Mind vs Body. A theory that very much simplifies things. The complexity of the mind and the resilience of the body live in two different worlds. The mind doesn't rely on the body, and the body can't be explained by the mind. If we take this logic, and analyze Therese Neumann, things become pretty clear. The intersection between religion, a belief that lives in her mind, and her 'injuries' are quite peculiar. Maybe a little fishy. Where did the injuries come from? Where is the origin of her bleeding? The body is something that can be explained by physical science, but her wounds cannot be explained (by science at least). Going back to the complete separation between mind and body, these two things exist independently. Religion is NOT going to effect her body, let alone cause her to start bleeding from her eyes. Even religious Descartes would see through the claim. How do I explain Therese Neumann's stigmata? I don't know if I can say what it is. A hoax of some sort, a cry for attention, a feeble attempt to gain a following. It could be any one of these. I do know what it is not, however. It is not an act of God.
Religion is something that plays a huge role in a lot of peoples lives, including mine, yet there is so much question and uncertainty. With all the religions in the world, which one is correct? Which one will actually lead to eternal happiness in the hereafter? Are they all equal in the eyes of God? Or is the complete idea of religion just introduced to comfort our weak species? Again, these are questions I, of course, cannot answer. Neither can you, even if you are sure you know the ultimate truth. Using Descartes' dualism, steering clear of nonsense can be easier. When I was deciding whether or not to believe in Therese Neumann's stigmata, the connection that her religion would have to her physical state confused me. I questioned the odds that she, out of all religious peoples, would be afflicted with such a big religious symbol. Then after further digesting Descartes, I had a simple and conclusive way of explaining why I didn't believe the story. The two 'realms' are separate.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
-
Probably the most impressive and influential science part of my life (and I think, everyone's at this planet and even away from it) - c...
-
I hate economics. I really struggled through my economics class in high school, and I've avoided any in college. I think that this is be...
-
Like the words acetaminophen and paracetamol, the brand name Tylenol is derived from the chemical name for the compound, N-aceTYL-para-amin...
The questions you pose are the questions I have been pondering over since I researched more about Descartes and his methods. Religion is something that is intangible and rooted more in the world of belief and faith while science deals with facts and data. Maybe that's why Descartes was so adamant that all one needed to answer the questions to the universe was to think because then his own methods can remain uncorroborated. Fact and faith are two different realms, as you pointed out, and is one of the ways to ignore the nonsense and sense that become all tangled together. For example, as you mentioned, it would be difficult to approach Neumann's case with both because they so easily contradict each other but if you picked one side to follow, then the complexities of the case would vanish.
ReplyDelete