First of all, I find Professor's label of believers as "faith heads" unnecessarily disrespectful and rude. There is no need for this. It is a derogatory term and I would have thought that Professor Dawkins would have been more elegant in this regard. That said, I am happy to take up Professor Dawkins' challenge that I won't be immune to his arguments although I hope to be immune from any arguments that lack substance and credibility.
The immediate sense I also feel is that Professor Dawkins is aiming his book more at (or against) the Christian faith as many of his comments I sense are directed towards Christianity. The reference to Carl Sagan's Pale Blue Dot and the assumption that science appreciates a bigger, better and more elegant universe is I think more a criticism of Christianity as in Islam there is an appreciation of the vast magnitude of the universe. In Islam we don't consider God (Allah) as a small God - he is the most powerful. Indeed, the opening chapter of the Quran refers to Allah as the Lord of the Worlds [note the plural].
I am also intrigued as to how Professor Dawkins defines "God". He refers to an Einsteinian religion which he tries to describe as a one where there is a belief in a supernatural intelligence but such intelligence is confined to setting up the laws that govern the universe. He labels a believer of such a "deist". It seems that Professor Dawkins accepts (as per Carl Sagan's description) a God "if by "God" one means the set of physical laws that govern the universe". He goes on to explain that such a "God" is not one that listens to prayers, punishes sins and that to confuse the God of the physicists with a theistic God is "intellectual high treason". Well, I am looking forward to Professor Dawkins' elaboration on this point. My immediate thoughts here are:
(1) If physicists are allowed to believe in a "God" who created the physical laws of the universe then perhaps people who believe in a similar "God" but who has extra powers (say for example - can hear and respond to prayers) are not so delusional as Professor Dawkins puts it;
(2) What is the scientific evidence to say that the "God" of the physicists does not have powers to hear and answer prayers? Isn't it at least conceivable that if an entity can create the universe or at least the laws of the universe isn't it possible that such entity also has the power to hear and respond to prayers?
(3) I don't understand the "intellectual high treason" of confusing deism with theism. Isn't there a certain logic that if you can accept a power that can put in place the laws of physics that such power might also be able to monitor and influence the actors in such a World? Certainly, the Muslim belief is that God (Allah) is all powerful and can do anything he wishes.
I do note Professor Dawkins' point that there is some sensitivity regarding the discussion of religion, but I think that this is also the same when discussing any topic which someone holds dear. If Professor Dawkins' truly feels that believers are deluded then approaching the subject with tact and sensitivity is perhaps better than using humour? I would also like to add that debate and discussion about religion isn't new and it isn't a taboo. Each religion records a long history of debate and discussion and certainly amongst Muslims such a discussion is not a taboo.
I note the comment that "The whole point of religious faith, its strength and chief glory, is that it does not depend on rational justification". My hope is to be able to put together such rational justification or at least an explanation as to why people believe - at least using myself as an example. Indeed, in this regard, I don't consider myself indoctrinated. I am a Muslim, I do believe and I would like to document the basis as to how I came to this belief. Indeed, I am prepared, with an open mind, to consider my own belief in light of Professor Dawkins' book and see whether I am "deluded" as he puts it.
I didn't like the comment "...Danes just live in a country with a free press, something that people in many Islamic countries might have a hard time understanding". As suggested by Professor Dawkins on page 65, what if we replace the words "people in many Islamic countries" with another group of people? Sounded prejudiced to me especially as there seems to be no scientific evidence or any evidence for that matter to back this statement up. Indeed, I would like to know what evidence Professor Dawkins has to support this statement. Why would people in Islamic countries have a hard time understanding freedom of the press? Is it a complicated idea?
I certainly enjoyed the first chapter of The God Delusion and am looking forward to the rest of the book but so far I haven't read anything that dismisses the notion of "God" indeed it seems that there is an acceptance of a "God" of sorts.....
No comments:
Post a Comment