RE: Infusion of the soul as a process

From: JW Burgeson (
Date: Sat Jul 27 2002 - 13:08:54 EDT

  • Next message: Terry M. Gray: "RE: Infusion of the soul as a process"

    On July 23, Terry commented on my "soul infusion" post.

    "Of course, all this is highly speculative (unfortunately, the
    speculations have some ethical implications with respect to the
    abortion issue)."

    I agree on both points, of course. A lot of metaphysical speculations are
    "highly" so, and those I made may be fairly so characterized. None the less,
    I do claim that "science" has something to say about both the ideas of sould
    infusion and the resulting ethical position one takes. I do not think it has
    a graet deal to say, however, except for thr arguments of limits.

    My personal ethical stances, BTW, is that abortion is almost always a grave
    wrong. I say "almost always" because it is not too difficult to specify
    situations in which it is the lesser of two evils.

    My personal stance is that it is also a matter in which the state ought not
    to intrude itself in the doctor-patient relationship.

    Beyond that I don't really have a position I feel qualified to defend.

    "Nonetheless, I think that most of us in the "infusion of the soul"
    camp would say that this is a miraculous event due to an intervention
    of God. "

    Since I consider myself in that "camp," I'd agree. At least I'm in that
    "camp" as I consider myself a dualist. There are some very good (to this
    point, unpersuasivefor me) arguments for monism, and if I took that
    position, I'd probably have to give up the "soul" as a unique entity. It is
    my understanding of scripture that it (scripture) can accommodate either

    "In other words I'm not so sure that "en-soul-ation" is
    something scientifically accessible (say similar to the "new birth").
    It may have consequences that are detectable scientifically (a la
    Glenn's concerns). If this is the case, then it is not too difficult
    to say that God's timing may be different in your three scenarios."

    1. "En-soul-ation" occurs at conception for non-twins who have never
    2. "En-soul-ation" occurs at twinning for twins (who don't join back
    3. "En-soul-ation" occurs at fusion for twinned embryos that fuse
    back together.

    No doubt, you will regard this as horribly ad hoc, but I just don't
    see the big problem that you see. "

    Yeah, it is somewhat "ad hoc," but I don't see that as "horrible." I am
    content to say "I dunno."

    "God takes care of it despite all the weird biology (which He is also taking
    care of). Surely, you're not going to insist on "clean" answers for this

    Hardly. But that does not mean I will not study more about it. As I said
    before, I can say "I dunno" with a clear conscience, but I cannot say "I
    will not think about it anymore."

    "Psalm 139 applies no matter what."

    II have no idea what you mean here. Did something get excised?


    Chat with friends online, try MSN Messenger:

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sat Jul 27 2002 - 13:47:34 EDT