In message
<news:1133239004.985117.47970@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
"ubuu7" <madsci@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> enriched us with:
>
I'm quoting everything here due to cross-posting to alt.books.philip-
pullman -- famous British authors of children's fantasy books and all
that ;)
> I think it's pretty clear that this series is pretty
> anti-religious, which is fine by me, I happen to be an atheist.
>
> But please tell me if I'm seeing this correctly.
>
>
> This excert comes right after a witch kills Wills Father. When
> she finds out these details she exclaims it is not possible.
>
> then Will says the following:
>
>
> "You think things have to be possible," Will demands. "Things have
> to be true!"
>
> and there it is. I think this is a blatant attack on a core of
> religious thinking. The idea that we base our beliefs on what we
> think possible and perhaps would like to believe, as opposed to
> basing our beliefs in the search for the truth.
>
>
> For Will, the truth is the most im****tant thing, for the witch,
> personal belief based on her minds idea of what's possible.
>
>
> Am I reading that right?
I don't know how it might be intended by Pullman (others can
hopefully give a better qualified opinion about that than I would be
able to), but taken alone, I think the quotation can go both ways --
it really depends on who decides what is possible and what is true.
If you say that 'possible' is that which is deemed possible by modern
science, then you have a statement that acts like a defence of
religious faith -- a faith in a truth that is beyond science.
On the other hand, if you say that 'possible' is the same as
'concievable' and 'true' refers to the objective material reality of
modern science, then you get the situation you describe.
The difference lies in the grey zone between that which modern
science deems possible and impossible: all the things where science
will have to simply say 'there is no way for science to express a
qualified opinion on that.' The existence of the divine is proably
the best known (and most controversial) example of that[*].
As a general statement it seems to me to focus more on the tension
between the objective reality and our individual conception (some
would say internal recreation) of that reality. It is an admonition
to see the world as it really is.
That admonition of course goes directly to the core of a discussion
that is very relevant on alt.fan.harry-potter, but which depends
entirely on how we discern and define that which 'really is' ;-)
[*] There is an im****tant distinction to make here. Science has no
way to make any statement about the divine, because that lies
outside the scope of science, which is the objective material
reality. On the other hand, science is perfectly equipped to make
categorical statements about postulates about the relation
between the divine and the objective material reality -- in
particular about the effect of the divine on the objective
material reality.
--
Troels Forchhammer
Valid e-mail is <t.forch(a)email.dk>
Taking fun
as simply fun
and earnestness
in earnest
shows how thouroughly
thou none
of the two
discernest.
- Piet Hein, /The Eternal Twins/
|
