I don't disagree with you, Karma.
But the discussion had to do with cocaine mummies -- i.e., with a question of "fact" (the "intellectual realm"), not with a question of "feeling" (the "numinous realm").
And there are many areas where the "intellectual" and "numinous" realms overlap (or "reason" and "faith", to use the terminology of St. Thomas Aquinas et al).
Take some of the discussions on this thread. It is perfectly legitimate, and correct, to use "reason" when trying to establish what the Historical Jesus "actually" said. But the question of whether or not the Gospels reveal universal, or divine, truths -- even if they cannot be ascribed to the Historical Jesus -- belongs to the "numinous" realm; it is a question of "faith" (or "feeling").
Of course, sometimes "reason" is crudely employed to discredit "faith." The best example of this, I think, is Khrushchev's remark, which went something like this: "Our astronauts went to 'heaven', and they didn't find any angels there." (So there aren't any.)
But let me point out that "faith" is just as frequently -- and just as crudely -- used to discredit "reason". My pet peeve is people who say things like the following, even with regard to questions of "fact": "I believe it to be true, and therefore it is. At least, it is true for me."
Just because you believe something is true, just because you want it to be true, does not make it true.
Joan
P.S. I love your profile!
|
