"'Women are a kittle breed, priest, and you who have foresworn them belike understand them as well as I who have slept with half a hundred in six different lands. I do not think they understand themselves. Birth and life and death, those are the great mysteries, which none will ever fathom, and a woman is closer to them than a man." (p. 206)
We have fathomed a lot about birth, life and death since then: natural selection; mutations; genes; DNA; cerebral processes. I am confident that neuronic interactions generate consciousness, which will cease when they do, and will be very surprised to experience anything after after that.
Nevertheless, life and death remain mysteries.
7 comments:
Kaor, Paul!
And I simply don't believe in materialism or that or that we snuff out into eternal blackness at death. Both because of Mr. Wright's arguments against materialism and my beliefs as a Catholic. Also, materialists have failed to explain the cures at Lourdes or the Shroud of Turin.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
Correct me if I am wrong but I think that Wright's argument amounts to pointing out that there is a qualitative difference an unconscious movement of molecules and a conscious state of mind. That is correct. However, qualitative transformations occur, like two colors mixing to become a third color or liquid becoming gas.
Materialists are not obliged to explain every phenomenon. Scientists always operate at a frontier between the explained and the (as yet) unexplained. The Shroud was carbon-dated to the century in which it was first displayed. It is a photographic negative which is a physical phenomenon - as are unexplained cures.
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
Wright's long and massively detailed arguments convinced me, philosophically, that materialism simply doesn't hold water.
And you keep missing what others have said about that famous carbon dating of the Shroud, that it was done using a sample taken from a much LATER patch sewn onto the Shroud, and therefore does not prove it's of 13th century origin. My view is that the Shroud was war booty seized by one of the French or Venetians sackers of Constantinople, before which there were accounts of relics bearing the Image of Christ.
And how on Earth was that Image made on the Shroud in the 1200's, using a technology unavailable till the late 19th century?
No, to paraphrase HAMLET, there's more things on heaven and earth than can be explained by your philosophy.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
But I think that Wright means mechanical materialism. Of course, if nothing existed but mechanically interacting particles with only the quantifiable properties of mass and volume, then consciousness would not exist, but that is not the world that we are in fact in. Energy exists and changes form. There are qualitative changes and emergent properties. One water molecule is not wet. One brain cell is not conscious...
I remember you saying before that the carbon dating was taken from a later patch but I remain to be persuaded that the people doing the original carbon dating made that mistake. It is very easy for people who want the Shroud to be genuine to come up arguments like this. But, IF that mistake was made, then has the Shroud subsequently been carbon dated properly? When the Shroud was first displayed in the 13th century, there was an ecclesiastical investigation and report which said that the artist had been identified and had acknowledged that it was a forgery. How was the image made? I certainly do not know. Something was done to the shroud which, whether the artist understood or intended it or not, did have the effect of generating a photographic negative. That is all that we can say and need to say until more is learned.
There are more things in heaven and earth... Everyone should accept that and should not draw hasty conclusions about the many parts of heaven and earth that we do not know.
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
Not being a philosopher like you and Wright, I can only suggest you take a "mechanical" view of how energy works. Something I don't find convincing. Wright was arguing with materialists who did take the kind of crudely "mechanical" view you mentioned. I don't know how he would respond to your argument.
I recall reading that the owners and custodians of the Shroud (the House of Savoy and the archbishop of Turin) were resistant to extensive carbon dating because of how much material would need to be taken and destroyed as a result. But that was years ago and carbon dating methods might have improved and be less destructive. If so, I have no objection to more carbon dating.
An interesting novel by Christopher Buckley involving the Shroud and fake "Shroud" is THE RELIC MASTER. It touches on the problem posed by fake relics and the need to investigate them. So, it was good the Shroud was investigated in the 13th century who thought it was a fake (even if I am not convinced he was right).
Ditto, what you said at the end!
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
I take a dialectical (developmental/interactive) view of being/energy:
change and inertia interact;
generally, opposites interact;
quantitative changes become qualitative;
(wavelengths are quantitative, colors are qualitative;)
development is spiral;
there are emergent, irreducible properties at successive levels;
organisms are not mechanisms;
events are unpredictable;
the empirically discernible realm is diverse and dynamic enough for new qualities, including consciousness, to emerge within it;
organismic sensitivity was qualitatively transformed into conscious sensation;
etc.
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
Thanks, altho I remain unconvinced by materialism.
Ad astra! Sean
Post a Comment