What bothered me most in Tom Gilson’s rejoinder was:
Nathan Lents answered him, “Maybe @TomGilsonAuthor can enlighten us as to why we can’t say the trees are beautiful.” I didn’t. I said they can’t say it honestly and coherently.
I’m fine with someone expressing their personal belief that among God’s purposes in creating the various processes which produce the various leaf pigments there was also the goal of creating visual beauty. My problem is:
(1) “I said they can’t say it honestly . . .” If they can’t say it honestly, does that imply dishonesty?
(2) “I said they can’t say it . . . coherently.” So are they incoherent?
Implying dishonesty and incoherence—and that was the impression I got in reading that sentence—seems rather insulting, IMHO.
For the record, I’m one Christian who sincerely believes that an atheist can be dazzled by the beauty of nature while being both honest and coherent.