[snarks_when_bored]

bb, when I wrote to hosepipe that "a story may be coherent without being true", I intentionally omitted the converse ("a story may be true without being coherent"). Why? Because religious stories are for the most part quite coherent (hence their wide appeal). The problem with religious stories is not their coherence but rather their truth.

In the search for what's going on around us, I prefer the bottom up method, beginning from what we can experience (and experiment with) and moving outwards from there as best we can at a measured pace. Many people aren't satisfied with such a procedure; it doesn't give them the answers to the 'big' questions that they crave to have answered. For my part, I'd prefer to say "I don't know" rather than to try to manufacture belief in an answer for which there's little or no evidence.

With regard to your closing comment, you're much too kind (blush). Take care...

[hosepipe]

[ I prefer the bottom up method, beginning from what we can experience (and experiment with) and moving outwards from there as best we can at a measured pace. ]

Me too snarks.. I lived my life that way, and made a living that way too.. and more..

THEN, one dark stormy night, the wind screamed like a Harpy Eagle killing a Howler Monkey.. I addressed God, or what I thought might be God if there was one.. And challenged "it" (surely god has no gender).. to make itself known to me.. NOTHING HAPPENED.. immediately.. so I went on my way considering myself stupid and weak (in that moment)..

{snip}

To wit, the drooling MoonEagle you see before you..
CAUTION: Don't do the same.. Starting all over again can be a scary thing..