It raises questions not only on the physical extent of the universe and possibly of multiverses, but also on the nature of mind and the possibility of a universal mind: "Hello multiverse, goodbye God".

It is sometimes said that theology and science are incompatible, but this is not the case for the distinguished theologian with a scientific bent, namely William Temple, Archbishop of Canterbury, in his prescient Gifford Lectures to Glasgow University in 1932-34: "For what manner of mind is that of which our science forms but an inkling in its analysis and systemisation of the experienced world? From the play of minutest particles to the sweep of stars in their courses, the work of Mind is found - of a Mind so mighty in range and scope, so sure in adjustment in infinitesimal detail, that before it all our science is clumsy and precarious. Nothing merely strange or alien can seem so incomparably transcendent as that Mind in the likeness of which our own minds are fashioned, yet before which they can only confess their impotence".

This statement is compatible with Darwin's theory of evolution, and calls for more humility amongst scientists and theologians alike. Temple quotes Aristotle: "In wonder does philosophy begin" , and Plato: "In astoundment does all true philosophy finish".

Bryan Furnass, Hughes

Wow! Seniors and concession card holders would ride buses for free ("Free buses for seniors: Barr", July 24, p9).

Well, for the information of Mr Barr, I have travelled free on the buses since I was issued an ACTION Gold Card in 2008.

Ken McPhan, Spence

Thank you Rhys Stanley for bringing some semblance of balance ("MH17 a ruse", Letters, July 24, p18) to a rather partisan article by A.Gartrell about the tragedy of MH17.

The American propaganda machine controlling conservative media seems to have imposed its own narrative as the only allowable interpretation of all political events. Very few have the courage to publicly dispute this extremely one-sided view.

The international jury is still out on the responsibility for the Malaysian airliner tragedy, but the American neo-conservative media and their Australian obsequious followers have already tried and convicted the Russian government.

The whole affair, however, is much more complicated.

Incidentally, the so called "neo-conservative group" in Washington is a powerful clique of influential politicians, thinkers and political commentators who still push the ideology of PNAC, or Project for a New American Century – an infamous organisation which promoted discredited ideology of American global hegemony at all costs.

This clique organised and financed all recent American interventions around the globe — Georgia, Libya, Syria, and Ukraine.

The aim is to besiege Russia by mobilising NATO, stirring anti-Russian sentiments in former Soviet satellites like the Baltic countries, attacking Russia economically with sanctions, and accusing President Putin of planning an imminent attack against Western Europe.

Can we expect more objectivity next time, Mr Gartrell?

Adam Rustowski, Belconnen

I am disgusted with continual Canberra Times propaganda advocating changing the definition of marriage. Some editors and journalists, including Crispin Hull and Mark Kenny, are obsessed with this very minor issue.

The overwhelming acceptance of the very public civil unions of Justice Kirby, Senator Wong and Chief Minister Barr indicate that such unions would be little improved by changing the definition.

Change would upset many times more people than it would assist.

The latest propaganda, "Let's quickly resolve marriage equality issue" by Rodney Croome (Sunday CT, July 24, p20), is just a dishonest whinge which despite its length gives no reason for change – probably because no valid reason exists.

Croome used the dishonestly coined term "marriage equality" 12 times. A sensible meaning of the term would be "equality of a husband and wife within a marriage"; however, Croome and his ilk distort the term to persuade unintelligent trendies to vote for change on the reasoning that anything named "equality" must be good.

This unethical approach could be similarly used to argue for polygamous or incestuous marriages.

I agree with Croome that a plebiscite/politicians' vote is illogical.

I recommend a one-step binding referendum which will force advocates for change to attempt to provide reasons for their proposal.

R. James, Melba

Rodney Croome questions the logic of an expensive plebiscite on gay marriage. The answer is perhaps disappointingly simple: this time it's personal.

Planning to amend the Marriage Act is not on political par with enacting some piece of dry legislation like a reduction on tariffs, but forever more shifting the goalposts on the most intimate social institution that human beings partake in.

It is also very disappointing that the sneaky language of speaking about "marriage equality" has been so bought into, as if the current law of the land regarding wedlock is somehow remarkably unequal.

Just over a decade ago, both Liberal and Labor agreed that marriage was the union of a man and a woman.

Does that conviction instantly render all those assenting MPs now as homophobic bigots?

A plebiscite is necessary, as suddenly potentially retrospectively determining that a historic institution is both invalid and inferior, cannot be left to just 150 elected citizens. We all need a say on the matter.

Peter Waterhouse, Craigieburn, Vic

Email: letters.editor@canberratimes.com.au. Send from the message field, not as an attached file. Fax: 6280 2282. Mail: Letters to the Editor, The Canberra Times, PO Box 7155, Canberra Mail Centre, ACT 2610.

Keep your letter to 250 words or less. References to Canberra Times reports should include date and page number. Letters may be edited. Provide phone number and full home address (suburb only published).