I kept asking you for a counterargument to highlight the irrelevance of your snide remarks in these comments (by way of juxtaposition). If now you’re saying the issue isn’t up for philosophical argument, and that it’s just a matter of personal taste or subjective opinion either way, then why did you criticize my article for giving what you’d call a mere opinion? That’s contradictory.

And of course it’s up for argument. Just look at how that section of yours begins: “The idea that world is moral is a fact so obvious to most of us we can miss the absurdity of the assumption.”

Your odd use of “world” as a mass noun, like “matter” or “cheese,” obscures the fact that only after the scientific revolution did it become more relevant to speak of whether the wider universe is moral. The wilderness on our planet isn’t even moral, and no part of nature outside our control is moral. But if we’re talking about the creator of the universe, and not just of our planet, that scientific picture of the broader, cosmic environment is bound to conflict with religious personifications.

Again, you say, “The entire revelation of the Christian bible seems to be a wrestling with the gradual emergent realisation that if you look deep at the muddle of things, the incongruities, the sheer ridiculous givenness of reality, what you find is love.”

But that revelation is archaic because it’s prescientific. The closer you look at nature in the detached, scientific way that lets the facts speak more for themselves, the less you find anything like love. Saying otherwise would amount to a sappy obfuscation. The upshot of science is that nature is wild, not loving; the wild is indiscriminate whereas love plays favourites. And that’s not an arbitrary opinion, but a philosophical interpretation.

You’re free to argue otherwise, but it’s telling that instead of explaining what’s wrong with my reasoning, you’ve mainly resorted to all kinds of cheap distractions. So, you’ve hardly got any right to pontificate on what counts as philosophy.