Christian Scientists believe that diseases are not caused by a physical abnormality, but by a mental error. In other words, that all diseases are psychosomatic. So they can be corrected by prayer alone. What do you think are the best arguments against that belief?
I found two arguments that sound good to me:
1) The poison argument. "Suppose somebody drinks a glass of water that contains a poison, but nobody knows that it is poisonous. If Christian Science is right, then that poison could not kill that person. If medical science is right, then it can kill that person. And it is obvious which is true."
2) The jellyfish argument. Jellyfish are animals without a brain, and therefore without a mind. If all diseases are psychosomatic, they could not get diseases such as cancer. But they do get them.
Do you know some more?

(September 17, 2023 at 9:23 am)FlatAssembler Wrote: Christian Scientists believe that diseases are not caused by a physical abnormality, but by a mental error. In other words, that all diseases are psychosomatic. So they can be corrected by prayer alone. What do you think are the best arguments against that belief?

I think the Christian Scientists are on to something.   Twelve years ago I had stage III inflammatory breast cancer with a prognosis of only a 25-40 percent chance of living another five years.  My mother began to  pray the rosary times without number, and soon after my chemo and mastectomy the cancer went away!

never mind, it's early and I've not had my coffee

(September 17, 2023 at 9:33 am)LinuxGal Wrote:

(September 17, 2023 at 9:23 am)FlatAssembler Wrote: Christian Scientists believe that diseases are not caused by a physical abnormality, but by a mental error. In other words, that all diseases are psychosomatic. So they can be corrected by prayer alone. What do you think are the best arguments against that belief?

I think the Christian Scientists are on to something.   Twelve years ago I had stage III inflammatory breast cancer with a prognosis of only a 25-40 percent chance of living another five years.  My mother began to  pray the rosary times without number, and soon after my chemo and mastectomy the cancer went away!

I am sorry about that.

(September 17, 2023 at 10:17 am)FlatAssembler Wrote:

(September 17, 2023 at 9:33 am)LinuxGal Wrote: I think the Christian Scientists are on to something.   Twelve years ago I had stage III inflammatory breast cancer with a prognosis of only a 25-40 percent chance of living another five years.  My mother began to  pray the rosary times without number, and soon after my chemo and mastectomy the cancer went away!

I am sorry about that.

If you're gonna get cancer the 21st Century is a better time to get it. In the 1990s or earlier I woulda been dead meat.

(September 17, 2023 at 9:23 am)FlatAssembler Wrote: Christian Scientists believe that diseases are not caused by a physical abnormality, but by a mental error. In other words, that all diseases are psychosomatic. So they can be corrected by prayer alone. What do you think are the best arguments against that belief?
I found two arguments that sound good to me:
1) The poison argument. "Suppose somebody drinks a glass of water that contains a poison, but nobody knows that it is poisonous. If Christian Science is right, then that poison could not kill that person. If medical science is right, then it can kill that person. And it is obvious which is true."
2) The jellyfish argument. Jellyfish are animals without a brain, and therefore without a mind. If all diseases are psychosomatic, they could not get diseases such as cancer. But they do get them.
Do you know some more?

I think a plausible case could be made against Christian Science by beating the living daylights out of a Christian Scientist. Since they believe that the material world is purely illusory, they wouldn’t be able to file an assault charge against me. Their broken teeth and severe contusions and blood loss didn’t really happen.

Boru

(September 17, 2023 at 10:25 am)Angrboda Wrote:

(September 17, 2023 at 9:23 am)FlatAssembler Wrote: Christian Scientists believe that diseases are not caused by a physical abnormality, but by a mental error. In other words, that all diseases are psychosomatic. So they can be corrected by prayer alone. What do you think are the best arguments against that belief?
I found two arguments that sound good to me:
1) The poison argument. "Suppose somebody drinks a glass of water that contains a poison, but nobody knows that it is poisonous. If Christian Science is right, then that poison could not kill that person. If medical science is right, then it can kill that person. And it is obvious which is true."
2) The jellyfish argument. Jellyfish are animals without a brain, and therefore without a mind. If all diseases are psychosomatic, they could not get diseases such as cancer. But they do get them.
Do you know some more?

Amazing a robot evaluates and select response options based on reading these options writing out in English and projected onto inputs of its optical sensors, like there was some literate gremlin operating via a VR headset.

(September 17, 2023 at 9:23 am)FlatAssembler Wrote: Christian Scientists believe that diseases are not caused by a physical abnormality, but by a mental error. In other words, that all diseases are psychosomatic. So they can be corrected by prayer alone. What do you think are the best arguments against that belief?
I found two arguments that sound good to me:
1) The poison argument. "Suppose somebody drinks a glass of water that contains a poison, but nobody knows that it is poisonous. If Christian Science is right, then that poison could not kill that person. If medical science is right, then it can kill that person. And it is obvious which is true."
2) The jellyfish argument. Jellyfish are animals without a brain, and therefore without a mind. If all diseases are psychosomatic, they could not get diseases such as cancer. But they do get them.
Do you know some more?

Require all Christian scientists to rely purely on mental correctness and the question of whether christIan scenarists are right would become irrelevant in a couple of generations.