Then be short, conscise and specific then...
I'll take The Holy Spirit issue first:
What is "spirit": it is defined as that quality which beathes fire into a
body of life. In science - it is metabalism. See your basic biology books
for that. In theology - it is the person of the Trinity that beathes into
us eternal life, and into creation it's life.
Can science detect spirits? Maybe in GHOST BUSTERS they can! But it is at
best ---> PSEUDO SCIENCE. Now as to chemicals in the brain common to what
is called the spiritual life? Endocrinology has already made progress for
this area already. They are well documented in many medical journals. And
it is why many hospitals now have spiritual development centers.
Itemize and specify the rest - And I (or someone else) mightbe able to be
a help to you, and/or speculate on the rest.
Best Wishes,
William - N6RKY
E G M wrote:
>
> William,
>
> Would you answer the questions I asked?
>
> That's want I'm interested in.............
>
> Thanks
>
> PS: It bothered me because these scientists are approaching the
> problem with a priori negation that God or "objective" religious
> experience is something "real" they would like to detect, on the
> contrary, they would like to negate it and thus confirm tautologically
> that which they had already assumed a priori. I'm leaving for a few
> days, Chao.
>
> --- "William A. Wetzel" <n6rky@pacbell.net> wrote:
> > Dear E.G.
> >
> > So then... What's your beef??? If you seem to think the study will
> > "prove
> > your prayer life" I am at a loss as to what you fear from it. And
> > what is
> > metaphysics anyway? I see the word "physics" in it - do you?
> >
> > Best Wishes,
> > William - N6RKY
> >
> >
> > E G M wrote:
> > >
> > > One thing is to be a Calvanist and other a Mechanist, one does not
> > > imply or require the other because God does not necessarily have to
> > > conform to be only involved in the initial condition nor is he
> > > restricted, unless voluntarily, to work in the elect "to will and
> > to
> > > do" mechanistically. Moreover, regarless of what you may think the
> > > sciences will or will not achieve, the NMR experiments on religious
> > > people (see NATURE) is precisely a sort of "Spirit-Detector", at
> > least
> > > for the naturalistic scientist who restricts herself, by MN, to
> > > naturalistic explanations. BTW, I am one who believes that there
> > is a
> > > fine connection between the physical and supernatural; the
> > scientists
> > > finding a chemical responsible for my persistant prayer life (I
> > wish)
> > > would be finding the "physical" cause of my experience without
> > access
> > > to the pre- or supra- physical cause. However, the crucial point
> > of
> > > the questions was not address by your short comment. Thanks
> > anyway.
> > >
> > > EGM
> > >
> > > --- "William A. Wetzel" <n6rky@pacbell.net> wrote:
> > > > Hi E.G.
> > > >
> > > > If you believe that God works all things for the good of the
> > elect...
> > > > The
> > > > issue of "mechanics" of faith should be no problem. As for
> > naturalism
> > > > for
> > > > faith (it applies only in the physical sense). But the soul is
> > where
> > > > it's
> > > > more than that. And until there is a "Holy Ghost Detector" I am
> > sure
> > > > that
> > > > science will never answer (if any) transcending issues.
> > > >
> > > > The "Atom" was once a metaphysical concept - until the 20th
> > century
> > > > :)
> > > >
> > > > Best Wishes,
> > > > William - N6RKY
> > > >
> > > > Best Wishes,
> > > > William - N6RKY
> > > >
> > > > E G M wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Hi folks,
> > > > >
> > > > > I return to throw a few questiona in your brainstorming
> > machinery
> > > > > prompted by an article in NATURE, where experiments on
> > religious
> > > > > persons are proposed in order to identify the chemical
> > substance(s)
> > > > > responsible for religious experience(s) such as prayer, the
> > baptism
> > > > of
> > > > > the Holiy Spirit, etc. The article is to me
> > alarming/disturbing
> > > > and
> > > > > even affensive since I am a Christian.
> > > > >
> > > > > A bit more before the questions. I understand that the
> > > > judeo-christian
> > > > > religion has "evolved" in the last 5k years or so. Obviously
> > to me
> > > > > this type of "evolution" is short of being "naturalistic" since
> > > > several
> > > > > "supernatural" events plus the inspired revelation of the
> > > > scriptures
> > > > > ocurred, IMO, by interventions of the Divine in human affairs.
> > > > Now.
> > > > >
> > > > > Do you (teistic evolutionists) believe in the naturalistic
> > > > evolution of
> > > > > religion or religious experiences, in particular the
> > judeochristian
> > > > > one?
> > > > >
> > > > > Would it bother you if scientists find a naturalistic
> > explanation
> > > > for
> > > > > your faith to explain away your particular preference and
> > devotion,
> > > > > etc.?
> > > > >
> > > > > Are they "wrong" for assuming a priori that there must be a
> > > > > naturalistic explanation for religious experiences (faith)?
> > > > >
> > > > > Is the Holy Spirit in you a chemical alteration that first took
> > > > place
> > > > > at conversion/baptism?
> > > > >
> > > > > Did this alteration happened supernaturally or naturally,
> > > > > mechanistically, as a meme propagation/replication?
> > > > >
> > > > > Well those are enough for now. I will hang up and "listen" to
> > your
> > > > > comments. Thank you very much. And don't forget your mother
> > this
> > > > > weekend.
> > > > >
> > > > > EGM
> > > > >
> > > > > _________________________________________________________
> > > > > Do You Yahoo!?
> > > > > Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > William A. Wetzel
> > > > icq-uin# 13983514
> > > > http://home.pacbell.net/n6rky
> > > > http://www.qsl.net/n6rky
> > > > mailto:n6rky@pacbell.net
> > > > mailto:n6rky@qsl.net
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > > _________________________________________________________
> > > Do You Yahoo!?
> > > Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com
> >
> > --
> > William A. Wetzel
> > icq-uin# 13983514
> > http://home.pacbell.net/n6rky
> > http://www.qsl.net/n6rky
> > mailto:n6rky@pacbell.net
> > mailto:n6rky@qsl.net
> >
> >
>
> ===
> "in ipso enim vivimus et movemur et sumus sicut"
> "Ud. apoya el punto de vista predominante, pero, @por cuanto tiempo supone que
> seguira' siendo predominante? ... Ud. tan solo puede decir que mi punto de vista
> es anticuado; pero muy pronto el suyo sera lo mismo." Clive Staples Lewis.
> _________________________________________________________
> Do You Yahoo!?
> Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com
-- William A. Wetzel icq-uin# 13983514 http://home.pacbell.net/n6rky http://www.qsl.net/n6rky mailto:n6rky@pacbell.net mailto:n6rky@qsl.net