ALAN Oliver’s assertion that atheists are missing the point (Letters, July 19) is worthy of examination.

He ascribes to Saint Paul the “eat, drink and be merry” quotation and uses this to dismiss innate morality on the grounds that we are all going to die, therefore there is no logic in crediting humankind with knowing the difference between right and wrong. It seems that, in his view, we require the admonition of saints, angels and a god to keep us on the straight and narrow.

I have two points to make on this. Firstly, who is Saint Paul? What evidence has Mr Oliver to prove that this individual existed and is not the figment of a politically motivated religious author?

Secondly, I spent much of my career looking after murderers and sex offenders. The number of committed Christians in both groups was quite astonishing, but I can recall no atheists in either. They all went to religious services, but perhaps Mr Oliver can question their motivation beyond the fact that they almost invariably believed strongly in the “fact” that their god would forgive them so their sojourn in the afterlife was secured.

The second point is in regard to his reliance on the intellectual rigour of C S Lewis. Lewis is not known as an academic by the majority of people but as the fantasist of Lion, Witch and Wardrobe fame: a man better known for his imagination than his logic.

What is the problem with those who have a “belief”: are they unaware that a belief requires only that they believe and not that they prove their belief superior to someone else’s opinion?

I have no problem with Mr Oliver, or anyone else, holding his belief, he is entitled to do so. I, on the other hand, am apparently not entitled to regard his belief as nonsense and to have an expectation of moral conduct based on empathy from my fellow humans.

My own belief is that some men created God in their own image because they were afraid of the dark.

Les Hunter
Lanark

I READ yesterday’s letter from Alan Oliver with growing amazement. It does not speak well of Christian morality.

I don’t doubt his sincerity. I do, however, find quite appalling his implication that, in a “meaningless universe”, actions to increase the general happiness and well-being of humanity have no intrinsic value, are “pointless” and those who think otherwise are “deluded fools”. His view seems to be that no-one should perform an unselfish act. His “morality” as a Christian seems to be based on his belief in an afterlife and, by implication, his desire to acquire brownie points to be redeemed at the pearly gates. I think St Peter may see through that, and weigh what’s in his heart!

As an agnostic, I have no desire to “get rid of any supernatural origin”. After much thought over the years, I have come to the conclusion that I am not equipped to understand the origin of the universe – it may be physics (plus lots of time), it may be a supernatural being (aka God), it may even be “the Force” from Star Wars. I don’t know, but I have seen no evidence of a God (I know – faith!) and I am not inclined to believe in one just because some guy a few thousand years ago said he had heard voices and his people had better do as he said or they would be sorry. Priests, witch doctors, Popes and ministers have been abusing that power since the dawn of Man.

With regard to the conclusions of CS Lewis, I do not consider it surprising that people around the world, with similar needs and wants, should reach similar conclusions on what is the best way to live.

J Palmer
Strathaven

ALAN Oliver’s notion that there can be no morality or meaning without God is silly.

Our morality has evolved as a survival mechanism for the group and in turn the individual. As primitive societies randomly experimented with behaviour it must have been quickly obvious that those for whom no killing and no stealing were not guiding principles were never going spread their genes or inherit the earth.

Neil Barber
Edinburgh

ANDREW Learmonth uses the abusive term “welched” in his article about pairing at Westminster (PM apologises after Tory MP abandons ‘paired’ Brexit vote deal, July 19). This refers pejoratively to Welsh deceit and dishonesty from an English point of view. I grew up hearing the nursery rhyme about thieving Taffy and didn’t expect to see it used in The National. It is casual Anglo-Saxon racism and I’d hoped to have seen awareness of how unacceptable it is.

Catherine Lloyd
Letters, Loch Broom

THE next referendum may be some way off but there are urgent actions needing to be taken by Yes groups now. Foremost among them is to encourage voter registration. People aged 14 and over should be on the electoral register now, ready to vote when 16, 17 or 18 as appropriate. Can I appeal for a mass national campaign to enfranchise the group least likely to vote, but most likely to vote Yes!

Ian Richmond
Dumfries and Galloway