Chp 8 – The God Delusion – What’s wrong with religion? Why be hostile? – my initial thoughts

Chp 8 – The God Delusion – What’s wrong with religion? Why be hostile? – my initial thoughts

In this chapter Professor Dawkins explains why religion is not good for the World and gives a variety examples of where religion, in particular, fundamentalism and literal belief in holy books, has resulted in horrible acts. Professor Dawkins laments over the otherwise smart scientist who gives up a potentially successful life as a scientist because he believed the Old and New Testatments over scientific fact. Professor Dawkins also refers to terrorists acts such as 9/11 and the London bombings.

Professor Dawkins refers to the “dark side of absolutism” ….most dangerously so in the Muslim world”.  I was disappointed that the reference to the “Muslim world” isn’t supported with credible evidence other than references to the Taliban (Afghanistan), 9/11 and the London bombings. Certainly not a scientific approach but I would also add that I really do not think you can judge the Islamic faith by simply referring to a handful of terrorist acts and the failed state of Afghanistan that has been war torn for much of my life and has been the subject of proxy wars by other more powerful countries. Was Islam fine before 9/11, the Taliban and the London bombings?

Professor Dawkins concludes from the examples that he gives that “religion can be a force for evil in the world”. I don’t disagree but also it can be a force for good. Again, I was disappointed that there was insufficient evidence to support such conclusions. 

As I am writing my thoughts on this book and posting them to my blog one person who commented on my comments said that the God Delusion is like a “Turkey shoot” where you try to find logical and factual errors. I thought this was a harsh comment at the time but after reading chapter 8 I felt this comment had some validity to it. There are several incorrect (plainly wrong) and misleading references to Islam as follows –

1.     Prophet Muhammed did not invent Islam at the age of 40. Islam means submission to the will of God (Allah). Prophet Muhammed was a messenger following the long line of prophets who came to deliver the message to believe in God (Allah). This is what Muslims believe. It is incorrect to say that Islam was invented by Prophet Muhammed. Professor Dawkins is free to say this is what he thinks but this is not what Muslims think. A basic factual error.

2.     Professor Dawkins refers to the case in Pakistan where a man was questioned as to his motives to be a Muslim.  There is no validity to such questioning – it is known in Islam that no one knows the sincerity of another.

3.     Professor Dawkins likes assessing Islam by the seemingly outrageous law that apostates must be killed. As I understand it the death penalty for apostates is more akin to treason i.e. the disbelief has to be public and an overall threat to society and such punishment can only be sanctioned by the head of state. If someone disbelieves internally and privately no one would know. From my experience of living in the Middle East, I think there are lots of people who do not practice the religion, lots who don’t believe but nothing happens to them. There is no Islamic duty to kill apostates. This is another factual error. If someone kills someone else it is murder – simple as that.  Just like in the UK if a murderer tells us that God told him to kill, we don’t accept that as a basis to criticize religion – it shows the killer is a murderer and possibly insane.

4.     How does Professor Dawkins know that the Taliban takes the Quran literally? Why are the Taliban poster boys for the Islamic religion? In the Middle East we take no guidance or direction from the Taliban. Who are the Taliban anyway? How would Professor Dawkins analyse Islam before the Taliban?

5.     What Islamic fascist state is ardently sought? Most of my Muslim friends in the Middle East enjoying living and holidaying in the UK, Europe, the USA.

6.     Professor Dawkins refers to militant Muslims living in Britain who consider themselves bound by Islamic law and not the laws of the UK. Islamically, you are obliged to follow the laws of the land where you live.

7.     Referring to Sam Harris and how Sam Harris says the 19 bombers on the 9/11 planes believed the literal truth of the Koran – how does Sam Harris know this? Comical and certainly no evidence of there not being a God. Where has the scientific analysis gone?

8.     Again Sam Harris, and Sam’s interview with a failed suicide bomber – my understanding is that there are a variety of reasons for suicide bombing – mainly born out of fear, frustration, oppression and certainly this is not prescribed in Islam – of course no reference in the Quran to suicide bombing.

9.     Where are the contradictions in the Quran referred to by Sookdeo? Where in the Quran does it say any Muslim who denies terror is part of Islam is a disbeliever? Utter nonsense.

Overall, I was disappointed with this chapter. I certainly do not mind a critique of the Islamic religion but please a more well thought out critique based on an analysis of the texts and not just references to the Taliban, 9/11 and the London bombings. Also, to get back to the central theme of the book, where is the connection between instances of evil and the existence of a God? I don’t think any of the faiths/believers in a God ever suggested that a hallmark of God’s existence is an absence of evil. Isn’t the presence of evil part of the test God has set for us in this World? Anyhow, disappointed with this chapter for its lack of intellectual rigor. These are the types of arguments you would face from anyone.

How to enjoy your life and your job - Dale Carnegie

Whilst the subject of this blog is an examination of whether there is life after death I would certainly suggest that we also learn how to better enjoy our life and our jobs.  As an interlude to my review of The God Delusion by Professor Richard Dawkins I would like to recommend to readers of this blog the book "How to enjoy your life and your job" by Dale Carnegie. Easy to read and jam packed full of great ideas as to how you can live a happier life.  Whilst you might find that many suggestions are common sense there is no harm being reminded of these. I am sure that most readers will adopt at least a few suggestions and immediately better enjoy their life and job. I would definitely recommend this book and would suggest that it would make a good gift for anyone who needs cheering up.

Chp 7 – The God Delusion – The “Good” book and the changing moral zeitgeist – my initial thoughts

A wonderful chapter with lots of thought provoking points. 

In this chapter Professor Dawkins makes the very strong case that “we do not, as a matter of fact, derive our morals from scripture.” As for “scripture” Professor Dawkins is referring to the Old Testament and the New Testament. Professor Dawkins provides ample examples of references in the Bible which simply cannot be taken literally otherwise to do so would in today’s thinking be absurd and even if we are to assume such passages are not to be taken literally it is unclear what the moral/lesson of such passages are.  Professor Dawkins makes the point that believers in scripture pick and choose which parts of the Bible to follow and sums up his point by saying “Do those people who hold up the Bible as an inspiration to moral rectitude have the slightest notion of what is actually written in it?”

I noted with interest that Professor Dawkins does not refer to the Quran and I would certainly like him to do a similar analysis of the Quran as he has done of the Bible.  Indeed, I think Professor Dawkins would find that the Quran has a better pedigree and authenticity (compared to the Bible) as there is certainly much less debate about the authenticity of the Quran. Moreover, he will not find the same amount of parables open to question. I think this will come as a genuine surprise to Professor Dawkins. Indeed, I must admit before I knew anything about Islam I simply assumed it must be “hocus pocus” and full of nonsense. My first (and sincere) reading of the Quran dispelled this view at once.

Professor Dawkins expresses concern at the chief concern of the “scripture” God being other gods to rival him. Certainly, in Islam, this is the same insofar as the worship of gods other than Allah (known as shirk) is the worst sin. Professor Dawkins considers this petty but I can understand this insomuch as if we think of ourselves doing something for others and then such others thank another person for our good deeds we wouldn’t be happy! Also, again, if we were to assume that there is a God, he would be more offended I guess by actions against him compared to actions against others because God is able to make good our misdeeds between ourselves but what of when we offend God?  If you indulge me and assume there is a God, that he made the Earth a habitable place for us, he made the laws of physics, chemistry, made our bodies, provided us with food etc. shouldn’t we be grateful? If you did this for someone wouldn’t you be upset if that someone showed no thanks?

I was not impressed that the only references to Islam were three references to the Taliban and two to Saudi Arabia. With regard to the Taliban, this label is really not what Islam is about and I would imagine it was thrown in as it evokes images of savagery and ignorance which really isn’t what Islam is about. As for the reference to Saudi Arabia, there was never an idea to bulldoze Mecca, certainly, there is ongoing construction to accommodate ever growing numbers of pilgrims. With regard to the Saudi attitude to women, again, there is a fuller discussion to be had about women’s rights in Islam that goes beyond a casual reference to Saudi Arabia.

Returning to Professor Dawkins’ main theme in this chapter, that we shouldn’t and in fact do not get morals from the Old Testament and the New Testament, I think he is dead right about this.  Professor Dawkins mentions the harshness of Jesus supposedly advising his disciples to abandon their families (this is opposite to Islamic values) and the absurdity of “original sin” (again, totally contrary to Islamic values whereby each person is only responsible for his own actions). In Islam we consider these aspects a corruption to the original teachings (indeed Professor Dawkins earlier in his book notes the lack of pedigree of today’s Bible as an accurate record of the teachings of Jesus).

I very much liked Professor Dawkins’ observation that there is a consensus as to what we consider right and wrong. In Islam this is explained by the term “fitrah” which essentially means that we are all pre-programmed to believe and have a sense of right and wrong. 

I also thought that Professor Dawkins comments about the shifting zeitgeist (spirit of times) were well made, interesting and thought provoking.  Certainly, I have witnessed in my time a shift in what we think of as good and bad. In this regard, I would also add the shifting in views of “Islam” and how the religion of Islam seems to be persistently defined without reference to the Quran or the vast majority of sincerely practicing Muslims. Indeed, I find it odd that a religion I see is based on peace and being gentle, charitable and considerate to others is continuously defined in the media by the actions of thugs who I doubt are sincere believers. 

I also liked Professor Dawkins’ comment that religious labels are often used in conflicts however the true underlying reason for such conflict isn’t necessarily religion (i.e. Northern Ireland).  I honestly don’t believe that religion is the cause of wars and conflicts – I would say that humans have a tendency for conflict and will find any area of difference to start conflict. We don’t only have religious, national and regional rivalries we also have local ones that can even pit town against town, village against village and even street against street.

I have one further thought from the previous chapter. Professor Dawkins examined whether people are good because of religion. From my experience of living and working in the Middle East, I would say that from my experience, the place where I have lived in the Middle East has stronger family values, stronger moral values than in my home country of the UK. I would put this down to belief in Islam. To give a sense of this – you can safely walk in a park in my home in the Middle East with very very little fear of attack. I would not say the same is true of the UK. Also, in the UK, the older generations can talk of a time when you could go outside and leave your house unlocked with little fear of being burgled. Again, the place where I live in the Middle East is more like that and I would put that down to the religion of Islam. A final example, alcohol. Obviously, in the West, it isn’t immoral to drink alcohol but it is immoral in Islamic countries. Which is right? I remember in my early days as a lawyer conducting work experience in a magistrates court in the UK – to my horror I discovered that most of the criminal cases heard on Mondays related to drink related offences occurring during the previous weekend. How many of the accident and emergency cases in hospitals on a Friday night are drink related? Ever noticed that menacing gang of youths hanging out around off licences? I never saw any of this where I live in the Middle East. I will leave it to the reader to decide for themselves which is good and bad.

Chp 6 – The God Delusion – The roots of morality – why are we good? - My initial thoughts

Chp 6 – The God Delusion – The roots of morality  – why are we good? - My initial thoughts

Professor Dawkins begins this chapter referring to hate mail he received from people who make some reference to being religious. It is obviously paradoxical and hypocritical that religious people (or at least people who profess to be religious) show non-religious traits but I don’t think that this is a scientific proof for the non-existence of God. The logic is almost like saying that the UK’s most prolific serial killer was a medical doctor (Dr Harold Shipman) therefore this says something negative about the medical profession. Not really.

I certainly would agree that it seems that a lot of people who profess to be religious are anything but.

Professor Dawkins refers to the ideas of the selfish gene and reciprocal altruism as the main Darwinian pillars of thought when it comes to what appears to translate into good and bad behavior. Whilst the gene is selfish insofar as it is a unit of life which is essentially in a battle of survival against other genes there are instances where selfish behaviour isn’t the only way to achieve such survival and Professor Dawkins provides 4 possible examples where altruistic behavior could perhaps assist in gene survival - (1) altruism where there is a genetic kinship – in the sense this is furthering your genes by assisting the genes of kin which carry genes similar to your own; (2) reciprocity – where an altruistic act invites one in return; (3) Darwinian benefit for acquiring a reputation for generosity and kindness; and (4) conspicuous generosity as a show of strength.

Certainly I find this very interesting but I am not convinced of the scientific basis of this.

From the section of the chapter entitled “A case study in the roots of morality” the point that seems to be made is that it isn’t religion that drives our morals but instead we (humans) seem to have an inbuilt moral compass.  From this Professor Dawkins makes the point we don’t need God to be good or evil. As a Muslim, I would look at this differently. In Islam, we have the idea of “fitrah” that we are all born, pre-programmed if you like, to believe in God and also to know the difference between good and bad.  I think that the references Professor Dawkins provides does support the idea that we seem to be born with the capacity to believe in God and we seem to have a moral sense (albeit that professor Dawkins would say that these traits have evolved over time and there is no pre-programming). I for one feel that I have a moral sense and certainly when I speak to those around me it seems to me that they also have a moral sense. Professor Dawkins seems to acknowledge this - where we differ is how we got this moral sense. 

I do find the idea of morals as very interesting and I wonder why we have this. As I mentioned above I am not convinced of the Darwinian explanation here which I am sure Professor Dawkins will agree isn't concrete. I would also say that having a moral sense and behaving morally are two different things and in Islam this is essentially the test (combined of course with belief in God). It therefore comes as no surprise to me that whilst we all have a sense of morality, both religious and non religious people can act morally/immorally. In Islam, the key consideration is why you act morally. If your act of kindness is to win a favour in return or to appease an aggressor then you cannot expect any reward from God (Allah) for such an act unless also you are in  a state of belief and that your act is part of your overall life in servitude to God (Allah).

Whilst I do enjoy reading Professor Dawkins I do sense his bias to conclude there is no God. For example, he “suspects” there are few atheists in prisons.  As a man of science there should be some evidence to support such a comment. You cannot write a book saying people who believe in God are deluded and then throw in a loose remark that you suspect there are few atheists in prisons. This is very much misleading in my opinion. On this issue I would like to see some evidence – also, what number of prisoners become religious inside prison? In any event, what is the correlation between the beliefs of prisoners and the existence of God? I do find it amusing when Professor Dawkins accuses religious people of being unscientific and not using evidence to support their beliefs. Pot, kettle….

Chp 5 – The God Delusion – The roots of religion – my initial thoughts

Chp 5 – The God Delusion – The roots of religion – my initial thoughts

This chapter is essentially Professor Dawkins’ Darwinian explanation as to why religion is so ubiquitous in the sense that there must have been a Darwinian benefit of it not to say that this means that God exists.

As an overall remark, I found this chapter to be weak insofar as it is more of guess work by Professor Dawkins as he tries to provide a Darwinian explanation for religion. I can understand the argument that children have learnt to follow the advice of their parents and are therefore inclined to follow whatever their parents tell them BUT this doesn’t explain why parents would pass on religious beliefs in the first place.  If Professor Dawkins is explaining the roots it seems he didn’t cover the seed. In Professor Dawkins own style I think he would describe the by-product of an unknown something else argument as a cop-out. 

I also thought that if everything is the product of Darwinian evolution, including religion, then isn’t it futile to protest about it? I suppose it is a bit like a creature that is protesting during the evolution of its eye. If Darwinian evolution by natural selection will produce an eye then there’s not much point protesting about it? Why protest about the belief of God if it came about through Darwinian evolution by natural selection? If it has no Darwinian benefit won't it become extinct?

Professor Dawkins notes that we observe people who hold religious beliefs that flatly contradict demonstrable scientific facts – I don’t see how this statement applies to Islam – what scientific facts does Islam contradict? Why does Professor Dawkins refer to "demonstrable" facts and not just facts? I guess Professor Dawkins is referring to Darwinian evolution here which he cannot say is a scientific fact (but he believes it to be) so refers to it as a demonstrable fact (without explaining the shortcomings of the demonstrable aspects).

I also note Professor Dawkins’ comment that “Natural selection “makes no intuitive sense””. I don’t see how he can say this and still say that belief in God (even say the Einsteinian God) is delusional.

With regard to the comment that children are intuitively theists – this complies with Islamic thinking regarding “fitrah” that children are born with a natural belief in God.  Certainly Professor Dawkins seems to acknowledge that the human is predisposed to believe in a God so again I question the very title of his book – The God Delusion.

I enjoyed the explanation of “stances” as to how humans make decisions and the explanation of “intentional stance” whereby the human short cuts its decision making process. I imagine that this is how most people come to the decision that they believe in God. I don’t see how belief can easily come about through study – I would imagine that belief starts as an inkling – our innate dualism as Professor Dawkins remarks. 

I can certainly see how this chapter is useful to explain how religions can start up – but I felt that the chapter failed to establish how we seem to be predisposed to believe in God in the first place. What is the Darwinian explanation of this? Also, I felt that you can dream up Darwinian explanations for anything – this is fine but should not be confused with science in the sense that such explanations are not supported by the scientific method.

Having said all of that, I enjoyed the chapter a great deal and must acknowledge that it is thought provoking.