Boxgum,

Thank you for your post.

I tend think of spiritablity, as an attractor of religion. A bit like a negative charge attracting a positively charged response. An internalisor, rather nor internal. A penchant towards spiralism, perhaps, creates a need state. which relion satisfies. Culture, society, family and life experinece will determine which religion is selcted. Hence, someone, who is spiral in the West, is inclined towards the Christian godhead, the Middle East, Islam, etc, etc , etc.

There seems to be a push-pull factor: Spirituaity pulls and religion is pushed?

Methinks primitive religions were more spirital and Earthly. The spirity of the tree, rock or lake. More developed mythologies seem to be institutional responses to similar needs, but, less Earthly, now, heavens and hells. In-between, we have tall mountains and under-worlds ;-). Of the aforementioned instutitional responses, I would posit, are churches and priesthoods.

Of the above, we have an interplay between ourselves (dispositions) and the environment (subject to manipulations): A willingness to believe and a capacity to be manipulated by a satsfying agent. A dry sponge on a wet surface, the Wet (religion) is drawn to meet a need

West,
I know the following from Rupert Sheldrake, British Biologist and author, is likely to lie well outside your realm and will be delegated to the garbage bin of the ‘unreal’, "Descartes believed the only kind of mind was the conscious mind. Then Freud reinvented the unconscious. Then Jung said it's not just a personal unconscious but a collective unconscious. Morphic resonance shows us that our very souls are connected with those of others and bound up with the world around us." I belong to the Church of England," he says. He talks about his beliefs, and he buys the whole thing - Father, Son, Holy Ghost. Rupert Sheldrake is only a heretic in the Church of Science.

I’ve listened also to the scientific mind of Bohm who has a view where, inasmuch as mathematics is meaning and meaning is a property of consciousness, the scientist is ultimately, like the mystic, studying consciousness. "In some ways the pure mathematician is going into one of the aspects of consciousness."

Apparent is the certain ego, perhaps foolishly maintaining that no consciousness can exist outside of his own. His memory resides only within ‘self’ and bears no relation to any ‘outer’ consciousness or memory.

Sheldrake is one of the few contemporary scientists who maintain that such a survival of something beyond the body is possible on the ground that it is possible for memory to exist without the support of the brain. (And David Bohm concurs with him on this possibility.) Sheldrake argues that just because we do not know of any memory without the brain, it does not follow that there cannot be any memory outside the brain. I hear the sceptic reply “Impossible!” simply because he cannot see it nor will believe it. No longer is it a question of logic (or logos) for inevitably and ultimately, its direction is certain belief. A simple statement for many is sufficient, “God is real”.

Sorry braindrain but pi is expressed as 3.14159...
if I eat 3 pi no longer exist.
Pi is not expressed as 0.14159...
0.14159... would be equivalent to the crumbs left on the pie plate. I leave them for you. Too bad in your rush to be right you missed the subtle truth and my play at humour.

Relda Sheldrake is not a neurological researcher and his idea is not based on anything other than aimless supposition. There is nothing wrong with that except it should not be taken seriously. I am not suggesting he should be denied testing his hypotheses just his conclusions are without merit.

Apparently many get upset at the fact I reject deceit. I have no problem that people fool themselves into believing in all sorts of things wether little green men , fairies or Jesus. It makes no difference but there is an odd imperative that everybody else must be fooled also.

There is something deeper psychological going on, something like an ego version of an ingrown toe nail as the more faith a person holds the less grasp of reality and lower ability to respect and empathise with others.

I personally have never heard or have been told of an argument that substantiates god. Theologians , anti secularist extremists, the claimants of righteousness all base their arguments and claims on a denial of reality, a slandering of the other and avoidance of answering the question of focus. No offence intended but what you offer is reasoning by personality cult. A scientist is not infallible; a scientist is just as vulnerable to a mental failure as the next person. A scientist’s opinion is no substitute for science.

Many Christians do not understand this and spend their lives throwing stones at Darwin for example with no idea of the irrelevance of their activities to evolution.

Other examples is Australian Charismatic’s’ blaming Bill Clinton for the worlds ills with no idea of the irrelevance of their activities to the biology of bird flu or politics of terrorism.

Wishing god is real or occult magic spells calling on god to be real through simple statements do not make god real.
Without complete and undeniable proof of god and his nature all that is attributed god comes from fantasy and ego.

BrainDrain you must prove your god to exist and that he is all you say he is otherwise your post is nothing other than you indulging in fantasy. Without undeniable proof of God you have not got a case to argue. Without undeniable proof of god previous to your claim there is no point in you saying anything about it. Without undeniable proof of god previous to your claim you must not expect to be taken seriously.

Even the Roswell conspiracy theorists know they need proof to support such fantastic claims.

You should also rethink your attack that I when I look at stars I dont see your fantasies it does not help your argument. Go and collect undeniable proof and let me know when you have something real and honest to present.

Peter in his strange article says ..."We miss the point that the peaceable kingdom can only be brought about under the tutelage of the one who is both creator and redeemer." If we are to seriously believe Peter here then stock-still in his mindset is this belief in a top shelf creator and redeemer from whom all else in existence derives.

We cannot miss the point that this is indicative of the theological, deductive mindset in the first place.

We cannot miss the point that it also explains the disenchantment ........ which should be levelled at his teddy's poor tutelage through "simply believe, and it will be so".

BUT ....

My question for Peter is if as a theologian and scientist you believed that a certain effect had no material cause, would you then ever be motivated or capable enough to find a cause?

ps
Should be as easy as Pi. lol