A Chara, - Further to Dr Séamus Murphy's letter (August 30th) in response to my own (August 28th), the issue is not whether Jesus was sane or his teachings persuasive or beneficial, the issue is evidence of the existence of God.
The former constitutes belief and faith, not evidence. I do not think it unreasonable to believe in God; I believe it unreasonable to assert that you have evidence of his existence, however "dilute" and/or "personal".
Dr Murphy then, in a wonderful rhetorical device, chastises Ann James for providing no proof that there is no God!
With respect to the flat earth phenomenon, the church view that we are all descended from Adam has led many, Saint Augustine among them, to wildly incorrect conclusions: "it is too absurd to say, that some men might have taken ship and traversed the whole wide ocean, and crossed from this side of the world to the other, and that thus even the inhabitants of that distant region are descended from that one first man."
In the case of evolution Dr Murphy says "statements of Pius XII in 1950 and John Paul II in 1996 indicate that the church does not reject Darwinian evolution".
In Monday's Irish Times the article "Pope may shift Vatican view of evolution" appears: "There have been growing signs the Pope is considering aligning the Catholic Church more closely with the theory of "intelligent design" taught in some US states. Critics say it is merely a disguise for "creationism" - a literal belief in the Bible's account." Having your cake and eating it?
Regarding quantum mechanics and physics, saying that Einstein rejected the dominant quantum physical theories of his day is a bit like saying that Columbus didn't like to travel much.
Finally, I don't want church endorsement of scientific theories in order to hold such beliefs. I simply wanted to illustrate that the church does not now, nor ever has, given a privileged position to reason.- Yours, etc,
MORGAN STACK, Department Accounting, Finance and Information Systems, UCC, Cork.
Madam, - The reaction to William Reville's article suggests that fundamentalist non-believers have much in common with fundamentalist believers and both need to learn the same lesson: that tolerance is a virtue, not a weakness.
It's amusing really because, while proving the existence of God is indeed a hugely challenging scientific task, proving his non-existence is actually impossible.
Worthy of a Nobel Prize, no doubt.
Yet science has always been willing to allow itself the luxury of unprovable hypotheses.
The existence of the universe is explained by the Big Bang Theory, but science is unable to say what, or who, caused the Big Bang to occur and where the original matter, which now comprises the ever-expanding universe as we know it, came from. - Yours, etc,
PETER MOLLOY, Haddington Park, Glenageary, Co Dublin.
Madam, - I am a failure.
After 40 years of searching for real evidence to prove the existence of God - any God - I have not found anything which would satisfy the most modest criteria.
But, strangely enough and in spite of my best endeavours, I have found God - the great unknown, the master of the cosmos.
I found him/her in reading the New Testament with an open, receptive but not uncritical mind.
The reward of the discovery is an inner peace which sustains me through the ordure that life can come up with.
That's my experience but, please, don't ask me to prove it. - Yours, etc,
KEVIN HEALY, Hampstead Avenue, Glasnevin, Dublin.
Madam, - It has been well said that: "For those who believe no explanation is necessary. For those who do not believe no explanation is possible". I rest my case. - Yours, etc,
CHRISTINE O'NOLAN, Donnybrook, Dublin 4.
Madam, - Pace Sean O'Conaill (August 31st) let's not give all the credit to Christianity for our imperfect western civilisation. What about Greek philosophy, Judaism, Islam, humanism, capitalism and Marxism? - Yours, etc,
ANDREW FURLONG, Dalkey, Co Dublin.