I suppose there is a huge difference between literal and traditional.

Despite not having a shred of religious faith and deeply sceptical of the intentions of organised religions, I am comfortable with the idea of Mary being traditionally a virgin.

I am also convinced by the evidence for biology that states a) it requires semen to fertilise an egg and b) IVF wasn't available in biblical times. The idea of a man with wings telling her she was now pregnant doesn't deserve further scrutiny. But perhaps a nice fantasy story. I am unsure of the moral being put across. I had always assumed seeing sex as dirty as being a Victorian idea.

I was reading an article by Dr Ben Goldacre the other day where he explained the use of the word theory as applied to scientific hypothesis. He compared it to theological use of the word and how either mischievous or ignorant people confuse the two to say "I have a theory that God exists as per Scripture and at that level it has equal status to evolution theory, so stop putting science on a different level."

The paper was just that. Paper. (BMJ - subscription required to download) but it or similar may be on his website or trawl of his newspaper columns. His book Bad Science is well worth a read unless you have pharmacy shares. ....