Madam, - Noel Clarke's letter of January 16th is typical of religious apologists, eager to claim Einstein as one of their own. (Why? Surely they don't need men of science on their side; they have faith.)
What Mr Clarke neglected to quote was Einstein's response to misrepresentations of his position: "It was, of course, a lie which you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it." - Yours, etc,
TIM McDONNELL, Offington Manor, Dublin 13.
Madam, - Dr Peter Clark (January 16th) writes that science and religion "are related in many inextricable ways".
I would clarify this by saying the answers offered are related in that they both offer explanations to big questions, but the methods of arriving at these answers could not be further apart. Science is based on experimental and observable evidence; religion is based only on what the previous generation of faithful believed and passed on to their children.
Why should a science correspondent feel the need to invoke a God, any more than a religious correspondent should feel the need to explore the idea that God is imaginary? - Yours, etc,
CIARÁN FARRELL, Bray, Co Wicklow.