Raised a Christian Scientist - page isn't too bad, really
I was raised a Christian Scientist (although I am no longer one). The page itself isn't too bad - except for a couple things.
Stating 'followers of Christian Science do not believe in Science' is not true. People can believe in two contradictory things. This makes them illogical - it does not make them NOT believe in one or the other.
I do not believe 'Science' was tacked on to add credibility. Or, rather, it would be attributed better to a poor understanding of what Science IS than simple conspiracy theory. Looking at a lot of scientific experiments from that time period... well, it was a little wacky. Science as we know it today was not uniformly practiced or comprehended. Our current understanding of Science most certainly does not apply to C.S.
The voices she heard? If you are taking those from her own history, which is the only account we have, she stated someone else with her ALSO heard the 'call'. Rather than a Spiritual or mental cause, it could simply have been a noise both people heard and misinterpreted. It would also be unlikely for Schizophrenia to present at that stage in her life (it usually appears around the age of 20, not 8). Depending on what kind of schizophrenia you suggest she may have had - one kind would have rendered her unlikely to produce any written material. We can probably dismiss this form of Schizophrenia (I believe its catatonic?) Paranoid Schizophrenia would be more appropriate. Although I do not necessarily believe she had P.S. you might want to look into this - it might bolster your claims in other ways.
While you state that calling Brewsters mother not a Christian Scientist goes to the 'No True Scotsman' fallacy (above) - this fallacy is really based on whom we consider to be most capable of describing their own associations. By her own definition, she WAS a Christian Scientist - therefore its not incorrect to call her one. Thus I concede that stating she 'wasn't a real Christian Scientist' is as you said 'No True Scotsman'. However, you use the one example to paint a portrait of an entire group - as though that group endorsed such behavior. THAT is a fallacy of 'sweeping generalizations'. Yes, we DO see this all over, all of the time, but that doesn't make it a logical argument. You cannot use one persons behavior as an example of an entire group, in large part because you have no indication of whether that one person is a representative sample (it's not scientific).
The Griffins retort to the Christian Scientists weren't brilliant - they don't understand the premise of Christian Science. They're a fine retort to other beliefs who rely on prayer - but Christian Science specifically states that matter is not real. Thus Penicillin CAN'T be an answer to a prayer because then matter would be fixing matter (and God working through matter is nonsensical in C.S.). To be more precise - Christian Scientists don't pray for cures, only to understand that cures were never needed (the sickness never existed).
Lastly - as points that aren't quite correct- Christian Science really hasn't gathered a sizable following. I worked for one summer at the Mother Church. Christian Science DID have a big following but its largely fallen out of vogue. Half of what I did was help input data on churches closing and consolidating.
On other points - my mother never kept me from medical care (my father was not a Christian Scientist). She always said 'It couldn't possibly hurt to take medicine any more than it would hurt not to'. Though I now, as I stated above, am not Christian Scientist, I always appreciated this view. A lot of C.S. people will do all of the normal medical things for their kids simply because it makes other people happy/more comfortable. I rather think all C.S. should do this because it doesn't actually conflict with their belief system. If they aren't doing it to be cured, but merely to be loving - why not?
In any case, pardon the long post, but there was much to respond to :)
- Cheers for that. I really need to read up on this stuff again. pathetic 01:19, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
 The use of the word "science"
The purpose and use of the word science is my main issue with your article. The key to the word is meant to denote Metaphysics. Science does not have to mean "physical" science; hence the use of the prefix "meta". The term "science" itself is universal and can be applied to many facets of life, such as philosophy, psychology (of which has physical and mental attributes. Physical as in things seen,mental as in things not seen or otherwise experienced with the five basic sences).
I was raised, in part, by a Christian Science family; I know a great deal about it, but I am not, in fact, a member of the church or organization itself. It seems funny to me that the only case(s) you site of Christian Science healing situations are ones that failed. How about a more fair showing of some of the millions that succeed, with medically documented proof. Take me, for instance. In a case where medical science failed (funny that none of the cs naysayers mention those), and a practitioner of cs succeeded. In 1972, at the age of one year, I was diagnosed with spinal meningitis. The doctors, which my cs parents took me to first (as most would), told my family it was a lost cause. Instead of giving up hope, as most non-cs, so-called "responsible" parents would, they turned to a cs practitioner for help. Not a protestant preacher, or a catholic priest-nither of which can prove their pleading forms of prayer works- but a Christian Scientist who COULD prove that his form of prayer did. What form of prayer(?) You might ask. To answer that question Isuggest you actually research the subject you write about,'and not just get your answers from news storiescand over-rated cartoon television sitcoms. In Science and health, the subject of prayer is covere in the first chapter. Needless to say, I was healed...overnight. The doctors (according to my family) were baffled. It's possible not to believe in something, but at the same time write an article without bias. I understand that the purpose of your site is to be from a general atheist point of view, and that's cool. Christian Science, unlike most (if not all other sects ofChristianity) practices non-judgement in honor of it's main principle which is that we are all one and the same at the basic import of our being. I agree, as so do most forms of Buddhism (which is a better comparison to Christian Science than Christianity, as far as it's practice). My only suggestion is that you at least study deeper on this before you pose yourself as an authority. Thank you