I am concerned about the replies to David Beattie's letter in the Citizen, Selective about Religion.

I agree that goodness is not the prerogative of religion but belongs to common humanity.

But to suggest the evils of the world are the result of religion and the world would be a better place without it is equally as naive.

To likewise suggest, as Richard Dawkins does, that 'faith is the great cop-out, the excuse to evade the need to think and evaluate evidence' is equally bizarre.

Dawkins knows nothing about theology yet makes statements that bear no resemblance to what many Christians believe.

The television programmes presented by Dawkins were biased to the extreme. He chose to interview people with obvious agendas.

Why didn't he include Alister McGrath, professor of historical theology at Oxford University who also has a PhD in molecular physics? Or many others with a scientific, theological background.

To dismiss religious people as 'blind followers of faith', as Mr C Richmond does (Citizen Letters, February 15) is not only untrue but insulting. I have studied theology for 35 years and I can't think of one reputed theologian who believes faith is blind and not evidence based.

When Mr Richmond says he hasn't encountered 'any religious holy man who could put forward any factual evidence of the existence of a deity', his research is facile or non-existent.

To throw out Noah, without understanding the nature, or theology of such stories is irksome!

It is better to start with the Christ, the fact of His resurrection and the theology that surrounds it.

Robert Clarke

Carleton Road

Chorley