science hasn't "got there" - it finds more unanswered questions than solutions (ie the quantum paradox - or the big bang ) - so how can it seriously right off these greater questions - maybe it doesn't "believe" it can ....

paul, aus,

John Bennets argument shows how weak is the defence put forward by religious apologists. For God's sake man, becoming a member of MENSA has nothing to do with science or religion. It is purely an ability to solve puzzles, or display logical thought in certain areas, none of which are related to religion. Are all chess masters automatically religious? Do try harder next time!

Martin, Burnley, UK

It doesn't stagger me that intellectual heavyweights sign up to phrases like “putting together science and faith leads to a fuller and deeper picture of the whole of reality”. I recently viewed a survey of a group of Mensans the majority of whom were religious. Science is a tool for gaining insight into the physical world. Theology gives insight into the non-physical.

I also do not accept the dogma that rigorous science, by definition, will not and should not allow faith of any intensity to come near it considering that science developed in a Christian society namely medieval Europe. The Christian mindset developed the discipline. How could it possible make sense for it to exclude religion by definition?

John Bennett, Gympie, Australia

Perhaps the distiguished signatories of the letter would care to explain what part of their research/job was furthered by "...putting together science and faith leads to a fuller and deeper picture of the whole of reality."

Does Prof Berry propose intelligent design, how does s/he square creation and evolution? Does the Met Office now advocate that raindrops are some gods tears? And does the geophysicist believe the Earth to be only 6000 years old?

Rob, Birmingham, UK

My second attempt to have my say:

Can't we humans be humble enough to accept the fact that there are things we don't know, perhaps can't ever know. Why should we accept magical explanations that are continuously pushed down our throats by religious "know-alls"? Science will never accept them. And scientists, however eminent, shouldn't either.

alan barley, cologne,

Richard Dawkins implies “there is a lot we don’t know” - he is absolutely right.

He admits he doesn’t know and I am sure he will be the first one to want to know, unlike the four “academythians” who can sloppily play along, usually, out of loyalty, ignorance, inertia, vested interests or lack of courage and not try to seek out the evidence.

RD like many open-minded thinkers (without blinkers) would like to believe and have faith but are not prepared to do so, on hearsay alone.
It staggers me when I see such supposedly intellectual heavyweights sign up to phrases like “putting together science and faith leads to a fuller and deeper picture of the whole of reality”
Rigorous science, by definition, will not and should not allow faith of any intensity to come near it.

Peter Fernandez, Oxford, Oxofordshire

Of course. Thanks for the helpful witness.

Father Bryan Storey, Tintagel., UK

Scientists -even eminent ones - may believe in astrology, voodoo, fairies, goblins, witches or ghosts if they so wish. Science can do nothing to prevent them holding such bizarre views. This also applies if they choose to believe that dead people can rise again and fly up into the sky. No one can disprove such ideas. But the sensible person will regard them as irrational. A more humble and responsible attitude, I would suggest, would be to face up to the uncomfortable fact that there are things we shall probably never understand - rather than concocting magical explanations for them as our more ignorant ancestors did.

alan barley, cologne,

Science does not contradict faith? Depends on the faith. Science has been rolling the boundaries of faith back for quite some time. Now it's harder to have faith that, say, God stopped the Sun for Joshua; or that Tepeu and Gucumatz thought the world into existence, or that there were no rainbows before Noah survived the non-existent Flood. So long as your faith is not testable, which accoding to some schools of philosophy is the same as being without any identifiable meaning, then you are on safe ground.

Norman Paterson, Anstruther, Fife

Neither would science Mr Sears

david bryant, St Margaret's, Middx

These three gentlemen are quite amazing. They KNOW that Jesus rose from the dead and ascended to heaven. Presumably they KNOW that Mohammed is the true messenger from God,not to mention the validity of all the other world religions and Gods. However they disagree (or should that be KNOW) with Dawkins that science can rule out the supernatural. There is a line in a song in West Side Story that goes '..say it softly and it sounds like praying...' - especially necessary,I would add ,in this case,where no evidence can be produced to support their assertions.

Bernard Shilling, London, England, U.K.

The distinguished emeritus professors and directors whose faith remains secure,despite their science,should perhaps reconsider the bases of their understanding of their respective sciences.
They may well be able to explain brilliantly how their science works but to fudge the answers to the unresolved questions of life and existence by pleading God and Faith,wouldn't get them a third class degree let alone an Emeritus Professorship

michael sears, london, uk