A Chara, - William Reville's article (August 24th) is guilty of such gross logical fallacies and inconsistencies that as a lecturer in the same university I would struggle to pass an undergraduate paper of the same quality. Reville argues that there is evidence of two kinds for the existence of God. Firstly, he argues that because the universe is fine-tuned to facilitate life, then this is evidence, a priori, of God. This amounts, it seems, to the argument that "we are, so there must be God". The anthropic principle is not the same as intelligent design but one has to study the matter in some detail to wrest them apart. And even if the laws of physics were "rigged by a superintelligence to allow events as we know them to evolve" how in the name of God (sic) can we equate this with any one religion such as Christianity?
His second argument for the existence "of a personal God", whatever that means, is breathtaking in its audacity and is worth repeating here: "Jesus Christ claimed to be in close contact with God, whom he referred to in familiar terms as his father. If we judge that Jesus was sane, if his teachings stake a claim on our hearts and minds, and if we find that abiding by the principles that Jesus taught brings peace and joy into our lives, then it is reasonable for us to accept the word of Jesus about God just as it is for us to accept the word of any tried and tested friend on some matter about which we have no direct experience."
Leaving aside for a moment the small matter that if you are unsure about what your friend is saying or has experienced, you can ask him/her to clarify it, one could replace Jesus with Gandhi in the above statement without inferring or necessitating a belief in Hinduism, quite apart from it providing evidence of God's existence.
Reville goes on to make the case that the West "has been relatively successful in many ways compared with other cultures" and seemingly attributes this, not to the existence of God, but specifically to Christianity, and he references a book by an American professor to make his point.
The reader should be very wary of any argument that references a single book, for surely any argument one wishes to make can find solace and justification in some book or other.
Perhaps the most remarkable statement by Reville in the entire piece is his insistence that historically Christianity has accorded a privileged position to reason, unlike other belief systems.
Is this the same church that argued against the existence of a spherical earth, that continues to argue against evolution and that refuses to recognise quantum physics? A privileged position to reason?
Reville goes on to quote Stark with the claim that the Dark Ages were an invention of anti-Catholic intellectuals.
Was the Enlightenment then a reaction to nothing in particular or itself too an invention of anti-Catholic intellectuals?
Reville's last line is the most troubling of all however: "If we lose our nerve now, if we spit on our heritage, there are other traditions around willing to move in and bend us to their ways."
Does he mean the Islamic tradition?
If so this is surely one of the most offensive lines I had ever read in this newspaper. - Yours, etc,
MORGAN STACK, Department of Accounting, Finance and Information Systems, UCC, Cork.
Madam, - In discussing reasons for belief in the existence of a personal God, Prof William Reville (August 24th) refers to the work of 20th century scientist Fred Hoyle and his view that a "superintelligence" must be responsible for the universe. Then he refers to the life and teaching of Jesus to support a belief in a personal God. He seems unaware of 20th century research into the life of Jesus. It's now clear that he lived to a considerable extent in a fantasy world. For example, he shared a belief that the Jews were divinely chosen to be a favoured race. He believed that since they were a down-trodden nation God would intervene one day to restore their fortunes because they were his favoured people (another fantasy), and he expected the intervention in his lifetime (another fantasy). While Jesus may have conceived of God in personal terms, some of his ideas are outdated and conflict with concepts of unconditional love such as his idea of a God who punishes and rewards with the threat of hell and the promise of heaven. There is no evidence that he was sensitive to gender issues in considering ways to think about God.
The idea of being divinely chosen is a dangerous fantasy. Muhammad thought in his lifetime that he was divinely chosen and most of his followers still believe he was. God does not disclose his will to his human representatives.
We have to try to work out the right way to live ourselves. - Yours, etc,
ANDREW FURLONG, Tubbermore Road, Dalkey, Co Dublin.
Madam, - William Reville says we can believe in God because Jesus said so, and he seems a nice enough bloke. Oh I see, fair enough, that's OK then. Of course, most people who'd claim their dad was God and they were in close contact with him.. . well, we know the rest. And that because one star doesn't burn up and supports life something must have designed it as opposed to life developing according to the elements which could support it. Actually I think it's a pretty bad design all things considered. Still, if we don't support Christianity the other nastier religions (which Reville doesn't know enough to talk about) may get their way and "bend us to their ways"; sounds like blackmail. Surely talking about our common humanity is a better defence than scoring points about different religions? No? Fine, I'll pack up my humanist reason and sign up.
Glad I bought the paper today, western civilisation can be saved. Let people believe what they will choose to believe but let's face it, there is NO evidence for God/gods. - Yours, etc,
ANN JAMES, Balrothery, Balbriggan, Co Dublin.
Madam, - As a scientist I find Prof William Reville's argument lacking in any substance. If such an argument were presented in my class I would have to fail it. His three main points could be used to weakly argue any topic, for example ; 1) The Irish lifestyle could only exist because of the unique level of taxes that only the supreme presence of Fianna Fáil could have put in place. If the tax levels were to change, our lifestyles as we know it would cease to exist (the Irish Anthropic Principle). 2) Brian Lenihan was in close contact with the main man (aka Charlie Haughey). So in mature recollection what he said must be accepted like the word of any tried and tested friend on some matter about which we have no direct experience.
3) Because of the heritage of Fianna Fáil we turned out reasonably well.
If we lose our nerve at the next election, if we spit on our heritage, there are other parties around, with followers full of confidence and resolve, willing to move in and to bend us to their ways.
Maybe we could take this argument on the road campaigning for the Church of Fianna Fáil? - Yours, etc,
Dr JOJO BOYLE, University of Chicago, Chicago, Illinois.
Madam, - William Reville writes "there is sufficient evidence in favour of God to make it reasonable to believe." He goes on to make the usual intelligent design arguments about the intricacies of the universe and its suitability for accommodating life, concluding the reasonableness of believing in a "super-intelligence" that made the first for the purpose of the second. By way of support for this view, he writes that the eminent scientist Fred Hoyle was of the same opinion and said so on occasion.
Fred Hoyle said a lot of things. He was one of the founders of the "steady state theory". This theory tried to accommodate the idea of an eternal universe that is, at the same time, expanding. To explain this, Hoyle postulated the creation of matter between galaxies over time, the existence of some sort of "creation field" whose nature he never elaborated upon. It could be said that Hoyle was following scientific methods. A hypothesis is aired, and then either proved false by experimental evidence and rejected, or accepted until it can be disproved and replaced by another. However, the irony of Mr Reville using Hoyle's beliefs as argument for the reasonableness of ID is that Hoyle clung to this "steady-state" theory to his dying day, despite mounting scientific evidence against it.
He spent his last years presenting modified forms of this theory, trying to circumvent and pre-empt evidence against it while preserving the central tenet of an eternal universe.
I think of Hoyle as emblematic of proponents of intelligent design, William Reville included: the embrace of scientific methods only to the point where they become inconvenient and lead to conflict with cherished ideas or received religion, followed by attempts to pervert, disregard or misrepresent such methods. - Yours, etc,
VINCENT KELLY, Templeogue, Dublin 16.