Today my sister taught me a little lesson in grace. I thank her for her honesty – have you ever noticed how when we are open and honest with each other then healing follows.  Mary Baker Eddy wrote:

We should examine ourselves and learn what is the affection and purpose of the heart, for in this way only can we learn what we honestly are. If a friend informs us of a fault, do we listen patiently to the rebuke and credit what is said? Do we not rather give thanks that we are “not as other men”? During many years the author has been most grateful for merited rebuke. The wrong lies in unmerited censure, — in the falsehood which does no one any good.

Science and Health 8:28

Okay so what was this lesson I learned? I hear you say.

I’m experimenting with new ways to use email – and had put an autoresponder on my account – unfortunately it came across a little harsh (sorry anyone who got it!) – I am so grateful that my sister told me and I have changed the autoresponder, and I’ll probably change it again, it is always good to grow in grace!

Now I am off now to explain the change and change my contact details accordingly.

Readers of this blog (if there are any!) may be interested to know there is a very interesting article on the placebo effect in this week’s New Scientist ( 23rd August 2008). The piece is by Michael Brooks, and the by-line reads

“When Michael Brooks went in search of the truth of the placebo effect, he was shocked by what he found”, the article goes on to discuss some recent studies into the placebo effect, which would seem to support some of Mary Baker Eddy’s conclusion in this respect.

These are the sentences the editors pulled out an enlarged from the article:

“If you don’t know you have been given the painkiller, it has no effect” and

“The findings threaten the very credibility of modern medicine”

AS you might imagine these findings are controversial, but they are nevertheless very interesting.

Have you read this article? What do you think?

(2^nd Edition, Enlarged)

Thomas S. Kuhn.

University of Chicago Press. 1962,1970.

The history science has seen some radically transform our concepts of space, time and matter. How are we to make sense of such earth-shaking changes in belief?

One book that sheds considerable light on these questions, and helps to keep them in perspective, is “The Structure of Scientific Revolutions”, by historian and philosopher of science, Thomas S. Kuhn

It would be hard to overstate the intellectual stir this book has caused.

Prior to the publication of this work, it was almost universally believed that science progressed steadily as a process of accretion. By improving and refining their models, scientists were gradually adding new knowledge to the existing knowledge – the existing knowledge remained true, but it was just stated more accurately.

Kuhn argued that the history of science showed that this was simply not the case.

There were times when science progressed in this manner. However, these peaceful problem solving periods were interspersed with revolutions (some violent, some so subtle as to almost go unnoticed), in which accepted truths were rejected and fundamental assumptions had to be revised. Kuhn coined the term paradigm to describe the underlying assumptions of a science, and the term “paradigm shift” to describe the change in assumptions that occurs during a scientific revolution.

Kuhn’s book reveals the way in which assumptions implicitly underlie all science and the difficulties inherent in communicating revolutionary ideas. More controversially, it also challenges the idea that the sciences are uncovering objective truth.

However, in our search for Truth we need to discover how we can get beyond changeable mortal belief, to a certainty that is based on spiritual understanding rather than simply dogma. As Mary Baker Eddy explained: “ Belief is changeable, but spiritual understanding is changeless.”

As I explore some of these ideas in my lecture “Moving Faith Beyond Belief”;

“When Jesus became God” is the title of a very interesting book by Richard E Rubenstein, that I just finished reading. Given my interest in God, Christ Jesus and moving religious conviction beyond belief and dogma, you’ll understand why I found this book such a gripping read. I thoroughly recommend it.

The book is subtitled “The controversy that split Christianity during the last days of Rome”. And I have to say it was quite an eye-opener!

For some time, I have know that the doctrine that Jesus is God – ( God the Son, rather than the Son of God ) – was something that arose at ecumenical councils of the church in the 4^th Century – I had heard of the council of Nicaea in 325 and the Nicaean Creed that came out of this council, and that the decision making process, included excommunications from the church and might not have been entirely fair. However, I had no idea of the politics, skulduggery and brutality that accompanied the establishment of the Trinitarian doctrine. The fact that people calling themselves Christians (often bishops even!) could have behaved in this way is as shocking as the underlying theological questions are important and interesting.

Rubenstein’s book is very insightful in bringing out the motivations for this conflict. Given that this is an issue which rested on so little evidence, it is very sobering to read how this debate about the nature of Christ’s divinity could become so divisive and lead to so much bloodshed. And there are lessons for today.

Read Richard A Nenneman’s review from the Christian Science Monitor.

Join a discussion on ChristianScience.com that explores the divinity of Jesus.

Or share your thoughts here by leaving a comment…