Skip to main content Skip to search Skip to header Skip to footer

Mortality isn’t a law. Don’t consent!

From the February 2021 issue of The Christian Science Journal

For centuries people had searched for an answer, and finally they got it. Someone could explain the movement of the solar system, and the world gobbled it up. The discovery was all the more credible because of the man who explained it—an Egyptian astronomer and mathematician by the name of Ptolemy. His 13-volume treatise describing his observations and calculations was so convincing that the Ptolemaic model, as it was called, remained largely unchallenged for more than 1,300 years. There was only one problem: It was completely wrong.

You see, Ptolemy’s conclusions were based on a false premise promoted by others before him. He believed the Earth was the center of both the solar system and the universe. Unknowingly, he adapted his calculations to support what his earthbound senses observed—a seemingly stationary Earth with everything revolving around it. Believing there was no better alternative, the scientific community accepted Ptolemy’s reasoning. The rest of the world consented, and a misconception now seemed even more certain to be scientific fact. Subsequent discoveries would eventually set the record straight, but not before this deception swept the world like a mental contagion and held its grip on science for centuries.

As obvious as this blunder appears now, it is not that different from the misconceptions that form our views of the world we live in today. Material existence is a compilation of reports from the physical senses, all vying for our consent. Physical science, or the conclusions we’ve derived from the observations of our senses, is quoted as authority for so-called laws that are believed to govern every aspect of our lives—birth, maturity, health, longevity, intelligence, etc. But can the physical senses truly be relied upon for providing self-evident truth? Or, like astronomy, is the truth of our existence discerned from a higher standpoint?