I just discovered this article yesterday, and I’m glad I inspired you to think more about these issues.
(But am I Voldemort, He Who Must Not be Named? I notice that Prudence Louise likewise avoided naming me in her comment as the person to whom you’re replying. It’s weird to say you’re replying to someone and to avoid naming that person or linking to the source article. Bad form, I’d say.)
I’ll likely reply to this long article with an article. The whole thing is a non sequitur, though, isn’t it? Not only do I agree with many of your premises (contra scientism or the sufficiency of scientific objectification for a worldview; the profound importance of art and metaphor; the psychedelic range of mystical experiences), but I’ve presented and defended them in multiple articles (links below). Indeed, look at my Medium profile motto: "Knowledge condemns. Art redeems."
The question is whether it follows from any of that that God is love. By calling your conclusion a diving board, it seems that not even you think you’ve shown here that the conclusion is true. Indeed, you argue at cross purposes at least twice.
Still, it’s an interesting subject.
