User:Ath271/Christian Science article/Proposals

The Christian Science article (CS, in italics) is good in style but poor in form and content, light in descriptions that could lead to a deeper understanding of CS, and heavy in tabloid. Also, it contains material that can be moved to other articles.


 * 1) User:Ath271/Christian Science article/Background
 * 2) User:Ath271/Christian Science article/Critiques (loose, opinion, research)
 * 3) User:Ath271/Christian Science article/Proposals (tight, solid, concise, lucid)
 * 4) User:Ath271/Christian Science theology (per SV)

Layed out, as usual, by priority theoretically, but there are no rules. The goal is to create content in the main space.

The purpose of this subpage is creating several proposals for improving CS. But its purpose better become writing Christian Science theology instead Fortunately for them CS remains very actively sustaining improvements on its own.
 * The lead sentence. Several entailments will of course ensue.
 * Move excess, off-topic material to other, existing articles.
 * Move most criticisms to one section (with subsections as needed).
 * if CS is too dynamic for our pace
 * if we cannot focus on one proposal and get it to the talk page quickly
 * if CS is too well enmeshed in itself to receive our game-changing work

Proposals
Because of the scope and complexity of CS intra- and inter-relations, and of the abstraction level of much of the material, and of the nature of this page, a first goal is simply pacing ourselves and finding a structure and format for the copious assertions that must be made, modified, and deleted (all while saving the polished material for debating on the talk page).

Unlike a talk page (signatures, minimal remarks) it might be better to morph it into one voice, more like an article. So a second goal would be to try to observe some kind of general style and format on this page and the history page, that facilitates speedy responses to interworking-requests, yet tolerates mildly asserted notes and links.

Lead

 * Christian Science is a set of beliefs and practices belonging to the metaphysical family of new religious movements.
 * But "set of beliefs and practices" is not info; this describes all religions. Also, sources don't agree that a "metaphysical family of new religious movements" exists. Neither does the "NRM" page. The lead sentence contains no clear, agreed-upon information.
 * Don't use the concept of a metaphysical family in the lead sentence. It cannot presently be linked to a definition. It is not well defined in the field, and nothing about the situation is presented in the NRM article it links to.


 * Christian Science is a newly emergent, unorthodox type of Protestant Christianity and metaphysical system noted for its revelatory focus and healing rationale.
 * Don't use "unorthodox" because it is negative (anything "un" is) rather than stating what CS is. (But this may not be a good enough reason to exclude it. It is commonly enough used to argue for its inclusion.)
 * Don't use "Protestant" because RS doesn't agree it is.


 * Christian Science is a newly emergent, metaphysical, Christian-gospels based, healing system noted for its revelatory focus and scientific rationale. Put definitions in lead
 * Not just "gospels based", rather, admits entire Bible.


 * Christian Science is a newly emergent Christian metaphysics noted for its revelatory focus, healing system, and scientific rationale. Put definitions in Theology
 * Don't use "Christian metaphysics" because it invokes material not clearly related to CS. Sounds like Christian philosophy (interesting talk page). Invokes Metaphysical Christians.


 * Christian Science is a new religious movement with an emphasis on a scientific application of prayer and a distinguished metaphysical description of the Bible that focuses on revelation and healing. Short definitions of Christian, Science, metaphysics, revelation, expanded elsewhere.
 * Don't use NRM because... (the NRM page is problematic and includes undefined terms/confusing material?)
 * CS includes a metaphysics or has a metaphysics but is not reduceable entirely to that metaphysics. (This is true of all religious systems.)
 * "metaphys description of the Bible" implies non-literalist, yet in core ways CS accepts literalism of Bible events (though not inerrancy of Bible as a text).
 * CS metaphys isn't reduced to/contained within its description of the Bible but perhaps its interpretation of the Bible.


 * Christian Science is a newly emergent, unorthodox type of Christianity including a metaphysical system noted for its healing rationale. Short definitions of Christian (including revelatory focus), Science, metaphysics, healing, expanded elsewhere.
 * Put back in "unorthodox." If not desirable can be replaced with "innovative," "radical," "original." Or simply deleted.
 * Removed revelatory focus as this is perhaps not key to have in lead sentence. It is part of its particular type of Xty and can be elucidated more later.


 * Christian Science is a newly emergent, unorthodox Christian religion with an emphasis on a scientific application of prayer and a metaphysical interpretation of the Bible that focuses on revelation and healing.
 * Retains "scientific application of prayer," a good addition above


 * Christian Science is a religion founded by Mary Baker Eddy and elucidated in her book S&H. It dates to 1866, with the Church of Christ, Scientist (or Christian Science Church) following in 1879. Adherents hold that S&H explicates the Christian Bible and that Eddy and her work fulfill Biblical prophecy. They adhere to a metaphysical system of prayer to practice spiritual healing.
 * Patterned after suggestion at NPOV:Religion
 * First two sentences extremely neutral
 * Second two sentences descriptive after the fashion we've established above yet focus on what adherents believe rather than what it is
 * Extra efforts at neutrality and NPOV might be helpful for talk page

Define "Christian"
Preliminary definitions


 * 1) Christian Orthodox:: (Quoting book "Ways of Belief" by Khorasani, italics added)
 * 2) God became incarnate in the man, Jesus.
 * 3) Christ atoned (paid for) man's sin through His death on the cross.
 * 4) Christ rose in bodily form from the grave, conquering death and proving He is God.
 * 5) The bible is the inspired, authoritative, inerrant, Word of God.
 * The view of Christian Orthodoxy, the nature of man centers largely around the concept of "original sin".[sic]

CS cites "key differences between Christian Science theology and that of traditional Christianity... the Trinity, creation, divinity of Jesus, atonement and resurrection"

Proposed content matter

How CS theology is like the Christian Orthodox
 * Accepts entire Christian Bible
 * Affects miracles through prayer
 * Jesus is the only Son of God.

How CS is unlike the Christian Orthodox
 * Metaphysically there is no sin.
 * The Bible is not "inerrant".
 * CS elevates S&H to sacred status.


 * Not Pantheism (http://christianscience.com/read-online/christian-science-versus-pantheism)


 * Not Spiritualism (S&H ch. 4)


 * Not Protestant


 * Not LDS
 * Focus on readability. Most "lead only" readers don't care about LDS.
 * Not in the lead, but in the body.

Comments

See
 * the CS tenets.
 * online concordance to S&H (and Bible and other MBE books too) called “Concord Express” on this CS webpage. (Read time: 20-30 mins to skim. To look up all the references will approach 2 hours.)

I have a good start at what RS says about how CS theology is the same and different from orthodox Xtn theology. It's a ton of work to get all the quotes and links in order but this is really needed. So this will be the next thing I post.Ath271 (talk) 19:55, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

So it seems CS is unorthodox because it holds
 * There is no sin? Ontologically, yes; experientially, no. See tenet 3: “We acknowledge God's forgiveness of sin in the destruction of sin and the spiritual understanding that casts out evil as unreal. But the belief in sin is punished so long as the belief lasts.” So sin is a “belief,” but humans suffer from believing it until reconciled to God through Christ. If we look at OC, CS, and NT on a spectrum, CS is closer to OC on this. You suffer from sin, you have to repent, etc. Sin may be a “belief,” but it is a terrible belief to the one believing in it who can’t distinguish it experientially from reality. So it is repeatedly referred to as “sin” and not “the belief of sin.” In S&H 327: “The way to escape the misery of sin is to cease sinning. There is no other way. sin is to cease sinning. There is no other way. Sin is the image of the beast to be effaced by the sweat of agony.” And SH 447: “A sinner is not reformed merely by assuring him that he cannot be a sinner because there is no sin. To put down the claim of sin, you must detect it, remove the mask, point out the illusion, and thus get the victory over sin and so prove its unreality.” And finally re: the ontological unreality of all evil, sin especially, SH 447: “Evil which obtains in the bodily senses, but which the heart condemns, has no foundation; but if evil is uncondemned, it is undenied and nurtured. Under such circumstances, to say that there is no evil, is an evil in itself. When needed tell the truth concerning the lie. Evasion of Truth cripples integrity, and casts thee down from the pinnacle.”
 * Jesus was not the only Son? In tenet 2, there is “His Son, one Christ.” So CS has one Son, unlike NT which has several wayshowers, saviors, etc.
 * Re: the resurrection, CS says it did literally/bodily happen. (Ditto the virgin birth; that’s a literal event in CS. SH 332: “Jesus was the son of a virgin.”) CS is like OC in both this literalism. However CS is unlike OC because the point of the resurrection is not to show that Jesus is God. In tenet 5, “We acknowledge that the crucifixion of Jesus and his resurrection served to uplift faith to understand eternal Life, even the allness of Soul, Spirit, and the nothingness of matter.” Also in CS, Jesus is not God. CS is pre-Nicene in this way. See marginal heading “Jesus not God” in SH p. 473. Also SH 361: “Jesus Christ is not God, as Jesus himself declared, but is the Son of God. This declaration of Jesus, understood, conflicts not at all with another of his sayings: "I and my Father are one," — that is, one in quality, not in quantity.” I don’t know specific NT teachings on resurrection and whether Jesus is God.
 * The bible is secondary (not inerrant), only needed as the "keys" for "Science and Health"? In tenet 1, “the inspired Word of the Bible” (not Bible and SH) is “our sufficient guide to eternal Life.” SH contains the “Key to the Scriptures” (its subtitle after 1883), not vice versa. Then you have MBE saying in SH 126, “The Bible has been my only authority.” In the CS Manual p. 58 you have Bible and SH JOINTLY ordained as “Pastor” of the CS church (this unusual ordination is cited in a lot of RS). So SH elucidates “the inspired Word of the Bible” but also literally accepts that Bible stories literally, historically happened, like Daniel and lion’s den (SH 514), three Hebrews in fiery furnace (SH 160). So it is unlike OC, and more like NT, in that the Bible is “inspired” and not “inerrant.” But it is like OC in accepting the literal truth of Bible stories/events, whereas in NT these are usually allegorized or made entirely metaphorical. I just ran across this while looking up Bible stories, and it seems to encapsulate the CS view: “The most distinguished theologians in Europe and America agree that the Scriptures have both a spiritual and literal meaning.” (SH 320) Also it is like OC in that the Bible is the revealed Word of God, whereas in NT several holy scriptures (Gita, Upanishads, etc) are considered equal. But it is unlike OC in that it elevates S&H to sacred status. Weddle 1991 says S&H is thought to fulfill biblical prophecy. Can we compare it to LDS and the work of Joseph Smith? That might be useful. It does not have an open canon as LDS does. There is probably secondary RS on this, I can look.
 * Trinity: Tenet 2 addresses this. “We acknowledge and adore one supreme and infinite God. We acknowledge His Son, one Christ; the Holy Ghost or divine Comforter; and man in God's image and likeness.” In SH 256 and 331 MBE says more about the Trinity. Gottschalk 1973 p. 53 comments on this. He notes that CS has a Trinity acknowledging Father, Son, and Holy Ghost BUT that Eddy rejected “the orthodox Christian concept of the Trinity,” calling it “polytheism.” “Yet she reappraised rather than rejected the concept of God as triune, holding that God could be known in different offices but not as three persons in one.” Gottschalk links this usage of the term “offices” to other Christian theologians such as Edwards and Barth. Then he continues, “Life, Truth, and Love, corresponding to Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, constitute the trinity of Christian Science.”’ NB: Life, Truth, and Love (capped) are 3 of Eddy’s 7 synonyms for God. All 7 are in her def of God in her Glossary in SH p. 587: Principle, Mind, Soul, Spirit, Life, Truth, Love. Those synonyms don't correspond to either OC or NT. But Albanese and Gottschalk both say MBE's def of God as sovereign, All, supreme, etc is Calvinistic (no link sorry, can get one).
 * Atonement: Tenet 4 talks about this. Same pattern: like OC in some ways, unlike it in others. Enough for me today. Ath271 (talk) 03:22, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

Define "Science"
Proposals

Christian Science:: Divine Science
 * Evidence based: if prayer consistently improves health statistics, it's proof of the practice (109:8-9)
 * Natural for everyone: like math, not supernatural (111:6-8)
 * Demonstrable: neither hypothetical nor dogmatic
 * Matter, energy, space, time, and consciousness, i.e. physics plus a metaphysics that is scientific when consciousness is God-consciousness.

Comparable definitions that could define "CS science" by comparing it.

Science:: the ability to produce solutions in some problem domain -- Wordnet

Spiritual Science::
 * Science is the systematic and orderly arrangement of knowledge. Spiritual science, which is the orderly arrangement of the truths of Being, does not always conform to intellectual standards, but it is still scientific. Spiritual science treats of absolute ideas, while mental science treats of limited thoughts. --Charles Fillmore
 * Fillmore was Unity, which was founded over against CS (in part based on objections to CS views on revelation). So have to be careful there. Ath271 (talk) 20:07, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

Quimby Science::
 * Quimby's mental science is squarely on the shoulders of "Jesus" and "science", not redefined, but in lexicographic expansion (another number at the end of the list in the dictionary). Biblical Jesus is "Jesus Christ", Quimby's Jesus is "Christ Jesus". Christ being the key word, any Christ. Q was right: the Christ story "three wise men, a star, Winter Solstice, healing and loving, public hanging" is told in a dozen cultures, kinda like the flood story. If its a science, it better be global culturally, nay universal. The lexical expansion tries not to reorient, but to revision. Jesus and science are good and solid enough concepts all around, but they are also complicit in constructing unhealthy worlds, hence the possible dream that the new layer might color the previous ones.

New Thought science:: New thought, newly worded-thought that revisions the term by adding to it without removing anything from it. (CS says "CS redefines the vocabulary".) The new thinking is about altering the state of consciousness for material success. Theosophy for example encourages the wise applications of material science, and material ownership, but the underlying principle for these is a scientifically guaranteed power that, having no evil, (coinciding with the medical dictum) "cannot harm", so provides life in abundance. The principle state of consciousness is love, a passion for life driven inwardly by superego and empathy, and in the outer world by a universal love separated only by a human ignorance the new thought science aims to correct with facts from universal religious ethics and science proper. An incomplete-religiously science "proper" can be bad in the long run for everybody's environment.

Occult science:: The knowledge of everything, both scientific and revealed. Of all the things that can be witnessed or discovered, and of all the persons who could know them, there is a complete fulfillment. This correlation speaks for any point in time. The revealed knowledge is instrumental, not "prophetically", but scientifically: the past is completely knowable and rationally patterns a reasoned future. Occult science gathers and represents everything that can be witnessed and told concerning the powers of an evolved (or un-devolved) human consciousness.

Social science:: The term social research has also acquired a degree of autonomy as practitioners from various disciplines share in its aims and methods.
 * "Social science is an academic discipline concerned with society and the relationships among individuals within a society. It includes anthropology, economics, political science, psychology and sociology. In a wider sense, it may often include some fields in the humanities[1] such as archaeology, history, law, and linguistics."


 * "Positivist social scientists use methods resembling those of the natural sciences as tools for understanding society, and so define science in its stricter modern sense. "


 * "Interpretivist social scientists, by contrast, may use social critique or symbolic interpretation rather than constructing empirically falsifiable theories, and thus treat science in its broader sense."
 * "In modern academic practice, researchers are often eclectic, using multiple methodologies, even combining quantitative and qualitative techniques. "

Contextual quotes
Theosophy: "Although it contains by derivation the name God and thus may seem at first sight to embrace religion alone, it does not neglect science, for it is the science of sciences and therefore has been called the wisdom religion. For no science is complete which leaves out any department of nature, whether visible or invisible, and [a] religion [that] depends solely on an assumed revelation turns away from things and the laws which govern them [and] is nothing but a delusion, a foe to progress, an obstacle in the way of man's advancement toward happiness. Embracing both the scientific and the religious, Theosophy is a scientific religion and a religious science.... [Theosophy] is not a belief or dogma formulated or invented by man, but is a knowledge of the laws which govern the evolution of the physical, astral, psychical, and intellectual constituents of nature and of man. The religion of the day is but a series of dogmas man-made and with no scientific foundation for promulgated ethics; [and] while our science as yet ignores the unseen, and [fails] to admit the existence of a complete set of inner faculties of perception in man, it is cut off from the immense and real field of experience which lies within the visible and tangible worlds. But Theosophy knows that the whole is constituted of the visible and the invisible, and perceiving outer things and objects to be but transitory it grasps the facts of nature, both without and within. It is therefore complete in itself and sees no unsolvable mystery anywhere; it throws the word coincidence out of its vocabulary and hails the reign of law in everything and every circumstance. -- William Q. Judge"

"Scientific studies regarding the use of prayer have mostly concentrated on its effect on the healing of sick or injured people. Meta-studies of the studies in this field have been performed showing evidence only for no effect or a potentially small effect." -- Wikipedia

Define healing
Proposals


 * CS healing is divine healing, a faith cure, but it is natural not supernatural. Define "natural" and "supernatural"


 * A prayer by a "practitioner" can heal someone else's situation.

Heather Curtis's Faith in the Great Physician (2006) draws this parallel between CS and divine healing (ie faith cure) - that both define their healing as natural rather than supernatural.

Comments

Define revelation
Content matter proposals


 * Unlike the revelation of other religions, CS revelation is personal rather than authoritative, and is not deemed accurate until the scientific application of a successful prayer. This means it relies heavily on a worldview produced by applying the metaphysics of the S&H book.

Comments

Define metaphysical
Proposals


 * The philosophy of CS reveals an eternal "divine Principle", an ethic with love and trust towards nature, an aesthetic of worldly beauty, and an epistemology based on scientific results of the application of the metaphysics found in S&H. The metaphysics is built around a divine Principle, which is impersonal because it is all encompassing, but the part within persons affords a personal communion and interaction with it.


 * For all religions "metaphysical" is defined: "without material form or function". (WordNet)


 * The metaphysical Christ, Jesus as the prototypical Metaphysical Christian, biblically did transfigure; teleport; do mediumship with the one, ascendent Spirit World; weild supernatural powers; prophesy; levitate (become an apparition); command in a clairvoyant transe, perform necromancy (heal the dead), perform healing of the sick. (http://thespiritualchurch.com/Metaphysical_Christian.html)

Comments

See

"Metaphysical Christian" is different from "metaphysical family", is different from the metaphysics of CS. For example CS does not practice levitation. Melton has already said an NRM family does not have attributes, which would include, of course, metaphysical ones. So if we link to the definition of metaphysical family at New Religous Movement, it would be mislead the metaphysical attributes CS does have. What are some core CS metaphysical attributes? How do they differ from NT metaphysical attributes?

All religions are metaphysical. A tenet is "a religious doctrine that is proclaimed is true without proof" (Wordnet). If the tenet can be backed up by a notable philosophy of specific scientific evidence, then (ala Lewis) that religion is an NRM of the metaphysical tradition because it is adapting to scientific revelations. The blossoming of NRMs would seem to be part of the modernism movement in general.

Metaphysical has two pertinent entries on WordNet, and I reject the one that says "highly abstract and overly theoretical" (although the "pejorative" link you submitted tries to use it.)

Subject outline
Currently the entire subject outlines at one, two, and three levels are:


 * Overview
 * History
 * Practices


 * Overview
 * Metaphysical Family
 * Christian Science theology
 * History
 * Birth
 * Writing and teaching
 * Growth
 * Decline
 * Practices
 * Christian Science prayer
 * Children's rights
 * Christian Science church

We have three theological possibilities for theology content: put it in the S&H article; put it in the CS article; make CS into a summary style article. This needs further consideration.
 * Summary style seems ideal, with main points (as we are in process of assembling them) included in the current article under "CS Theology" and a spinoff article later. This content is basic to understanding CS.
 * Putting theological sketch/content in the S&H article not ideal. The book has its own cultural, social, literary history and cannot be reduced only to details about the theology within it. However there is overlap here. The S&H article should have sections on Origins, Authorship, Editions, Major Revisions, Content, and Controversies. The Content section of S&H should state that this book contains the major explication of CS theology and link to the appropriate article.
 * We also have the (equally problematic) article on MBE to work with.

My new outline proposes putting a considerable sketch of the theology as the first main section. A fuller discussion can be developed into an article and linked to CS later, SS.

The New Church and other articles whose title is the same as the name of a religion should be largely about the goodness of that religion, certainly that is the theological work. That the topic of a religion article is largely about its goodness should be as sacred an expectation as WP has for WP:BOLP, and if it is skewed it should be decided on the talk page to straighten it, or change the title of the article. In our case that might be History of CS. Not that there should be a boilerplate for religion's or person's outlines, but the content of an article who is a title of a person or a religion wold seem to deserve more effort at neutrality: CS seems as bent as NRM towards the Christian right. &mdash; Cp i r al  Cpiral  03:02, 11 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Are there any WP guidelines re: articles on "living" religions, or on organizations as a subset or corollary of BLP? Those could be useful to invoke. I don't know if I'd say the article should be about its "goodness" - we don't want it to be adulatory or boosterism - but it should be neutral and descriptive, and our article is neither right now. That would allow people to consider the possibility of its goodness, and right now our article overall really only allows for the possibility of its badness. Readers should be able to decide for themselves.
 * It doesn't look like it at WP:BOLP, but it makes sense to me to believe I can just replace "person" with "religion", for the same reason (political correctness) that corporations have person-like attributes as regards lobbying, religious rights, etc.
 * Yes I agree. This is a living entity. We also have NPOV guidelines on religion, just below WP: Necessary, which state: "Some adherents of a religion might object to a critical historical treatment of their faith, claiming that this somehow discriminates against their religious beliefs. They might prefer that the articles describe their faith as they see it. NPOV policy means that Wikipedia editors ought to say something like this: Many adherents of this faith believe X, which they believe that members of this group have always believed; however, due to the acceptance of some findings (say which) by modern historians and archaeologists (say which), other adherents (say which) of this faith now believe Z. This way, views are presented without being criticized or endorsed."
 * The problem our page has is that it so often doesn't embody a critical historical treatment of a faith, just a critical treatment. Critical historical is good! It's balanced. You get all the views in there. But we're so often not writing for the opponent. We have mostly one POV and stick to that. Part of the problem is that our page until recently actually had a policy of excluding sources written by scholar-practitioners (I can find that archive link if you want). In religious studies these are key texts that explain religious beliefs and practices from the inside out. It fortunately became clear that policy was against Wiki rules, but we haven't yet integrated material that speaks about CS authoritatively as a viable religion. We have almost nothing here that says "Many adherents of this faith believe X; others believe X."

Theology subject matter
Christian Science theology:
 * define "Christian" and "Science"
 * compare "Christian Orthodox" church, "Spiritual Science" of New Thought
 * list its metaphysical attributes
 * mention "NRM of the metaphysical family"?
 * describe its revelatory claims
 * comparing it to other theologies
 * describe healing rationale
 * compare other healing rationales, incl. medical procedures
 * document Christian Science philosophy

Put CS theology
 * in the S&H article
 * in the CS article
 * in a new, "main article", making CS theology section into a summary style.

Describe the revelatory claims? I think the revelatory claims bit goes in the "Xtn" section. But I do still wonder about having another section on healing. Healing is described as an outgrowth of the metaphysics, so it could be a subsection there. It is also described in 5-6 RS as a practice common to some Xties (though with different theological underpinnings), so it could alternately be a subsection in the "Christian" section. Or it could be its own section. Ath271 (talk) 01:44, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
 * See "Subject outlines proposals" in the adjacent section "Subject Outline". (No proposals started yet.)

"NRM of the metaphysical family"? Consider this stepwise rationale against its mention. If we can agree to Then we shouldn't overextend ourselves trying to define "the metaphysical family" or "NT" for that matter. These are issues for elsewhere: other articles, or some future, scholarly consensus. All this is off topic for our article. It would be on topic for the NRM article, where they have a section about New Religions Studies.
 * define a term before we use it, therefore
 * define "the metaphysical family" or don't use it, but that
 * the topic of our article is CS, not (nascent) religious studies, not NT.

On the other hand we have to place CS in the religious landscape, and its metaphysics is by far its most conspicuous attribute. It is a metaphysical-breakaway NRM. NT too is "a metaphysical family" in itself, but not the Meltonian "the metaphysical family", yet the two uses are both appropriate because because "metaphysical" and "family" (and "the" and "a") have their usual dictionary meanings.

Other landscaping options
 * Philosophy of religion
 * Christian Philosophy

The debate has been difficult to conclude due to its complexity. I'll list the complexities. Here's where I got to while trying to defining "metaphysical family":
 * An NRM is an abstraction of a religion, an NRM family is many NRMs, combined to make another abstraction layer. No NRM of an NRM family is guaranteed to have any one (or more) attributes, for these are "abstracted away" to make scholarship possible. Using the phrase takes us two levels of abstraction away from our domain, and lands us in a foggy place.
 * The definition of Metaphysics is vague and confusing.
 * The Meltonian "metaphysics" is used for counting and cataloging.
 * CS metaphysics was formulated in the 19th century, and NT metaphysics largely in the 20th.
 * NT metaphysics is largely new metaphysics based on the effects of searching for the meaning of reality in light of certain famous Quantum Mechanics experiments, which have been done more than any other kind of experiment in the history of science, and continue to perplex everyone.
 * NT is itself "a metaphysical family" that is largely a side effect of material "science".
 * Spiritualism metaphysics is an old metaphysical religion that Eddy distances herself from in the CS bible "Science and Health" (chapter four).
 * The definition of "a metaphysical family" is incomplete until all the NRMs Therefore the metaphysical family is incorrect, wherease "a metaphysical family" could be correct. as long as it was defined by a link or reference.
 * Any use of "metaphysical" at all is almost certainly confusing. Yet the term is important in a presentation of this theology. Assuming the frequent use of "metaphysical" in S&H is fairly consistent in meaning, if we can then work to find and convey what Eddy means by "metaphysical", we must use repetition of that meaning (20 min read), and not use instances outside of that meaning, unless it is made clear by defining its other meaning in that context.
 * An easier alternative than that mention is to list all metaphysical attributes of all metaphysical religions. But that list is not easy to generate, and it may be off-topic.
 * An easier alternative is to define the way (or ways) CS uses "metaphysical" in S&H. We could use comparison contrast and go down a list of the metaphysical attributes of the metaphysical family. We don't need a source for such a list because "metaphysical" and "family" have their usual meanings.

--- Christian Science philosophy? Some Indian religions are rigorous enough logically to superimpose themselves onto a philosophy. (I read that in a book I have.) This means the canon has a metaphysics, the logic, an aesthetic, an epistemology, and the ethics. Have you ever heard CS referred to as a philosophy in that way? Seen a comprehensive CS logical rationale? The challenging part is the logic.
 * No, there is almost nothing calling it a philosophy bc philosophy is seen contra religion - an element of religion but not the religion itself. The exception as you say is some eastern religions. But not in wester religions/Xty. There is one book from the 1940s or 1950s re: CS as a philosophy, but it gained little traction and is almost a primary source at this point. Re: a comprehensive CS logical rationale, the logic is considered the revelation. Eddy: "Divine logic and revelation coincide. If we believe otherwise, we may be sure that either our logic is at fault or that we have misinterpreted revelation." (S&H 93) So it admittedly doesn't follow a pattern of humanly-based logic and even defies that logic at key points. As Gottschalk repeatedly brings out, its metaphysics is both revelatory and pragmatic (practice-based). He says this based on MBE writing that to understand her theology was truly possible only through “practical demonstration,” or healing. She says in Rudimental Divine Science 6:24, “The proof of what you apprehend in the simplest definite and absolute form of healing, can alone answer this question of how much you understand of Christian Science Mind-healing.”


 * So no, it hasn't been called a philosophy much and shouldn't be bc its pragmatic, revelatory emphasis is thought to subsume/exceed/defy/illuminate/contradict/instruct/redeem (any and all work from diff angles) bare human logic.


 * Exception: it is occasionally compared to gnosticism and neo-Platonism. However while these are not exactly fringe comparisons they aren't core to the literature and are contested. So they shouldn't be highlighted in the lead or in a SS article.


 * I also looked up "philosophy" in S&H concordance and found about 10 refs, these are representative:


 * "Page 99: "Human philosophy, ethics, and superstition afford no demonstrable divine Principle by which mortals can escape from sin; yet to escape from sin, is what the Bible demands."
 * 269: "Human philosophy has made God manlike. Christian Science makes man Godlike."
 * 279: "Every system of human philosophy, doctrine, and medicine is more or less infected with the pantheistic belief that there is mind in matter; but this belief contradicts alike revelation and right reasoning."
 * 271 for one of the few positive mentions: "Jesus instructed his disciples whereby to heal the sick through Mind instead of matter. He knew that the philosophy, Science, and proof of Christianity were in Truth, casting out all inharmony."

Create an External links section
Create with
 * Eddy from an NT perspective

Move certain material to other articles
Minimize what can seem disparaging of, yet frivolous concerning, the Christian Science religion. Keep information on Wikipedia.

Philosophical stance
On the talk page and building up to make successful proposals, the idea is "justice" in the following senses.

A proposal can ultimately be demanded, and rejected for a better proposal, but the process is continuous. Alternative proposals addressing a single problem must all be heard. No fair challenge can be ignored. If there is a reasonable challenge by anyone (including paid editors) they win a hearing on the talk page In most other cases, there can only be edit wars until there is no more wrong being challenged. A change cannot be ultimately denied when it is well reasoned as an improvement, even if the appeal processes are numerous and over the course of a long time.
 * Biography of Living Persons. Similar to the idea that corporations are people, religions are people too, socially birthed, civilly chartered and sanctioned, embodied: "good" producing "goods". In the same worthy vein as Notability (WP:N), WP:BLP applies. "WP:BLP doesn't only apply to biographical articles. --Redrose64". Respect means making tentative leaps into the mindset of an individual, their motivations, or intentions, not bold ones likely to be challenged. (Eddy had roles, non of which areFrom WP:BLP:
 * Any material challenged must be explicitly attributed to a reliable, published source.
 * The material requires a high degree of sensitivity.
 * We must get the article right.
 * "No original research" might be our saving grace here because it seems a substantial amount of challenged material contains sources are cherry picked, that also seem misinterpreted in many cases.
 * Neutrality. If it's notable, its fame is worthy of neutral treatment lacking all possible interpretations and insinuation to the negative. There's no such thing as a positive insinuation.  If it's notable, its infamy is worthy of neutrality, and all possible interpretations that insinuate the negative are worth rewording.


 * Judgment and experience. Readers need a neutral setting in order to absorb the subtle implications in word choices that could possibly convey a worldview of love and perfection, one without judgmental emotional whiplash to one side or another. Readers should not be "in" the article or in the authorship, finding a side to take; they should be "lost" in the subject. It is most natural, and thereby not-distracting, to have the style of an essay match its topic.