robert-y-ellis's Blog

Hi Twistor,

Glad you enjoyed “Collision.” I have to say that, unlike you, I still carry much of what I was taught in CS with me. I don’t bring this out in "Collision," but I had a difficult time making the decision to resign from the church. I had stopped going for several years but still sent the local church money from time to time. Finally, though, I realized I was being a hypocrite and wrote a letter of resignation. I had been a First Reader, member of the executive board, usher, you name it, many times. I don’t believe it’s possible to imbibe something to that extent and just throw it out one day. A number of the letters I’ve received from ex-CS say the same thing. This, I believe, is true for many people of any faith that they have lived with for years. It’s hard to let go.

Having confessed all that, I still find myself relying on my sense of infinite Mind. I’m not sure what this Mind is. According to George Vaillant in his book “Spiritual Evolution” we are all hard wired to be spiritual. His definition of spiritual is rather broad, encompassing our tendency to wonder and to be in awe of such things as the universe. So, perhaps I’m just being a normal human being. On the other hand, as I relate in “Collision” I have had several “transcendent” experiences which, to me, were inexplicable in the normal cause and effect sense.

I do wonder if any of the so-called philosophical implications of theoretical physics have any validity. Is it all just wishful thinking? It took me years to fathom relativity. And many more to grasp quantum theory – and I have limited mathematical capabilities so any understanding I have is that of a layman. Still, if I learned nothing else, it is that our three dimensional way of seeing our surroundings can be very misleading. And that concept brought me back to wondering if, perhaps, there was some validity to CS. Is there?

Yes, I agree, the universe is fascinating and I, too, am glad to be a part of it—also of this earth and of all the wonders that surround me. I, too, see no evidence for a controlling intelligence. The operative word being “controlling.” I do believe I see evidence of Intelligence in those “transcendent” experiences I and others have had. Carl Jung and others declared these experiences, which often included two or more unrelated people, to be a valid part of the human condition. But what do these experiences reveal? Jung called it synchronicity and said it is the manifestation of a universal “a-causal connecting principle.”

Psychiatrists, such as Vaillant, tell us that it’s all in the brain. Much research has demonstrated exactly where in the brain all activity for all functions takes place including all the emotions and, very importantly, insight—the aha! experience. In the July 28, 2008 New Yorker we are told that “insight is a fleeting glimpse of the brain’s huge store of unknown knowledge.” Unknown knowledge? What the author and Vaillant and many others are telling us, seems to me, is that they know where in the brain all activity takes place. But they cannot tell us where ideas, insights, ahas, synchronicity come from. What is their source? That, I believe, is the intelligence upon which I rely. Perhaps you or someone else on the forum can straighten me out.

Well, I have gone on. That tends to happen when anyone invites me to communicate. Meantime, I’m also very curious about organized religion. Why do we have it? Why do we need it? Is it the scourge of humanity as Christopher Hitchins, Sam Harris claim? So many people are so devoted to their various faiths of which there are thousands. I once was too. Why?

I’ve posted your comments on the “Collision” website with a couple of minor edits—your gradfather now is your grandfather. I’d welcome your response either here or via the website. The latter will cause an email to come to me and I’ll then know who you are! On the other hand the forum does allow wider discussion.

Today the Christian Science church declares that no anti-doctor attitude is taught by the church. And, judging from some of the feedback on the A Collision of Truths website, www.acollisionoftruths.com, contemporary CS practitioners are not as reluctant to follow their patients into the hospital as they were back in the good old days. The same feedback declares that claims that such a church dictated policy exists are without foundation. That may be true today. But there’s no denying that in the past and for many decades the church devoted thousands of dollars to having their state Committees on Publication get their legislatures to pass laws granting exemptions to children of Christian Scientists from public school education in health, biology, etc. and from normal examinations by the school doctor or nurse. Articles in the CS publications supported this stance, and the CS Board of Directors defrocked it’s own CS Teachers when they strayed from the anti-medicine line.

From the perspective of the writings of Mary Baker Eddy (MBE), the founder of Christian Science, was the attitude that members should not mix medicine with prayer ever legitimate? Consider the following:

She advised her followers on how to choose a doctor and declared that his efforts could be conducive to health (salutary): “Great caution should be exercised in the choice of physicians. If you employ a medical practitioner, be sure he is a learned man and skilful; never trust yourself in the hands of a quack. In proportion as a physician is enlightened and liberal is he equipped with Truth, and his efforts are salutary; ignorance and charlatanism are miserable medical aids.” (Christian Healing 14:9) In her day “quackery” was rampant and good doctors were hard to come by.

She suggested the taking of a pain killer: “If from an injury or from any cause, a Christian Scientist were seized with pain so violent that he could not treat himself mentally . . . the sufferer could call a surgeon, who would give him a hypodermic injection, then, when the belief of pain was lulled, he could handle his own case mentally.” (Science and Health 464: 13-19) The word “surgeon” included all doctors in MBE’s day.
She recognized that her followers might not be ready for total reliance on God for physical healing, and said that if a doctor is brought in, the practitioner should continue praying for the patient: “Until the advancing age admits the efficacy and supremacy of Mind, it is better for Christian Scientists to leave surgery and the adjustment of broken bones and dislocations to the fingers of a surgeon, while the mental healer confines himself chiefly to mental reconstruction . . .” (Science and Health 401:27)
Many more quotes of this kind are available in the early Christian Science periodicals by various authors and more quotes can be found in MBE’s writings.
Might the church be thriving today if the common sense of the early days of the movement had prevailed? Might it experience growth today if the church could reverse the public image on this major issue. Feedback on Collision’s website testifies to heart rending experiences that came about as a result of this anti-medical tradition. And yet many of the same feedback letters indicate that, while people have left the church because of the early death of loved ones, they still hold on to much of what they learned in Christian Science. One feedback writer who has left the church nevertheless suggests that Mary Baker Eddy was way ahead of her time and that she would have respected the scientific/medical discoveries being made today. The same speculation is made in A Collision of Truths.

How many ex-Christian Scientists might not have left the church were it not for this overriding issue? Is there any validity for an anti-medical stance in Christian Science? Can/should the Christian Science organization attempt to overcome the public’s anti-medical picture of The First Church of Christ, Scientist? If so, how?

It seems to me that what you have described in your last paragraph is a RELIGION. You've given us a description of how a person should think, believe and behave. According to the Oxford English Reference Dictionary Religion is: 1. the belief in a superhuman controlling power. 2. the expression of this in worship. 3. a particular system of faith and worship. Seems to me your description fits perfectly into number 3. And it seems to me that you have thrown out most traditional present day religions which fit into number 1 in your description of what a religious person should NOT do.

I'm trying to stay out of these discussions because I don't want to monopolize them. But I couldn't resist posting this.

I have never understood why Christian Science can be faulted for times when people die, while traditional medicine is blameless.

Do all medical patients get cured and recover always? Hardly. Some die, even during/after treatment for “minor” ailments.

Secondly, at any given time, medical “science” disagrees with itself from just a few years prior. Thus, medical science can hardly be seen as correct or accurate.

This message was received on the Collision website anonymously and has been posted here by Bob Ellis

Hello mjcl: Thanks so much for your post. It's the Toad Hall bookstore in Rockport not the Toadstool. The book also is available online and those outlets can be accessed via the website www.acollisionoftruths.com. But it would be wonderful if you patronized our local store. I can't remember to what extent John Ronan and I explored the medical vs. CS issue but I'm right in line with you regarding MBE being au courant with 20th and 21st century advances. I gather that you are in Rockport, at least Cape Ann. You know who I am. I don't know who you are. You have so much to say echoing some of my conclusions in Collision and I have an idea we might enjoy meeting someday. If that appeals to you you can go to the website, click on contact the author and send me an email. Meantime, I'm going to post your comments on the reviews/feeback section of the website.

Bob Ellis

Since you have "quit religious belief systems for good," according to your original post, I can't help wondering if you have any belief in God. I, too, have left the church and don't see myself aligning with any formal religious organization. But people often ask me if I may join a church in the future and, if so, which one. Presently I can only say I don't know what the future will hold. And, as I make clear in Collision I certainly do not subscribe to the standard Judeo/Christian God.

Meanwhile, I am going to post your original entry in the feedback/reviews section of my website. And I'd love to receive a "review" of Collision from you once you've had a chance to read it.

Many thanks. By the way, you can contact me directly, if that would be helpful, via the website www.acollisionoftruths.com.

While you've not yet read the book your comments would fit in very well under reviews/feedback on www.acollisionoftruths.com . I'd like to put them there. Let me know. Also, I'd be interested to know how you found this forum.

Thanks, Bill for your post. Sorry to take this long to respond. But I’ve been thinking about your defining God as Truth. You rely heavily on the Bible for your answers so I went to my King James Version. That’s the Bible I was raised on in Christian Science. I searched for Biblical synonyms for God.

I found Love as in: “God is love; and he that dwelleth in love dwelleth in God, and God in him.” (I John 4: 16)
A second is Spirit as in: “God is a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth.” (John 4: 24)

In the latter John also speaks of truth. But does he mean God is Truth? Later in John when relating the trial he relates: “Pilate therefore said unto him, Art thou a king then? Jesus answered, Thou sayest that I am a king. To this end was I born, and for this cause came I into the world, that I should bear witness unto the truth. Every one that is of the truth heareth my voice. Pilate saith unto him, What is truth? And when he had said this, he went out again , unto the Jews, and saith unto them, I find in him no fault at all.” (John 18: 37, 38) And I don’t believe the question “What is truth?” is ever answered. Sounds to me, though, that Jesus meant God.

For what it’s worth, as you know from reading Collision, Christian Science espouses seven synonyms for God: Life, Truth, Mind, Principle, Spirit Soul, Love. I don’t know if you intentionally zeroed in on one of these synonyms or came to Truth independently. Having been raised in CS, even though I’ve left the church, I keep coming back to these synonyms for my answers and, for me, I believe Mind resonates the most, although I also come back to Life, Love, Principle, Truth.

In any case, I suspect that for every person on this earth there’s a unique perspective on God or the gods (we mustn’t forget Hinduism and much of the Asian world.) I wonder if we’ll ever be able to come together.

I'd be interested to know in what manner this discussion relates to religion. What message might a Christian, Jew, Moslem, Buddhist take from this description of Consciousness. Is Consciousness, as you see it outside of all matter since, as I understand it, Consciousness is not "in the brain" so to speak. Is Consciousness God?

Also, where you state that "there are no material/behavioral evidences of the agency which projects an order upon the material world . . .", are you declaring, then, that we have no evidence of a creator who started the whole thing -- universe, big bang, all of it?

Welcome to the Robert Y. Ellis forum.

This is meant to be a friendly place even though we're discussing possibly sensitive subjects. So, please give us an idea of who you are. You don't need to give us your actual name. But we'd love to have an idea of where you live and what brought you to this forum.

In A Collision of Truths I describe my life as a Christian Scientist and the reasons why I left the church. I also declare that I find the standard Judeo/Christian concept of a God who created and rules the Earth, unsatisfactory and in conflict with scientific thinking. But I do say that it is Universal Intelligence or Consciousness which I leaned on in the past and still do today. This, to me, is a "liberating" concept of God. The question, then, is: Can God be defined in a way that satisfies your needs? If so does my concept make any sense to you? If not, why not? Let me hear from you.