SIR – John E Iebole says that “religion in general is innate and inborn” and that this is a “bat for God”

(October 14).

I agree there are psychological predispositions to religion but I disagree that this is in any way a supportive “bat” for the beliefs themselves.

As just one example, we have a well-established tendency to attribute conscious agency where none exists – changes in the weather map divine judgment, bad events are the fruits of witchcraft and so on. However this does not mean that the floods are linked to God’s disapproval of gay equality legislation (as the Bishop of Carlisle claimed last year) nor is falling down the stairs any evidence that witches are out to get me.

Innate religiosity in no way supports religious belief. If anything, it explains those beliefs away.

There is in fact a middle way – to seek, experience and evolve the meaning of life for ourselves, eschewing anachronistic mythology but forging our own purposes and determining our own values. I suggest that this, the humanist endeavour, is already well underway and though it may be a harder and more turbulent road to take, it is a more noble, more genuine task than faithfully embracing the commandments laid down in any religious doctrine could ever be.

BOB CHURCHILL, Worcester.