Dispelling
Dawkins' Errors
Question:-
The Biologist
Richard Dawkins has written a book called “The God Delusion”. Did you read it? What is your response
to this as a Muslim?
Answer:-
Yes I have read it.
Some of his
criticisms are valid, but concern the people rather the teachings of the
religion. He appears to have collected together the same objections, criticisms
and prejudices against religion that have been doing the rounds for many years
in some quarters and have been answered before. He is a committed dogmatic
Atheist, who like a propagandist has selected facts, quotations out of context
in order to support his militant evangelism and hate of religion. In fact, the
book has led to a loss of respect for scientists who make pronouncement on
subjects on the basis of personal prejudices without having studied the subject
or made effort to understand it. There are a number of fallacies,
misunderstandings, self-contradictions, prejudices and errors of thought in his
book.
(1) Dawkins’
tells us what he believes. His arguments against religion are based on this
unproved “belief” that there is no God, no spiritual entities, no
spirit in man and that his capacity for Reasoning and his knowledge are
sufficient for him to know everything with certainty. He is dogmatic, unlike
many other Scientists who usually accept that their knowledge is incomplete.
But he has not studied or understood religious concepts. He has made Atheism
into a religion. He supposes that if scientists or other intelligent people say
they believe in God then either they are deluded, or they are lying but are
merely paying respect to convention or ingratiating themselves with the
religious lobby. He has, therefore, effectively closed his mind to any evidence
for religion and trapped himself.
(2) He has his own
idea of God which he proceeds to criticise. He has not understood and ignored
the concept of God in the Scriptures particularly the Quran which has the most
comprehensive description. He describes God with 18 vicious characteristics and
no virtues, ignoring such attributes as those in the Quran. No one believes in
such a God. He attributes all kinds of evil to religion and has nothing good to
say about it, not even the charity and good works and courage it gives rise to.
That is how Religion is seen by the religious. He thinks that this concept is
required only to fill in the shrinking gaps in scientific knowledge. But the
Islamic concept is that Allah is the self-existing Origin, Creator and
Maintainer of the Universe including all its Laws, Forces and Processors.
(3) He has not
explained the origin of the Universe. He supposes that God should be an object
in the Universe and, therefore, subject to scientific investigation. But he
uses a purely rational argument (not an empirical one) to reject the existence
of God on the grounds that He would need to be highly complex to create a
complex world and the improbability of something existing is proportional to
its complexity. And yet he believes “Nature” produces the evolution
of complexity spontaneously from simplicity by small steps. He does not see
that any thing created even by a human designer takes place by a series of
small steps - e.g. a house is created brick by brick. He does not see that the
end product of such evolution could already be a potentiality in the beginning
as the adult is in the seed. He tells us that though the arising of life is an
extremely improbable event the Anthropic Principle (that we are here because
the conditions are right rather than the reverse) allows it to arise because of
the vastness of the Universe so that even the improbable has a probability of
arising. On that argument any improbable thing whatsoever no matter how
fantastic that a person can imagine could also arise. But he misuses the notion of
probability. Suppose there is an accident of two cars from different cities
colliding on a particular point on a road. The improbability of that happening
is clearly very great but when it has happened it is a certainty. The fact is
that “chance” refers to our ignorance, and even so, probabilities
can only be calculated when some information is available. When dice are thrown
and land with a particular face up, this has a probability of 1 in 6, because
the dice have 6 faces and we do not know all the forces involved. We have no
way of knowing how many alternatives there were before the Universe and its
laws came into existence. The question of complexity that applies to the
created world does not apply to Creator. When something is improbable, such as
the arising of the Universe, life and consciousness, then we know that a cause
exists for it. The calculation of probabilities does not provide proof. The
fact is that there is an Uncertainty Principle in Science at the fundamental
level and even in the Theories it constructs. The Anthropic Principle can be
understood simply as implying that things arise where conditions are suitable
for them to arise. Nothing is said about how or why the conditions arise. What
is certain is that the world experienced and described by human being could not
exist without human beings. Other worlds that are experienced and described by
other creatures could exist if they existed.
(4) Dawkins also presents formal
arguments from the past about the need for a first cause and dismisses these as
involving an infinite regression. If one can ask who created God, and who
created that creator and so on to infinity, then the same kind of argument also
applies to the Universe – Where does the Universe come from? Is it part
of a Multiverse or an offspring of a previous Universe? If so how do these
arise and so on to infinity? There is something fundamental that self-exists. The question is: why
do some people find it easier to believe that the fundamental Reality is
something dead rather than something that is the origin of, and comprehends all
things including matter, energy, information, life, intelligence and
consciousness? There are motives behind beliefs, the capacity for understanding
and perception and appropriate actions that provide information by reaction.
But examining the real
world shows that there are beginnings to all things, even the Universe. As the
Laws that created the Universe do not exist before the Beginning, the cause of
the Universe cannot be in the Universe or be describable in terms of those
laws. An infinite regress is not necessary if there is an infinite source.
There must ultimately be something with respect to which all other things are
explicable which is itself taken for granted. Even Science is looking for a
Unified Theory that will explain everything but will not itself be explicable.
He thinks that the argument from Design, that the existence of order or design
in the Universe indicates the existence of a Designer, is refuted by the
argument that things evolve slowly by small steps. But that only tells us about
the process not the cause. Anything designed by human beings is also
constructed by small steps. Are not human beings parts of nature? Where do they
obtain their powers from? The fact
is that wherever we find order there is a cause for it and even a purpose, e.g.
birds nest. The reason for this is that disorder is a much more likely result
of chance. Order refers to a particular arrangement of parts which persists and
is also repeated. When something exists that has a probability of more than or
less than chance, then we need a cause to explain it.
(5) He needs to
explain the widespread existence of the concept of God and tries to do so by
such phenomena as the “imaginary friend” that small children have,
or the projection of the inner conversation that people conduct within their
minds, or of dreams or of their wishful thinking or fears. But these
explanations are obviously speculations based on the prior rejection of God and
not reasons for it. They do not explain the content of revelations. There is
also the theory of Freud that God is a projection of the father figure. But the
case could be the reverse. The parents and the national authorities could be
representatives of something fundamental about the nature of Reality. But the
existence of a “self” as a centre of consciousness is not seen as a
clue, nor is the ability of the unconscious mind to synthesise inner and outer
experiences. Nor, of course, is it admitted that it could be a rational
explanation for the existence of the universe and its laws or an inspired
answer to the human need for a comprehensive world view to enable conscious
adjustment to it.
(6) Dawkins fails
to make a distinction between religions or aspects of a religion that are:- (a)
based on revelation (to a heightened consciousness), (b) based on priests and
their organisations, (c) based on the nature of the people and their
limitations. To explain the arising of Religions he points to what are called
“Cargo” religions. These refer to the superstitions that have
arisen among some primitive people to explain the marvellous, to them magical,
technologies of the Europeans that came among them and the fact that these were
imported from remote, to them unknown places, by ship or aeroplane. They
invented rituals and objects in imitation, in the hope that they could
reproduce the same magic. These were obviously not very sophisticated religions
based on revelation. Real religions, unlike the one Dawkins has invented, claim
that God is not a material object in the Universe and is not a subject of study
for science and its methods which deals only with the Created world. (The
evolution of Religion is symbolic described in Quran 6:76-80). God is known by
his self-revelation through Prophets and in the inherent Spirit (consciousness,
conscience and will) within people and by the existence of the Universe and its
ordering (Quran 45:3-5). Organisations are concerned with social, cultural
political and commercial affairs in the world, with prestige, power and wealth
and tend to be concerned mainly with self-perpetuating. People differ in their intelligence,
experience, knowledge, virtue, ability and education. There are a range of
superstitions, illusions, fantasies, stupidities. These are human
characteristics that will manifest in all aspect of human life including
religion but not exclusively.
(7) Religious
feelings, as Dawkins himself confirms, are not confined to religious people or
expressed in conventional religious terms. People may be aware or understand
them to various degrees, and they may interpret them different ways. The fact
is that it is an inbuilt human characteristic. So what does he, as a Darwinist
Biologist, think is the evolutional advantage of the universal existence of the
concept of God and religion? He supposes that it is the misdirection of
something that is evolutionary useful. But he does not tell us what. On the
other hand he also tells us Natural Selection ensures an economy in the use of
energy and filters out what is not useful. He has a theory of
“memes”, units of memory that replicate like genes and are
culturally transmitted. He supposes that the idea of God is one of these, a
virus of the mind that infects populations. This seems to be a device specially
invented to malign religion. We are not told how such memes arise and are
maintained. No distinction is made between (a) those that arise from
interaction with the natural world – trees, animals, stars etc.,(b) those
that arise from the culture – law, organisation etc. and (c) those that
arise from subjective sources and are destructive – hate, greed, egotism
etc. Each of these are obviously nourished in different ways.
(8) Human reason,
as Dawkins himself realises, has arisen in adaptation to this world and can
only deal with this world. It depends on certain assumptions that are
supra-rational. We cannot justify Logic logically. But reason cannot operate
without the data of experience and without motives and effort to understand,
and above all the capacity for reasoning. All these vary. Information can
differ in quality and quantity, and interests and efforts may also differ,
leading to quite different conclusions. Dawkins regards himself as a champion
of reason and quotes but dismisses as absurd and irrational the arguments of
many people, including some he has interviewed, all of whom regard themselves
as rational. But obviously these other people would regard him as unreasonable
as he regards them. This ought to have cautioned him about the limitations of
reason.
(9) He is certain
of his own beliefs and thinks that all others who believe otherwise must be
deluded, irrational or stupid. He believes all this without evidence and that
is obviously a blind faith the like of which he condemns in others. He also has
faith that everything yet unknown will be discovered, and problems yet unsolved
will be solved by science. He does not understand the limits of human faculties
or of the scientific method or even of the subject that science deals with.
However the judgement that he makes about what is evil or good, in order to
condemn or praise, are not a matter of reason at all, but of the sensitivity of
feeling, and of conscience. Here it becomes necessary to distinguish between
(a) natural conscience that is inherent, such as sympathy, (b) the Social or
false conscience inculcated into a person by social conditioning, called “superego”,
and (c) personal prejudices of likes and dislikes, desires and fears, that
arise from personal experiences and sub-conscious processing. The Social conscience is relative and
differs with culture and changes in it.
It is this false inner policeman or personal prejudice that tends to
create value judgements in most people.
(10) There are
other sources of information besides reason e.g. the senses, feelings, action
and insight, intuition, inspiration and revelation. We have conscious,
sub-conscious and unconscious processes and we are affected by the world more
directly at these levels and different people have different degrees of
consciousness.
(11) He has
misunderstood the nature of faith by supposing that it means “blind
belief”, something irrational and opposed to reason. In this he is just
like many religious people who also think so. In fact, it refers to confidence
such that action and life can be based on it. Like love and hope it is an
aspect of the spirit, of consciousness without which nothing can be done. It
arises from something that connects with the inherent nature of a person such
as hunger. A person is formed by the materials, forces laws and processes of
the Universe and he has experiences owing to interaction with the world and
with himself. These experiences do create a kind of self-consistent synthesis
at the unconscious level that affect what people do and think to various
degrees. The fact is that Dawkins himself has faith in Darwinism just as
religious people have faith in their doctrines. On the other hand we can reject
his narrow idea of reason which requires some kind of formal system of thought
based on man made rules. There is a distinction of degree between Logic, Reason
Intelligence and Natural Processes. In this series each is a subset of the one
that follows. We simply do not accept that randomness or chance is a reasonable
explanation for the existence of order.
(12) He supposes
that science differs from religion in that science requires evidence and that
scientists, including himself, will easily change their minds when sufficient
evidence is provided. This is not
so. Facts can be selected and interpreted and organised in different ways
according to motives and interests. It is well known that commercial firms employ
scientists who will do biased research. Many scientists ignore facts that do
not fit their theories or explain them away. On the other hand religious people
also have evidence for their beliefs, are also required to make the effort to
understand the religious teachings and to change their minds accordingly (Quran
17:36). Religious ideas and understanding changes over
time as do scientific ones.
(13) Certainly,
intelligent conscious people do and should base their ideas, motives and
actions on evidence. Science does require evidence and so does the Quran (17:36) which also constantly
points to Nature (12:105, 13:3-5, 81:27 etc.). But Science is not just about
facts and evidence, but also requires insight and inspiration, speculates and
constructs Theories for certain purposes. The question is: what is regarded or
accepted as evidence? Evidence can be selected to support a bias or taken out
of context and interpreted, as in the case of Dawkins’ book, and it can
be organised in different ways. We do not have all knowledge, so even if we
have mounting evidence for something, it is still possible that something yet
unknown may turn up to falsify it. Science has a particular idea of evidence in
that this refers to sense data and calculation. But those are restricted to
certain sets of concepts and the data from experiments are often indirect and
ambiguous, requiring interpretation. There are no facts that have not been
interpreted within a conceptual system. In Islam, three types of evidence are
recognised:- the experiential (which includes outer and inner senses), the
rational and the inspirational (which includes insight, intuition and
revelation and is concerned with consciousness. This is also referred to as
gnosis, and attributed to the heart rather than intellect.)
(14) Ideas can also
be based on habit, cultural conditioning, awe of authority, wishful thinking,
addiction, obsession, fantasy based on fear or desire or fascination,
inadequate knowledge, self-interest, rationalisation and illusion. These are
not intelligent modes of behaviour and are ultimately injurious to the person,
the society and the environment on which we depend. But they are common and
widespread human defects which the Quran warns us about. They also affect
scientists and their science though scrutiny by their colleagues goes some way
to prevent errors from surviving. There are, however, also modes or patterns of
thought and assumptions that affect the whole society and remain sub-conscious.
Attitudes, interests (individual, commercial, political or cultural),
assumptions, frameworks of reference, conceptual systems, and paradigms exclude
and include certain kinds of data and interpretations. Apart from motives and
thoughts, actions elicit reactions from things in the environment so that, the
data of experience people have depends on their actions and behaviour.
(15) People do not
have the time to verify everything for themselves. They rely on and accept the
authority of experts and leaders and even each other whether in science or in
history, or commerce or in engineering or in medicine and so also in Religion.
They change their minds when there is reason to believe otherwise. We know that
people differ in the degree of intelligence, awareness, knowledge, virtue and
ability and, unless a person is unjustifiably arrogant, he honours and accepts
the lead of those who are demonstrably superior, though many are also deceived
by charlatans. Scientific pronouncements have been wrong many times. There is
no good reason why people should accept the word of a scientist rather than
that of a Prophet.
(16) There is a
difference between (a) the teachings of a religion, (b) the institutions that
arise in connection with it and (c) the people, who study, understand and apply
it to different degrees. There is a range of people from the very spiritually
minded to the least spiritual minded. We could say that in so far as people do
not know, understand or practice their religion they are Atheists. There is no
absolute distinction between the theists and atheists. When there are conflicts
between different religions as in the past and recently in Ireland between
Catholics and Protestants and in Iraq between Shiahs and Sunnis, we find the
actions of these opponents against each were in direct contradiction of the
teachings of their religion and are usually provoked by political or economic
considerations and could be attributed to some mischief making person, group,
characteristic or even principle, usually called Satan in religious
terminology. These malfunctions can, therefore be attributed to the Atheistic
component of their character.
(17) Dawkins points
to the fact that there are many different religions that contradict each other
as evidence that they are false. But he has not noted that they all have something
in common and that is why they are called religions. It may be that one is true
or that they all contain some truth or have different amounts of it. Or that
they are all different interpretations of the same Truth. We need only read
different books in science about the same subject by different scientists to
see that they differ and even contradict each other in their interpretations of
the same facts. We also see that different reporters describe the same events
differently. There is always a selection of features according to interest.
There is certainly a difference between religion as originally taught and
corruption have arisen owing to misinterpretation, inadequate understanding
owing to insufficient effort, naivety, low intelligence and lack of education,
speculation, fantasy and superstition, prejudices and rationalisations based on
habits of thought, self-interest, desires and fears. There has been
adulteration from extraneous sources, misuse by power seekers and leaders.
There have also been deliberate changes in formulation and practice according
to the appropriateness of the time, place and nature of the people among whom
the religion came. None of this has
been taken under consideration by Dawkins, but requires proper investigation.
(18) The purpose of
religion is human development and it is for sinners. The various evil
attributed to religion are really human characteristics that religions come to
cure. The same evils can be and are connected with political parties and
ideologies, nationalism, racism, social classes, groups and gangs. Much evil
was done under communism. Religion was persecuted in order to establish
atheism. Not all civil wars were religious wars. The various revolutions and
dictatorships such as Fascism and Nazism that practiced torture, mass murder,
and persecution were not religious movements based on belief in God.
(19) He erroneously
supposes that Science is the only way of seeking, interpreting and organising
facts. He seems not to distinguish between facts and theories. We also have
History, Poetry, Ethics, Literature, Philosophy, Law, Political Theory, and
Economic Theory. These are all different ways of looking at the world. Religion
is another. Science does not deal with all aspects of life. There are also
different kinds of sciences from Mathematics to Physics, to Chemistry to
Biology, to Psychology to Sociology, each having its own subject, concepts and
methods. Theology can be regarded as another system having a more Universal
subject with its own concepts and methods.
(20) Dawkins points
to terrorists in order to condemn religion. But he has not observed that these
are a very small minority of those who profess the religion, that they are
condemned by the rest of the adherents of the religion, do not know or have misunderstood
the teaching of the religion and have misapplied it or that they are driven by
some other political motive or have been manipulated by others. In fact, they
are desperately retaliating against injustices and terrorism done against their
people when they have no power and no other methods have succeeded. Though
terrorism can be condemned for being criminal, indiscriminate, wrongly targeted
and counter-productive, condemnation of the terrorists can be seen as designed
to stop retaliation in order to make the world safe for State terrorism and
oppression by certain nations against others.
(21) He supposes
that morality can exist without religion and yet he knows that laws are
necessary in all nations. When police are ineffective or go on strike crime
proliferates. Injustice, swindling, fraud, murder, exploitation, bribery and
corruption exist in all countries despite police forces and only a small
percentage are caught and successfully prosecuted. It is better to have an
inner policeman through mental conditioning, and even better to have a
conscience and one based on love of God. The function of religion is to provide
guidelines that will discourage moral slippage and encourage progress towards
an ideal.
(22) Dawkins tells
us that investigation shows people all over the world have a natural sense of
justice built into them through natural selection. The kind of things he is
thinking of is obvious crimes such as theft, injury, murder, lying, deception
etc. But he ignores the fact that much of the malfunctions and suffering in
society are caused by such qualities as greed, lust, envy, egotism, vanity,
laziness, apathy, hatred, aggression, cowardice, prejudice, suppression,
rationalisation, insincerity, impatience and so on. They cause psychological, social
as well as mounting environmental problems. Religious teachings are concerned
with these. Whereas it is true that our faculties, including those for
thinking, doing and moral judgements are built into us, the fact remains that
these can be distorted and people do stupid, clumsy and evil things. That is
why we have educational, organisational and legal systems to channel
psychological energy, encourage what is good and beneficial and suppress what
is harmful and evil. As rational beings we do need methods of discovering our
facts, meanings and values and justification for accepting them. Whereas
science can provide these with respect to natural facts, it cannot do this for
values. This requires religion and its techniques.
(23) Human beings,
owing to their rational mind that can manipulate images and ideas, are capable
of justifying anything to themselves. That is why we have individuals,
political movements and dictators that have carried out vulgarities, torture,
mass murders, oppression, and unspeakable atrocities. Most of these people were
atheists who adhered to no religion as authority. Though some may have had some religious
affiliations, they obviously did not know the teachings of their religion or
ignored them or simply used religion for their own purposes. They could,
therefore, be regarded as atheists. But according to Dawkins Atheism was not
responsible for their misdeeds. But when it comes to religion he insists that
religion was responsible for their misdeeds!
(24) He criticizes
the Scriptures for describing morally objectionable actions of the revered
characters such Abraham. Several answers can be given:-
(i) He does not
distinguish between (a) history, (b) symbolism and (c) the moral teachings.
(ii) He is speaking
of ancient writings. Yet he recognises the progress of the
“Zeigeist”, the Spirit of the Age, where moral sensibility grows
owing to improved social conditions such as organisation, technology and
education. The teachings of religions have certainly affected these developments.
(iii) But a
religion, though it comes to bring mental and spiritual development (Quran
91:4-7), cannot be established or have effects if it is too different from what
people can understand.
(iv) In the
beginning, when a religion starts, it has to vigorously defend itself in the
face of assault from many enemies, not only hostile people but also alien
ideas, attitudes and cultural patterns that threaten to adulterate, corrupt and
destroy the movement.
(v) There was much
barbarism from the modern point of view in the past among all kinds of people
and nations. But even in modern days there is hardly any less barbarism in the
conduct of certain States, their agencies and their military campaigns though
it may take different and more sophisticated forms. There have been vicious
Dictatorships of various kinds that tortured and killed millions, and we have
so called Democratic Regimes that carry out global terrorism.
(vi) Though the
historical stories in the Old Testament, containing mostly ancient commentaries,
do not show much difference in their morality than that which can be discovered
about the past by a study of History, there are most certainly moral teachings
in it that have inspired people. Things do advance as Evolutionists ought to
know.
(vii) The teachings
are not the same as the history, though they may illustrate the defects, or
teaching stories are mistaken for history.
(viii) Religions do
recognise that human beings are sinful and do come for sinners in order to
bring development. Things also degenerate
as we can see from recent History. This can be attributed to the abandonment of
religious education in schools.
(ix) The Quran,
which contains only revelations, does not contain morally objectionable stories
about the Prophets. But it does tell us about the willingness of Abraham to
sacrifice his beloved son, promised to him by God. Dawkins moral outrage can be
seen as a prejudice, based on his atheism rather than ethically justifiable.
This story illustrates the essence of religion:- (a) That obedience to God, the creator of the
universe has the greatest claim to our obedience and loyalty. (b) That the
strength of our faith is tested by our willingness to sacrifice what we love.
(c) That the greatest rewards depend on what we are willing to pay. (d) That
what we receive comes only from God as a gift and can be taken away again
without loss.
(25) It is not
denied that human beings have an inbuilt sense of morality. Islam does
recognise that the Spirit of God is in man (Quran 30:30, 91:7-10). But it is
generally suppressed owing to environmental and social pressures. There is
psychological distortion. It is now well known how social conditions create
delinquents, criminals, psychopaths and sociopaths. Evil which may be regarded
as disunity, contradiction and conflict resulting in suffering, thrives in the
darkness of the mind and evaporates in the light of consciousness. It is
increased education which enhances consciousness that creates better morals.
The Taliban that conducted actions regarded as morally reprehensible in Afghanistan were relatively uneducated
people, whose way of life had hardly changed for centuries, and who had few of
the opportunities and privileges found in the richer West. There is, however,
no such excuse for the Religious Bigots and extremists and barbarians in the USA, some of which run the
Government and the Corporations.
(26) He wonders why
people are passionate about their religion, though he is passionate about
science. He criticises societies for giving Religion a privileged place in law
and in culture making them immune from criticism and cannot understand why
people over react to insults against their Religion. He is unable to understand
that religion is not just about abstract facts and theories, but provides
people with a self image, a purpose and direction and a way of life. They have
greater justification to identify themselves with it than with anything else.
It is not something impersonal such as a political party or a Philosophical or
scientific Theory. To insult their religion is to injure them. Religion matters
to people, and it matters more than other things to which it bestows value. So
he points to the irrational reactions of Muslims to supposed cartoons of the
Prophet Muhammad. Certainly, a mischief maker was responsible for the deception
that led to the hysterics and granted the reactions were irrational, rather
stupid and counter-productive. But it is only from hindsight, after all the
facts surrounding this events came to light, that the events of the time seem
so completely inappropriate. Nevertheless, we see that these were human
irrational reactions that have nothing to do with the teachings of the
Religion. Would the removal of religion have made people less irrational? In
the end Dawkins tells us he does not want to offend anyone by his book, but he
wishes to retain the right to criticise and comment on all things, including
religion. The fact is that the insulting cartoons of the Prophet are not the
same thing as sincere examination and rational comments. There have been no
riots about the numerous published articles or discussions on the internet
criticising Islam, or even about Dawkins’ book.
(27) He condemns
people for loyalty and obedience to God rather than the State or some other
authority, presumably like himself. The fact is that Religion is much more
universal than any institution and demands strict impersonal judgements and
objectivity in thought, as well as in motive and action. Those who really
believe in God as the Creator and Maintainer of the Universe must obviously
accept Him as supreme in their lives and in the Universe. Otherwise they are in
effect Atheists. In fact, because those who do not worship subordinate
themselves and serve God always have something else that they worship, subordinate
themselves to or serve, whether it be money, power, a cause, institution or
even science. They have other false gods. From this point of view there are no
Atheists. but they might not admit or be aware of it. They are Idolaters.
Dawkins is an Idolater rather than an Atheist.
(28) Dawkins
condemns the exclusiveness of religions, but also the desire to convert and
expand. It is exclusive in the sense that it is supposed that only the members
of their particular religion will go to heaven and that there should be no
inter-marriages between sects and that kindness, generosity and the other moral
principles should only be shown to members of their own group while it is
permissible to do the opposite to members of other sects. This appears to be
the secular nationalistic attitude also. Islam is not exclusive in supposing
that only Muslims go paradise (Quran 2:62) – it is open to all who
believe in God, in the Judgement and do good. All, including Muslims are judged
and can go to Hell. However, Islam like other religions gives priority to its
own members, and though there is to be no compulsion in religion (Quran 2:256)
and others are left alone if they do not oppress or interfere with Muslims, it
does require retaliation against oppressors and injustice (Quran 2:190-193,
5:45). The fact is that if people believe that a religion is true or better
than others and join it for that reason, then most certainly they will wish to
defend it and keep it pure from corruption by adulteration and they will also
wish to share it with others. Dawkins, being a believer in evolution should
have known that what is regarded as superior expands and replaces what is
regarded as inferior. There is a struggle between organisms but also between
ideas and institutions. He also strives to expand his Atheist community.
(29) It is well known that reasoning is
controlled by motive. It is motive that determines the selection of facts,
their interpretation and organisation into theories and systems. One would have
thought that Dawkins would examine his motives. It seems that his attack on
religion is motivated by the desire to retaliate against the “Intelligent
Design” ideas that he sees as threats to his own love of Darwinism. It
seems that Darwinism is not as firmly established as he would like. There does
not seem to be any uncontroversial experimental evidence that new species can
arise from others or that mutations are random, or that blind Natural Selection
always leads to good results and progress. Diseases also arise and are transmitted.
(30) He thinks that
because he is conditioned by the Scientific Education, other alternative
schools of thought are not valid and justifiable. He, like many people believe
in public proofs by the presentation of evidence that all can see and
understand. But the fact is that people differ in intelligence as well as
knowledge and personality that gives them different kinds of talent and
interests. There is no proof without people to whom something is proof. To be a
proof they must understand it and accept it. They must believe it and there are
several degrees of belief from absolute positive certainty to maximum
uncertainty to absolute negative certainty. Many people simply accept because
it is a convention or a collective understanding that certain rules should be
applied and the results should be accepted. This is so in Politics, Law and
Commerce, so also in Science. Certainly, Science by its practical application
in useful technologies provides confidence in Science, but usefulness is not
really proof of truth, though truth must also be useful. Technology provides
inventions and invented ideas can also be useful. A Scientific Theory might be
a useful fiction, an explanatory device. And scientific ideas can be
misunderstood by people who are not scientists as religious ideas can also.
(31) Dawkins
believes that religious teachings do much lasting psychological harm by
inducing guilt feelings and terror of punishment in hell fire. He does not
mention the opposite teachings about repentance, forgiveness and rewards in
Heaven. It is true that unbalanced teachings, especially to very small children
that do not understand can do damage. But Guilt feelings are produced only when
inner or outer behaviour produces inner self-contradiction by conflicts with
one’s inherent nature. This produces suffering, which is the natural
punishment. The function of this is to produce awareness and the incentive to
remove the causes of it. There are, however, three ways of dealing with
problems:- fight, defence, flight - To really solve it, to suppress it, to
solve it in fantasy. This self-contradiction has to be removed for inner
harmony and peace to be restored. This is done by repentance and it earns
forgiveness. But this will not happen if awareness of this self-contradiction is
suppressed or substituted, and behaviour will continue to produce
self-contradiction, and this will continue to produce social conflicts and
environmental consequences. It becomes necessary to bring it into the light of
awareness. When the aim is psychological or spiritual improvement, to get from
a position in which one is to a higher position, or to prevent slippage to a
lower position, then an ideal is needed which also produces, in contrast, the
anti-ideal. Thus, by accepting the Ideal leads to a self-contradiction that
must be solved by appropriate effort and forgiveness.
(32) Dawkins who
believes that biological fitness means reproductive success condones abortion
on the grounds that the embryo is not a baby. Would it be permissible to kill
infants on the ground that they are not adult human beings? Are not criminals
defined as those who in the pursuit of their own interest sacrifice the welfare
or life of others? He thinks that the opposition to abortion on the grounds
that it is like murder is like saying that the waste of most of the sperm is
also murder. But it is obvious that the embryo has the potentiality to be a
full human being while the sperm by itself does not.
(33) He thinks that the criterion for what is
evil or good should only be whether it causes suffering or not. But he
presumably knows that behaviour is channelled by both pleasure and pain, the
one attracts towards a goal and the other repels from its opposite. Pain is an
indicator that something is malfunctioning and provides the stimulus to put it
right. It has, therefore, an evolutionary advantage. Pleasure itself exists in
contrast to pain. The two are understood relative to each other. Most
achievements are made by overcoming painful difficulties. But pleasure and pain cannot themselves
be goals. The point of interest is that which causes the pleasure or pain. The
criterion of good and evil is that which is objectively beneficial or harmful
to the individual, the society and ultimately to the evolutional process or its
goal in reverse order of priority.
(34) Dawkins
falsely supposes that Religion at the higher level can be understood without
the appropriate abilities, interest, training, discipline, conditions of
practice and special language just as science also needs.
(35) He does not
appear to understand the Psychological or Social function of certain ceremonies
and rituals and even doctrines.. Some dogmas rather than being factually true
are concise simple formulae that define the faith and encapsulate an attitude
that is also meant to produce social unity. It may be useful for a certain
purposes for a certain time under certain conditions. The idea of
“Trinity” could be one of these – not that there are three
gods, or that God has three parts but that He has three aspects – transcendental,
imminent and personal, and that Jesus, the Messenger, rather than being one the
gods, manifests His attributes. Besides actualities, potentialities can also be
regarded as real. Faith, Love and Hope
sometimes make actual what was not actual.
(36) He raves
against the indoctrination of children on the grounds that they should not be
brain washed with false ideas. But it is a fact that children are immature and
need guidance, education and development. They need a set of facts, values and
skills in order to fit them to lead an independent life. We know about the
delinquency, inadequacy and neurosis that unguided children develop, and the
bizarre fantasies and behaviour patterns that undisciplined minds can produce.
The fact is that the children are the responsibility of their parents and not
others. Who else has a right to impose their ideas on them – certainly
not those who have no love for them or interest in their welfare. Parents will
want for their children what they believe to be true, good and useful. No one
can know that their ideas are false unless they believe something else to be
true. However, in fairness to Dawkins he suggests that children should be
taught how to think for themselves and we can agree with this. But the correct
way to think and how to produce this is also controversial. In any case it
requires a foundation and a certain amount of maturity. Muslims know the saying
of their Prophet:- “All
people are born Muslim (i.e. according to their inherent or God-made nature)
but their parents (or Society) makes them into something else.” This is
to be avoided. But, judging from the campaigns by Atheists to keep religion out
of schools, Dawkins’ probably wishes to indoctrinate children into
atheism.
(37) Dawkins
condemns opposition to Homosexuality and other perversions on the grounds that
they are private actions that harm no one. The fact is that such acts flow from
and affect the character of the individuals involved and that does affect
others. But why does a Biologist think homosexuality is normal? What
evolutionary advantage does it have? If that is judged by reproductive success
then it is a dead end. It is likely that it is Nature’s response to over
population, congestion and social malfunctions in order to reduce the population.
This is not to condone persecution of homosexuals but certainly public flouting
of the condition should not be allowed. Homosexuality may be natural, but so
are diseases and one tries to cure these, not propagate them.
(38) He supposes
that Religious experiences are illusions or hallucinations and religious ideas
are superstitions or delusions, but does not have evidence for this. It is true that these conditions
certainly exist and are widely distributed in the population. These tend to
debilitate. Normal people recognise these states because they contradict
ordinary experiences. They require corroboration by repetition in their own
experience, confirmation from others, consistency with other experiences and
relevance to the conduct of life in a well adjusted manner. Intelligent people
can, therefore, discriminate between true and false, useful and harmful, good
and evil experiences. Apart from this the existence of a malady or disability
is no proof that a person cannot produce what is true, good or useful. Many
great scientists and artists and other famous achievers have had disabilities
and may even have achieved what they did because of them.
(39) Dawkins
wonders why, when religious people believe in life after death, they cling to
life, avoid death, do not rejoice when someone dies but mourn. The answer is
that they may miss friends and relatives or be missed by them, or regret
leaving something else they enjoy or love, that people have a self-preservative
instinct, and that we are here on earth to learn and develop and are forbidden
to commit suicide or kill. But it is allowed to get rid of criminals who kill
others or do great mischief that threatens the general welfare and development.
(40) He tells us that
experiments in prayers show that they are ineffective. But this depends of
which experiments are being considered and how they are assessed. If for
instance, people are required to pray for the recovery of people who have
cancer and the purpose of the prayer is to determine whether the prayer works,
then it can hardly be regarded as a sincere prayer for the recovery of the
patient. The intention and the level and degree of concentration must have
their effects. The idea that prayer can force the hand of God is obviously also
not regarded as an attribute of prayer.
Some experiments have shown that human mental states do have direct
effects on the environment, but obviously these are only one of the forces, and
usually relatively weak ones, that affect events. It is also known that some
small changes at strategic points can have very large effects. But prayers most
certainly do have affects on those who pray, and that is their main
psychological function. In modifying the person they also cause four other
effects: (a) They alter their attitudes and interpretation of events. (b) They
modify their behaviour and therefore, the reaction of the things in the
environment – the environment changes. (c) The change in values leads
them to change their environment either by migration or by surrounding
themselves with different objects, books, circle of friends and family. (d)
There is also a direct unconscious effect on the environment through the
various forces (mechanical, chemical, biological, electromagnetic, spiritual)
by means of which a person is interaction with the environment.
(41) He tells us
that science has widened our horizons and expanded our consciousness by
revealing the macroscopic world of galaxies and the vastness of the Universe as
well as the microscopic world bacteria, atoms and the weird quantum world. It
has done so by the use of instruments that has widened the window of the
spectrum of electro-magnetic waves by which we usually see. It has increased
our abilities through machinery in transport, communication, as well as
computation. All this is true. But religion too has expanded consciousness.
Examples are the spiritual world, the levels of heaven, and the concept of God
that removed idolatry and attachment to sense objects and narrow self interest.
It also tells us that the real world is more than is dreamt of in philosophy or
science. Science itself was born of religion, particularly of Islam that
requires empirical evidence rather speculation (Quran 17:36, 10:37) and points to nature for
evidence (Quran 45:3-5 etc). It also opens the possibility and provides the
discipline whereby man can transcend his own limitations (Quran 24:37, 56:61).
(42) The
Theological World does not make sense to him. Yet he points out, as has been
observed by many others, that the Quantum Theory based on experimental evidence
shows us that the Real world is nothing like the Mundane World, the world we
ordinarily see. It is a world of probabilities that collapses into actualities
whenever particles come in contact with each other. But the world revealed by
the investigation into the fundamental particles is not understood even by
scientists. They only have mathematical Models. Even the Relativity World as
described by Einstein is not understood by most people. It is not, therefore,
the case that the Real World is like the world we take for granted, or that it
can be necessarily understood. That applies both to science and religion.
Research shows that the objects we see, including ourselves, are not really
material at all, but are bundles of order or information. Materials are
constantly passing through us which are also circulating through other
creatures, connecting us together with all other things. Note that from the
Islamic point of view all things are made of Truth (Quran 16:3, 30:8). It is
not necessary that things should be material in order to be true.
(43) Dawkins
realises that we human beings live in the “Middle World” between
the very large and the very small and between the very fast and the very slow
and that our perception and ability to think is adapted to live and survive in
that world. We see colours but in the real world there are only electromagnetic
waves of various frequencies. We construct a model, a subjective world. Other
creatures may also construct their own models according to their environments
and faculties. Dogs for instance have a much more highly developed sense of
small and probably construct a world where smell dominates. Bats have better
hearing. Some creatures can see into the ultra-violet. All these subjective
worlds differ from one another and from the Real or Absolute world and can be
regarded as useful rather than true. It is not difficult to see that people
with different life styles who live in different environments and interact with
it in different ways will also have different Subjective views of the World.
These will not necessarily false or true, but some may be truer than others or
more useful.
(44) He wishes to
remove all religions because of bad side effects, instead of discriminating
between religions or distinguishing the good and the evil, retaining and
enhancing the good and removing the evils.
(45) Dawkins
attacks Islam on the grounds of mistreatment of women. He does so on the
grounds of his own cultural ideas about the role of women. He does not realise
that Islam accepts the difference between the sexes and defines justice as
treating things in proportion to their dissimilarities. From this point of view
it is in the West that women are being mistreated in that they are required to
behave as men, denying their own femininity, while being exploited as sex
objects. He has ignored the great number of moral, social and psychological,
and even environmental problems that have resulted from the false Western
notion of the roles and relationship between the sexes. It is claimed that it is the Quran
teaches wife-beating. A study of the verse Quran 4:34 shows that it applies to
women who are disloyal and rebellious and conduct themselves badly (obedience
is to Gods law rather than husband)- and that the punishment of chastisement is
a last resort after admonishing and disassociation. Divorce is the fourth
stage. The practice of wife beating which was widespread was to be controlled
to apply only to miscreants and even so it is interpreted in Law as a light
show of disapproval that did no physical damage. There is to be no further
retaliation e.g. constant nagging, sarcasm, accusation, in short, mental
torture. For some unknown reason physical punishment is regarded as a greater evil
than psychological torture in the West and even a greater evil than the crime
to be punished. In fact, women are highly honoured in Islam as mothers or
potential mothers and the Quran teaches kindness and consideration towards
them. But it cannot be denied that some people who may or may not know or
understand or apply Islam, mistreat women as they do in the West. There is
possibly less violence towards women among Muslims than there is among
Americans where mutual natural roles are not understood and respected.
(46) Religious
intolerance is another thing Islam is falsely accused of. It is supposed that
once a person is a Muslim he is not
permitted apostasy or convert to another religion on pain of death. But how
does he think that Muslims or anyone else can stop a person from changing their
minds or stop changes occurring in their mind? What is in the mind is private
to the person unless he makes it obvious to others by telling them or
behaviour. But he might not be telling the truth or might be making mischief.
What Islam does not permit is attempts at undermining the faith of Muslims by
the use of underhand tactics (6:68-71, 3:61-68), but there is no objection to
interfaith discussions. These things might make people suspicious. Certainly,
there are prejudiced people who do not know or practice their own religion, who
take offence and start a campaign of persecution against persons who are seen
as different. This sort of thing is not confined to religion but is also based
on culture, race, nationality and politics. It has to do with human nature not
religion. In fact, as a Biologist, Dawkins should know that it also applies
animals. Those encounter such things it is only necessary for them to point out
that the Quran tells us that there is no compulsion in Religion (2:256-157) and
that there are no legal penalties in the Quran for change of religion. But the
penalties for treachery were mistaken for this. There can be no suspicion of
this if the there is an open declaration that a person is a Christian, Jew,
Hindu or Buddhist etc. All religions were tolerated under Islam.
(47) He appears to
be trying to induce and propagate hate, prejudice, violence and persecution
against all religions in almost the same way as Nazis mounted a campaign
against Jews. He has invented his own religion. He cannot discern any evidence
for the truth or goodness in religion. In fact, there cannot be any evidence
for such people because having made these negative assumptions these reappear
in their conclusions, and they will not look for or accept anything else. They
have trapped themselves in a limiting vicious circle.
(48) According to
Physicists the existence of the Universe depends on the existence of a set of
natural Constants. The size of these has to be taken for granted as there is no
known reason for them to have the values that have been experimentally
discovered. They are so finely tuned that even a slight variation in them would
cause the Universe to be so unlike the one we see that human beings could not
have arisen in it. It is, therefore, likely that this Universe is a small part
of a greater Reality, the Superverse, where all possible constants exist and
which in Infinite and Eternal. Suppose that the Dawkin’s argument is
correct that because the Universe is so vast that even the improbability of the
arising of life becomes probable somewhere in it. The same type of argument
tells us that the improbability of God arising in the Superverse also becomes
probable. However, we could not speak of Him as evolving as there is no serial
time or space before this Universe.
(49) In fact, however, logical arguments are
based on our life in adaptation to this world. They do not even apply to the
more fundamental Quantum uncovered by Science. The limits of logic have been
recognised by many thinkers, even logicians. For instance, the argument:
“All men have parents”, therefore “Humanity has
parents” is not valid. What applies to individuals does not apply to all
collectively. A fundamental law of thought or of the Universe is “All material
things have material causes.” This does not apply to the material
Universe as whole. Even if we define the Fundamental Law as “F = All
phenomena have causes.”, this cannot apply to the Law F itself. People apply reason supposing it
to give valid results. But it is not possible to establish the validity of
reason by using reason. Fundamentally we always have a vicious circle. This is
so in Physics when the Law of motion (or change) is stated to be that all
changes in motion are caused by forces. But when we ask: How do we know the
existence of forces, we are told that we know this by the change in motion. In
Biology, we are told that evolution takes place by natural selection and the
survival of the fittest. But if we ask: How do we know which are the fittest,
we are told it is those that survive. In fact, a vicious circle is integral to
a self-consistent system in which all parts are inter-dependent. But there
could be several such independent systems that are mutually contradictory. They
could be delusional systems. Ultimately all systems must fit into an all
comprehensive self-consistent Unified super-system. The perception of this is
not a question of linear reasoning but of consciousness.
(50) It is
possible, and even likely, that the Laws and constants of the Universe are not
static but evolve by a process such as natural selection. But this requires:-
(a) That there is something that evolves. (b) That there are stages in this
evolution. (c) That there is something that causes the mutations from one stage
to another. (d) That there is an environment that exerts selective pressure.
(e) That there is some rule, a meta-Law behind the Laws of the Universe. We are
then led back to explaining the causes for all these.
(51) It is assumed
by Dawkins and other critics that the notion of Intelligent Design requires
that Intelligence must always be imposed from outside a system and that it
cannot apply to an inherent quality of things. In fact, however, the phenomena
of self-organisation are well known. Chemicals do under certain conditions fall
into spontaneous order. Examples are crystals and snow flakes. Many processes
tend move towards a position of equilibrium known as an “Attractor”
which can be a dynamic rather than a static state. In general, this self-organisation
happens in a system that exists in the environment of a greater system
separated from it by a border that exerts some kind of restraints on the free
exchange between the inner and outer area. Biological processes depend on this.
It is also the case that the whole of a system is more than the sum of the
parts owing to its structure and this produces what are called epiphenomena.
All these can be regarded as instances of intelligence. It may well be that
there are laws connected with the atoms or the particles of which they are
composed that cause all these phenomena. But it is not denied that intelligence
has no causes. It is also necessary to understand that everything in the
Universe, from the sub-atomic particles to the Universe itself, can be said to
be Information Processing devices. According to some calculations the Universe
can perform 101^105 operations per second on 10^20 bits. This is 10^122
operations since he Big Bang.
(52) The question
is asked: What testable predictions can be made by a Theory that is based on
Intelligence as it should do if it is scientific. The answer is firstly that it
is not a scientific theory in the conventional accepted sense but a more
comprehensive Life Theory that includes facts, meaning and values. Nevertheless,
it does make predictions that in general there will be enhancement in
consciousness, conscience and will (the capacity for knowledge, virtue and
capabilities). This is not a prediction that a Theory based on natural
selection can make because mutation is random and selection depends on the
nature of the environment which is unpredictable.
(53) One would have
thought that as a Darwinian he would have wondered what, when religion is so
widespread, their evolutionary advantages were, and that as a scientist he
would have investigated the matter. He would then have discovered that unlike
science it gives meaning and value to life, gives it purpose and direction,
provides a comprehensive framework in which existence makes sense, offers
guidance in the conscious conduct of affairs, resolves inner conflicts and
tensions, and provides courage, resilience, comfort and peace. It also creates
social cohesion, thereby giving communities that have better religions that
they adhere to, an advantage over others that have more primitive ones. It
creates a self-image which focuses psychological energy and channels the basic
drives of self-preservation, reproduction and self-extension. Religion is, in
fact, when properly understood “Evolution becoming conscious” in
man. This process is perfected in revelations such as Quran 91:7-10.
(54) It is
perfectly possible to write a book about the evils of the Secular and Atheist
world using religious values. What one perceives and how one judges depends on
the values one has previously accepted. Objectivity does not only depend on
accepting facts is also a question of being aware of values and where one gets
these from. Most people have simply been conditioned by their culture or
profession and have, therefore, never examined and assessed them. The ability
to be really objective depends on the degree of consciousness, conscience and
will and the cultivation of these requires its own techniques. It does not
arise naturally from scientific researches.
(55) Dawkins ought
to have known the limitations of science when it is based on materialism. He
ought to have known that there is more to reality than what we experience; that
we experience more things than matter; and that even much that science deals
with is beyond our experience and cannot be regarded as matter at all. In
particular Science has nothing to say about consciousness without which we
cannot even know anything at all. How, for instance, could it be proved
scientifically that I or you exist as a conscious entity. Indeed, we can deny
that Dawkins as an intelligent conscious entity exists by the same arguments
Dawkins uses to deny that God exists. We can analyse his body and find no sign
of consciousness. We can study his actions find mechanistic explanations for
everything he does. He is a robot that has arisen by accumulation of chance
mutations as he himself describes evolution. We can look at his products,
including his book “The God Delusion” and discover that everything
in it has arisen gradually step by step by a process of natural selection from
a great number of books containing similar ideas. Nothing he says, therefore,
has any meaning or value. Indeed, it is not even a fact because that also
refers to a percept in consciousness about reality.
(56) Dawkins
appears to have a naïve understanding of what evidence means when he
asserts that evidence is needed for a belief to be valid:- (a) He supposes that
religious people believe something merely because it is written in their
scriptures. The fact is that many people believe scientific statements merely
because a scientist says so or believe someone because he is an expert. But
there is a reason why they believe them and it is similar to the reason why
they believe the scriptures. It comes through experts, is corroborated by many
others and makes sense to them. (b) Scientific theories are based on evidence
but nevertheless keep changing. This is because each one is based on partial
knowledge and knowledge keeps expanding. (c) Evidence is not sufficient to
establish truth, understanding and perception are needed and this varies
between people. Evidence also has validity only within a particular Framework
of Reference. Different kinds of evidence are required in other Frameworks of
Reference. As a Biologist he ought also to have known that organisms, as all
entities, also have inbuilt or inherent or Existential information. People may
have different degrees of conscious access to this. The fact is the Religion is
a Universal aspect of man. There is some recognition that they are part of the
rest of the Reality, which is much more than what is known to them, with which
they interact and with respect to which they have a function.
(57) Unfortunately
many scientists, doctors, philosophers and other intellectuals are made
arrogant by their narrow mindedness, some extremely so, and have become
worshippers of limited reason when many others know well that the conscious
rational mind accounts for only a fraction of the potentialities of the mind
and that we are quite unconscious of most of the processes and interactions
that take place in nature and within ourselves.
(58) Intellectuals,
owing to mainly intellectual and verbal education, tend to think verbal
descriptions rather than realities or experiences and this traps them in their
own set of limited concepts and definitions. That which does not fit in with
these is ignored.
One could assert
that the Atheist is a superstitious fellow in that “Chance” is his
god, the creator of all things.
However, in spite
of these objections, we can conclude that Dawkins criticisms of religion that
apply to superstitious, sub-rational, mechanical, sentimental, hysterical,
mentally conditioned, lying, damaging, and debilitating behaviour must be taken
seriously and steps need to be
taken to eradicate these defects. But it is necessary to ignore Dawkins’
own superstitions, prejudices and misunderstandings. Muslims and others know
about these defects without his help and without extremism and blindness to the
value of religion. Had he studied the teachings of the religions and their
effects on people, he would have seen that religions are concerned with human
development, the creation of heightened consciousness, conscience and will and
has been responsible for the gradual ascent of man to civilisation, though he
remains comparatively primitive. The Arts, crafts and Sciences as well as
Ethics and modes of Organisation were first developed in religious institutions
and diffused into the rest of community from there. By identifying science with
atheism Dawkins may have alienated many religious people from science, but many
can hopefully see through him. One gains the impression that he may well have
written the book in an attempt to convince himself. Atheism is not a viable
belief system because it is not comprehensive and self-consistent.
----------<O>----------
Contents