A reader writes:

I want to call a potential hypocrisy timeout on the O'Reilly post.  I watched his re-explanation for how the tides work (i.e. who put the moon there?) and wondered how you, as a man of faith, would counter his argument exactly.  His belief is (and I'm paraphrasing): "It requires more faith to believe this was all luck than it does to believe in God". 

Do you disagree?  If so, how?  I'm curious as to how you can justify using an example of someone invoking god to explain something they don't understand as a way to demonstrate their ignorance. Or are you simply disagreeing with Bill on this point and willing to agree with him on questions humans haven't yet answered?

I do not believe that God "put the moon there". That kind of specificity, when science can easily explain how all this occurred, is not orthodox Christianity. If O'Reilly meant that there is a profound mystery about our existence and consciousness in the universe(s) that we inhabit, and that that mystery cannot be explained by science alone, I'm with him. It's just so depressing to see Christianity represented by someone who sounds like your uncle after too many drinks at Christmas.

We want to hear what you think about this article. Submit a letter to the editor or write to letters@theatlantic.com.