>Another danger in tying our notion of spirituality to physical criteria is
>that it invites a physical explanation of spirituality. I think most (all)
>of us aren't going to like this idea too much, but how do you fairly poo
>poo it if it follows from the criteria that we've helped to establish?
>In other words, suppose someone finds a physical theory which accounts
>for all the physical criteria that we've talked about. What would we
>say then? "err, uh, you know, uh that's not really what I meant by
>spirituality, er, uh, spirituality is not reducible to physics er uh ..."
>Best to make this distinction to begin with methinks.
Brian,
I must ask for a clarification here. While I fully agree that spirituality
can not be tied to the physical, spirituality DOES have a physical effect
which should be observable. In this light, wouldn't it be allowable to
examine the evidence of behavior and if it is like what we do, include the
being in humanity? Isn't that what we do with ancient Egyptians of any age,
dynastic ca. 2600 B.C and pre-dynastic 4000 B.C.?
glenn
Foundation, Fall and Flood
http://www.isource.net/~grmorton/dmd.htm