Sir, - Dr Ian Hughes (Rite and Reason, October 28th) reaches the conclusion that the only reasonable idea of God that we can have is that of Pascal: that is, one who is beyond the reach of human perception. He makes it clear that this view is an inevitable result of modern thinking, coupled with advances in scientific theory that have eliminated or changed traditional views of life and creation.
While I commend Dr Hughes's courage in tackling such an enormous subject in such an objective and uncynical manner, I cannot help feeling that it is precisely this which is his mistake, as it was the mistake of Newton, Descartes and all the others, because approaching the subject of God isn't really that big a deal at all.
It is the whole idea of God that He (or She) is personal - within every person lies the ability to see this - and trying to assess God as this enormous creator is pointless, as it is silly even to take seriously this ridiculous "debate" which has taken place between religion and science for centuries. One would think that wise people would realise this, but I suppose people feel they should tackle "bigger" subjects as they rise through the ranks of their particular field.
If we really must get analytical about the nature of God, we can do so only through parable or analogy. Being a physicist, Dr Hughes may answer the question, "what is red?" with: "a certain wavelength of light", which is true. Or he could say: "A strawberry is red", which may also be true. To find God, look at the actions of your loved ones. God is not out of reach, as Pascal may have believed. It's just the way you look at it. - Yours, etc.,
Victoria Street, Armagh.