What, LH, you're happy with a straw man, and a bald assertion? Nobody surely thinks feeling is behaviourist in origin- in fact behaviourism is based on feelings, otherwise there wouldn't be anything to choose between reward and punishment. And his statement "Consciousness, if there is any spirituality to the universe, seems to be an innate attribute of spiritual existence, not something that rises out of it" is merely begging the question.

Consciousness seems to be an innate attribute of organisation of material networks, not something that rises out of an external cause. How is that statement inferior to Amos's, without evidence?

But back to the original question. If it had been "Stories or facts", no one would have hesitated to answer BOTH OF COURSE.

There are many things and assertions that can't be proven. That doesn't mean that they are unexplorable, just that the method of exploration is metaphor rather than method. And that you should be aware of the limits of the metaphor, just as you should be aware of the fact that evidential proof is limited in scope. No conflict there.

But how do you assess one metaphor as against another? If you reject seeking for evidence (i.e. striving to make it scientific- for science is itself only a search for better metaphors), one assertion is as good as another, and if you base action on the metaphor, one action is as good as another.

When you oppose science to religion, you are introducing- especially on the religious side- emotionally loaded terms. It amazes me how, when pressed, religious people will deny the realities of religion as it has been practiced for most of human existence, and take refuge in some idealisation that reflects only their own, often admirable, construct. No real Scotsman....