So far, so good. Why then does Professor Dawkins not keep the courage of his convictions, and apply his analysis to his own rather narrow view of what counts as valid evidence and real experience? Taking refuge in a theory of “how the brain works” is a one-dimensional solution. Is that really all there is to our human interaction with one another and the world?

Religious faith is no doubt prone to delusion and the perennial human quest for certainty. Conversely, it displays a far richer relationship to the world — through story symbol and acts of compassion — than is dreamt of in any reductionist philosophy.

THE REV DR STEVEN SHAKESPEARE
Liverpool Hope University

Sir, Richard Dawkins’s article presents about the weakest serious argument against the existence of God that I have seen. We have a story about a Manx shearwater, a number of paragraphs about a hollow plastic mask of Einstein, reminiscences from his childhood and mentions of visions and “voices”, and making conclusions from these he debunks the reality of God.

Of course, there are many serious arguments against God’s existence, but any such argument must take into account the experience of millions of people down the ages who have had no visions or the like, but who have a firm relationship with and faith in the God they believe in, a relationship which has positively affected their lives and the lives of those around them.

MARK L. SHORE
High Wycombe, Bucks

Sir, A proper debate about the existence of God can only take place if all the interested parties agree that the evidence actually is the evidence, and that they all have equal and unrestricted access to it. All historians agree that Napoleon was Emperor of France, for which there is plenty of evidence. They may disagree on matters of interpretation but not on the nature of evidence itself.

In religious matters, uniquely, such debates cannot take place, since one side claims privileged access to certain insights which it asserts to be evidence but which its debating partner does not share. This does not render the insights invalid or — to the believer — unhelpful; but it does remove them from the sphere of strictly intellectual discourse.

MICHAEL SOMMER
Christ Church, Oxford

Sir, In his spirited defence of religious faith (“What the sneering legions of atheists need to remember”, Oct 31) Richard Morrison fails to acknowledge a key component in the debate.

I imagine that very few atheists are so mean-spirited that they refuse to recognise the considerable aesthetic, ethical and social consequences of religious belief. However, such effects do not in themselves establish the truth of religion’s claims.

Until those who profess faith show a greater willingness to put aside their indifference to the atheists’ intellectual objections, the sniping will continue and justifiably so.

STEFAN KRZEMINSKI
Head of Philosophy and Religious Studies
Nottingham High School

Sir, Richard Morrison points out that his form of bland Christianity probably does no harm to society and helps him to feel better about himself. The reason atheists are becoming more vocal is that his form of religion is in decline.

Believers of all kinds are demanding respect and deference to their particular “ism” and code of behaviour while non-believers are accused of fomenting trouble when they “sneer” at such ideas. Mr Morrison believes that shining a light on illogicality will “drive a wedge”, and the Government bows to this notion in its frightening moves towards blasphemy legislation.

In a truly secular state everyone is free to carry their beliefs but they should not expect anyone else to modify their behaviour as a result of it. Believer and non-believer have equal rights and should be free to refer to the other as heretics.

M. L. ROBERTS
Sutton Coldfield, W Midlands

Explore Letters

• Feedback