Madam, - I see that your science columnist Prof Reville is again encouraging atheism by attacking it and making it an interesting subject of controversy. The holes in his logic when he defends religious belief are so enormous that your readers cannot resist the temptation to have a go at him.
His latest spin on this subject (Science Today, November 1st) focuses on the word "faith". Believers use this word to express an urge to believe in something without having any evidence to back that belief. Reville applies the same word to a belief in the non-existence of a deity.
If we try to analyse the meaning of this word we find ourselves up against some difficulties. When used in relation to religious belief it is never analysed and has to be left as some sort of mystery. This leaves its use, in that context, open to the charge that it may well be a euphemism for wishful thinking. This contention is sometimes reinforced when believers bring in the "last ditch" argument that absence of religious belief has disastrous consequences. While there may be some truth in this, it also gives the game away.
When we consider Prof Reville's application of the word faith to atheism, which is an unusual argument, two things must be said.
Firstly, atheism has for its basis a high degree of probability, something which is quite different from faith. Secondly, if we bring science into the argument, the latter has no relation whatsoever to faith. In fact science and faith are quite contradictory. - Yours, etc,
TOM WILLIAMS, Goldenbridge Avenue, Dublin 8.