Daniel Jones opines that "In the absence of independent reasons to believe something, we are entitled to not believe it" (Letters, December 17).
I wonder what possible "independent" evidence he could mount in support of that belief, and in the absence of such evidence I am "entitled", apparently, to disregard it.
The problem with all atheistic (il)logic is that it refuses to submit its own presumptions to the same kind of scrutiny that it offers of others.
The great strength of Christianity is that it has been so examined and yet remains standing.
That alone is a sufficient reason for its rational acceptance.