(urth) S&S vs. SF in BotNS

[Dan'l Danehy-Oakes]

Gerry Quinn wrote:

> I don’t think *everything* has to be scientifically explicable.  Silk’s
> enlightenment seems to be, in essence, a kind of miracle.

Then you are not like Crane, who insists that everything have a clear
scientific explanation.

> What I’m not convinced by is your particular dualistic understanding of the
> soul; I’m not sure what it adds to the story.  I’m content to leave the
> concept of the soul as a little mysterious.

To me, the soul is extremely mysterious. My "dualism" merely seeks to
define the area in which mystery operates, not to explain away that
mystery.

-- 
Dan'l Danehy-Oakes