Jonathan H. B. Lobl

No. Which is why this discussion is breaking down. We are talking about something we can't define. Still, a moment of clarity. If the soul is eternal -- can it be "developed?" This is not the same question as "sentience" or "feeling."

In other words -- it is impossible -- until it happens.

Breaking the sound barrier used to be an unsolvable problem. Now, it's not. Things change. Programing a machine to walk used to be a problem. Then a new strategy was used. The programers let the machine learn how to walk -- from it's mistakes.

What is a soul?

Never is a long time. The future may surprise. Of course we are. It never stops.

We have the freedom to follow our own separate paths -- together.

Yes. We can go further. If organic brains get chip implants -- and robot bodies take on organic components -- the lines of distinction could get blurry. Not "good" evidence.

We do not know the limits of future technology. Not even the near future. My prediction is that the future will surprise us, in ways we can't imagine.

We don't know that. Why is feeling impossible?

Clarification. Are you talking about mechanical beings that look human? That would be artificial intelligence. Or do you mean organic beings with an artificial origin?

That is the problem with being God's agent on Earth. They know.

Many a good church -- and religion -- has been persecuted by it's government. In church matters, legal does not mean legitimate. Legitimate does not mean legal.

I was also amused by the ownership of the word "church."

Thank you. I am pleased to be part of a church that has a place for all of us -- as we are.

Wow. On top of everything else -- they are targeting the Monastery.

The latest sick joke on Facebook. Where do suicide bombers go after death? Everywhere.

I remember the incident. Also, the underwear bomber. I don't remember them.

It is hard to remember the faces of terrorists, who cover their faces.

I regard the sales pitch for what it is. Take a horny young man who is too poor to get a wife. Tell him about all the tail waiting for him in paradise. Instant martyr recruit. Of course, when he gets there, he might find his favorite parts are missing.

No problem. All is well. I don't want to try and make categories for spirituality. It's too much like trying to define music. Having said that, different types of music produce different results. If I listen to Mozart, I'm going to feel cheerful. If I listen to Military music, I will come away with a different effect. A Yogi who goes into deep meditation -- basks in "the presence" -- becomes "one with all" -- is not going to fly planes into buildings. The people who did fly planes into the World Trade Center thought they were being spiritual. I understand trying to be inclusive and not trying to make a lot of distinctions. Sadly, if we throw everything into the same cook pot -- what emerges is nothing I want on my plate. It isn't useful. IMO

If we are to take this study at face value -- and go with the vaguest of generalities -- what do we have? On the face of things; does analytic thinking depress "spirituality?" No. It does not. Christian fundamentalists expend great rigor in their analysis of the Bible. I might question the logic or reasoning, but not the analytic rigor. Likewise, Islamists put great analytic emphasis on understanding the Koran and Haadith. Serious students of Yoga take great efforts to understand the Aphorisms of Patanjali. From this, we can see that the premise is false. This whole question of analytic thinking is a variant of biased world view. An older version of this question is -- "Are intelligent people less likely to be religious than stupid people?" Or -- "Are educated people less likely to be religious than the ignorant?" I don't like these questions either. I am saying that this question about analytic thinking is in that mold. At best it is about confirmation bias. Really, it's about attitude. IMO. If we are going to have good discussions about what makes people religious, or spiritual or what ever -- we need much better questions and more honesty.

I was talking about the article. I expect much better of Scientific American.

I'm not comfortable with this vague use of "spirituality." What does this take in? All forms of prayer? All forms of meditation? Scriptural dogmatism? Love of Humanity? A sense of awe? Feeling connected to everything? Belief in Heaven and Hell as real places? Intimate conversations with angels? Leaving a bowl of milk out for the brownies? I'm not trying to be funny or mean. If we can't ask better questions than a vague "spirituality" -- there is small point in asking. The answers will be equally meaningless.

Feral children? I expect you mean minds with no religious exposure at all. That could be difficult. On the other hand -- talking with a true artificial intelligence might be interesting.

I read the article. It looks like an example of "bias confirmation." What does any of this count for unless the group begins with the same beliefs? If it were a study of diabetes patients; all the participants would start with the same range of blood sugar. Did they do anything similar with "belief?" No. Neither did they define "belief." Or "God." Or "angels." At minimum, I think it's possible to believe in God and not believe in angels. Or the reverse. The study may have been much better than the summary indicates. From here, it looks flawed.