David K. Nartonis, Ph.D., of the Committee on Publication staff of The First Church of Christ, Scientist, has been writing and speaking to academic audiences. In July 1997, the Journal reported on a conference entitled "Naturalism, Theism, and the Scientific Enterprise," where Dr. Nartonis spoke on the relation between science and religion. Since then, his audiences have included scholars gathered to consider the history of the philosophy of science, and engineers and theologians considering the impact of artificial intelligence on religious concepts of identity. Because of his participation in the dialogue between science and religion, the Journal asked Dr. Nartonis to comment on the relation of Christian Science to the modern natural sciences.
Today there are many opportunities to build bridges of mutual understanding between Christian Scientists and those in the modern natural sciences. Part of this process is to seek common ground while honestly acknowledging differences. As for similarities, we might observe that both the natural sciences and Christian Science view the world as governed by law and not by the capricious action of a humanlike god or gods. Both the natural sciences and Christian Science demand practical proof of what is asserted to be true. Also, reason and logic play a central role in Christian Science and the natural sciences. While a number of other similarities could also be mentioned, let's look at these three and then consider at least one significant difference.
In the natural sciences, law is associated with the regular action of cause and effect in physical or biological systems. Such laws are tempered by the underlying randomness of quantum processes and limited by the incalculable complexity of the material world.
The concept of law is equally central to Christian Science. Here, law is associated with the regular and dependable action of God, all-powerful Spirit, as the one, divine cause, producing good alone. This idea of God as dependable and His action as expressing divine law is found throughout the Bible. The Scriptures assure us, for example, that "he is excellent in power, and in judgment, and in plenty of justice: he will not afflict." Job 37:23 And they describe God as "the Father of lights, with whom is no variableness, neither shadow of turning." James 1:17
In the second similarity—the demand for practical proof—new theories in the natural sciences prove themselves by accounting for data already gathered from physical observation. Theories are then expected to lead the way to new observations and new data, never before gathered or seen. Beyond this, whatever a theory predicts must be found to be correct, and if such predictions ever fail, the theory must be unsentimentally corrected or replaced.
Christian Scientists, in their own way, are no less rigorous in putting revelation to the practical test. The mere claim of revelation to be God-given knowledge is not enough. Revelation must also be demonstrated in bodies healed and lives regenerated before it can earn the name of Science The Discoverer of Christian Science, Mary Baker Eddy, wrote: "I submitted my metaphysical system of treating disease to the broadest practical tests. Since then this system has gradually gained ground, and has proved itself, whenever scientifically employed, to be the most effective curative agent in medical practice." Science and Health, pp. 111-112
To cite just one more similarity, Christian Science and the natural sciences share a reliance on reason and logic. Inductive reasoning (reasoning from the specific to the general) leads the natural scientist to draw new hypotheses from physically observed data, while deductive reason (reasoning from the general to the specific) allows the drawing of new predictions from existing theories. Thus, it is no surprise to find that Mrs. Eddy saw the natural sciences as models of logical thinking. But reasoning, in this case a priori reasoning, plays an equally important role in Christian Science. For example, from the fact that God is good it can be logically deduced that all of God's creation is lovingly and tenderly cared for, whatever the material senses may initially report to the contrary. More generally, as Mrs. Eddy writes, "Reasoning from cause to effect in the Science of Mind, we begin with Mind [God], which must be understood through the idea which expresses it and cannot be learned from its opposite, matter." Ibid., p. 467
In addition to an exploration of such similarities, mutual understanding between Christian Science and the natural sciences will be aided by an honest acknowledgment of differences. Perhaps the most conspicuous difference is the element of divine revelation in Christian Science. A fundamental tenet of this Science is, "As adherents of Truth, we take the inspired Word of the Bible as our sufficient guide to eternal Life." Ibid., p. 497
Furthermore, in cases of sickness or accident, Christian Scientists actually turn away from (though don't ignore) what the material senses are reporting in order to gather contradictory evidence, the truth, directly from God. "As it is written, Eye hath not seen, nor ear heard, neither have entered into the heart of man, the things which God hath prepared for them that love him. But God hath revealed them unto us by his Spirit: for the Spirit searcheth all things, yea, the deep things of God." I Cor. 2:9,10
There are several good reasons, however, why the element of revelation should not hinder an appreciation of Christian Science by those in the natural sciences. For one thing, the dictionary meaning of the word science is not defined as narrowly as common views in the natural sciences might suggest. According to Webster's Dictionary of the American Language, science can be broadly defined as knowledge, especially knowledge of principles or causes and true knowledge of facts. In an earlier time, theology was actually known as the queen of the sciences, and we still make room in most universities for a variety of uses of the term, as in "political science" or "social science." Furthermore, the rather narrow definition of science found in the modern natural sciences may have begun to change. There is a growing feeling that the restriction of science to the evidence of the material senses has left too many human problems unsolved, and perhaps created too many new problems. For example, Professor Brian Cantwell Smith of Indiana University recently envisioned an emerging science of significance, "... an understanding strong enough to give meaning to people's lives, instill humility and inspire justice— even nourish a sense of grace and redemption ...." "God, approximately," a talk given by Brian Cantwell Smith at M.I.T., November 18, 1998 More radically, Professor Seyyed Hossein Nasr of George Washington University has called for a "sacred science" that is not "cut off from the twin sources of metaphysical knowledge, namely revelation and intellection." Seyyed Hossein Nasr, The Need for a Sacred Science (Albany: State University of New York Press, 1993), p. 7
As these quotations indicate, the very concept of science is beginning to undergo a process of "leavening," or internal change. It is still too soon to tell what new definition of science might emerge from this process. But to the extent that the natural sciences would be less tightly bound to the five material senses as the definitive source of truth, the difference between Christian Science and these sciences would almost certainly be reduced.
Mrs. Eddy wrote in 1891, "Christian Science is no 'Boston craze;' it is the sober second thought of advancing humanity." No and Yes, p. 19 On this basis it's appropriate that there be bridges of mutual understanding between natural scientists and Christian Scientists.
