This man Wesley has a condition that he cannot control. This is why God gave us doctors and intelligence and an ability to reason: so we can find ways to help individuals with these problems. Mental illness does not equal sinfulness.
You say he has a strong faith in God. That is all one needs, or so says the Bible.
I am, however, interested in his music. It seems that such a deeply religious man would not make such obscene lyrics (unless it is the voices that make the music). However, it seems the voices would leave him alone whether he made music with Christian or obscene lyrics. But then again, I don’t make claims of understanding mental illness. I just wish I had a little more information about his schizophrenia and his music and his faith.
Back to the OP: From all that I have gathered in my short lifespan, I have understood that a spirit is the “identity” of a person, expressed through choices made by the brain, whether they are logical or emotional. One’s spirit (whether nurtured/harmed by the environment) manifests itself in choices, which shape one’s personality and character. I think the true state of one’s spirit is known but to the person and to God.
Homer, you did not state what kind of schizophrenia he has. Is he a paranoid schizophrenia, schizo-affective, etc?
Nocturne states that such a deeply religious man would not make obscene lyrics. He does not understand the illness. Neither do I, actually, but I realize that when one does have schizophrenia, by definition, he has lost contact with reality and has no control over his thoughts and actions. Having thus lost this, he cannot be accounted for his “sins.”
As to Nocturne’s definition of spirit, compare that with TikiGod. There are as many definitions of that term as there are people on this Earth. That’s why before you can intelligently debate the nature of the spirit, you have to come to terms to what it is.
Its a case of bad moral judgement, you don’t need emotions for morality. Those boys could also commit cold blooded nice acts. They become emotionless not immoral.
ianzin said:
>Until such time as someone discovers such a reason, or >such evidence, there is as much point in debating the >nature or characteristics of
>‘the soul’ as in debating the respiratory system of the >Easter Bunny.
Or perhaps debating if the Enterprise or an ISD would win in a fair fight
http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?threadid=23098
or the same for Jesus vs. the IPU
http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?threadid=29020
This is a philisophical discussion, and because the topic is something that is unprovable (or un-disprovable) with current science, scientific evidence is not as important.
A philisophical debate with little or no proof is a good way to come up with hypothesi that may eventually lead to a decent, scientifically testable theory. In fact, this is one of the first steps of the scientific method. This is the way science (theoretically) works.
- State the problem.
- Research the problem.
- Form a hypothesis.
- Test the hypothesis.
- Form conclusions from data, return to #2 if neccessary.
All 5 of these steps can be included in a debate, although at a much more informal level. To immediatly condem a debate because there is no proof, is a hamper to science.
Furthermore, how can you say ‘there is no soul because there is no proof for the soul’ when there is no proof that there is not a soul?
Also, IMHO, scientific proof is often a shady thing. Back when most schoolers belived the earth was flat Im sure they had plenty of ‘evidence’ to ‘prove’ what they belived.
Here are some REALLY good books about this subject (and none of them are religious books):
The Age of Intelligent Machines, Ray Kurzweil
The Age of Spiritual Machines, Ray Kurzweil
The Fabric of Reality, David Deutsch
Once again heres a good (non religious) link:
http://www.benbest.com/science/anatmind/anatmind.html
-Fox
“Minds are like parachutes: They only function when open.”
“I can’t explain myself,” said Alice, “because I’m not myself, you see.” -Alice’s Adventure Under Ground