A chara, – Kathy Sheridan ("Ebola: how faith, hope and science play their part", October 29th) seems to view the online critics of Texan nurse Nina Pham's belief in prayer as representative of all atheists. She goes on to state that religious people doing good work are all too often "bound by label to the worst of their kind". How interesting, then, to see her use Richard Dawkins as an example.
Prof Dawkins is in no way representative of atheists as a whole – if anything, his attitude is embarrassing to many. He is an atheist zealot, often offending and belittling those who disagree with his worldview. However, a large proportion of atheists – in this country, as in most others – would have begun life in a religious household, and been raised as part of a church. What turns many people off religion (aside from the logical/scientific arguments) is seeing the boundaries erected between “us” and “them”, between those of a particular faith (who will be saved) and everyone else (who will perish). Militancy in any context is pitiful. Militant atheism is no exception. Just let’s not pretend that atheists were the first to come up with such preening, patronising disdain. – Is mise,
CAITRIONA BURKE,
Rathfarnham, Dublin 16.
Sir, – The discussion of the role of faith, hope and science in the cure of Texan nurse Nina Pham rather misses the point that God works, ordinarily, through natural causes. If God was going to cure Nina Pham it was always most likely he would do it through science. Not to avail of scientific means would be the sin of putting God to the test. The maxim has always been “Pray as if everything depended upon God. Act as if everything depended upon you”. – Yours, etc,
COLM FITZPATRICK,
Castleknock, Dublin 15.