Hi Gerald. Thanks for taking the time.

We obviously don't need to get into our differences on what the Bible actually is; I'm sure you understand my position. When I said 'infallibility', I was obviously aware that you are not one of those nuttier literalist Fundamentalists. As you're probably aware, I don't automatically assume that the Bible is authoritative if and when there are clear conflicts in teachings. I merely assess each text and see which one makes most sense in the light of modern knowledge.

“No doubt Christianity has got a lot of things wrong if by Christianity you mean what is understood, preached and practiced through the ages”. Indeed. You make a good point. There are the texts, then the interpretations, then the dogma etc. On that point, it's interesting that you are so convinced by the ('Christian' interpretation of the) Trinity, when there is so little evidence for it in the Bible, and it was a later 'invention' by the Church.

Regarding the tabula rasa I did say “as far as possible”, and agree with you that we all have presuppositions. That's why I argued that we should begin with the best knowledge currently available to us, and only at the end of the process, compare it with ancient texts. I certainly don't think that the latest is necessarily the greatest, and it will obviously be debatable what is the best.

You say you would prefer the ancient Greeks, but which ones? The same arguments were going on then. Democritus and similar, or the philosophical tradition of Pythagoras, Plato etc.? The reason the latter should be listened to, is that they have stood the test of time, and in modern times are being rediscovered, and still referred to, especially Plato in relation to quantum physics. That is what I mean by modern knowledge. Our current best science agrees with ancient wisdom.

I agree with you that it is obvious that the only way we experience anything, or think anything, is through mind. “But if mind is all there is, that would mean a sort of Spinoza-John Leslie pantheism where God is Mind and all exists within that Mind”.

Not necessarily, it all depends what you mean by 'within'. I don't believe that the material universe exists within the Mind of God, rather that it is a manifestation of, or an emanation from, the Mind of God. What appears to be material is actually mental. The material universe is the living body of God. This may mean that Pantheism is 'true', but not the complete picture. Panentheism would be a better understanding.

You cannot believe that “the evil I find evident in the world is intrinsic to God. Philosophically and theologically, I cannot believe that”. More to follow in my next article on God and the problem of evil.

I'm not aware of any major inconsistencies in Kastrup, but would be happy for you to point some out to me.

“Mind is primary, but there exists an actual physical reality outside of our minds that our minds have been granted the opportunity to experience and, to some degree, comprehend. I have mentioned that I tend to support the Pauli-Jung conjecture”.

I disagee. There is an 'actual' reality outside of our minds, provided one means by that outside the mind of any one given individual. However, that reality is not physical in the normal sense of that word. As the early quantum physicists kept repeating, substance is an illusion, there is no such thing as matter. The spiritual, idealist position is that what appears to be matter is a very dense form of consciousness.

Thus, as you say, “reality is real but not material”. I see no major difference with the Jung/Pauli position. The unus mundus corresponds to the Divine Mind, thoughts are minor ripples (are less dense), matter can be considered big ripples or waves (more dense). And both thoughts and matter are manifestations of that deeper oneness, pure consciousness, the Divine Mind.

We're not going to get anywhere discussing the difference between a Creator and a creative principle. You make a good case. All I can do is point out that all the traditions which do assert a creative principle – Hinduism, Taoism, Kabbalah, Theosophy etc. - don't find the same difficulties that you do. How exactly do you envisage/conceive this Creator/person?

“Vague references to other spiritual beings and powers that are included in the Biblical story”. “The topic of spiritual powers and entities other than God is a controversial one”. I have no problem with the existence of such entities, I definitely believe they exist. My question is rather, how did they originate, who or what created them (if not 'God')?

You are on this search because, like so many of us, you want to know the truth. Keep exploring, as I will.