Madam, - I agree with Prof Reville when he states that absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. However, I am perplexed as to how he has chosen the absence of evidence for Yahweh over the absence of evidence for other gods.
Given his obvious concern for the numerical support for his religious sentiment, it is hard to dispel the notion that perhaps Prof Reville's religious choice has much do with Prof Reville's religious culture.
He also states that both religious people and atheists are believers of a type, and that "belief cannot rest wholly on reason, it also requires faith". Therefore atheism requires faith, he concludes.
However, his attempts to equate the faith of believers and unbelievers become risible when applied to myths to which Prof Reville probably does not subscribe.
Prof Reville would not be called a "man of faith" if he stated that he did not believe in leprechauns or the banshee; he would instead be called "sane".
Finally, I can think of no instance where Prof Richard Dawkins has claimed that the substitution of religion with atheism would be a guarantee of morality, so I do not understand why Prof Reville feels the need to contest this point.
If Prof Reville is concerned that our moral discussions and decisions do not sufficiently reflect majority Christian thinking, perhaps he should consult his bible.
Then, maybe, he might join women, homosexuals and heretics in thanking goodness that, by and large, when it comes to issues of morality, most of us apparently do not do the same. - Yours without anger,
AIDAN COMERFORD, Racehill Park, Asbourne, Co Meath.