The great majority of posts on this thread assume that I am writing science and they, rightly, ask for evidence, for proof. The minds of these commenters have been taken over by the paradigm of natural science to such an extent that they cannot imagine that there are any other paths to truth and this despite the obvious fact that scientific study cannot deal with questions of beauty, salience, purpose.

I am not writing science. I should know. I have written many a paper published by peer reviewed journals, some to acclaim. I know the rules of evidence and proof and repeatability of results.

Do we complain that Shakespeare lacked evidence for the stories he told and are the great existential passages he wrote wrong because he lacked evidence that they were true. We read them and something connects in us that tells us that they are true. We have no evidence apart from our response.

But such a thing requires imagination, identification, indeed a whole expansion of consciousness that allows us to appreciate literature and art. But no, our geeks insist that everything has to be measured by the criteria of natural science. What a dull, one dimensional world is opened up to us here.

Our trolls are geeks! They are not only obsessed with the awfulness of religion, they lack the imagination that would humanise them.

When I go back and read the comments section it all amounts to the same old guff: where is the proof? I must be writing about chemistry!

Listen: there is another world out there that you have not imagined. Your little world of control and evidence limits your humanity.

"Do we complain that Shakespeare lacked evidence for the stories he told and are the great existential passages he wrote wrong because he lacked evidence that they were true. We read them and something connects in us that tells us that they are true. We have no evidence apart from our response."

"Listen: there is another world out there that you have not imagined. Your little world of control and evidence limits your humanity."

The problem with that argument is simple. How do you decide which particular set of stories you are going to believe, when there are many contradictory stories to choose from? They can't all be true, so how do you decide which is true and which is false, if you reject the very notion of evidence as being determinative in such questions? Why is your story about god's son being nailed to a cross to be preferred over the story of Mohammed, or Krishna, or Quetzacoatl or the Rainbow Serpent?

Dear Sells,

One can get great enjoyment from reading about imaginary worlds. Plato, Shakespeare and other great thinkers and writers have created imaginary worlds that give us great insight into the real world. However, most writers who create imaginary worlds do not maintain that their imaginary worlds exist. You not only claim your imaginary world exists but get impatient with those who point out the obvious. You are not writing a scientific treatise. You are not writing a creative work of imagination. You are writing nonsense.

'Runner, it isn't hatred at all. It all about whether what you and other Christians believe is credible. The emotion we feel is sorrow. '

VK3AUU

don't feel sorry for me. I found mercy from the One you deny. When you are able to misread and misrepresent the God of Israel it is certainly you that needs the pity. Again the hatred you show towards the One you deny is pulpable.

Runner, I don't feel hatred at all. Pity is perhaps a better word. One cannot feel hatred for something (or someone) who does not exist.

Sells, your last post absolutely amazes me that someone with your undoubted intellect can come up with such a lot of drivel. You should be locked away somewhere to keep you from harm. You cannot defend the indefensible.

David

'One cannot feel hatred for something (or someone) who does not exist.'

Oh David you could of fooled me. The amount of time and effort to ridicule something/Someone you don't believe in. You must love discriminating as I never hear such rage about the tooth fairy or father christmas.