After looking at photos or watching video of Therese Neumann, one has to ask herself: what is goin’ on here? Was this a miracle of God? Was it a hoax? Or did she make herself bleed, unconsciously using the old mind-over-matter trick (so to speak)?
I think that she probably willed this upon herself (knowingly or unknowingly.) After a sequence of events - such as losing her eyesight completely and then regaining it years later - she eventually escalated to the stigmata. If she thought her prayers were actually answered, and that that assent manifested outrightly in her being healed, I think she whole-heartedly would have believed in her own connection to the Divine.
Quite the Cartesian, I am, I am – and there are many more like me. By saying what I just said in the last paragraph, I am actively doubting a “miracle of God” and positing Science as the law of the land. It easy for me to do this, I suppose, as the church is not the institution one now seeks for legitimation. If I were scribing this on parchment sometime in the Middle Ages I think the story would be different.
But my quasi-scientific theory has a flaw in it too. It’s the same problem Descartes had trouble with after writing Methods – how do the mind and the body communicate? What is the mind? If the case of Therese Neumann, or a little boy wishing away warts, are indeed the results of the mind wanting something so strongly that it appears in physical reality, then how does this happen? There seems to be a disconnect between the mind (consciousness) and the body. That is, we can’t confidently explain the relationship. Not yet.
It does seem like science may one day be able to figure out the “substance” that is the mind, whether it’s unique neural pathways or what ever. To speculate, which is about all I can do for this matter, I’d say that when the day of determining the matter of the mind comes we’re in for a lot of hard reconciliation. I’m not sure I like obliterating the idea of the self into mathematical equations.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I agree with the feeling of discontent when mathmatical equations seem to be obliterating the chaos that nature essentially creates. Anything can happen to change certain circumstances, and that is not a comfortable thought when relying upon scientific or mathematical equations. Lets consider the earthquake in Haiti. There maybe was a way to foresee the event, and maybe then prevent some of the devastation, therefore science failed us. However, I'm sure there are a hundred excuses as to why they could have 'missed' the signals pointing towards 7.0 earthquake. There is no comfort in this idea. I recently read an article on the BBC or NYT website about the voodoo religion happening in Haiti, and how Pat Robinson is condemning those who practice such ideology are devil worshipers. In my opinion, prayer in either case could not have prevented the disaster, however it offers something that science does not: comfort. I guess the inability to compartmentalize any thought into some smaller category creates huge discomfort inside anyone who believes in science. Why not trust that it was a miracle and not an absurd faith-driven lie? Because. We just can't.
ReplyDeleteI think Pat's a good deal more pre-Modern than many of us (in spite of his law degree and business savvy). He really sees an active God altering the world for moral designs and lessons.
ReplyDelete