Whilst vaguely agreeing with Steve Shaw in terms of superstition hampering research and acceptance of said research, he shows shallow understanding of human nature when he questions my stance that for me there is no God. He seems to think that you need physical proof for a mental abstraction and that mental abstractions can't exist without physical proof.

I am appalled to see someone putting themselves up as rational refusing to accept the fundamental razor of Descartes.   I think therefore I am. Mr Shaw isn't exhibiting intelligence here. He is playing up to the character that gives superstitious logic choppers an excuse to say he is a radical whatever rather than putting forward the case for science.

If someone believes in a God then to them it exists. If it guides them in their decisions, lifestyle and deeds then that is tangible proof that their God exists.

The problems start when we are all asked to believe in their mental comfort blanket too.