Frank,

An admirable post.

I think the question of science applied to religious matters is a compelling one. I wrote upthread about the universes of discourse. If the universe of endless imagination, inspiration, aesthetic joy and live communication which is the apparently unbounded see of thought itself is to ever be addressed by science, it is going to have to find a methodology that can deal with the things that are substantive to thought, rather than the things which are substantive to matter. This duality is not going to go away, and the failure to address it except in rare instances like Dr. Larry Dossey, and perhaps Elizabeth Kubler-Ross,and a few others, is the hanging point of such a program. I do not believe there is room in such an effort for the idée fixée that thought must be born from the neurochemical. Rather it will have to address the dynamics of thought and perception in terms of the genuine seat of communication itself, experientially, and th eintimate matrix of created considerations that defines our inner lives.

That's not going to be simple, or easy, for many reasons, but it could be a lifetime's worth of fun.

A