deeply. Alexbrn (talk) 15:11, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, I just read that link. I'm familiar with philosophical debates around the notion of truth. The sources I gave are verifiable. Also, anyone can verify that Mary Baker Eddy said nothing about homosexuality, because her published writings can be consulted via concordances, and nothing will come up if you check under the key terms. It is not only true, but also verifiable, that she said nothing on the topic. So I don't see what the problem is.89.100.155.6 (talk) 15:29, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

It's not about truth; it's about what can be verified. We have two good sources stating what CS doctrine is, and nothing to counter them. So we use them. It's as simple as that. I have explained all around the issue too if you want to review this thread, but ultimately Wikipedia works in a certain way, and that has to prevail. Alexbrn (talk) 15:36, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Alexbrn, honestly. I pointed you to the link on religioustolerance.org and you dismissed it. But you built your whole claim around a New York Times article from 1985. Social views have changed a lot since 1985, and it has been explained to you that it is not in the church doctrine. Why persist in misleading people? The religioustolerance.org page states the facts pretty well. It is not affliliated with the Christian Science church, but is an independent organization. Why ignore a source that is current and accurate. I would argue that truth is important, by the way. So far I have not read anything on Wikipedia guidelines that say it is okay to disregard truth so long as you can verify misleading content. 66.228.19.164 (talk) 15:45, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry but it's not just the NYT: if you read the section there are four mutually-reinforcing sources contributing to it: the NYT, an encyclopedia of religion, Fuller's book, and Stores' book. Two sources mention "doctrine": the NYT and Stores (quoting the CS church's attorney in a court case). Against this you have one self-published web site which doesn't specifically address the question of doctrine, and your personal opinion. I don't know what else to add. If there are any other editors reading this perhaps they could usefully add a view. Or else, perhaps we could use a Wikipedia dispute resolution process like WP:3O ? Alexbrn (talk) 16:08, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

I should also add that the section starts with the word "Historically", which carefully disclaims a meaning that this section is just about the situation today. I think the text is perfectly clear about dates: readers can draw their own conclusions. Alexbrn (talk) 16:20, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Again, it's a problem of context, sorry to harp on this, but it's true. It still just seems like you are latching onto one thing that one person said 27 years ago to push the idea that this is or has been part of the church "doctrine". I understand that source you found states it, but it is nevertheless, not the case, which can be seen by searching the doctrinal texts of the church. The Supreme Court of The United States interprets the Constitution when it comes to legislation, and the outcomes can change, and viewpoints change in regard to what the Constitution means, but the founding principles themselves do not change. In the same way, individuals in the church have interpreted doctrine which have at times been colored by societal and cultural viewpoints, but it is misleading to say that the church doctrine itself says anything whatever about this issue. No matter what somebody said in 1885, it cannot be substantiated in the doctrinal texts of the church. Again, no member of the Christian Science church creates doctrine. Mary Baker Eddy articulated it, and her writings remains the authority when it comes to church doctrine. That said, I think there is value in the facts that you bring up, but they are useful in a discussion of social views and changes, but they don't belong in a section dealing with doctrine, because they are not part of the doctrine, simple as that. Sources can be erroneous, things people say can be erroneous. But the doctrinal texts speak for themselves if you will do the research. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.228.27.79 (talk) 17:00, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

I very much want to avoid doing research based on primary texts, and you should avoid it too (for editing Wikipedia anyway). Anyway, I've asked for a third opinion - so if we're lucky we may soon be enlightened by the wisdom of an editor with fresh eyes. Alexbrn (talk) 17:04, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Refimprove

Now that the article's swathes of unreferenced material have been removed, I propose this article template is removed. Alexbrn (talk) 11:40, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

sure, IRWolfie- (talk) 11:53, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Done Alexbrn (talk) 11:55, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Neutrality of lede?

I note User:Collect has re-written the lede. I don't think the re-write of the third paragraph is quite right and have reverted it. While WP:LEAD provides that ledes should generally be neutral in tone, they should also summarise any prominent controversies. As I see it, that is the duty this third paragraph is performing. From the re-write it's not clear what those controversies are - in particular saying that deaths occur means nothing (everybody dies), but the controversy is that CS followers/children may die as a consequence of abiding by its ideas. I have no objection in principle to reformulating this paragraph, but I think it needs to be doing its duty as "summarise any prominent controversies" material. Alexbrn (talk) 17:48, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Your revert violates WP:NPOV in spades.

Christian science is pseudoscience that claims that sickness can be healed through the exclusive use of prayer rather than medicine. It rejects science as illusory, while attempting to disguise itself as science.[4][5]:317 Its precepts cause preventable death among its followers, and among the children of its followers upon whom those precepts are imposed; [6] it adversely affects public health: outbreaks of preventable disease and a number of deaths have occurred due to a lack of vaccination; [7]:50 and the Christian science church actively attempts to control its public image and position in law through media manipulation and political lobbying.[8]

Is, on its face, about as POV as one can get in any article about any religion. We do not say "Islam is pseudoscience" last I checked. Nor do we say "Mennonites cause deaths of children due to rejecting vaccinations." So why should Christian Science, generally regarded as a religion, so abused in the lede? Seems a clear-cut case, folks. This paragraph takes a strong stand in Wikipedia's voice and thus violates the non-negotiable requiremnet for NPOV. Cheers. Collect (talk) 18:18, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

And your basis for claiming CS is generally considered a religion is ... what? Looking just at this it seems more complex than that. A "belief system", "sect", "healing movement", "system of doctrines" are also terms in play. It's all very well striding into the article and slapping down an edit backed up by arrogant cocksure rhetoric ("seems a clear-cut case, folks"); but the text deserves more than that. In particular, once we have medical journals giving peer-reviewed assessments of medical consequences, deleting them on the basis of NPOV seems to me a little novel. Are you saying that once religion is in the frame we should censor factual material for some reason? I don't get it. To be clear, I am by no means wedded to the current para, but we do need to be airing the main points of the body - unpalatable as they may be - in the lede. Alexbrn (talk) 19:06, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

It looks to me as if WP:LEAD strongly recommends that the third paragraph remain. Per LEAD, we summarize the main article points, and this paragraph does so effectively. Binksternet (talk) 19:14, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

an interesting concept if you feel that calling a "belief system" a fake ("attempting to disguise itself" is neutral?) using influence buying <g> is "neutral." And I would note that others seem to agree with me that the depiction of the group in the lede is not conforming with absolute policy. BTW, the NYT says [10] :

Since the founding of their church 131 years ago, Christian Scientists have been taught to avoid doctors at all costs.

I suggest the word "church" is directly associated with "religion" per se. but continue ...

Since 2009, leaders say, they have been encouraging members to see a physician if they feel it is necessary.

Oops -- this disposes of a great deal of the diatribe in the lede.

Then the EB [11] specifically calls it a "religious denomination." See the word "religious"?

More? Questia finds over 3,500 books and articles with "Christian Science" and "religion." How many for "Christian Science" and "pseudoscience"? 8. And which do not call it "pseudoscience" to boot. (similar nubers for Highbeam - which is sorta the same company IIRC). Cheers. Collect (talk) 21:14, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

The word "disguise" is derived from the source ("those who peddled theories in the guise of science"). If something is called "science" and it's not, it is at least reasonable for the source to describe it as being disguised. "Influence buying" is your phrase, not the articles - and the NYT article you link to states the the CS church is lobbying lawmakers.

Yes, the word "church" is nearly always associated with religion (although on this very page some CS followers are arguing that association shouldn't be overstated in CS's case), though some things which are nominally church-based can be out-and-out cults like the Forever Family or distinctly marginal like the Raelian Church.

And yes, the NYT report of what Church leaders say is interesting, though I'm not so confident it "disposes of" what you call "the diatribe"; but maybe signals qualification is needed (the article already notes that non-US CS follows local laws).

The EB is but one source, and not definitive.

Word co-occurrence in texts proves very little, I'm afraid. If you look for texts that specifically try to define what CS is, I think the message is confused. The one peer-reviewed academic journal I found that did this (Langford, M. J. (1968). "New approaches to Natural Law". Religious Studies (Cambridge University Press) 4 (1): 154) callsed CS "a wealthy Boston sect", and "sect" seems a pretty good word since CS basically seems to be an off-shoot of Christianity with a few modifications and the (pseudoscientific) healing stuff added. The Encyclopedia of Religion in American Politics also calls it a "Christian sect". The opening words of the article are, remember, "Christian Science is a system of religious thought and practice". The description of it as pseudoscience is secondary to that and in the paragraph concentrating on the notable controversies.

However, regardless of what CS is primarily labelled, I don't want to interpret WP:NEUTRAL as meaning WP:SOFT WP:CENSORED WP:DEFERENTIAL or WP:INOFFENSIVE. Bearing in mind the points you've raised how about moving to something like (v. rough):

'The healing practices of Christian science are pseudoscience that claim sickness can be healed through the exclusive use of prayer rather than medicine. Adopting them has contributed to preventable death among CS followers, and among the children of its followers upon whom those practces have been imposed; the practices also adversely affects public health: outbreaks of preventable disease and a number of deaths have occurred due to a lack of vaccination. Since 2009 the CS church has said its followers are free to use mainstream medicine if they wish. The Christian science church actively attempts to control its public image and position in law through media campaigning and political lobbying.'

(refs to add natch).

I think the previous lead summarized the article. I don't know what the "The Christian science church actively attempts to control its public image and position in law through media campaigning and political lobbying." is summarizing, so I removed it. @Collect Do you not think it is a bad idea to base your position on google hits? Clearly googling is a terrible metric. When I google Astrology religion and Astrology pseudoscience I get 20 times more books; this doesn't mean astrology isn't a pseudoscience or that we don't have weight to talk about how it is a pseudoscience, but instead it's a religion? IRWolfie- (talk) 10:52, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

It referred to the text "The Christian Science church has successfully lobbied for favorable language in the Code of Federal Regulations, and the church influences media coverage and opinion though such activities as the coordinated writing of letters to the editor, and political lobbying.[33]" later in the article. Alexbrn (talk) 10:49, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

I think mentioning it in the lead would give it undue weight; that's the only source I've come across that raised that point so I don't think it is necessarily has much weight. IRWolfie- (talk) 11:04, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

The text stating "Since the founding of their church 131 years ago, Christian Scientists have been taught to avoid doctors at all costs" is incorrect according to the more reliable sources, so I have doubt of it's reliability on that issue. Christian Scientists have never been taught to avoid Doctors at all costs. As the article already summarizes: "In Christian Science it is not forbidden to seek medical attention, but they believe that those who do have turned their back on their beliefs. Eddy put this as "if we trust matter, we distrust spirit"

It's interesting that on the one hand the NYT source says "Since 2009, leaders say, they have been encouraging members to see a physician if they feel it is necessary." which you highlighted as supporting your position, while seeming to ignore "The church trains and registers its practitioners to help patients with their prayers. Their credentials consist of a friendly Midwestern manner and a certainty that sickness is the manifestation of a conflict between “correct” and “incorrect” thinking. They do not believe in germs or the existence of illness, which they consider a dreamlike state." IRWolfie- (talk) 12:26, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Collect appears to object to "Christian science is pseudoscience that claims that sickness can be healed through the exclusive use of prayer rather than medicine. It rejects science as illusory, while attempting to disguise itself as science.[4][5]:317 A number of preventable deaths have occurred amongst its followers, and their children since outbreaks of preventable disease and a number of deaths have occurred due to a lack of vaccination and treatment." and says it is not neutral. Perhaps he can highlight why he think this is non-neutral; one sentence at a time. IRWolfie- (talk) 13:49, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Proposal to change third paragraph in the lede

Looks like this is a rather contentious issue. I don't think the third paragraph is written well. Here's my proposal:

Christian Science doctrine includes claims that have been described as [[pseudoscience]]<ref name=tseop/><ref name="ps"/> including a belief that all sickness can be healed through the exclusive use of prayer rather than medicine. The faith considers modern scientific practice and the physical world to be illusory and secondary to the spiritual world, while proposing that its teachings on the nature of reality are the true "science".<ref>{{cite journal | title=The Corrosion of the American Mind (reviewing ''The Age of American Unreason'' by Susan Jacoby) | first=Wendy | last=Kaminer | journal=The Wilson Quarterly | volume=32 | issue=2 | year= 2008 | page=92 | quote=Many Americans [...] had too little education to distinguish between real scientists and those who peddled theories in the guise of science }}</ref><ref name=tseop/>{{rp|317}} Adherence to Christian Science precepts has been documented to have caused preventable death among its followers;<ref name="Asser1998"/> outbreaks of preventable disease and a number of deaths have occurred due to a practice encouraged by Christian Science teachers of refusing vaccinations;<ref name=Novo/>{{rp|50}} while the Church of Christian Science actively works to control its public image and legal position through public relation campaigns and political lobbying.<ref name="Young2001"/>

There really ought to be something said in the lede about the court cases, and that might be more appropriate than this omnibus paragraph. Besides this, I think that something should be said somewhere in the article of Mark Twain's particular disdain for the group.

Junjunone (talk) 00:52, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Why would you suggest wording which includes a "citation needed" (cn) template? Otherwise, your proposed wording represents the topic poorly. The "Christian Science doctrine" does not "include" claims that "have been described" as pseudoscience. That is a terribly waffle-y sentence which fails to tell the reader anything concrete. Take a look at the article text first, then bring the main points up to the lead section, per WP:LEAD. Don't rewrite the lead section independently of the article body. Also, there is no need for quoting the cited source in the lead section. Another point: People cannot be called "healers" if they cause preventable disease or death. Binksternet (talk) 01:01, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

citation needed: Do you have a source that describes the claims of Christian Science as pseudoscience? Please let me know, because the sources that were cited did not do that. I read the article carefully and from what I read that's what the sources say: that there are beliefs associated with Christian Science that are pseudoscience, but as this designation needs to be made by an authority, I think we should provide a citation as it is a contentious claim that is essentially part of every religion including mainstream Christianity.
The "entire quote" was already there in the lead section, actually. I didn't change that from the version currently present.
You are right about the term "healers" as the term that the Church of Christian Science uses is "teacher". [12] I changed it above.

Junjunone (talk) 01:22, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

We have many sources that describe the claims of Christian Science as pseudoscience. See the article. IRWolfie- (talk) 11:12, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I agree. However, I don't think that the sources describe the entirety of Christian Science as being pseudoscience so to say, "Christian Science is pseudoscience" is painting with a rather large brush. There are some Christian Science beliefs that say things like "Follow the Golden Rule". I hardly think that this aspect of Christian Science is pseudoscience and I don't see evidence from our sources which actually do outline which aspects of the religion (mostly the faith healing) are pseudoscientific that the entire religion is rightly described as such.

It is true that the distinguishing feature of Christian Science is an ostensibly pseudoscientific point. However, I haven't seen a very good source which analyzes this from the perspective of New Religious Movement academics, for example. I will search for such a thing; I cannot believe it doesn't exist. Junjunone (talk) 14:28, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Look at the sources; some of them are quite sweeping. You could perform the same sort of analysis of Astrology as well; some aspects are religious, but it's still pseudoscience. What the paragraph in the lea dis summing up is the Medicine and science section. Perspectives from a NRM academics would belong in the theology section; a different area. IRWolfie- (talk) 14:38, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

They are sweeping towards the distinguishing characteristics, but there is something different between astrology which is not an organized religion and Christian Science which is not merely defined by its peculiar take on medicine. The problem may be that "Christian Science" isn't normally defined as Christian Science Practice which is the faith healing aspect of the religion. This distinction is extremely meaningful to those who study NRM but may be lost on those who are evaluating medical claims, for example. In any case, I added two citation regarding the claims being pseudoscientific. Junjunone (talk) 14:47, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Junjunone — I agree with your point about the distinction between CS in whole and in part. The trouble is, the academics don't (see the sources supporting the pseudoscience description in the body). They make statemenys of the form "CS is unscientific" or "CS is pseudoscience". I worry that it's WP:OR for us to think "what they really meant to write was elements of CS are ...." and proceed on that basis. Alexbrn (talk) 14:52, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

I think this is a misplaced worry. We are empowered to read what the academics say about CS when they describe it as a pseudoscience. Without exception they are referring to the medical claims and nothing more, so making that clarification is not original research. Junjunone (talk) 14:56, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

I think you're probably right, but I wouldn't want to argue the case in a court ;-) 15:00, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

I think it's apparent from the section it is summarizing that it is in regards to its science and medical claims; we already highlight why it's a pseudoscience in the lead: "Christian science is pseudoscience because it claims that sickness can be healed through the exclusive use of prayer rather than medicine." IRWolfie- (talk) 15:09, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Fair enough. However, I think we should rephrase the lede because it is anthropomorphizing the religion (it doesn't make claims: its believers make the claims) and, when speaking carefully, one would not say "Christian Science is pseudoscience" but rather "The Teachings of Christian Science regarding faith healing are pseudoscience". There is a difference, as I see it. Junjunone (talk) 15:27, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Christian Science is pseudoscience

James Randi and Joe Nickell are both experts on the subject of pseudoscience demarcation and they deftly describe the parts of Christian Science that are pseudoscientific. I think, however, that it should be noted that there is more to Christian Science's teachings than those things which are pseudoscience, so to say without qualification that "Christian Science is pseudoscience" would be like saying "Religion is pseudoscience" which I think is generally not permitted here. Sure, there are major even foundational aspects to most if not all religions which make aspects of them "pseudoscientific" but one could hardly call the Golden Rule pseudoscience, for example.

The third source cited in the article by Derksen looks like it has confused creation science with this subject, unfortunately [13].

Junjunone (talk) 01:36, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

And in such a case, ought not the "moracles" in the Roman Catholic Church be equally dismissed as "pseudoscience? And other churches as well? The term is pejorative, and poorly applied to religions in the first place. Collect (talk) 01:46, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

In some cases, there are situations where specific claims of the Catholic Church are rightly demarcated as pseudoscientific. The Shroud of Turin comes immediately to mind. However, this generally isn't enough to label the entire corpus of the religion as "pseudoscience". I agree that the term is pejorative, but I don't think that this necessarily means it is inapt. However, I agree that because religions generally cover a huge range of ideas that are not all subject to scientific inquiry, any attempt to label a religion in its entirety as pseudoscience is going to be necessarily torturous and not at all edifying. The two sources remaining, in fact, do not do this. They describe the aspects of Christian Science which are pseudoscientific, but there are parts of the religion that neither Randi nor Nickell touch on at all that would be difficult to describe as "pseudoscience". How is the doctrine of the Trinity "pseudoscience", for example? Junjunone (talk) 01:53, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Randi and Nickell are okay sources, but no more (both being in part self-published websites). I have re-written the first few paras of the Science & Medicine section based around some first-class sources (peer-reviewed academic journal articles), and made clear how Derksen is applicable. I think this should put to bed any question of whether scholars regard CS as pseudoscience or not. There is a potential problem here, I think, in that when scholars refer to CS, they are - by my reading - focused on the "mind cure" element of it, but generally just seem to use the term "CS". I'm not sure how much that matters: maybe the article can safely make the same elision ... Alexbrn (talk) 09:19, 17 December 2012 (UTC) [UPDATE] I see User:IRWolfie- has reverted this; rather than lose the sources I have bundled them into the reference as "silent" supporting material for the assertion in the text. Alexbrn (talk) 10:39, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Randi is a reliable source for describing pseudoscience, and why something is pseudoscience. IRWolfie- (talk) 10:39, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

What absolute crap! That is a risible comment. Christian Science may well be pseudoscience but Randi is not any kind of "reliable source" who approaches the subject with personal neutrality or academic credentials as a scientist. He is a professional stage magican and sceptic who makes his living as an entertainer and writer of popular books. If you think that Randi is a reliable source then you have lost all credibility on this subject. Anglicanus (talk) 12:37, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

He makes his living from analysing pseudoscience. He is highly acclaimed for this work. IRWolfie- (talk) 13:46, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

His training? Entertainer. That he "writes a lot on a topic" does not make him qualified to make assertions which get placed in Wikipedia's voice as fact. Nor does it make this "fact" to be placed in the lead, rather than being cited as opinion in the body of the article. Collect (talk) 13:52, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

You avoided/missed two points; he is highly acclaimed for his work, and we have multiple sources that call it pseudoscience, not just one. It also features in an Encyclopaedia of pseudoscience. IRWolfie- (talk) 13:56, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Arguing over whether Randi and Nickell are good sources is a bit of a side issue. It is pretty uncontroversial to assert that the claims of Christian Science that include such audacious treatment techniques as distance healing is at the very least at about the same level of denial of modern medice as, for example, Scientology's war against psychiatric medicine. As well-known and respected writers and popularizers of skeptical thinking, Randi and Nickell's contributions to exposing pseudoscience are widely acknowledged and appreciated throughout the relevant communities. Randi, for example, was recognized as being so adroit at skeptical thinking that he was employed by the pre-eminent journal of scientific record, Nature, to evaluate the claims of Jacques Benveniste about water memory in the great tradition of debunking that goes back as far as Blondlot's claimed discovery of N-rays. Junjunone (talk) 14:36, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

(ec)And his opinions are usable as opinions. In the body of the article. Not as facts in Wikipedia's voice. Not as a statement of fact in the lead. And, amazingly enough, an "The Skeptic Encyclopedia of Pseudoscience" seems to have a few "opinions" of its own ... I suggest you use it on other topics it includes, from its recap of articles from the Skeptic magazine (it is not an "encyclopedia, folks). It is, in fact, quite misleading to call it an "encyclopedia" here or anywhere. Shermer's "Where sense meets nonsense" states [14] "But most people inappropriately intertwine science and religion—enterprises with goals and methods that could not be more disparate—and as a consequence are either overly offended by religion's perceived encroachment into science, or are unnecessarily threatened by science's alleged intrusion into religion." Meanwhile, you appear not to have addressed the NYT's nearly universal description of "Christian Science" as a "reigion" -- care to explain why Randi is a better source about religion than the NYT is? Or the EB? Or SCOTUS? Collect (talk) 14:41, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

I think you're missing the point somewhat. Randi, Nickell, and Shermer are all acknowledged experts in the practice of skeptical debunking of pseudoscience. To that end, we should pay close attention to their critiques. To say that there are aspects of Christian Science, indeed maybe even foundational aspects that are pseudoscientific strikes me as being rather uncontroversial. To be fair, the sources which deal with the pseudoscientific aspects don't tend to dwell on the other esoteric proposals of the religion which are not contrary to a scientific sensibility. Junjunone (talk) 14:50, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

"most people inappropriately intertwine science and religion—enterprises with goals and methods that could not be more disparate", yes, clearly Christian Science is a case where people have inappropriately intertwined science and religion. That's why it is pseudoscience; it makes claims that fall under science, and presents itself as science. What is your point? IRWolfie- (talk) 14:54, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

(Not sure that this response was meant for me, and if not I apologize.) My point is that this is not the sum total of the entire religion so to unequivocally label the entire religion as a pseudoscience is a misappropriation of a reasonable critique. Junjunone (talk) 14:57, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

The response was at collect, IRWolfie- (talk) 15:01, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Speaking strictly from a religious standpoint of faith, may I just point out that millions of Christians who believe in the Bible believe that Jesus accomplished such a thing as "distance healing" as JunJunone puts it. It might be important to point out that such a practice at least in Christian Science, is based on the idea that God exists as an omnipresent principle, (a religious premise), and that consciousness rather than matter, is what controls the body. Here is an analogy: If you had a math problem in New York, and you called a math professor in California who understood the principle, he could help you solve your problem from a distance. So I think it is due to the theological premise that God exists as a divine principle, that such a practice is not seen as so "audacious" by people of faith. Whether it can be proved is beyond the scope of the point at hand. It's a touchy subject, but I just wanted to offer this because I for one, do not believe that in the context of Christianity, it is audacious, unless you believe that all of what is regarded as miraculous by material reasoning (such as miracles, etc.) is audacious. Again, we are back to the question of whether we are comparing apples and oranges when we are talking about world sciences, and the religion called Christian Science. It might be of interest to a couple of you to know that Mary Baker Eddy was not opposed to science, something that is claimed in the present article. She stated in Science and Health that "Whatever furnishes the semblance of an idea governed by its Principle, furnishes food for thought. Through astronomy, natural history, chemistry, music, mathematics, thought passes naturally from effect back to cause. 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." She also stated that from a material standpoint, "Darwin's theory of evolution from a material basis is more consistent than most theories." This is not the voice of someone who is opposed to science. That said, it is only when she moves into the arena of spiritual reasoning, faith, religion, God, that she speaks of science in terms of what God must know, and her conviction was that God's knowledge is divine, not human, and that the human mind misinterprets nature, because it starts it's reasoning with a finite brain which can never move beyond the constraints of matter. Again, this is a religious issue! I hope this is helpful to those who are putting things in the article like "Christian Science is opposed to science". That statement, even if it has a source, is misguided.LeviTee (talk) 06:08, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

I also think it's inappropriate to both label all of Christian science as pseudoscience and even more so, do it as a fact when it's clearly the opinion of specific people. It should be included as said opinion and not as a statement. Silver seren^C 21:53, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Third Opinion

Response to third opinion request:

Hi there. I think I've got a pretty good feel for what we're getting at here, but I like to start from top and recap quickly to make sure I'm considering everything relevant.

I think I have the gist of what Alexbrn is arguing -- essentially that the material in question is neutral, relevant and reliably sourced, and should therefore be retained.

And it sounds like our IP editor is arguing that the contested material should be removed because it is incorrect -- regardless of how well it may be sourced -- and that it is being included to push an anti-CS POV.

Am I missing anything relevant that I should consider before offering an opinion? If so, please let me know, but keep it super brief. — Bdb484 (talk) 03:40, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

I did not know there was a third opinion request filed. Since more than two editors are in dispute, 3O is not the correct path to take. WP:RfC is, I think, the appropriate next step. Binksternet (talk) 04:29, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

It looked to me like we just had Alexbrn and the IP. Who am I missing? — Bdb484 (talk) 05:23, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Me and Collect? Everybody jumping in from Jimbo's talk page? Binksternet (talk) 05:27, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Whoa, too many controversies :-) The third opinion request just applied to the Homosexuality section above. The discussion over the lede is another thing. And yes, Bdb484 - you summarise the issue nicely (thanks for taking this up). Alexbrn (talk) 06:57, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, I thought we were just dealing with the single subhed, as well. Let's see what ~~the IP~~ User:LeviTee says. — Bdb484 (talk) 07:56, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

I don't understand a lot of this coded talk. It will take me time to understand what you guys are talking about. I think what would be helpful for anyone who is arbitrating?? this article is to look deeper into the overall series of conflicts related to context, choice of sources, and strictures on those trying to use primary sources and internet links in order to bring out clearer ideas of what Christian Science teaches. The way I feel about it is, this is an article on Christian Science. It has a specific definition. Let that be fleshed out in the article, and then figure out a way to include all opinions, controversies (social, doctrinal, medical, etc.) using whatever sources as long as they pass the reliable sources litmus test (if there is such a thing). — Preceding unsigned comment added by LeviTee (talk • contribs) 09:23, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

LeviTee hi — there are a lot of different thing being referred to here. From our point of view (you and me), Bdb484 has offered to take a look at our discussion on homosexuality/doctrine above and offer an independent third opinion (see WP:3O). This is an informal way to see if a situation where two editors disagree can be progressed. Alexbrn (talk) 09:52, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Maybe "mediating" is a better word than "arbitrating" at this point. If I am understanding what is being said, I definitely want to say that I don't think it makes sense to narrow the dispute into one section. Since in my view the whole problem in this article is context (sources being used in such a way that makes it close to impossible for the reader to find out what Christian Science actually is), one needs to go back and read all of what is being said to see that it's the same overall problem of context, sources, biased viewpoints, and an inability of anyone who can accurately describe Christian Science from being allowed to contribute in any meaningful way because of technicalities, which seem to stem from strict emphasis on the letter of the policies, and not enough of the spirit of wanting to get an article that is factually correct when it comes to the very subject that the article is about. — Preceding unsigned comment added by LeviTee (talk • contribs) 10:02, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

I was in the discussion as well so 3O would never have made sense. IRWolfie- (talk) 10:30, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Were you in the homosexuality thread? (the 3O request specified that one section starting 4 messages in as the text for the "dispute"). However, looking at it again I now see there were two IP addresses in play: I'm not sure if these were the same user or not :-( Alexbrn (talk) 10:43, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

@Bdb et al: The main issues as I see them are (1) The formulation "CS is a pseudoscience" is being presented as an indisputable fact without allowing for qualification in the text, even such minimal qualification as noting that this is the mainstream view (which is not prohibited by the Wikipedia policies and seems to be supported by them); (2) the policies are being interpreted in a one-sided way (eg it seems to be OK for editors skeptical towards CS to revert continually, but not for others to do so); (3) statements supportive or even neutral towards CS are removed, while the article is packed with anti-CS material; (4) the article is unbalanced; (5) it is largely uninformative about its subject, and focussed instead on what critics think (often erroneously) that CS might be; (6) "literalist" parsing of the policies is condemned when it's done by supporters, but used by skeptics when it suits them; (7) the over-riding (according to the policies) goal of producing a good article is lost sight of by overly-rigid interpretations of the policies; (8) personal interpretations of the policies triumph over what the policies actually say (ie there is no prohibition in the policies on the careful use of primary sources, but these are removed on the grounds that there is). I could go on, but that's the gist of it.193.1.217.20 (talk) 18:23, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

193.1.217.20, You nailed it. Thanks for what you wrote here. LeviTee (talk) 06:06, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Third Opinion, take 2

The third opinion that was requested is not related to the simultaneous debate about whether Christian Science should be characterized as pseudoscience. I won't be taking part in that discussion, which I hope will be left separate from any comments here. Instead, this discussion is limited to the content about the church's teachings on homosexuality.

It sounds like I do have a decent understanding of the perspective of both Alexbrn and LeviTee, so I feel comfortable offering an opinion now, on both the questions about sourcing and about POV.

Sourcing: Ideally, any material in Wikipedia will have an inline citation to a reliable source. This permits the reader to quickly read the material, determine the source of the information and make his own judgments on its reliability. Because primary sources are more open to interpretation by individual editors (and for other reasons), we generally prefer to have secondary sources instead, from publishers with a respected pedigree.

The material in question here does have inline citations to secondary sources. The book by Bruce Stores, however, is self-published and does not, in my opinion, constitute a reliable source. I would recommend removing any material attributable to it, though it appears that it has some overlap with the book by Fuller, which may provide the sufficient sourcing instead.

Although I assume that LeviTee sincerely believes that it presents an inaccurate depiction of the church's beliefs, that is not how we decide whether to keep or delete material. Doing so would only invite perpetual reverts. Instead, we have to rely on those reliable sources. If LeviTee's assertions can be supported with reliable sources, then that material should be added, with inline citations.

For several reasons, the source provided by LeviTee earlier (at religoustolerance.org) does not constitute a reliable source. To provide support for your claims, LeviTee, you would be better off focusing on mainstream newspapers, scholarly journals, or books published by a university press.

POV: Wikipedia is intended to provide reliable, unbiased information about the topics it covers. It should not be used as a venue for pushing editors' opinions agendas.

Articles about religion are especially vulnerable to violations of that policy, as editors frequently feel the need to demonstrate the inferiority of beliefs that do not coincide with their own. Articles on smaller faith communities, such as Christian Scientists, are even more at risk for POV-pushing, because there are so few sympathetic editors guarding against it.

However, these articles are also prone to POV-pushing in the opposite direction, by editors who believe that their faith is the one true faith, that their interpretation is the one true interpretation of the one true faith, and that Wikipedia needs to reflect the wisdom that has been divinely imparted upon them. These editors are equally misguided.

In the content provided, I do not see substantial evidence of POV-pushing. I see material about the church's recent history on homosexuality being treated in a respectful, straightforward way. I can't comment on whether those statements are reflective of the church's "true" position, as I know little to nothing about the faith. But I do see that they are accompanied by inline citations to reliable sources, which is all we can ask for.

If the church's position has changed in recent years, though, it would be good to add information reflecting that evolution, assuming that it can be cited to a reliable source.

— Bdb484 (talk) 22:41, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Many thanks for taking the time for this thorough response, Bdb484 — much appreciated. Alexbrn (talk) 22:53, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Well, I can appreciate your perspective, but it's a shame that a political position taken during a certain era is being construed as "doctrine". But if that is what the source says, and that lawyer is being quoted correctly in the article, then I suppose nothing can be done about it, but the fact remains that there is no such doctrine in CS. But it will apparently remain in the article to confuse people. I just don't see how that serves anyone. As I said previously, I think there is value to including those issues in some context. It's too bad that the word "doctrine" can't be replaced with "policy", because that is in reality what it was. Now a word about POV and adherents wanting to push their position... I can speak for myself. I just want a correct explanation of Christian Science to come through in the article. I have no concern over whether anyone believes it or not once it's presented fairly. I believe in universal salvation, so I don't carry the anxiety that might exist if I believed that everyone must believe my way to be saved. I simply care that the subject itself is presented accurately for what it is, not just everything that mainstream belief claims that it is. I think you will find it true that Christian Scientists editing this article are just going to want it presented factually so that someone reading it can get an idea of what it really is.LeviTee (talk) 04:12, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Let me correct something I said... I don't have any knowledge of the 1985 incident, so it isn't appropriate for me to say that it was a "policy". I don't know anything about the circumstances and details of that case. All I do know, is that, as it has been abundantly stated by me and by others (and I suppose we will look for ways to substantiate it now), there is no specific doctrine re: homosexuality in the church and never has been. Opinions about it? Safe to say, yes. Doctrine? No. — Preceding unsigned comment added by LeviTee (talk • contribs) 04:32, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

I've been researching this some more, and have unearthed a footnote in a law journal article, which states:

In Madsen, the court did not distinguish between the Christian Science Monitor and the Christian Science Church, and found the plaintiff was an employee of the Church. Id. at 1164. "[C]ivil courts are bound to accept the decisions of the highest judicatories of a religious organization of hierarchical polity on matters of discipline, faith, internal organization, or ecclesiastical rule, custom, or law.

So that does back up what you say about policy. I think we should add this information to the Article, and on this basis I wouldn't object to changing the word "doctrine" to "policy" in the first para, though of course we can't misquote the lawyer. (Off topic) CSM surely made a big strategic mistake here; in order to win the case they argued, tactically, that homosexuality was incompatible with CS ... and the result is that it made the whole church look homophobic. Alexbrn (talk) 08:29, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Alexbrn, even if this is the way things shook down back then, it was a sign of the times, and what I think is unfortunate about the impression your edit is giving, is that I have seen branch churches where if it wasn't for the gay people running them, they probably would have folded. If you were to look at the discussion that is going on about this and other social issues now among church members, you would see a lively and thoughtful discussion on it. If you compare how CS treats these social issues, overall, historically even, you would see that in comparison to many other Christian churches that constantly preach against gays, and tell people exactly how to live their lives, how to vote, etc., I think you might have new respect for the freedom and diversity of thought that is found among Christian Scientists. Eddy herself wrote in a book called No and Yes, "I recommend that Scientists draw no lines whatever between one person and another, but think, speak, teach, and write the truth of Christian Science without reference to right or wrong personality in this field of labor. Leave the distinctions of individual character and the discriminations and guidance thereof to the Father, whose wisdom is unerring and whose love is universal." She advocated letting people work out their own salvation by endeavoring to obey the Ten Commandments and Sermon on the Mount, basic rules of living. In the beginning of Science and Health, she said that she had not tried to "treat in full detail so infinite a theme". Elsewhere she speaks of the danger in trying to "steady other people's alters, venturing on valor without discretion which is virtually meddlesomeness". In another book she encourages people once again, to seek divine wisdom in working out their lives, to follow "upward individual convictions, undisturbed by the frightened sense of any need of attempting to solve every Life-problem in a day." That is a direct quote from her book Unity of Good. The challenge is going to be finding secondary resources, but I am working on it. These ideas can't be narrowed into the discussion of any one issue. But I think they give an idea of how Christian Science sets forth general principles, and encourages individuals to take those principles and apply them to their lives, and everyone mind their own business. LeviTee (talk) 16:02, 18 December 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by LeviTee (talk • contribs) 15:53, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Unfortunately strategic mistakes are more the rule than the exception when it comes to the CS church

;-)193.1.217.20 (talk) 15:26, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

I was just about to suggest essentially the same edit as Alexbrn. Using the word "doctrine" has a connotation -- for me, at least -- of something more formal. "Policy" might be a better word, or maybe we could even just say "Historically Christian Science doctrine has treated homosexuality as [blablabla]."

I agree with LeviTee about the sad impression that these types of things leave about those who preceded us. Two centuries ago, most of the country just didn't have the framework for thinking of homosexuality as anything other than mental illness or a sin, so people who probably would have been perfectly comfortable with it if they were born today can end up looking bigoted to those of us who don't consider the historical context.

Just the same, sugar-coating it for their benefit doesn't help anyone get an accurate picture of how things went back then. Thomas Jefferson's treatment of slaves might have been better than average, for instance, but we just can't get around the fact that he still was on board with slavery. — Bdb484 (talk) 19:33, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Protestants regarding CS as heresy?

User:Collect has twice altered the text FROM "Historically, mainstream Protestant groups have regarded Christian Science as a heresy" TO "Some have regarded Christian Science as a heresy". The original sentence is sourced to the peer-reviewed Cambridge University Press journal Church History, which contains this text: "Christian Science was not considered by mainstream Protestants to be a development within the fold, but a heresy thought up by a disturbed woman". I don't think Collect's edit is justified. Alexbrn (talk) 17:29, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Alexbrn, who writes things like this? Think about it... Did they poll all the hundreds of thousands of Protestants to ask if they thought that Eddy was a disturbed woman? It sounds to me more like one guy who was writing for that journal, and I wanna say he probably had an opinion about it... Can we get real here?LeviTee (talk) 18:30, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

[UPDATE] in The Impact of Christian Science on the American Churches, 1880-1910, Raymond J. Cunningham, The American Historical Review , Vol. 72, No. 3 (Apr., 1967), pp. 885-905 it is written: "ministers who discerned a parallel between Emerson's "Oversoul" and Mrs. Eddy's "All-in-all" penetrated to the fundamental heresy of both". It seems to me reading this article that the rise of CS was seen as heretical by the mainstream church, particularly its claimed "pantheistic" nature (which, incidentally, MBE countered by preaching: "Christian Science is Science ... and looms above the mists of pantheism higher than Mount Ararat above the deluge.") Alexbrn (talk) 18:00, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

[UPDATE 2] The BMJ in 1905 writes about a speech given by the then Bishop of London: "he points out, the Christian Scientists have erected a gigantic heresy". (The Bishop Of London On Christian Science. The British Medical Journal , Vol. 2, No. 2342 (Nov. 18, 1905), pp. 1359-1360). Alexbrn (talk) 18:24, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Okay then I propose changing the Title of the article to: What the Orthodox Christian Church has said about Christian Science in ages past. LeviTee (talk) 18:32, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

(ec)IOW, you can say a 1905 Bishop of London called it a heresy. Likely a few more. There is no Protestant pope to declare anything a "heresy" however, and ascribing the term as being used by protestants in general is useless. And I would note almost everything is a "heresy" to someone - the issue is whether such an overarching claim is proper in an encyclopedia article. I suggest it is not. "Some" is quite sufficient. Collect (talk) 18:36, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

It might also be helpful to consider the fact that Christian Science never claimed to be the same as other denominations. It was different than the old schools, and Eddy made no secret about that. Her solution? Found her own church. Pretty bold move in my opinion! The Christian church has seen a series of so-called "heresies" from the beginning. You could call Martin Luther a heretic if you wanted to, and I am sure people did. The reason why there are so many denominations is because they each have variant interpretations of Scripture. Any thinking person can figure that out. This is all about politics in this section. LeviTee (talk) 18:46, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Quality writing

In quality encyclopedic writing, we do not make bald assertions that many readers may find surprising or controversial, we instead back things up by explaining who says them and in what context.

This is bad writing: "Christian Science is pseudoscientific". This is better writing: "Christian Science has been described as pseudoscientific by medical doctors[1], scientists[2], etc." And there are still better ways to put it, where specific credible authorities are cited.

Why is this important? Some may feel that shying away from the bald assertion makes it seem like we are less sure ourselves. But that's not true. It's to help readers (many of whom will, naturally, be Christian Scientists or considering whether they should agree with Christian Science) understand the full context of the facts. It would be unwise to write poorly, even if you are a POV pusher who wants to warn people away from the religion. It is easy for people to tell themselves "Oh, this doesn't sound like the usual Wikipedia style. It's a POV pusher. And anyway I heard that Wikipedia is full of X, Y, and Z types of bad people. It is much better, then, that we do not ask them to rely upon our judgment (Wikipedia is not about our opinions), but to explain to them which credible people have said what.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 15:34, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

But Jimbo, the formulation "x is pseudoscience" (or some variant thereof) is quite common in Wikipedia ledes (see e.g. Crystal healing, Melanin theory and Torsion field). From what I can see it is usually only applied to things which make scientific claims, and where there is a settled scientific consensus that the claims are bogus. Would you say all these articles err in using Wikipedia's voice to state something is pseudoscience? (the statement must of course be sourced and explained in the article body). The text you characterize as "bad writing" isn't the text you removed; what you removed was rather more nuanced: "Christian science is pseudoscience insofar as it claims that sickness can be healed through the exclusive use of prayer rather than medicine." That statement was properly backed-up in the article body. Alexbrn (talk) 16:19, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Actually -- Eddy specifically called "metaphysics" a "science" using 19th century usage of the word -- most of the "pseudoscience" arguemnt seems based on a modern usage of "science" which (assuming Mrs. Eddy is quite dead) fails simple logic tests. Collect (talk) 16:37, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

So what you're saying is that CS never made claims to be scientific, because MBE characterized its healing practices as "metaphysics", and "metaphysics" in C19th usage ≠ "science" today? (And consequently it is wrong for this article to "judge" CS using a rational-scientific frame of reference)? Alexbrn (talk) 17:20, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Would appear to be a rational conclusion. I went and read the dang introduction to S&H (not really great writing by current standards) ... it is abundantly clear that the author is involved in "metaphysics" and the use of "science" is from that period. And since the Christian Science Monitor actually has a strong record on actual science stories, the use of "pseudoscience" as a pejorative is decidely inapt. I also find "heresy" to be strnage - any group other than a "true religion" is heresy to others. Not really of much use to readers to point that out, is there? Elsewise we could characterize all topics related to "metaphysics" as "pseudoscience". Collect (talk) 17:26, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Okay — what's your source for saying MBE/CS characterized the healing processes of CS as metaphysics (and not science). I know you ref'd a book, but a quotation would help me (and could probably usefully be in the Article too). Alexbrn (talk) 17:33, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

I will say this once. Science had the same meaning in the 19th century as it does now. The "Science had a different meaning in the second half of the 19th century so the sources are wrong" argument is purely misleading. IRWolfie- (talk) 19:31, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Eddy wrote about "Metaphysical science" (her precise language). I find it refreshing that you assert with a straight face that "Metaphysical science" has the same meaning as "Science" currently has.

I leave it to observers as to which is "misleading."

[15] Moore 2007 "Eddy used the term Metaphysical science to distinguish her system both from materialistic science and occult science."

S&H "Those who are healed through metaphysical Science, not comprehending the Principle of the cure, may misunderstand it".

[16] Leavitt 1999 "Eddy first called her teachings Moral Science, later Metaphysical Science"

Misc. Writings "Mrs. Eddy announces herself as the discoverer of this metaphysical Science."

CSJ vol 49 page 647 "Mrs. Eddy's attitude and conviction respecting this matter are clearly expressed in Science and Health, when she says, "We should forsake the basis of matter for metaphysical Science and its divine Principle."

I suggest that anyone saying that she is claiming that Christian Science is in any way a "materialistic science" rather than a "metaphysical science" is quite errant on this. Collect (talk) 00:54, 19 December 2012 (UTC) Collect (talk) 00:54, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks Jimbo, that's spot on. IRWolfie, you really need to brush up on the history and philosophy of science. And I don't just mean read the Wikipedia articles, but actually read the key books by Kuhn, Popper, Feyerabend (etc.) If you do, you will see that the statement "Science had the same meaning in the 19th century as it does now" is just pure...well, the politest way I can put it is that it's just pure nonsense.89.100.155.6 (talk) 20:50, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

IRWolfie, Here is a quote from The Emergence of Christian Science in American Religious Life, by Stephen Gottschalk, University of California Press, Berkeley, page 26: "Mrs. Eddy's use of this term science is clearly congruent with it's general use in late nineteenth century thought, in which science was a pristige-laden word connoting the ideas of authority, universality, and infallibility. Yet this very concept of science has been challenged and strongly modified in the twentieth century through the work of Einstein, Planck, and Heisenberg, among others. Physical scientists on the frontiers of inquiry have become more apt to speak of probabilities than certainties, and more conscious of the role of perception in qualifying the conclusions of scientific investigation, and in general more modest in their claims." I also just looked in Websters Seventh New Collegiate Dictionary and this is the second definition down: 2. a. a department of systematized knowledge as an object of study <the ~ of theology> b. something (as a sport or technique) that may be studied or learned like systematized knowledge." LeviTee (talk) 19:58, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

That seems pretty consistent with what I said, except it seems the word Science was even more authority laden in the 19th century! IRWolfie- (talk) 10:21, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

I've been watching this for a few days with a mixture of amusement and derision. Alex (and whoever else is writing that Christian Science is "anti-Science" or "pseudoscience" in toto) is deeply ignorant, and the current article's general approach to the faith is, well, deeply misleading and uninformed either by any great knowledge of Eddy's writing or of the rather large academic literature looking at the faith. At any rate, my colleague Pete Spotts is a top-notch science writer (and a good guy). Below is his little biography from our website. Think on it:c (talk) 17:41, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

"Pete Spotts joined the Monitor in September 1976 after a two-year stint at the Miami Herald. Prior to mixing pens with test tubes as a science reporter, Spotts served as Midwest correspondent, staff editor in National News, special-projects editor, National News editor, and chief editorial writer. In 1987, Spotts shared an award with three Monitor colleagues for a series on the future of nuclear energy following the 1986 nuclear accident at Chernobyl. In 2003, he received an American Association for the Advancement of Science's Science Journalism Award. He was awarded a Knight Science Journalism Fellowship at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology for the 1999-2000 academic year and also received a two-week fellowship at the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution.

Spotts is a graduate of the University of Miami in Coral Gables, Fla. In his spare time, Spotts enjoys hiking, camping, photography, ham radio, and amateur astronomy."

Well, Dan Murphy, since you choose to personalize this – usually a sign, BTW, that reasoned argument is weak – let me continue in kind. First, I acknowledge my ignorance. Until a few days ago I had only the vaguest notion of what "Christian Science" was and had never even heard of Mary Baker Eddy. I like editing articles on which I have no preconceptions so I can gambol in the field of knowledge unsullied as a newborn lamb. I find it fascinating how quickly doing nothing so much as adding well-researched content to an article has people second-guessing "motive" so they can "play the man, not the ball". As it is, as an atheist, I have no religious dog in this race.

But — maybe I do have an interest. You see, earlier this year I was diagnosed with kidney cancer, and although it's likely this disease will kill me at some point, currently it is being held at bay with modern medicine. It's part of the reason why I have some spare time now to enjoy editing Wikipedia. One benefit of this circumstance is it gives me a certain of amount of perspective on how much things like winning a Wikipedia argument really matter (clue: not much), and allows me to regard with a wry smile attempts to deny/obscure the pseudoscientific quack claims of CS healing — for allow me to tell you this, with feeling: if you get the same condition I have, and you opt to "treat" it with CS healing, then your God fucking well better had exist, as you will need divine assistance to endure what will happen to your body as a consequence. Alexbrn (talk) 06:44, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Alexbrn, I just read this, and just want to say I am sorry you are dealing with that disease. I hope things get better for you. I do think you might have more of a dog in the race than you realize, since you say you are an atheist. Christian Science is totally predicated on the idea that God exists. Those are two extremely opposite viewpoints, and depending on how strong you are in your belief that God doesn't exist, it may affect the way you treat people that do believe in God. I have appreciated a couple of things you have said on here, like when I got in trouble for edit warring with you with my IPs changing. I appreciated you defending my motives. I have to agree with Dan Murphy, though, completely, strictly as it relates to Christian Science. The thrust on here to misrepresent it seems very strong, and particularly with the science stuff. That is all he was talking about from what I could see. I don't know Dan, but I am a fan of his reporting. Maybe the deeper purpose here is for all of us to raise the bar in way we are interacting with each other. There is so much pain in the world right now. A more humane environment wouldn't hurt. For what it's worth. LeviTee (talk) 11:08, 19 December 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by LeviTee (talk • contribs) 10:58, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

(Off topic) Thanks, LeviTee. It's a common misconception among theists that atheists have some kind of "interest" in the question of whether there is a God or not. While there are some militant atheists for whom that might be true, I count myself as a true secularist: what people want to believe/do is up to them, and I agree with (and indeed will defend) their right to that freedom. As regards CS, I see it mostly as a socio-religious phenomenon to be treated in much the same way as, say, Catharism (with which, incidentally, it seems to have some parallels). I think you misread the situation with this article: it's just in the nature of Wikipedia that a high proportion of editors have a rational-scientific-skeptical bent, and so that kind of material often accumulates quite readily in an article once it gets going. The true solution is to increase the article's coverage to include other material (as you are doing) rather than over-trying to push back on stuff which is valid (in Wikipedia terms) but unwelcome.

I do, however, think that when a CS healer is in a position of trusted power in relation to a patient (say an elderly infirm person, or a child) who might be suffering from a terrible disease - cancer say - and is told, in effect, that they are not really ill and that it's all in their mind — then that 'healing' is not (I chose my words carefully) the exercise of a defensible freedom: which is why it is illegal in most countries. Alexbrn (talk) 11:40, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Alexbrn. Thanks for your thoughts, but the "in your mind" just is one more misconception. It just would never come out of anyone's mouth that I know who is a CS, and if it did I would correct them. But who knows what people say. It's just never played out that way in my experience. I feel helped when I call a practitioner. It's a whole other ballgame then drugs. We can't debate this here. But just remember, you are coming at it having no experience with Christian Science whatsoever. I don't think you can be sure what it's like to experience interaction with a practitioner. Again. I say, let's truly be unassuming and fair and respectful. LeviTee (talk) 12:27, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

(Off topic) True, I have no personal experience - but I have read some horrific medical reports. Alexbrn (talk) 12:38, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Well, it is sad that those exist. This is all very touchy. It just helps to remember that there are different perspectives based on different experiences. LeviTee (talk) 12:59, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Alex my "God fucking well better exist?" More ignorance (I'll give you a clue: Not all people who work for my paper are Christian Scientists). You shouldn't be proud of your ignorance. I read and learn about things I write about as a first order of business. You should not be proud of being "unsullied" by knowledge or complexity before you dip your oar in.Dan Murphy (talk) 14:05, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

What happened to Dan Murphy's signiture in his first entry above??? LeviTee (talk) 20:07, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

I've read (and heard of) some pretty horrific things that have happened in hospitals. (That has nothing to do with whether the claims of medicine are valid or not however.) I actually don't think that believing in God is the core of Christian Science. The core of Christian Science is unselfish love (compassion, agape or whatever you want to call it) which is more of a feeling than a belief. In fact, pure love is probably about as close as we will ever get to understanding what Christian Scientists call "God". Putting it the other way around, "not-being-self-centred" could be regarded as the same thing. So insofar as (e.g.) Buddhists subscribe to that, they are on the same spiritual road as we are. I don't believe in the traditional God as an old man in the sky who dishes out rewards and punishments. To illustrate the point, most of us love our families and friends to the extent that we would give a lot--perhaps even our lives--to prevent them coming to harm. So love is a quality that transcends other motivations, at least for many of us. (The same might be said, in different ways, for the values of beauty, truth, justice and so on.) Christian Science acknowledges the fundamental nature of these values, like most people do. However, intellectually it parts company from non-theists and goes further to assert that those values have a single basis/source/origin, which it describes by the term God. Furthermore, Christian Science asserts that in proportion as we align our thinking with the transcendent qualities of truth and spiritual love, we can experience healing in different aspects of our lives, not only moral and experiential, but physical as well. (Perhaps the foregoing may help to dispel some of the misconceptions that exist about what we believe, and why we think it's important that the article gets it right about our theological position.)193.1.217.20 (talk) 17:29, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Consistent citations

The citations in this article are (1) very inconsistent, (2) do not follow "commonly used citations for Wikipedia articles," and (3) makes it difficult to understand whether the citation is from the 19th or 20th or even 21st century.

Wikipedia offers this guide to sourcing: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Citing_sources

"For example: Rawls, John. A Theory of Justice. Harvard University Press, 1971, p. 1. This type of citation is usually given as a footnote, and is the most commonly used citation method in Wikipedia articles."

The only changes I would make in the above "commonly used" format is that common for academic journals: (1) Move the date of publication to immediately after the name, (2) Include any ISBN or such other accessional number as editors/talkers have provided, and (3) Abbreviate conventionally for efficiency.

Thus for the Wikipedia example, it would be:

Rawls, John A. (1971) A Theory of Justice. Page 1. Harvard Univ Press. ISBN-10:0674017722.

Could readers/editors please object now before I begin this task--or make the changes themselves if they agree! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Centamia (talk • contribs) 09:29, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

That's not what's common in the journals I read. TippyGoomba (talk) 22:53, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

There's a good argument for using the cite templates: bots can rove more easily through the articles and gather information about cites by looking for specific parameters. A more thorough cross-linking of the whole encyclopedia is the result. I would recommend that standardized cite templates be used, such as Template:Cite book, Template:Cite journal, Template:Cite web and Template:Cite news. These are reasonably easy to use and produce a greater degree of consistency in the final appearance. Binksternet (talk) 23:40, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Absoloutely: the templates are the way to go. Best of all use "cite doi" when you have a DOI for the piece and a bot will do the rest (when it works). For Google Books there's a great tool here which auto-generates references. Alexbrn (talk) 07:53, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Very good. These templates are practical, consistent, and what I'll follow. Centamia (talk) 20:51, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Archive aggressiveness

Might be worth turning this up a notch for this page? it's getting a bit unwieldy. Alexbrn (talk) 07:57, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

How ironic. What about the aggressiveness in this article to misrepresent the facts? And is it really getting unwieldy when I placed ONE THING in the article that is factual based on people who examined Eddy's mental state and found her to be sane, rather than a bunch of armchair specialists who are guessing their way along, and sounding awfully chauvinistic in the process? Adding "education" is wholly misleading in the lead, and highlighting it with the page on education? It's ludicrous to suggest that Christian Scientists believe that education leads to disease. The only way anyone arrive at that is if they took something that Eddy said and pervertedly ripped it out of context. That sentence in the lead was already badly enough taken out of context, but now it's really blown out. The fact is, Christian Science is old, and the people who knew Eddy are ancient. But there is a whole context surrounding her persona during that time that is being ignored, either ignorantly or purposely in this article. I am trying to bring some sanity to this thing.

My references are newer than the ones from 1905 calling Eddy a heretic. What difference does it make that references are older, so long as they are accurate. Alexbrn, much of what you have placed in this article, including the the stuff on homosexuality, is not new. So you stand to lose many of your edits if you press along this line.

I would like to add that my edit is a matter of historical fact and is excellently referenced using two excellent sources.

Can other people please weigh in on this? LeviTee (talk) 15:48, 21 December 2012 (UTC) <------------ This is what happens when I go to the Wikipedia page before I pray for myself... I regret threatening to go after Alex' edits as a solution, regardless of the fact that this was a misunderstanding. I am out of here until after Christmas. I want to have a peaceful one, and by the way, I want you all to have one also. LeviTee (talk) 04:25, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

LeviTee — you misunderstand me. By archive aggressiveness, I mean this Talk page should have inactive threads moved to the archive more aggressively so that this page doesn't get overly long.

On Eddy's sanity, I was a bit surprised by your edit (the material might be better in the Eddy article, BTW). The point of the feminist paragraph was that feminists claim Eddy was called insane by male doctors because she was a woman threatening their power base with CS i.e. it's sexism. There's no need to feel she needs "defending from" that. It's just recording what happened. Reading the early commentaries there's actually of lot of that kind of sexist stuff, basically claiming that Eddy - like all women - was an overgrown child (in accord with some thinking of the time).

As to education, those are Eddy's words: "all disease is the result of education [...] when there are fewer doctors and less thought is given to sanitary subjects there will be better constitutions and less disease. In old times whoever heard of dyspepsia, cerebro-spinal meningitis, hay fever and rose cold?" The plain meaning is that knowing about illnesses causes them, isn't it? It's an interesting notion, and not my fault she wrote it.

If you have sourced content on heresy, bring it forth! But since CS is largely a historical phenomenon, a lot of the commentary is from the past, and this article should record the events surrounding the phenomenon in its heyday. Alexbrn (talk) 16:12, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Alexbrm, yeah I misunderstood what you meant by archive aggressiveness. But the things you are putting in are way out of context. It's not that simple. It just isn't. I wish you would heed what Dan Murphy said about knowledge and complexity. He is right on the mark. You simply don't know what you are talking about, and I am not saying that to insult you. Science and Health is a book of 700 pages. You can't take snippets out of it and expect it to make sense when the context is all lost. Also, doctors in her time were not as skilled as they are in this era. However, she also praised their motives and philanthropy. It is a fact that many people die from prescription drugs and pain killers. I saw a news report that said that every 19 minutes someone dies from prescription painkiller overdoses. I don't like to get into these statistics, because I don't think it helps people to attack a community of people who are trying to help heal the world. But let's be rational and fair. LeviTee (talk) 16:29, 21 December 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by LeviTee (talk • contribs) 16:25, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

But now that I know what you are talking about with the archive, I would like to weigh in to say that I think it should stay on here, because there are more voices beginning to weigh in that are bringing more balance and people coming here for the first time need to see what is happening. LeviTee (talk) 16:29, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

I agree about the difficulty of quoting Eddy, which is why I didn't quote her directly, but through a secondary source ... precluding any possibility this was "my" original research: it is rather the opinion of the source I used (the British Medical Journal). In some articles, like those Friedrich Nietzsche and Rudolf Steiner, where there are complex/ambiguous primary texts in play they are forbidden from being used as sources. I am beginning to think that may be a sensible idea for this article too.

As to the archive, stuff doesn't disappear - it's just that sections which have had no contribution for a while (currently 60 days) get moved to the archive (where they can still be viewed, searched, etc.) Alexbrn (talk) 16:35, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Alexbrn, if you read through your paragraph about what feminists have said, the wording on it does not have the same direction as what you just described to me above. I wish you had said it in the article, the way you just wrote it to me. It would make a lot more sense. Because the way it is written in the article, it just sounds like a barrage of strange assessments of Eddy's mental state. I sent a non cs friend of mine to it, and he said, "why would a feminist use the word hysterical". And my question is, why would you highlight that. Again, it is a matter of context. A reader is going to click on that, just like they will on the "education" highlight" and they will likely believe that Eddy was hysterical, and that Christian Science is opposed to education. It's good to have a voice of a male who actually met and examined Eddy in there to give balance to the other claims made by males who never encountered her. LeviTee (talk) 16:43, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

If you are referring to the edits I made to the Theology section, I backed those up with non-primary sources (and mind you I worked for an entire night on two paragraphs to make sure that I got it right) and I provided a larger body of context from a primary source and placed it in a footnote so that readers can compare what Eddy said (who is the authority on the doctrine of CS) and also what a reliable secondary source said. Those two paragraphs accurately explain Christian Science when it comes to what it teaches on atonement and the role of Jesus. LeviTee (talk) 16:48, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Well "hysterical" is what is written in the source, so I assume this means Eddy conformed to the (constructed) "hysterical" stereotype of the time - which is why I put it in quotation marks. I'd have thought that was fairly clear, and if you click on the link you'll see that doctors think that kind of "hysteria" is a myth. If you like I can out add words in about "conforming to the hysterical stereotype of the time", as while this strictly isn't in the source I comfortable it's in tune with its meaning. (My reading is that the feminist thrust here is that while women of a certain age got a bit restive, started behaving in ways which alarmed men, and exhibited symptoms of sexual/emotional/intellectual non-fulfillment (and so were "hysterical") ... this was nothing to do with the fact they had a womb and everything to do with the fact they were living in a stifling male-dominated society.) Alexbrn (talk) 16:58, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Alex, why don't you write this way in the article, for goodness sake!!! Bring out these nuances, so that readers are not confused about your meaning. LeviTee (talk) 17:02, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

I wish you would read Peel and Gottschalk, and even Gill. Gill is written from a more feminist perspective, but the suggest suggest that Eddy's quest for health, and for a better explanation of Christianity, had less to do with the fact that she was a woman, and everything to do with the fact that she was a thinker. You'd get this if you read some sources that really take up the history of this movement in a scholarly manner. LeviTee (talk) 17:08, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

That doesn't sound particularly feminist to me. The advantage of the McDonald article I cite is that it is itself a survey of all feminist views on Eddy to (its) date (as well as advancing its own opinion). I don't think you'll get more "scholarly" than that.

Fine but what about reworking the wording to make it clear that feminists are not advocating the negative opinion of Eddy but instead are pointing out the male bias against her? LeviTee (talk) 19:42, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

I just saw the changes that you made. Those are definitely improvements I think!! LeviTee (talk) 19:44, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Divine Mind

I just checked in again to this carnival of ignorance and noticed the phrase "Divine Mind" is nowhere to be found in this Wikipedia article supposedly educating people about Christian Science. I actually laughed. But sure, keep focusing on what that great theology scholar James Randi has to say. (I'm a big fan of Randi, but not as a scholar of religion or metaphysics).Dan Murphy (talk) 18:04, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Again, think on a supposed encyclopedia article on Catholicism written by an ignoramus who focused on debunkings of Catholic exorcisms. Any fool unwary enough to learn about Catholicism from such an article would justifiably flunk a test administered by a historian of religion. That's what's going on here. The faith as it's practiced and defined by Eddy is completely missed in this sad, pathetic piece of writing. Asked "what is the principal of Christian Science?" Eddy replied: "It is God, the Supreme Being, infinite and immortal Mind, the Soul of man and the universe. It is our Father which is in heaven. It is substance, Spirit, Life, Truth, and Love, - these are the deific Principle." (http://www.mbeinstitute.org/Prose_Works/Rudimental_Divine_Science.html). This fundamental metaphysical belief needs to be unpacked for readers by the educated and capable. Alex is not up to this, or not interested in doing so.Dan Murphy (talk) 18:20, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Well, if you think it's bad now, have a look at what it was like a couple of weeks ago. It's actually somewhat better now. Part of the problem is the lack of good secondary sources on CS. I suspect that's partly the fault of the CS church itself, for not encouraging (or actively discouraging) such writing, until recently anyway.89.100.155.6 (talk) 19:02, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Hey IP '6, Gottschalk has two incredible books, both published by University Presses, and both packed with an intelligent understanding of what Christian Science is, and where it fits in the context of Christianity, religion in general, philosophy, America, etc. Robert Peel's trilogy met with wide acclaim and was independently published, as was his earlier work "Christian Science - It's Encounter with American Culture" which explores the cultural climate in which Christian Science appeared, and how and why it stands alone and apart from all other schools of thought. Then there is Gill, which can be useful in putting to rest some common misconceptions. So those are just a few but they are excellent for anyone who wants to get informed through secondary sources. LeviTee (talk) 07:58, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

This book looks good and isn't currently used in the article: Rennie B. Schoepflin, Christian Science on Trial: Religious Healing in America, Johns Hopkins University Press, 2002. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 19:27, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

It is a good book, and quite focused on early reception (if you thought this article was critical, read what was said back then!). Unfortunately the Google books version is quite patchy (or it is for me), though the full version is available online as pay-for content. Alexbrn (talk) 21:38, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

The first paragraph under Theology has gone to complete rubbish like so much of the rest of this poor article. The use of the reference from Gottschalk needs more elaborating to make sense. The concept of the human and divine coincidence is not something that should be treated glibly. All the stereotypes like panpsychism just suggests a lack of understanding of how Christian Science stands alone as a unique theology. Gottschalk rejects the comparison of "Philosophical Idealism" with Christian Science, based on the idea that Christian Science is theological and pragmatic. These poor comparisons are a great example of the problem of trying to put new wine into old bottles. The bottles break, because they can't contain the new wine. The preconceived stereotype can't accurately explain the new idea. LeviTee (talk) 08:08, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

I repeat, better to leave the "human and divine coincidence" out until someone comes along who can competently paraphrase the source. It's current use in that paragraph does nothing to elucidate the idea of what revelation means in Christian Science. All it does is abuse a very important concept in Christian Science, and it abuses the source that it is cited from, because it is completely out of context, once again, a recurring theme in this article. LeviTee (talk) 09:39, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

It's Gottschalk's description of CS revelation (He says: "revelation is 'the human and divine coincidence'"). He quotes MBE's words. Have you a better source? Alexbrn (talk) 09:48, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

Alex, the problem is that the human and divine coincidence is a larger concept than can be covered, maybe even in the whole section on theology. Lame is the only word that describes the way that sentence is sitting there. I don't believe that you are able to pull this off. I think you should leave it to someone else to elaborate on the Theology section, someone who knows what they are talking about. You are not interpreting the sources correctly. And you ignored what I just said about abusing the source. Don't come back with "do you have a better source" I already said, you misused the source. That is the point. Also the bit about whether Jesus died or not. You have ignored everything that people with some knowledge of this subject have said, and you destroyed my two sentences which explained this properly, all because you are not getting it. That is not an improvement LeviTee (talk) 10:00, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

This was not a treatment of the topic of 'human and divine coincidence', but pointing out that in CS terms, the word "revelation" has a very particular meaning, which Gottschalk has identified as 'human and divine coincidence'. If more needs adding on this, fine. But it's good as far as it goes. As to the Jesus stuff, I've seen nothing offered of substance on this page which merits changing the article. Alexbrn (talk) 10:06, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

Alex, other people are jumping in making the same point I am... I can't help it if you won't listen... You actually said something earlier that surprised me, which you deserve credit for understanding... and that is that the reason why all these schools of thought went after CS is because it challenged their premises. That was actually insightful of you (and this is a genuine acknowledgment, not a condescending statement). Of course, as a Christian Scientist, I don't care for your phrasing like "CS attempts to blah blah blah". From my standpoint, it does show that matter is not what it seems. But still, your assessment of it's reception is somewhat correct. I would keep moving in that direction. It will help you to understand why these sources are saying the things that they are, the ones that you are are finding all over the place. LeviTee (talk) 10:11, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

As far as the notion that something is good because it seems to you to be correct... well, that is just ridiculous, I am sorry. If it misleads people, if it is incomplete, if it is glib, if it is a misuse of a source, then it is not good, and you should take it out and let someone else help you, or do it themselves. LeviTee (talk) 10:15, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

I don't know if Gottschalk is correct or not, and it seems from what you're saying there is more to add, but I am sure the source is represented accurately as is - that's why it's good! Alexbrn (talk) 10:47, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

Alex, I think you need to reread the comments in this section, study them even. This is not a game. In the long run, you'd see that some people in here are trying to save you from yourself. But you are not letting them. I am not home, so do not have the Gottschalk book with me, but I have read the part you are referring to, and your edit conveys nothing of the idea he was explaining. You think it does, because you have a shallow conception of what he is saying, and there is much more text to what he is saying, but as Dan Murphy stated, you are not up to trying to put it into different words. In a way it is good that this is all happening, because it shows that Christian Science is a Science, and when someone doesn't understand the Science, they get it wrong, and when they get it wrong, they get it very wrong. But the saddest part is that they think they have it right. It's embarrassing. A bit like watching someone trying to teach aviation or fly an airplane who has never taken flight instruction. The result is a wreck. But some people crash planes on purpose, so there you go. LeviTee (talk) 19:46, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

Always happy to read and debate comments on specific edits that might improve the article; also happy to ignore vague whining and ad hominem flapdoodle. Got anything substantive to contribute? If so, what? Alexbrn (talk) 20:08, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

Yikes. 67.142.174.25 (talk) 21:44, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

Telepathy, Really?

The citation from 1910 claiming that Christian Science treatment is based on telepathy is utter nonsense. An automated search on the words telepathy and telepathic shows they appear nowhere in the writings of Mary Baker Eddy. The article contains ad hominem attacks and the author pulls a connection between Christian Science and telepathy out of thin air. This source is unreliable for this topic. LeviTee (talk) 21:01, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

I think this was the source's term for what MBE called "absent healing" - look for that. Alexbrn (talk) 21:10, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

I looked for it and it's not there. But really the burden of proof should be on you Alex. If you are going to make claims then you need to substantiate them. The only passage I could find related to "absent patients" had to do with the idea that Mind (which when capitalized means God in Christian Science) is omnipresent, so prayer from a distance can be effective, because it is an appeal to God. LeviTee (talk) 03:13, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Well it's there in the source I give (with URL), so you can click and read. A pertinent passage from MBE you might want to consider is "Science can heal the sick, who are absent from their healers, as well as those present, since space is no obstacle to Mind." Sounds like telepathy to me! Alexbrn (talk) 06:15, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Alex, It sound that way to you because you are not catching her meaning. Again, go back to what I just said. Mind is capitalized there. She is saying, space is no obstacle to Mind (God). She isn't referring to the human mind. The idea of an omnipresent God is not foreign in Christian theology. On page 103 of Science and Health, she wrote" In reality there is no mortal mind, and consequently no transference of mortal thought and will-power. Life and being are of God." and on page 284, "Thought passes from God to man, but neither sensation nor report goes from material body to Mind. The intercommunication is always from God to His idea, man." It is because people have not come at this subject with an understanding of it, that misconceptions about it are so prevalent, as is evidenced in the 1910 source that you cited. I read it. It's all wrong. LeviTee (talk) 08:43, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

What you say is out-of-sync with the interpreters. See also Bellwald's reference to "telepathic thought-transference" [17] or Sturge's "here the suggestion would not be aural, but telepathic" [18]. Alexbrn (talk) 09:17, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

I've added a supporting reference from New Scientist to put this to bed. Alexbrn (talk) 09:47, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

This brings us back to a familiar problem. If people are editing this article without familiarity with the primary sources, I don't see how it's possible for them accurately to interpret the secondary sources. In paraphrasing a secondary source one often needs to use substitute words, otherwise it's not a paraphrase. It can be difficult or impossible to choose the right substitute word if you don't grasp what the secondary-source author--who was familiar (or should have been) with the primary sources--was actually trying to say. This is the case even when the secondary sources get it right. (A further problem is that the supposedly authoritative secondary sources are themselves sometimes biased, inaccurate, and/or take the form of some throwaway remark in a different context: ""oh yeah, and by the way astrology, Christian Science, crystal healing, all that garbage...)89.100.155.6 (talk) 11:19, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Yes, care must be taken in interpreting secondary sources, but where they state something plainly then their role as support for the text is straightforward. I think the assertion that secondary sources can't be used without understanding the primary is an interesting approach that could close down a lot of debate, and which is not based in any Wikipedia policy. Who, in that case, would be the authority? In the case of MBE, her primary texts are so odd that they could be used to support a slew of different readings. Alexbrn (talk) 11:36, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

OK, the problem may well lie with some inadequacy in the Wikipedia guidelines/policies. But it seems kind of common sense. For example, suppose I had never read Schopenhauer and came across the statement in a secondary source that he was an idealist. I might then cite that source in support of the contention that he was a starry-eyed, optimistic do-gooder, which is the opposite of the case (hinging on the dual definition of "idealist"). A familiarity with Schopenhauer's writings themselves would not have allowed me to make that mistake. Anyway, that's just an example.89.100.155.6 (talk) 12:03, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Well, Wikipedia's fundamental policy isn't our concern here, and editing against it isn't a way forward. As to Schopenhauer, an editor would have to be spectacularly stupid and/or underhand to to what you describe. A certain amount of common-sense editorial judgement needs to be applied. I'm pretty confident in my ability to do that, and to find my way around a text. Alexbrn (talk) 12:57, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

The Schopenhauer example was an extreme one to illustrate the point. Personally, I wouldn't attempt to edit an article (apart from fixing grammar and the like) unless I had some familiarity with the primary sources involved. I would probably do more harm than good. Having said that, I would have to add that your editorial input is normally pretty careful. However, it would be even better if you were more familiar with the primary sources. (Personally, I think Hegel is all over the place, but I wouldn't even start to edit the Wikipedia article on Hegel without having read at least some of the key--primary --texts in their entirety.)89.100.155.6 (talk) 13:08, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Also, the Wikipedia policies/guidelines may be assuming things that they don't explicitly state (eg some basic knowledge of the primary sources on the part of editors). One example of something that the policies/guidelines imply but don't explicitly state (as far as I know) is that an editor of an English-language article should have some knowledge of the English language; or even more basically, of the Latin alphabet. Some things are just common sense (my own inability to edit an article on some abstruse branch of math or whatever, causes me to refrain from trying).89.100.155.6 (talk) 15:04, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

I have removed the use of telepathy from the article, the reference is not peer-reviewed and is therefore not a credible source. Secondly, with a few calls I have found that any reference or use of "telepathy" in regards to Christian Science is not only severely inaccurate, but libel at best. Please read Wikipedia citing requirements and Conflict of Interest Wikipedia:COI for future edits. Uncoveringtruthjd (talk) 15:34, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Semiprotected

Noticing the "Semiprotection" section above, I checked the article history and saw that two different dynamic IPs obviously representing the same editor had indeed made a massive number of reverts within a short time. That's totally unacceptable, and I'm semiprotecting the article to prevent any more of it. My apologies to all IPs who wish to edit the article; because of the way dynamic IPs have been abused, you'll all have to propose edits on the talkpage from now on. Please see WP:SEMI. Or why (on earth) not create an account, and edit on the same conditions as everybody else? Speaking of everybody else, Alexbrn, you've been edit warring, too, you know, but I have no taste for sanctioning somebody vying with dynamic IPs (which are for practical purposes hardly possible to block). Please everybody read WP:3RR and try to work out consensus on the talkpage. If the edit warring continues, I'll fullprotect the article. Bishonen | talk 16:47, 16 December 2012 (UTC).

It's my fault. I am the one who made those edits. I can't do anything about my ip address changing so I will log in from now on. My intention was not to be stealth, and I have made no secret of who I am, refering to myself and my edits. If you will simply look at my edits, they are attempts to try to bring objectivity to the article. Everything I have entered on the talk pages have to do with this. I am requesting that this be removed, and I can log in, why should everyone else be penalized for my mistake. I am learning the ropes here. I didn't know that it was as big of an issue as it is that my IP address changes. I have nothing to do with that, and I have not looked at it to see whether it has changed or not. 66.228.27.79 (talk) 17:05, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

If you would like me to, I can trace all the IP numbers that are connected with anything I have done on here, and list them, so that you know exactly who I am. I recently created an account, but have not logged into it yet. I would happy to do so. Will this remedy the situation? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.228.27.79 (talk) 17:07, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

66 — for what it's worth I don't believe you were being stealthy or consciously gaming 3RR; and as Bishonen points out, I've been naughty too. Now, let's move forward ... and if you could log in that would be great (quite apart from anything else it's not great having to call you "66" all the time!) Alexbrn (talk) 17:10, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for this, Alexbrn! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.228.27.79 (talk) 17:13, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

66, I didn't mean to accuse you of switching IPs deliberately. Lots of people have dynamic IPs. But having those is a good reason (one of several) for in fact creating an account and always editing logged in. It's the only way to get a stable usertalk page, where other people can communicate with you, and the only way to get a coherent, individual editing history which people can access through the "user contributions" button at that talkpage. (See here, as an example, my own editing history) And it's also the only reasonably convenient way for administrators to keep an eye on the article history and check that nobody's editing inappropriately (the way I can easily do with Alexbrn, for example).

You say "If you will simply look at my edits, they are attempts to try to bring objectivity to the article." Well, I'm sure both you and Alex are editing in good faith, and trying to bring objectivity to the article. But I'm only visiting this article in my admin capacity; it's not actually my business who's right or wrong, as far as content. (I don't act in an admin capacity at articles that I edit.) Please read the policy about edit warring, WP:3RR, you should find it enlightening. I quote from the introduction:

"Note that an editor who repeatedly restores his or her preferred version is edit warring, whether or not his or her edits were justifiable: it is no defence to say "but my edits were right, so it wasn't edit warring"."

Edit warring is a blockable offense, especially (but not exclusively) violations of the bright-line rule called the three-revert rule.

66, if you log in and use your new account, it'll be four days before you can edit a semiprotected article. Would that really matter? Both you and Alex ought to hold off editing Christian Science for awhile anyway, and try to come to some agreement on this page instead. But in the interest of treating everybody equally, I'm prepared to unprotect the article right away, on condition that you only edit it logged in from now on. How's that? Bishonen | talk 20:48, 16 December 2012 (UTC).

(P.S. Please indent your posts one step to the right below the post you're replying to, by adding one more colon. Look at the edit version of this page to see how experienced users use colons, and all will become clear. :-)) Bishonen | talk 20:48, 16 December 2012 (UTC).

This is 66. From now on I will log in, and my user name is LeviTee. I have to retrieve my password, and just saw this, so would like to agree to your terms (Bishonen). And yes, I may lay out for awhile as far as editing. I may spend my time at this point writing and sourcing material, and try to post it at a later time. My concern is that anything I try to contribute is going to be immediately reversed, and then if I try to put it back, I am in trouble, even if it is correct information and well sourced. I see that other editors have replaced their own edits immediately, and have not been reprimanded. Perhaps someone can watch this to see that everyone is treated fairly? I want to elaborate on the Theology section to start with, and to source it, but the reason I have brought up my concern about sources before doing all that work, is because the very best and most scholarly sources I have found which are able to explain Christian Science (other than Primary Sources) are written by independent Christian Scientists who have written incredible, articulate, nuanced, insightful, comparative, scholarly works published by major publishers and university presses. I am so concerned that if I cite those, someone is going to say - NO, you can't use that because it is written by a Christian Scientist. Also, I myself am a Christian Scientist, and so I have a conflict of interest in that I care deeply about this subject and have given it a great deal of thought for many years. However, I saw on the Conflict of Interest page that I can still write so long as I am straightforward about the reasons for my conflict of interest. I do not work for the church, am not paid by the church, but am writing as an individual who understands this subject. I believe I am capable of being objective. It happens that I was not raised in the church, joined it later in life, came out of a mainstream church, was raised with material medicine, and have experienced what it is like to live life as a practicing Christian Scientist, and not. This, I believe, has enabled me to see various perspectives particularly with regard to theology and medicine, because I have had to grapple with the ideas of Christian Science and compare them with my previous ideas and practices, and I have done extensive reading on the subject, including reading works that are not supportive of Christian Science. I am not suggesting that a life-long Christian Scientist can't be an incredibly objective contributor because I think they can! I am just saying that I think my experience has helped ME to see all sides of the issue in a balanced way. I would like the opportunity to contribute to this article in a meaningful way not with my original research, but with a perspective that will enable me to fairly develop content, and intelligently source it to sources which I know are reliable. Is this going to be okay? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.228.20.140 (talk) 08:02, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

I don't think anyone has stated that you can't use works by Christian Scientists, only that they should be published, ideally, somewhere like a university press etc if you are going to base a section on it, or be well acclaimed for it's reliability, see WP:SPS for more. Being a Christian Scientist isn't necessarily a conflict of interest. IRWolfie- (talk) 11:52, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

PS, I have read the 3RR rule, and I understand it. I am not sure however, that I just used the colons correctly. I would like to add that I believe that a non-CS person can definitely objectively edit this article. I think anyone can as long as it is their intention to do so. — Preceding unsigned comment added by LeviTee (talk • contribs) 09:08, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Maybe [19] here could be a useful starting point as a source? Alexbrn (talk) 12:20, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Just to let you know, Alexbrn, there are problems with the source that you cited above. Christian Science never says that human beings are perfect because God is perfect. What it says is that God's own image must be as perfect as it's original, but that what we are seeing now is only a dim reflection of that. If you are familiar with the Bible, in I Corninthians where is says "...now we see through a glass, darkly; but then face to face: now I know in part; but then shall I know even as also I am known." The idea is that through spiritual growth which is effected through Christ transforming human thought, eventually the human (or more accurately the mortal) element is dropped, and man is seen as God's own likeness, without material accompaniments. This ultimate state of perfection is not too far off from the traditional Christian's concept of heaven - a state of total perfection. It's just that the process may be described differently in Christian Science than in traditional theology. But by no means is Christian Science suggesting that human beings, AS human beings, are perfect. It's just saying the ideal image of God is perfect, that this is the model to look to, and that Jesus exemplified this ideal manhood in his life, resurrection, and ascension. Later on, I am going to develop this idea about Atonement in the theology section, because the claims it is presently making about what Christian Science teaches about Atonement is way off. p.s. is it okay to insert this response to Alexbrn under his statement?

Oh one more point about this... The moral influence theory of Atonement is also not adequate to describe the CS concept of Atonement, because it isn't merely through Jesus moral example that the way of salvation was opened, but there is more an idea that his unique conception, resurrection, and ascension actually broke down a barrier in human thought which was making it impossible for mankind to advance beyond human limits. So everything that Jesus did is regarded as essential to salvation. He was like a trailblazer. Don't worry, I have sources for all this, and will, when I am ready to edit more, offer some things, with sources.

Hi, LeviTee, thanks for registering, that's great. I've unprotected the article and put a formal reminder of WP:3RR on your new user talkpage and on Alexbrn's, too. This is nothing for you to be alarmed about: it's just so that any admin coming to either of your pages will be aware that you have been warned about the 3RR policy. Feel free to remove the reminder from your page if you prefer; it'll stay in the History, which is all that matters. Happy editing! Bishonen | talk 12:40, 17 December 2012 (UTC).

Bishonen, I saw that 3RR includes the Talk page, and I guess this must mean taking other editors' comments out? Am I still free to talk in the talk pages as often as I like, and to correct my own mistakes in there. Sometimes I post something and realize later that it can be worded better and have gone back and changed it. I have never touched what anyone else has said in the Talk pages. — Preceding unsigned comment added by LeviTee (talk • contribs) 17:43, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

You can post all you like to talk pages, don't worry. I suppose 3RR applies, technically, to removing other editors' comments, but it never really comes into play, because you're not supposed to remove (or, of course, change) other editors' comments even once. Not unless they're mere vandalism or graffiti, or grossly irrelevant to the purpose of the page. Changing your own wording is a more delicate matter. Of course you can do it, but if somebody has already responded to your post, you must avoid wrongfooting the responses by making them look irrelevant. Suggestions for how it can be avoided are outlined here. I usually find it simplest to use the <del></del> code to strike through the original phrasing ~~like this~~ and then add the new wording immediately after it. (P.S., are you having a problem with the four tildes for signing posts..?) Bishonen | talk 22:36, 17 December 2012 (UTC).

Thanks, this makes perfect sense. What does signing the post with the four things do. Can you tell me if I do it right riiiiiiight now?LeviTee (talk) 02:38, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Perfect. :-) (Though for the best effect graphically, you may prefer to leave a space before the tildes — see how the sig is a little squashed up against the question mark?) Bishonen | talk 10:29, 18 December 2012 (UTC).

I vote against semi-protection, those exhibiting a degree of ignorance with sourcing and reputable sources on the subject are not ip users, but those registered. Semi protection will not aid in the improvement of this article. Uncoveringtruthjd (talk) 03:14, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

CS and the Messiah

"Christian Scientists revere Christ but do not consider him a Messiah who died on the cross to redeem mankind. Whereas in mainstream Christianity Jesus' miracles are seen as supernatural, followers of Christian Science do not regard them as miraculous, but as exemplifications of the healing power that stems from the correction of mental error.[24]" The passage stating that Christian Scientists "do not consider him [Christ] a Messiah who died on the cross to redeem mankind" is misleading. There are 17 references to "Messiah" and cognates in Science and Health, none of which suggest that the author does not consider Christ to be Messiah. Indeed, one reference is as follows: "Christ expresses God's spiritual, eternal nature. The name is synonymous with Messiah, and alludes to the spirituality which is taught, illustrated, and demonstrated in the life of which Christ Jesus was the embodiment." (S&H: 333: 9-13). Elsewhere Mary Baker Eddy writes: "The cross is the central emblem of history. It is the lodestar in the demonstration of Christian healing,--the demonstration by which sin and sickness are destroyed." Unfortunately I don't have access to the secondary source so I can't tell whether the paraphrase is an accurate reflection of that source. (Perhaps someone who does, could check it. Thanks!)89.100.155.6 (talk) 20:57, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

The ref has a URL - follow that to get to the source on Google Books. One of the intriguing things about editing this article is that I feel I'm not the only one learning about Christian Science! Alexbrn (talk) 21:13, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

OK, I got it--and you're right, we're all still learning about CS, even those of us like me who thought we knew it all already ;-) The source is a pdf so I can't quote from it very easily. It's not completely accurate about CS (eg Mary Baker Eddy believed in the virgin birth of Jesus, so in her view he was extraordinary and divine in a way that others aren't). This doesn't come out in the source. More crucially though (from a Wikipedia point of view) I don't believe that the paraphrase in the article is a completely accurate reflection of the source, though to substantiate that point would take more time than I've got at the moment (particularly given that today is the end of the world...)89.100.155.6 (talk) 22:24, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Alexbrn, what is it that you are not understanding about my wording in the paragraphs on atonement? The crucifixion refers to the sacrifice, the resurrection refers to the overcoming of death, and the ascension has to do with the full unification or reconciliation of man to God. It's not the easiest thing to put into words, but I thought those passages were clear. I can't quote directly from the sources, so must convey the same ideas in a summary. That took me all night to do, and it is accurate, and can be substantiated in other passages. Do you want me to include more references, or can I explain the ones better that are already there? LeviTee (talk) 03:55, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Just because MBE believed Jesus was crucified (i.e. nailed to the cross), it doesn't follow that she believed all the things that usually go along with that in mainstream Christianity; in particular it seems she thought Jesus did not die ... and so there was (in her view) no resurrection. Alexbrn (talk) 06:18, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Alexbrn, that is incorrect. This seems to be going nowhere. We probably need to move into some kind of dispute resolution, because I don't think we are going to be able to move forward.

LeviTee (talk) 09:15, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

What text are you disputing? Alexbrn (talk) 10:21, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

This is a thorny issue, and I've done some research on it in the past. Mary Baker Eddy seems to have believed both that Jesus died on the cross, and that he didn't. The rationale for this seems to be that death is an illusion (because everything to do with time and matter is an illusion). Consequently, if death is an illusion, it can be argued both that he died (relative statement in philosophical terms) and that he didn't (absolute statement) and that would apply to everyone else as well. Anyway, even today no-one can say with certainty what death is, or indeed when it occurs. So until we know what death is and at what stage it actually happens, we can't say anything definitive about whether Jesus did, or did not, "actually" die on the cross. No-one examined his body to see if he had (that we know of anyway) and even if they had, they did not have access to modern technology that might have aided the diagnosis. In recent times, there have been many people who claim to have "died" and returned to the body. Did they actually "die" or not? It's a moot point. MBE certainly believed in the Resurrection (ie Jesus was not only perceptible to the senses of his followers but was not constrained by the usual limits of space) and she also believed in the Ascension````

Luckily we don't have to carry out WP:OR because the sources all seem to agree that MBE thought Jesus was alive in the tomb, based on her (this time) plainly stated words. We'll come on to the resurrection, ascension, and birth -- all of which too seem to have been re-cast by MBE in distinctly, err, non-orthodox ways. (Off topic) I am amazed our resident CS editors didn't seem aware of this aspect of MBE's ideas - has there been some revisionism in the way the CS church expounds her writings in recent years? Alexbrn (talk) 11:14, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Alex, Christian Scientists have been aware of this issue since Mary Baker Eddy published her writings. She did say Jesus was alive in the tomb, but she also stated that he died on the cross. I can pull out a whole bunch of references to back up the point. Like so much else in her writings, it appears to be a contradiction, until you see that sometimes she is speaking relatively, and sometimes absolutely. (In fact, Jesus did the same thing, when he spoke on a number of different occasions about people who had "died" as actually being asleep. This included Lazarus.) And your last point reveals a misunderstanding about how Christian Scientists interpret Mary Baker Eddy's writings. No one, whether a member or not, would pay any attention to how the CS church "expounds" her writings, if this was not in accordance with the writings themselves, which can be easily checked. (Unlike eg Roman Catholics, Christian Scientists do not look to their church for guidance on theological issues.)89.100.155.6 (talk) 11:32, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Well, it was material that was notably absent from the article until I added it. MBE's writings are all over the shop, so trying to make sense of them is probably a fool's errand. But fortunately we have our secondary sources to lean on. Are there any secondary sources that state MBE wrote that Jesus physically died on the cross? If so, please tell (I haven't found any). Alexbrn (talk) 11:41, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

There was (primary-sourced) material on this issue in the article until it was radically "improved" a few months ago. You can probably find it be going back to September 2012, or earlier if it's not there. Alex, have you actually read Science and Health and MBE's other writings? Otherwise I don't see what justification you have for saying that they "are all over the shop, so trying to make sense of the is probably a fool's errand." I could sum up the essential philosophical/theological teachings of Christian Science in a coherent, logically-consistent paragraph or two (though actually living them is a life's work). I can't think of any secondary sources as per your request, but here is a primary source: "Of old, the Jews put to death the Galilean Prophet, the best Christian on earth, for the truth he taught and demonstrated, while to-day, Jew and Christian can unite in doctrine and denomination on the very basis of Jesus' words and works." (S&H: p. 360: 28-32.) BTW, to put this issue to bed, there is no prohibition in the Wikipedia policies on the careful, non-interpretive use of primary source material.89.100.155.6 (talk) 12:27, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

WP policy "any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation." Since it seems that MBE is writing of death in a peculiar way, I don't believe we can interpret this to mean "Jesus physically died" without support; even just among ourselves we should note that "put to death" can mean "to inflict capital punishment on," so this quotation doesn't help. Of MBE's work, let's just say I've read enough now to know to read no further ... more on this can come when we get Mark Twain's reaction to CS properly recorded in this article. Alexbrn (talk) 12:52, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

IP '6, I think you got it right with your explanation of the seeming contradiction of "did Jesus die, or didn't he". Thanks for bringing some clarity to this. It isn't a question of whether or not Jesus "gave up the ghost" or breathed his last. He did. The question is whether he still had conscious awareness as an individual consciousness. Has anyone ever heard of near death experiences where people flatline and are dead, but when they come back to life, they talk about how they were consciously aware the entire time? Sooo, were they dead, or not?? The only record of anyone ever having been dead for three days and resuscitating himself, as far as I know, is Jesus. It is clear to me that Eddy believed that Jesus maintained his conscious awareness during the entire three days in the tomb, even though his body lay lifeless until the resurrection, and that it was through his conscious awareness of the allness of Life (God), and the nothingness of matter, that he was able to bring that absolute truth of life to the relative state of his humanity, and in so doing, overcome death. Very important proof for us here I'd say, and still the example we look to today. (By the way, this is only being offered for those who care about thinking this through conscientiously). On page 44 in Science and Health, she writes, "The lonely precincts of the tomb gave Jesus a refuge from his foes, a place in which to solve the great problem of being. His three days’ work in the sepulchre set the seal of eternity on time. He proved Life to be deathless and Love to be the master of hate. He met and mastered on the basis of Christian Science, the power of Mind over matter, all the claims of medicine, surgery, and hygiene... He took no drugs to allay inflammation. He did not depend upon food or pure air to resuscitate wasted energies." Key word: "resuscitate". Secondly, it would have been safe to leave my text in which stated that Christian Scientists accept that Christ Jesus is the Savior of the world. That statement was explicit in the citations provided, and so was the entire part about Jesus crucifixion, resurrection, and ascension. Still, I appreciate IP '6. We need more people like you on here. Again, this is primarily to IP '6 and other conscientious editors who desire to understand this subject before attempting to write about it. LeviTee (talk) 07:15, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

This article in The Washington Post about Consciousness Without Brain is remarkable. I read this after I wrote the above entry. Definitely food for thought. [[20]] LeviTee (talk) 19:28, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Biomedical information

In the "Christian Science and Medical Care" section some material is appearing which is biomedical in nature. Should not WP:MEDRS apply for material about efficacy, comparative harms, etc? Alexbrn (talk) 06:07, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

I had a look at linked material and don't think it applies. The citation is not telling you how to cure lumbago (or whatever) which I presume is what the link refers to. While the author was a Christian Scientist, the source is a book published by an established publisher, not the Christian Science church. It is a secondary source. The sub-section title is "Christian Science and Medical Care" and consequently the citation is on-topic, giving us a CS perspective on medical care. It helps to balance the negativity about CS permeating the article.89.100.155.6 (talk) 09:36, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

The material is making claims about "deadliness" of treatments and relaying reports of efficacy. I am distinctly uncomfortable about this and suggest we seek guidance, as very particular rules apply to biomedical content. Alexbrn (talk) 09:41, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

I don't see what the problem is; it's an accurate citation of a reputably-published source. But if you want to seek guidance, go for it.89.100.155.6 (talk) 09:49, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Check this out: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nosocomial_infection — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.100.155.6 (talk) 09:55, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

And this (particularly "incidence and importance"): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iatrogenic 89.100.155.6 (talk) 09:58, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

[Note my new address, not IP anymore.] I had another look at the link you gave and I presume this is what you mean; "Wikipedia's articles, while not intended to provide medical advice, are nonetheless an important and widely used source of health information.[1] Therefore, it is vital that the biomedical information in all types of articles be based on reliable, third-party, published sources and accurately reflect current medical knowledge." The text is based on reliable, third party-published sources. However, the info is somewhat out of date, so it may not fulfill the requirement of being "current". (In fact, the current stats given in the Wikipedia articles on "Nosocomial" and "Iatrogenic" are even more alarming, but utilizing them would probably be regarded as OR in this context.) Perhaps someone has some more up-to-date info that could be utilized, within the context of discussions of Christian Science?Be-nice:-) (talk) 14:38, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Be-nice:-) (what a nice name!) — I've posted a query here [21]. With luck we'll get some sage advice soon. Alexbrn (talk) 14:42, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Hi, thanks ;-) In the meantime I've done an edit on the Peel reference, removing any specific non-current content but retaining links to "nosocomial" and "iatrogenic," so readers can link to up-to-date Wikipedia info on those topics if they want. I hope that will fulfill the Wikipedia requirements in this area, which are understandableBe-nice:-) (talk) 14:48, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

On-line Identity

In conformity with Wikipedia etiquette, just to let y'all know that I have rooted out my Wikipedia ID from way back. I will hitherto be appearing under the moniker "Be-Nice:-)" 89.100.155.6 (talk) 11:05, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Slight correction: it's "Be-nice:-)" as I just discovered when I tried to log in. Anyway, that's me from now on.Be-nice:-) (talk) 11:10, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Pseudoscience in the lead

The sentence in the lead about pseudoscience isn't supported by the sources:

The consensus among skeptics and philosophers of science is that Christian Science is pseudoscience. ^[1]

^
James Randi. "Commentary Science Pseudoscience: the Differences]". Retrieved December, 2012. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |accessdate= (help)
- Joe Nickell. "Christian Science Maneuvering". Retrieved December, 2012. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |accessdate= (help)
- Derksen, A. A. (1993). "The Seven Sins of Pseudo-Science". Journal for General Philosophy of Science. 24 (1): 26. typical pseudo-sciences like astrology, Bach-kabbalistics and Christian Science
- Jupp, V. L. (1977). "Freud and Pseudo-science". Philosophy. 52 (202): 441. doi:10.1017/S0031819100028928. Cioffi is surely wrong to claim that [psychoanalysis'] hypotheses are false and its methods absurdly unscientific in as blatant a way as those of Christian Science and astrology

The sources posted as representing the consensus in philosophy of science are a paper from V.L. Jupp from 1977 (not 2009 as the ref in the article says); he doesn't call it pseudoscience, and it's not clear that he's a philosopher of science; and a paper from A. A. Derksen from 1993, which contains a throwaway remark that Christian Science is a pseudoscience, rather than a serious examination of it (or any kind of examination). I'd be surprised to find a philosopher arguing that Christian Science is a pseudoscience, because it has nothing to do with science (in particular, it isn't clear that its practitioners have any scientific pretensions), so it would be a difficult position to sustain.

The other sources are the Mukta Mona blog, which contains a self-published article by James Randi, a stage magician, and a self-published article by Joe Nickell of the Committee for Skeptical Inquiry. Nickell doesn't argue that it's pseudoscience either; it's just another throwaway remark: "Actually Christian Pseudoscience or Antiscience would have been a more accurate name."

This isn't enough to support the claim, particularly not in the lead. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 16:25, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Fully agreed. And this has been discussed in the past with substantial agreement that it does not belong in any part of the article in Wikipedia's voice. Collect (talk) 16:28, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Yup. Unlike, say, homeopathy, it does not pretend to be scientific, it is an explicitly religious belief system. I would not characterise it as pseudoscience and I don't see any evidence that sources do either. Now, Category:Wrong, that would fit nicely... Guy (Help!) 20:17, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

Yes and no. It seems to me that CS attempts to rebase everything on some notion that the material world is an illusion. Thus Christianity is reinterpreted and healing is practiced on that basis. This intersects in all kinds of ways with philosophy, religion and medicine. And the unfortunate effect is that it seems to "get it in the neck" from all these constituencies, being called "pseudo-religion", "pseudo-science", and "pseudo-therapy". Since it stepped on the toes of mainstream medicine the doctors didn't like it (calling it "quackery"); since it's a breakaway faction the Church - as is its wont - attacked it (a "sect" a "cult" etc), and since it intersects with the state and modern medicine skeptics today have a particular beef with it. I think, when all this can be settled down, a good way of summarizing this would be to describe CS as controversial and enumerate the ways in which various groups have taken against it, since trying to reach for just one label from the opponents (e.g. "pseudoscience") isn't quite the whole story. Alexbrn (talk) 08:29, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

Guy, I don't see the basis for your statement that Christian Science "does not pretend to be scientific." Even ignoring the name of the movement, our article shows several examples of Christian Science calling itself and its doctrines "science" or "scientific." They clearly do make that claim. Having said that, I agree with the comment by Collect (and the comment by Jimbo Wales when this was discussed on his talk page) that the article should not say that CS is "pseudoscience" in Wikipedia's voice. I think that claim should be attributed, in the text of the article, to those who have made it... but if we're doing that, and just presenting it as a matter of opinion, I don't think that should be in the intro. Neutron (talk) 20:05, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Guy, that would be because you haven't read the sources. Here is the original text for that section: [22] What has occured is that people have altered the content removing sources that supported the text, then removed it saying the sources don't support the text: For example, on claims that it's science we have: Lewis, edited by James R. (2009). Scientology. Oxford: Oxford University Press. ISBN 9780195331493. "Thus any religion claiming to be scientific drew on the prestige and perceived legitimacy of natural science. Religions such as Christian Science, Science of Mind, and Scientology claim just that", Schrager, Cynthia D. (December). "Both Sides of the Veil: Race, Science, and Mysticism in W. E. B. Du Bois". American Quarterly 48 (4). "Spiritualism and related movements such as Christian Science both adopted the trappings of science to legitimize themselves and functioned as oppositional discourses with contradictory results." See the encyclopedia of pseudoscience (Shermer) for other examples (where Christian Science has a section). I find the claim that something isn't pseudoscience or even viewed as pseudoscience that is in an encyclopedia of pseudoscience to be rather odd. IRWolfie- (talk) 13:54, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Homeopathy and "energy healing" is pseudoscience. Truthers and antivaxers use pseudoscience. Pseudoscience is using the trappings of science in the furtherance of an agenda that is not scientifically supported. It's what you get when bullshit wears a white coat and pretends to be working in the same lab as honest inquiry, and it's very much a 20th Century construct, not really applicable to the time before the scientific method had become established as the dominant force in human progress (as opposed to what I guess one might term Baconian empiricism). Call me picky, but I don't see that here. CS is plainly wrong and deeply deluded but it does not, as far as I can see, pretend to be anything other than a belief system. Do people like Bob Park identify it as pseudoscience? Guy (Help!) 14:08, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

No, you are wrong with your history. "not really applicable to the time before the scientific method had become established". The scientific method was becoming established by the 17th century, we are talking about the second half of the 19th century. Science was very well established by then. Read the sources (the Christian Scientists on this page have even provided quotes that show it's the case). The presitige of science dates to before the 20th century. The second half of the 19th century had science with it's modern meaning, except it was even more authority laden as someone highlighted: The Emergence of Christian Science in American Religious Life, by Stephen Gottschalk, University of California Press, Berkeley, page 26: "Mrs. Eddy's use of this term science is clearly congruent with it's general use in late nineteenth century thought, in which science was a pristige-laden word connoting the ideas of authority, universality, and infallibility. Yet this very concept of science has been challenged and strongly modified in the twentieth century through the work of Einstein, Planck, and Heisenberg, among others. Physical scientists on the frontiers of inquiry have become more apt to speak of probabilities than certainties, and more conscious of the role of perception in qualifying the conclusions of scientific investigation, and in general more modest in their claims." Read a book about the scientific institutes of the 19th century for example; scientific study much like modern science didn't just begin with the discovery of quantum mechanics and relativity in physics. IRWolfie- (talk) 14:25, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

e.g this book about scientism [23] makes it clear that the term science was established by the 19th century. IRWolfie- (talk) 14:32, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Removal of sourced material

User:Uncoveringtruthjd has reworked some content [24] to remove a description of telepathic healing that is sourced to both a historical account in the BMJ and a more modern description in New scientist. So far as I can see the article text is now no longer in sync with these sources. The edit has the summary "I for one will not tolerate personal assumptions on any religion page [...]". By my reading there were no personal assumptions in the text that has been removed. I propose restoring the prior text so that it aligns properly with the sources. Alexbrn (talk) 15:27, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

User:Alexbrn, quite certainly I did change it. New Scientist is not peer-reviewed, and it is strictly your personal opinion that it is a more modern description, let alone its degree of accuracy. However, the current use of the word telepathy, as well as its use in the time period of this religion's creation, does not at all align with what Christian Scientists view, believe, or practice as healing and/or prayer. The personal assumption has to do with the editor, not the source. Possibly you should have quoted my whole edit summary instead of simply the part that suits you. "do not interpret words for ones they are not. The source is fine, but 'change of thought' is not telepathy, if it were, political battles would be mental.)" This is the problem with many of the sources in this article. If anyone is unaware of what sources qualify as being reputable then I suggest a bit of study is done on said subject. Also consider researching the BMJ at the time at which it was written, as to their intents, funding, and purpose. Check a source other than Wikipedia and you might find some enlightenment there as well. Additionally, you are trying to convey the main methodology and beliefs of a religion by not referencing or addressing any of the religion's texts (as others have said here on the talk page). To maintain a neutral point of view(Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view), one cannot simply supply articles of hearsay sources, but also supply sources that exemplify the actual and declared intent of the religion. Uncoveringtruthjd (talk) 00:57, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

BMJ is a reliable source, and New Scientist, as high-quality popular press, is good for historical information on a medical topic. Together they are unassailable. Primary texts + WP:OR should of course not be used. Interestingly, on the topic of telepathy this article suggests that towards the end of the last century CS practitioners were losing touch with the telepathic methods taught by MBE. Alexbrn (talk) 05:10, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

User:Uncoveringtruthjd You are right on the mark. The thing about "mind over matter" in the medical section is also not a good explanation of Christian Science, unless it were used with a capital M meaning God, and then in the context of Christian Science and what it teaches about the nature of matter, it would be "Mind (God) instead of matter". "mind over matter" only implies a human mind trying to manipulate matter, or as has already been pointed out, somehow telepathically communicating, neither of which expresses how Christian Science works. So that needs to all be changed by someone who understands the difference. The following pages might be worth another look: [[25]][[26]] [[27]]

Note that it states on the religion page that articles on religion draw from that religion's sacred texts. This might be an indication that, as others have suggested, some proper use of primary sources, and especially of right interpretation of reliable secondary sources, should be used (again properly) in this article so that the content will reflect the subject accurately. LeviTee (talk) 05:27, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

and for the record, and it has already been established here, there is nothing about telepathy anyplace in MBE's writings. Telepathy is not related to Christian Science, and anyone can check the online concordances to her writings to verify this fact. And anyone who has read MBE's writings would know that she never taught telepathy. I already included some citations above in the Talk section on Telepathy, that show that she denounced any concept that was trying to say that one mortal mind communicates with another. So no matter how many times it is stated here in this Talk page, or in the article that she taught telepathy, it simply cannot be substantiated by any reliable source. LeviTee (talk) 05:37, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

No. It is substantiated by reliable sources, and telepathic healing is (according to one such a reliable source) "rooted in the writing of MBE". We have to take such verifiable content those over the unsupported say-so of Wikipedia editors. Alternatively, find me a good source explicitly saying that "addressing the thought" is not telepathic healing. Alexbrn (talk) 05:49, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

This is to everyone generally... we might ask ourselves the question, why would it be important to place something in the article which disrespects what the sacred texts of a religion say, and disregards what other editors are pointing out. This seems to me to be violating the guidelines I have pointed out above. This is just for other people to see, and for the record. It will help to have an electronic paper trail here. This is another good bit of info for the community here. [[28]] LeviTee (talk) 06:01, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

This really is Wikipedia 101. Who gets to say what Christian Science is? A few random WP:SPAs here, or reliable secondary sources commenting on the history and practices of the sect? Please see WP:V, WP:RS, WP:NPOV and WP:NOTCENSORED. Alexbrn (talk) 06:33, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

To whom it may concern. All anyone has to do is to look through the Talk and Edit history, the quality and character of the edits, the prolific number of edits coming from people who admittedly know nothing of the subject, and the relatively small number of edits coming from conscientious contributors who have some familiarity with the subject and are sincerely trying to improve the article, but are being too often chased off by individuals who make it very difficult for us to believe they are acting in good faith. WP:NPOV and guidelines related to reliable sources are prostrate here. The best hope for this article is for more people to witness what is happening. LeviTee (talk) 07:16, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

"us" ? Alexbrn (talk) 07:21, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Might I add that one editor in particular, after being encouraged by a 3O (which he himself requested) to take a break from editing for awhile, continued right on aggressively editing the article using sources which are almost exclusively antagonistic towards the subject, while the other party heeded the advice of the 3O and took some time away, came back with some conscientious modest edits, reliably sourced, some of which were then challenged and altered by that editor's personal interpretation of the sources used. But after continuing to read Wikipedia guidelines, I have faith that this will get resolved, and that the majority of people, and especially readers who are coming here to seek out knowledge, will just not stand for being misinformed. LeviTee (talk) 07:30, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Reliable sources are reliable sources. If, when represented fairly, their overall effect is to present an impression that some editors find unacceptable, then I'm afraid that's just tough. There is no WP:IDONTLIKEIT (in particular, "it's offensive for my religion" is no reason to suppress a source). Alexbrn (talk) 07:48, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:NOTRELIABLE#Sources_that_are_usually_not_reliable LeviTee (talk) 07:56, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Check this out: it puts the whole discussion in perspective: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:What_%22Ignore_all_rules%22_means — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.100.155.6 (talk) 09:51, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

(Sorry--forgot those tildes)89.100.155.6 (talk) 10:00, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

User:Alexbrn, I sincerely think you should be heeding your own advice, as from this talk page it seems everyone is trying to make clear to you those same points. New Science is not a valid source because of any "historical" reason. Christian Science is not a historical event, no matter how much you may personally want it to be, but a current one. I am not going to go through that whole explanation again, so you may read the inaccuracy of that source above in the section in this talk page titled "telepathy, really?" "Reliable sources are reliable sources," is a correct statement, a sort of "it is what it is" declaration. Similarly, unreliable sources are unreliable sources. Also, as I have already stated, and as Wikipedia states, context matters. Wikipedia:RS If you do not know about the subject, the primary texts that should be referenced in this article, or the context around the sources you and some others have tried to source here, then you should not be editing an article. One cannot simply search for sources and do a slapdash job of pasting them together, it takes the works out of context.
On the note of context matters, did you also know that, in accord with your Mark Twain edit, that Mark Twain disliked many faith methodologies before he ever knew of Christian Science? Did you know that he regarded Christian Science itself with kinder eyes than he did the other methodologies? Did you know that his book on Christian Science is mostly a critique of her writing and writing style, and how her Christian Science writing was in such contrast of her earlier writings (and that Mary Baker Eddy herself said should be disregarded, in her primary text, because of their lack of scholar)? If you do not believe me, you should actually read the Mark Twain Book, and use that as a source instead of continuing to quote these hearsay sources. If you did not know any of these things, then you should not be editing this page with that material.
Do you even know that it was a doctor who encouraged Mary Baker Eddy to write Science and Health with Key to the Scriptures? That is something that belongs in an article on the topic of Christian Science, because it has to do with its founding. I will be adding this in myself later.
User:LeviTee, you as well are right on the mark. That (M)ind was a mistake on my part - although I was aware of Mind - I will correct it later with a primary source.

Good day to you all. Uncoveringtruthjd (talk) 13:41, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Uncoveringtruthjd — BMJ + New Scientist is as RS as it gets; if we add the Psychological Reports source it will beyond solid. Not liking something or making vague weaselly claims about "context" don't cut it here, and neither will using primary texts with a layer of WP:OR. Claiming that scholarly articles and University Press books are "hearsay" is also ... interesting.

I gathered much of what you say about Twain while reading up on it, and cite the Twain text in passing (it's freely available from Project Gutenberg). I think I picked out the main points in regard to his beef with CS/Eddy, but of course I may not be perfect. Alexbrn (talk) 13:55, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Hearsay is different than heresy, check your dictionary, I will finish responding to your offensive comments and lack of "whatever" later. Uncoveringtruthjd (talk) 15:07, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

I am not giving up on the New Scientist issue, I'm simply not addressing that specific source again in this response.

What I found to be offensive is "vague weaselly claims about 'context'" as well as the insinuation of possibly "not liking something." There are no personal feelings of mine attached to any dealings I should have on Wikipedia, however, I do believe it is everyone's duty to maintain neutral points of view and preserve context. The lack of whatever (I had only read your comments in passing, apologies for such a vague word as "whatever" there) would be the understanding of the importance of context when citing and making definitive statements. As Wikipedia states in its section titled, "Context Matters." Context is a very valid point to make, especially in belief systems, and one that should be both considered and included when citing any source. If I were to say "Christian Scientists heal through telepathy" the reader will take this as face value and thereby think that Christian Scientists believe they are masters of communicating to each other through some sort of telepathic waves (which is not the case). In contrast, if I were to say, "[Some medical skeptics of her time |or| Dr. ---] compared Christian Science healing to telepathy, however, Mary Baker Eddy defined her healing as ... change in thought etc. ..., but never referenced nor taught telepathy." (Since this was not the case.) The first sentence is one-sided and also inaccurate, even though it uses the source correctly. To satisfy a neutral point of view and to keep the context of the work at the same time, the second sentence uses the source appropriately while still stating both viewpoints (for that neutral POV) and also explains the context of the message. There is no Christian Science creed which references telepathy, nor have any of its members described such a practice. "Addressing the thought" truly is not telepathy, at least in the context of this religion (although I don't believe it is considered such anywhere). Uncoveringtruthjd (talk) 21:47, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Context does not mean "things must say what I personally think they should". Read and digest WP:V and WP:NOR - they will clarify. Since the consensus of reliable secondary sources is that one CS healing method is telepathic, that is the verifiable information WP will relay. Whether it is "true" or not is an irrelevance. If you think it otherwise, show me the counter-sources - and personal say-so counts for nothing. Arriving here with a preconceived notion of "what CS is" and trying to bend the text to suit that is pure POV-pushing. Sorry, but that is not how Wikipedia works. Alexbrn (talk) 22:26, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

I am perfectly versed on what context means, and I have already read both sources (as well as others, which I have previously suggested for your own reading) in reading many of the issues others have had with this article, but thank you for the references. Consider what Jimbo Whales has said on this talk page, the section of Quality Writing. That, sir, you should digest. I have not given any personal say-so, but examples. The only POV-pushing I see here is your consistent addition of sources without appropriate context. I simply supplied a sentence of reference, as I now see Whales has, to better explain my point. If you think examples are personal say-so, then that is your viewpoint (yet again as I have mentioned previously). There is no bending of the text, that is what a lack of context does. I am also already aware of how Wikipedia works.

And while whether something is true or not doesn't matter, since Wikipedia shows who has said what on the given topic, the context does shed quite a bit of light on the source's POV, and as I've already stated is important. You are right, context is not what we (you and I) think they should say, this I am also already aware of.

If you, sir, had not had a preconceived idea upon first editing this article, possibly you could have found a range of viewpoints from various sources (as there are many on both sides), and could have therefore provided Wikipedia and the general community with a better perspective and representation than some craft of bigotry.

As for your telepathic source, it should not be included unless you also give the context, given that you had previously supplied it as a definitive statement for a NPOV. If you are going to add something in, it is your responsibility to verify it and maintain its context. Uncoveringtruthjd (talk) 22:59, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

All the reputable viewpoints on the question of whether or not "addressing the mind" is telepathy point one way: it is. You offer nothing to contradict this other than personal say-so and OR (dressed-up as "context"). Show me some authoritative content and I'll be interested, otherwise what you write is pointless. Alexbrn (talk) 23:14, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

My point elsewhere about editing Schopenhauer should kick in here (ie the necessity of being familiar with the primary source before doing any serious editing). Any Christian Scientist would tell you that equating "addressing the mind" with telepathy is predicated on a lack of understanding of CS metaphysics, which distinguishes between the one Mind (God) on the one hand, and the human mind on the other. According to Christian Science teaching, a person who treats another through CS is not transferring thoughts from one mind to another, but is clearing the way for divine inspiration (and healing) to take place. In any case I don't know of any definitions of telepathy that accord it a dimension of physical healing. (I have experienced both telepathy and Christian Science healing, and I can say from experience that they are too completely different things.) The over-riding goal of Wikipedia editing is to produce an accurate and informative article, and if an edit isn't helping to that end, then it should not be included.Be-nice:-) (talk) 11:41, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

As one of the articles reports, Christian Scientists have "lost touch" with this aspect of Eddy's teaching - so what you say sounds plausible. However, it is beside the point – we have authoritative, reputable sources explicitly describing the practice as "telepathic"; so that's what WP relays. Wikipedia cannot function on the basis of editors popping up and claiming to "know better" than good sources, especially when they have no backing from sources themselves. I keep asking if there's a counter-source. So far, no reply on that. Anyway, the text in the article now makes it clear the view that this is telepathic is the view of the sources. Readers can draw their own conclusion. Alexbrn (talk) 13:58, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

I can give you quotes from Mary Baker Eddy herself that show this interpretation is wrong. (However, apparently the secondary sources know better what she meant than she did herself, according to the somewhat surreal logic that tends to prevail on these pages.) Anyway, here is one quote to illustrate what I mean: "In reality there is no mortal mind, and consequently no transference of mortal thought and will-power." S&H 103: 29-31. (The first usage of "mortal" is italicized, but I don't know how to reproduce that here.)Be-nice:-) (talk) 17:56, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Gottschalk, in Rolling Away The Stone speaks in detail about the fact that Eddy denounced "thought transference" and that she believed that "projected mental control" had "far reaching and potentially lethal effects", and goes on to describe how individuals who were attempting to practice it were excommunicated from the church. ^[1] I checked the same version of the dictionary which Eddy used and the word "telepathy" is not in there, nor does it appear in any of her writings. It is clear from this Gottschalk reference that Eddy associated "thought transference" or "projected mental control" with hypnotism, something she consistently denounces throughout her teachings. There is a lesson subject that comes up twice a year in every Christian Science church (and Eddy chose all of the subjects for the lessons) which is entitled, "Ancient and Modern Necromancy, Alias Mesmerism and Hypnotism Denounced". It would be difficult to argue that it isn't just the opinion of the "telepathy" source that Christian Science is the same as telepathy, when everything in the primary sources which are the foundation for the teachings themselves, and secondary sources which speak intelligently to the primary sources, all point to the fact that telepathy is not a factor in Christian Science healing. On page 185 in Science and Health, Eddy draws the line of distinction very clearly: "Such theories and such systems of so-called mind-cure, which have sprung up, are as material as the prevailing systems of medicine. They have their birth in mortal mind, which puts forth a human conception in the name of Science to match the divine Science of immortal Mind, even as the necromancers of Egypt strove to emulate the wonders wrought by Moses. Such theories have no relationship to Christian Science, which rests on the conception of God as the only Life, substance, and intelligence, and excludes the human mind as a spiritual factor in the healing work." So here we have a primary source, backed up by a reliable secondary source. Indeed, the reader can draw his/her own conclusion. LeviTee (talk) 18:19, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

^ Gottschalk, Stephen (2006). Rolling away the stone : Mary Baker Eddy's challenge to materialism. Bloomington: Indiana University Press. ISBN 0253346738.

References

I've started a separate References section so we can use shortened refs (e.g. Gottschalk 1973, p. 89), hopefully without the templates jumping between the two. The text will look tidier without the page numbers visible in the article, and reducing the citation clutter will make the text easier to handle in edit-mode. I've also started removing the websites (apart from the CS one), dictionaries, etc as sources. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 18:11, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Personally I think the "Gottschalk 1973" referencing style makes it a pain to verify things, and can lead to references going missing, extra references hanging around etc, which takes a lot of time to track down or fix. IRWolfie- (talk) 18:38, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

I can't see how Gottschalk 1973, p. 89 would be difficult to check. The current references seem to be in a bit of a mess -- lots of unnecessary repetition, sources not supporting the text, some very poor sources in use, page numbers not always given or not always consistent with the text, etc. Cleaning them up and maintaining a separate References section will make it easier to see what sources we're using. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 19:44, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Well given that WP's document model sucks every way I don't have a strong preference which form we use, but please SlimVirgin, don't leave this work half-finished: it's an all-or-nothing endeavour ... and all power to your elbow :-) Alexbrn (talk) 20:35, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Disruptive Editing a Problem in article on Christian Science

I have submitted a request for Arbitration, because it doesn't seem like we are getting anywhere trying to sort through things on the Talk Page. LeviTee (talk) 19:06, 29 December 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by LeviTee (talk • contribs) 19:01, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

If there is a better DRN then we should try it... But I want to get more people witnessing what is happening here. LeviTee (talk) 19:06, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Idealism

Levi has removed this:

Christian Science is based on a form of philosophical idealism, teaching that spiritual reality is the only reality and that all else is illusion or error.^[1]

^ For idealism, see Gottschalk 1973, p. 76. Gottschalk writes that, while Christian Science is a form of idealism, there is no evidence that Eddy was influenced by the texts of philosophical idealism, and that Christian Science takes the claims of idealism further than philosophers would.

Even if it's correct that Eddy wasn't influenced by philosophers, it's demonstrably true that Christian Science is a form of idealism. I would therefore like to restore it; we could tweak it to include the material from the footnote, but I don't see that as necessary, and in the lead it would mean additional unnecessary words. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 20:18, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

The problem with that is that it perpetuates this misconception that CS is something that it isn't, which is an unfortunate prolific theme running through this article. The Gottschalk reference clearly explains that Christian Science can only really be understood in the context of it being a theological teaching, not a philosophical one, the biggest reason being, that philosophy doesn't claim to be pragmatic and God-based, whereas Christian Science is coming at reality with the idea of a perfect God, and His perfect creation as being the sole reality of existence. So I think this theology is beyond the scope of philosophy. The best reason to leave it out, is that is shortchanges Christian Science as basically a theological system of thought. If it is to be left in, I think it needs to be qualified, and these nuances brought out. LeviTee (talk) 20:40, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

This is a good place to bring this up... that part of the problem with this entire article, is that it comes at Christian Science with an avalanche of stereotypes, which it then attempts to interpret Christian Science through. Any new idea needs to be introduced to a new reader in the context of what it is itself FIRST, and then comparisons can be drawn. Otherwise you have got a masterpiece of confusion on your hands. LeviTee (talk) 20:44, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

I am going to leave your edit there, not because it is correct (it's not) but because it is an excellent example of what has been going wrong with this article for a long time now. Here is what the Gottschalk source says, "The only real continuity between Christian Science and philosophical idealism lies in the fact that Mrs. Eddy found it helpful to use an idealistic vocabulary to communicate her concept of the potentials of experience. Her denial of the reality of matter is in abstract terms reminiscent of philosophical idealism. But in Mrs. Eddy's teaching this claim is made on a theological rather than a philosophical basis. And Mrs. Eddy holds moreover, that it is a claim which can be progressively validated in practice. The so-called idealistic element in Christian Science, therefore, is actually the engine of it's pragmatic thrust. And the locus of Mrs. Eddy's efforts lay not in offering a philosophic conception of the nature of existence, but a practical understanding of regeneration and it's requirements."

There is more to this on other pages also which convey the same position. So to say that Christian Science is "based on philosophical idealism" is totally misleading. LeviTee (talk) 21:08, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

The point of the lead is to summarize, and I mentioned idealism to provide an anchor for the general reader. The basic point is that we're describing an Absolute Mind as the guarantor of reality or the only reality. How would you rewrite that sentence to make it more accurate, bearing in mind that we're trying to be understood by people who know nothing about Christian Science or religion in general? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 21:28, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Levi, would you consider writing a subsection on the key theological ideas? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 21:41, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

I would love to, but can you imagine how discouraging it is when every time I go back to the article, there is another screw up? "Christian Scientists do not believe that Jesus was a deity, but regard him as the expression of God's being." is now incorrect. There is a differentiation made between Christ, and Jesus in Christian Science. Christ is the eternal expression of God's being. Jesus is the human manifestation of that. It was right before. Now it is not. See this is the problem. I don't want to waste my f-ing time. Excuse my frustration. Please compare what I wrote, and how it now reads. The difference is crucial. I wrote that, with a secondary source to back it up. I had it right. whoever changed it made it wrong. Is anyone listening??!! LeviTee (talk) 21:51, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Now I changed that line to this. "Christian Scientists do not believe that Jesus was a deity, but regard Christ as the expression of God's being, and Jesus as the highest human manifestation of Christ. This is not an opinion or interpretation of mine. Read the source. LeviTee (talk) 22:13, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

(ec) The problem is that you're writing from an "in universe" perspective. This sentence is practically meaningless: "[they] regard Christ as the expression of God's being, and Jesus as the highest human manifestation of Christ," unless it's just a tautology (Christ = the expression of God's being"). But most Christian readers will see Christ as referring to Jesus. You have to try to unpack it for an audience not educated in this vocabulary. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 22:15, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

We can't say what "most Christian readers" will think. If you leave it the way it is, at least it is correct, instead of incorrect, and I can build on that later when I have time. Put something in that says "more explanation needed" or something, but why put the incorrect one back in surmising that people won't understand it, because it is more accurate?? LeviTee (talk) 22:19, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Anyway, I have no what your familiarity is with CS, but if you can do something to clarify this, then please do, because I have to go now. LeviTee (talk) 22:22, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

(ec) Most readers will see "Christ" as an alternative name for Jesus, so the sentence as written will make no sense to them. If Christian Scientists are using the word "Christ" in a special way, that needs to be explained on first reference, and if it can't be explained succinctly, perhaps it should be removed from the lead. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 22:26, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Well take a look, that is the best I can do for now, because I need to get going. LeviTee (talk) 22:28, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

This is good, thanks. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 22:29, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Now please consider changing the wording "CS is BASED on Philosophical idealism, to something like "CS has been likened to philosophical idealism". Please believe me when I tell you, it is NOT based on philosophical idealism. There is just no way that this article should be saying that. LeviTee (talk) 22:34, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Done. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 22:42, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

You just made me cry! Thank you, this is the most encouraged I have felt since trying to take this up. Your edit did not introduce error. Now on that good note, I am going for a walk. LeviTee (talk) 22:45, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

I'm glad they were tears of joy (or, at least, relief). :) SlimVirgin ^(talk) 22:52, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Relief, for sure. But now something is going to need to be done about the claim further down that says that CS don't regard Christ as the Messiah, or Jesus as the Savior. This is going to be a long haul. I already fixed that before, and took an entire night to make sure it was correct before I posted it, and it got changed back to completely incorrect statement. But having explained the difference (as well as the relationship) between Jesus and Christ and since this is now in the lead, perhaps the other can be addressed. Christ, being the true idea, the spiritual ideal of God's man, this ideal is considered to be the saving truth, or the Messiah, and Jesus as the human representation of that. So indeed Jesus is regarded as the savior of mankind to Christian Scientists. If you can dig up my edit, you will see, and it was referenced, and I included quotations from the cited sources. Okay, I am really going for a walk now. LeviTee (talk) 23:02, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Is this the material that was removed? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 23:22, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

The controversy at the moment is very similar to ones that followed the radical "improvement" of the article last September. Go back to early September or thereabouts to see what I mean. Roughly, there was a disagreement between editors who believed that the prime aim is that the article should be accurate concerning its subject matter, and those who believed that following the Wikipedia policies/guidelines is the primary goal. Unfortunately, due to a number of issues, it was impossible to reconcile those two desiderata. The reasons included the following: (1) people have been editing the article who know little or nothing about Christian Science from the primary sources: consequently they have often been unable either to choose accurate secondary sources, or to interpret/paraphrase them correctly when they did; (2) the volume of hostile, biassed and inaccurate secondary sources available greatly outweighs the volume of favorable, unbiassed and accurate secondary sources; (3) the persistence and energy of editors with a skeptical perspective; (4) the view was constantly propagated that there is an "obvious" meaning to the Wikipedia policies/guidelines which is available if only people would go back and read them enough, etc. Since then there have been a number of positive developments, including your own input Levi, and also the fact that the Wikipedia founder, Jimbo Wales (unexpectedly) weighed in on the question of calling CS a "pseudoscience." So despite what appearances may be, the article is now in a somewhat healthier state now than it was some weeks ago, albeit it has a long way to go yet. (BTW, Mary Baker Eddy did regard her teaching as a form of idealism--there are three favorable references to "idealism" in S&H--though it obviously differs from other versions of idealism, not least in having a claimed practical dimension in terms of healing)Be-nice:-) (talk) 08:35, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

[1] James Randi. "Commentary Science Pseudoscience: the Differences]". Retrieved December, 2012. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |accessdate= (help)
Joe Nickell. "Christian Science Maneuvering". Retrieved December, 2012. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |accessdate= (help)

Derksen, A. A. (1993). "The Seven Sins of Pseudo-Science". Journal for General Philosophy of Science. 24 (1): 26. typical pseudo-sciences like astrology, Bach-kabbalistics and Christian Science

Jupp, V. L. (1977). "Freud and Pseudo-science". Philosophy. 52 (202): 441. doi:10.1017/S0031819100028928. Cioffi is surely wrong to claim that [psychoanalysis'] hypotheses are false and its methods absurdly unscientific in as blatant a way as those of Christian Science and astrology

[2] Joe Nickell. "Christian Science Maneuvering". Retrieved December, 2012. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |accessdate= (help)

[3] Derksen, A. A. (1993). "The Seven Sins of Pseudo-Science". Journal for General Philosophy of Science. 24 (1): 26. typical pseudo-sciences like astrology, Bach-kabbalistics and Christian Science

[4] Jupp, V. L. (1977). "Freud and Pseudo-science". Philosophy. 52 (202): 441. doi:10.1017/S0031819100028928. Cioffi is surely wrong to claim that [psychoanalysis'] hypotheses are false and its methods absurdly unscientific in as blatant a way as those of Christian Science and astrology

[2] Gottschalk, Stephen (2006). Rolling away the stone : Mary Baker Eddy's challenge to materialism. Bloomington: Indiana University Press. ISBN 0253346738.

[3] For idealism, see Gottschalk 1973, p. 76. Gottschalk writes that, while Christian Science is a form of idealism, there is no evidence that Eddy was influenced by the texts of philosophical idealism, and that Christian Science takes the claims of idealism further than philosophers would.

[1]

[1]

[1]