Briar Rose -- what could possibly be more deserving of scorn than someone who puts forward the results of their own wishful thinking as an explanation of the universe? Isn't that the very definition of wrong-headedness? No evidence; no arguments. What could possibly count as being MORE wrong?

If you check the forum archives you will see that I engage with several other topics as well. But religious claims are particularly inviting because:

a) they are so SILLY.

b) the fact that a forum like OO actually takes them seriously and publishes them is indicative of a social bias that needs to be kept in check.

I have nothing personal against theist articles on OO: but they clearly fall well short of the standards of coherence and evidence applied to articles on other topics. Whether this reflects a bias on the part of the selectors or whether they are deliberately pandering to their audience, I don't know, but as long as they keep putting up lame ducks I plan to go on shooting them down.

Religious claims are easy target practice for those of us who value logic and reason. Once their proponents and disseminators realise that and stop posting them, then we will have to turn our attention to more subtle errors.

As a matter of interest Jon J, to clarify the background to your assertions, what is your view on the concept of the unconscious mind?

I reckon that believers should be allowed to dwell in the murky confines of their religious delusions EXCEPT when those beliefs lead to divisions between nations, divisions which often lead to war.

After all, what's wrong with people wandering about muttering to themselves while thinking that they're having a nice little chat with some man-made god who, unseen, heeds their every pitiful word? I mean they're harming no one.

But of course, when leaders of nations claim that god is on their side and blesses their troops or has made them his children, then the fantasy of religion is certainly treading on dangerous ground.

No religion = no war! Simple really.

Leo Lane: Thanks for your encouraging response. I didn’t bring Jung or his psychology into the article because it would have raised too many questions at once in the minds of readers. But, as you seem to have already discerned, my approach to experience is partly based on Jungian concepts and practice.

Socratease: Thanks for your comment. You and I seem to be thinking along similar lines.

Jon J:
I’ll spend some more words on your posts simply because they are classic examples of the attitude and reasoning that I see as dangerous to human sanity world-wide.

Firstly, if you had read my article with a modicum of care you would have realised that it clearly does not purport to be “an explanation of the universe”. The universe can be explained only by scientific investigation and debate. God did not make the universe and does not interfere in the universe.

Secondly, mine is not one of your “theist articles”. My third paragraph explicitly states that! I believe in no supernatural entity.

Thirdly, nowhere in my article do I even pretend to present “evidence”. That would necessitate empirical facts – data that are publicly verifiable. Rules of evidence are quite inappropriate to my purpose in writing. I am not presenting a scientific report or a legal judgement: I am writing about my personal experience and the way I respond to it, in the hope that it will help some other people to deal better with their own lives.

As to your derogation of the OLO editorial team, I’ll leave it to them to respond if they see any need.

And now I eagerly await your answer to Leo Lane’s question, which is central to the whole discussion!

An interesting -and remarkably candid- look into another human's head.
My only regret is that you are not a woman, Mr Crabbe.
That -for me- would have been truly educational.

The religious people know that without new recruits their systems all but colapse and this is why their not ashamed, and as a matter of fact, they are counting on this type of publicity, because this is free advertising and the main way to spread the word so to speak.

As long as its a controversial subject, they get to stay alive even if only by the currant numbers.

The religions of the world are quite smart people, and they know the law and how to use it to their advantage and as long as there's communication outlets available not even God its self can stop them.

So I just live with them, knowing the real truth.

My definition of what and where God is.

When you ask your self a Question, who are you asking? and as jiminy cricket from Disney always told us, just let your conscious be your guide.

TTM