Apologies.

If anyone was following my blog as an exemplar of naturalistic paganism, I am very sorry that I recently succumbed to an extreme bout of supernatural religiosity, which I pompously paraded on this blog. I am digusted, ashamed for the appalling drivel (more than usual) that was spouted herein, concerning 'God' and the 'divine'. For some reason I was carried away with metaphysical speculation forgetting that I was just creating imaginary notions, castles in the air. 

Perhaps though this drift into incredulity began because I failed to distinguish between metaphysical naturalism (which is philosophically problematic) and epistemological naturalism. The latter is the metaphorical cold shower that I needed. An idea may seem  beneficial, pleasing and coherent but the most important question is 'is it true?' and necessarily this leads to the small matter of 'how do we know something is true?'. Ultimately to rely on intuition is simply to rely on 'feelings'. But why should 'feelings' be taken as 'data'?. I realise now that feelings are just that and we should enjoy the unmediated pure experience and feeling without trying to interpret it, not least trying to interpret with speculative metaphysical notions. Rational factual statements about the world must be based on logic and empirical observations of the world. Everything else is 'pure hypothesis' and 'speculation'. For instance 'deism' is 'pure hypothesis' that is no where proved, indeed it is an assertion that seems to be fundamentally unfalsifiable. We must be 'agnostic' about religious truth claims, this is the only reasonable position to take.

Sure, I've been here before and keep lapsing into religion and woo woo. This shows the power of the 'need to believe'.