What is Religious Science?

Definition and Overview

Religious Science, sometimes referred to as the Science of Mind, is a movement arising from the broader New Thought tradition. Founded primarily by Ernest Holmes in the early 20th century, it seeks to merge philosophical ideas of mind-power with a spiritual view of the universe, asserting that human beings can harness divine principles through the power of thought. Unlike the historic Christian faith’s emphasis on Scripture as the ultimate authority (cf. 2 Timothy 3:16–17), Religious Science typically holds that an individual’s mind, when tuned in to “universal principles,” can shape reality.

Holmes’s writings, such as “The Science of Mind” (1926), propose a nonpersonal or impersonal interpretation of “God” as a “universal mind.” This perspective tends to be more philosophical and self-affirming than a biblical understanding of God’s revealed nature as personal (cf. Exodus 3:14) and intimately involved with humanity’s salvation (cf. John 3:16).

Historical Context

Religious Science emerged from the late 19th–early 20th century American fascination with transcendentalism, positive thinking, and other metaphysical movements. In Holmes’s view, Christianity and other world religions contained eternal truths but needed fresh expression through modern psychology and science.

This runs parallel to other New Thought traditions such as Christian Science, Unity Church, and various mind-science teachings of the same period. Unlike the orthodox Christian confession that finds its roots in the early apostolic witness (cf. Acts 2:42) and affirms the bodily resurrection of Jesus Christ as the central historical event (1 Corinthians 15:3–4), Religious Science generally focuses on mental techniques to realize individual well-being here and now.

Core Tenets

1. The Universal Mind: Religious Science posits that “God” is an abstract principle or creative force. Practitioners believe this divine power is accessible by human consciousness. In contrast, the Bible presents God as a personal, holy Being (cf. Isaiah 6:3), distinct from creation yet lovingly involved (cf. Psalm 139:1–4).

2. Creative Power of Thought: Adherents emphasize affirmations and visualizations that supposedly tap into the divine mind, shaping one’s reality. While Scripture teaches that faith is indeed powerful (Hebrews 11:1), it is clearly rooted in the trustworthiness of God’s character, not in a human’s ability to manipulate circumstances through mental processes (cf. Jeremiah 17:7–8).

3. Spiritual Evolution: Religious Science tends to assume that consciousness can evolve into higher planes of being through right thinking. This stands in contrast to the biblical teaching of humanity’s need for redemption from sin (Romans 3:23–24). Rather than a slow process of mental ascension, biblical salvation is a transformation granted by grace through faith in Christ (Ephesians 2:8–9).

4. Primarily Impersonal Deity: Religious Science, along with many other New Thought groups, depicts God more as a principle of power or law than as a personal Lord who reveals Himself in covenantal love. Christian orthodoxy, on the other hand, maintains a personal Trinitarian God—Father, Son, and Holy Spirit (cf. Matthew 28:19)—as one eternal Being (cf. Deuteronomy 6:4; John 1:1–3).

Comparison with Biblical Christianity

1. View of Scripture: Religious Science does not treat the Bible as the inerrant, sufficient Word of God. In contrast, Scripture testifies of its own divine inspiration and cohesive message (2 Timothy 3:16–17). Archaeological discoveries such as the Dead Sea Scrolls and manuscript finds like the John Rylands Papyrus (p52) bolster confidence in the consistency and accuracy of the biblical text.

2. Person of Christ: Traditional Christians affirm Jesus as fully God and fully man (cf. John 1:14), the One who died and rose bodily (1 Corinthians 15:14). Religious Science commonly recognizes Jesus as an enlightened teacher rather than the unique Son of God who provides atonement for sin. Early Christian writings, along with manuscript evidence and abundant historical documentation, confirm that the earliest believers viewed Jesus’s crucifixion and bodily resurrection as central nonnegotiable truths.

3. Salvation: Religious Science tends to emphasize personal transformation and improvement through mental disciplines. Biblical faith teaches that salvation is exclusively found in Christ’s atoning work (John 14:6; Acts 4:12). Behavioral science insights confirm the reality of moral responsibility and guilt, pointing to humankind’s need for genuine atonement beyond mere self-improvement.

4. Nature of God and Creation: Religious Science views the universe as an emanation of a creative mind-force subject to spiritual laws. By contrast, the Scriptures teach that God created the universe from nothing (Genesis 1:1; Hebrews 11:3). Scientific arguments, like those pointing to the abrupt emergence of complex life forms in the fossil record (popularly known as the “Cambrian Explosion”), corroborate a design-based origin. These observations align better with a theistic worldview that sees an eternal, personal Creator as the cause of nature’s complexity.

Critiques and Concerns

1. Denial of Personal God: Religious Science’s largely impersonal concept of the divine diminishes the biblical portrayal of a loving Father who desires relationship (cf. Romans 8:15). A personal God is central to Christian faith and revealed salvation history.

2. Insufficient View of Sin: Many in Religious Science speak little of the fundamental problem of humanity—sin and separation from a holy God. Scripture repeatedly addresses sin’s catastrophic consequences (Romans 6:23). The redemption narrative found throughout the Old and New Testaments proclaims that only the sacrificial death and resurrection of Christ solves the sin problem.

3. Lack of Scriptural Authority: Religious Science texts generally place the Bible on par with other religious or philosophical writings, sifting out the supernatural or literal claims. Careful textual criticism and manuscript studies by scholars such as those analyzing the Dead Sea Scrolls, Codex Sinaiticus, and Codex Vaticanus continue to affirm the historical reliability and doctrinal cohesion of Scripture.

4. Naturalistic Undercurrents: Although Religious Science includes spiritual language, it relies heavily on psychological principles. By contrast, the Christian worldview sees both the spiritual and material realms as God’s design (cf. Colossians 1:16) under His sovereignty. When Scripture addresses miracles—from Creation (Genesis 1:1) to the Resurrection (Matthew 28:5–7)—it does so as factual historical events, reflected in both biblical testimony and corroborated in outside historical records (e.g., early martyrs’ unwavering testimonies about the risen Christ).

Practical Implications

Those exploring Religious Science may find initial appeal in the emphasis on positive thinking and well-being. However, the biblical understanding of true spiritual transformation is anchored in repentance and a Spirit-empowered relationship with God through Christ (Acts 2:38). By focusing narrowly on the human mind’s power, Religious Science bypasses the depth of the Christian message—that humanity is in need of a Savior who breaks the bondage of sin and death (cf. Romans 5:17–19).

From a Christian perspective, seeking biblical truth (John 17:17) brings lasting reconciliation with God via Christ’s atoning sacrifice and the subsequent indwelling of the Holy Spirit (Ephesians 1:13–14). The believer grows not merely by positive thinking but by the renewing of the mind under the teachings of God’s Word (Romans 12:2), in dependence on God’s grace (2 Corinthians 12:9).

Conclusion

Religious Science, with its emphasis on impersonal spiritual laws and the mind’s creative capacity, differs markedly from biblical Christianity’s central claims. Scripture consistently testifies of a personal, sovereign Creator who redeems humanity in Christ’s death and resurrection, and who defines reality through His revealed Word. Archeological and manuscript evidence undergirding the Bible, combined with the powerful historical case for Christ’s resurrection, offers compelling reasons to trust Scripture over human philosophies.

Ultimately, Religious Science can prompt interesting questions about spirituality and consciousness, yet its departure from core biblical tenets on God’s nature, Christ’s identity, and humanity’s need for a Savior stands in contrast to the historic Christian faith recorded in Scripture and confirmed by numerous lines of evidence.