Dear Isak Dinesen.

Thanks very much for your prompt response.

You say that you were “profoundly wounded by the martyrdom and cruel imperative of the father sacrificing his son to satisfy deep dark magic of atonement for my inborn sins”, and refer to the story of Abraham and Isaac. This seems to confirm my point that your grievance is really with the Judaeo-Christian tradition. So again I would ask, why is this being allowed to stand as a witness for the whole of world religion, and the atheist question in general?

I of course agree that one or two scientists is not enough to prove anything. The route you suggest, however, is fraught with difficulties.

Experiences of the paranormal, the supernatural do not usually fall within the scope of the scientific method – the need for repetition, controlled experiments etc. They remain subjective, one-off experiences, and are therefore dismissed by scientists as mere anecdotes. As for peer-review, since most scientists are heavily prejudiced against the supernatural, the paranormal, and religion in general, then it would be easy to imagine how far any studies of this nature would get in a peer-reviewed system. You may be aware that the author I mention, Rupert Sheldrake, a highly qualified biologist, once published a book, which was described in a review by the editor in Nature as “the best candidate for burning there has been for many years”, an outstanding example of the bigotry of so-called 'science'.

So it would be very hard for us to have this further conversation, since you the criteria you require are unlikely to be met.

I of course agree that “it is crucial that those struggling with mental illness are identified by health care professionals and treated”. What is your evidence that demonic possession is a delusion, apart from your preconceived belief that demons do not exist? I referred in my article to an earlier one which contained eye-witness accounts of exorcisms. If you have the time, I would invite you to read it, and see what you make of it. The normal response to such material by scientists is to ignore it.

I'm interested in what you say about marijuana. I am only aware of psychosis being associated with very strong variants, for example the one known as 'skunk', it often being said that 'normal' marijuana is on the whole safe. You say 'milder'. Are you saying than normal-strength marijuana can cause psychosis?

I would be grateful, as requested in my article, for some clarification of what you mean by the “Definitive Substance of the Universe”.

I regret that the two authors do not seem to elaborate on the parallels between Aquinas and Einstein.

best wishes.