Madam, - I'm surprised at the shallowness of Dr William Reville's challenge to the view that religion is an invented comfort-blanket (Science Today, November 25th).
Doesn't he subscribe to this very notion in concluding feebly that "the majority of people need the solace of religion". And how convincing is his proposition that "the average person's need for religion remains and a greatly weakened Christianity could be replaced by some other form of religion hostile to social progress"? Is this not a classic case of advocating the devil you know?
In considering the main alternative to religion - secular humanism - and holding (with what authority?) that "some people, but I believe no more than a small minority, can live decent and fulfilled lives drawing on this (secular humanism) philosophy", he then presents humanism negatively, describing it as an ethos where "we must work out our lives entirely reliant on our own resources".
No, Dr Reville, it's not a case of "must"; rather a case of our having the capacity and wherewithal so to do - with due regard for the dignity and rights of others. - Yours, etc.,
OWEN MORTON, Station Road, Sutton, Dublin 13.
Madam, - It is good to see Dr William Reville, a man of science, take issue with Prof Richard Dawkins, who sees religion as the greatest evil afflicting humankind. Of course religion has been greatly abused in the past, is no doubt being abused at present and will be in the future. The same is true of science and technology and true also of all human activity.
Everything about our existence is enveloped in mystery. Indeed, we are all a mystery unto ourselves. But is it not true that our minds need mystery as our body needs food? Deprived of these essentials, both wither.The really great news is that God, reflecting his own essential nature, has provided us with an infinitude of mystery. That should warm the cockles of Prof Dawkins's heart. - Yours, etc.,
MICHAEL A. REEN, Wellpark Grove, Galway.